Finance and Industry: Oil under the sea (1964)

The Finance and Industry column from the June 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oil under the sea

In our April issue we reported on the scramble now going on to stake out claims for oil concessions under the North Sea. As D-day draws nearer the Liquid Gold Rush is becoming more and more hectic.

D-day will be when the Minister of Power announces the regulations covering the issue of licences to prospect the sea bed, and asks for applications from interested firms. According to the Financial Times, the successful applicants may be hard at work by September.

Already the big boys are moving in, consolidating and amalgamating to impress the government that they are well in a position to cope should a licence come their way. Just to be on the safe side I.C.I. has set up shop with Burmah Oil and the Murphy Corporation of America, and the Gas Council has linked itself to U.S. Pan American International. Even more ambitiously, no less than six big British industrial firms, including Dorman Long and A.E.L, have set themselves up into a consortium with the impressive title of the North Sea Marine Engineering Construction Company. Asked about the prospects of finding oil, the managing director of the new company was very terse and to the point. “All I would say,” he said, “is that 46 oil companies would not be doing seismological work if there was not any oil”. Which, knowing our oil companies, seems apt enough comment.

Nobody knows at the moment just how many licences are going to be issued. But it won’t be long before the lucky contenders are announced. It looks as though it is going to be quite a race—with some very tempting prizes for the winner.


and on land

The race for oil near at home should not make us overlook happenings further afield. British troops are not being shot at in Aden by trigger-happy Yemeni tribesmen for nothing; not the least of the reasons they are there for is to keep an eye on the neighbouring oil installations, in which British capitalism has a large stake.

If we include Libya, which is not all that far away, the Middle East produces about 60 per cent by value of British oil requirements. British military pretensions have long since precluded active intervention in Iraq and Persia, but there are still treaties of '‘protection” with the fourteen petty states of the South Arabian Federation—these include, in particular, Kuwait with its annual output of 100 million tons of oil, in which B.P. has a fifty per cent interest. Some of the other sheikdoms are also fair oil producers, and exploration for new fields is going on in all of them, both on land and under the sea.

There are many people in British capitalist circles, who would be very pleased to get away from British dependence on Middle East oil. It has always been a risk politically, and is becoming more and more of a risk economically, particularly as the local ruling classes put increasing pressure on the oil companies for a greater and greater share of the revenues.

Which brings us back home again to the explorations under the North Sea. There is nothing probably the government would like better than for a hefty deposit of oil or natural gas to be found in British territorial waters. Something on the scale of the recent big find in Holland would be just the thing. Then they and the oil companies would really be able to put the screws on when it came to the next squabble over royalties with the sheiks.

The last bastion

Of all man's activities under capitalism, it is agriculture that has most resisted change. But change it does, in spite of all the obstacles, natural or man-made, that serve to impede it.

In the United States, the barriers have long since been broken. But, mechanisation apart, the rest of capitalism has been slow to follow the other developments which have become such a feature of the American agricultural scene during recent years. Yet within the last few years, in Britain especially, there has been a drastic change. Once upon a time farmers could think only of mass production in terms of crops; today, all is talk of applying this process to animals and animal produce.

As we have ourselves reported in these columns, one company alone is planning to produce about one-fifth of future British egg supplies, and it has since been announced that other firms are considering entering the egg industry on a similar scale. Linked with this development is another, again already prominent in the United States. This is vertical integration, the process whereby a single company controls the whole sequence of production — it has already been introduced into the broiler industry where some firms produce the feeding-stuffs, hatch out the young chickens from eggs laid by their own hens, rear them to broiler weight, and handle even the marketing themselves.

All this has come about in Britain in the space of two.or three years—remember that the broiler industry itself was unknown ten years ago. Now the same process is being applied to cattle and to pigs; the Financial Times recently reported a project by one group to set up a gigantic pig-rearing unit estimated to cost £300,000, complete with sausage factory alongside!

One side effect is already troubling the millers and makers of animal feeds, since the fundamental feature of the new combines is that they produce their own fodder requirements. The reaction of the millers has been, as often happens in these circumstances, to jump on to the band waggon themselves. Thus Spillers were quick to move in with Buxted Chicken, the big broiler chicken firm, to operate jointly their own feeding stuffs plant.

The small farmer, already feeling the squeeze from a host of directions, can hardly cope with this type of development. The alternatives for him will be either a constantly worsening existence if he chooses to stay on his farm, or a new life as a wage-worker in the town. Britain already has the lowest proportion of its population living on the land, but it is obvious that the forced emigration to the towns has still to exhaust itself. Agricultural mass production and vertical integration between them look like finishing off the process.

Stan Hampson

Russian Diamonds (1964)

From the July 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

For some years Russian diamonds have been sold in the world market through the South African, De Beers diamond organisation.

The Chairman of the De Beers Company, Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer, recently announced that the agreement they signed with the Russians in January, 1960, is not being renewed, but that is only half the story. All the sellers of gem and industrial diamonds have an interest in keeping prices high and stable, and in wanting to protect themselves against a heavy price fall, which might happen if somebody broke away and flooded the market with diamonds at cut prices. So although the contract with the company is ended, there is no likelihood of any Russian attempt to undersell the Central Selling Organization which regulates the market. As Mr. Oppenheimer puts it:—

  . . .  On account of Russian support for the boycotting of trade with S. Africa, our contract to buy Russian diamonds has not been renewed. These changes will not, however, disrupt the centralised marketing organisation in London, which is essential in the interests of all diamond producing countries, whatever the political differences between them may be. (Guardian, 16 May, 1964).

During the past year the diamond market and the price level were threatened from another quarter, the Congo. Owing to the breakdown of governmental control diamonds were being illegally mined and exported and offered at prices below the world levels. This danger to profits now seems to have passed:

  Fortunately, the Congo Government, which risked incurring severe losses, both in taxation receipts and on foreign exchange, is taking energetic steps to restore law and order in the main diamond-producing area with very satisfactory results.

There are no doubt people in the Congo who take a different view about the “satisfactory" nature of these “energetic steps," but as far as De Beers are concerned the whole year was more than satisfactory, total diamond revenue being up by about 30 per cent, at a total of nearly 82 million Rands (about £41 million).

De Beers ran up against other problems with several African governments because it was politically awkward for these governments to allow the locally mined diamonds to be sold through a company registered in South Africa. The solution has been found. All of these diamonds are now bought “by companies registered and managed outside the Republic of South Africa and which are not subsidiaries of De Beers.”

It matters less to De Beers to keep direct control of the subsidiary buying companies than it does to keep up the world price of diamonds, and in 1963/4 they recorded a rise in the price of gem diamonds of about fifteen per cent.

Edgar Hardcastle

What They Said (1964)

From the August 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Labour Leaders and the War

In an article by Mr. Keir Hardie in yesterday's Pioneer (Merthyr) he says: "I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting. 1 know too well all there is it stake/' (Manchester Guardian, November 28th, 1914.)

I returned about 1.30 and received the Rl. Hon. J. H. Thomas at lunch, a Labour M.P., and head of the Railwaymen's Union. I found him a broad-minded patriot. Most anxious to help and fully alive to what the gentry of England have done in the war. He is a great admirer of Asquith. . . (The diary of Sir Douglas Haig, Commander of the British forces in France. October 31st, 1917.)


Ruthlessness

Nothing for which the masses of our people have ever striven is more important than that they and all of us should win in this tremendous war against the ruthless military caste . . . that menaces the rights and freedom of mankind. (H. M. Hyndman. writing in the Daily Dispatch, July 7th. 1915.)

Sir Douglas Haig's diary far the same day shows that ruthlessness was not confined to one side. . .

At 11 o’clock Lt. Col. Fowkes. RE., called on me from G.H.Q. regarding the use of asphyxiating gas. I said better wait until we can use it on a large scale, because the element of surprise is always greater on the first occasion.

The First Casualty

It is difficult to imagine what could be more despicable than the attitude of the capitalist Press during the past year. The persistent and ever more complete suppression of truth, the distortion of facts, the hypocrisy, the false and maudlin sentiment, and stupid advice to the workers, the idiotic praise of everything British and the belittling of the same thing when done by the alien, all make it increasingly obvious that the “glorious institution”, the capitalist Press, is one gross insult to the intelligence of the people. The Socialist Standard. September, 1915.)

It would be an admirable thing if all unmarried men between 18 and 30 without the manhood to offer themselves, were forcibly pressed into the Army and put into battalions where the kicks should be far more than the ha’pence. (The Daily Express, August 20th, 19I4.)

God’s Purposes and the War

It is God's leading that we are following now. War is the instrument through which God is working out his own purpose. (Canon Alexander of St. Paul’s. Standard, August 25th, 1914.)

And this is what the war really meant. . .

. . . some have gone into dug-outs to try to get a few hours sleep, but this is almost impossible, for the earth shakes from the vibrations of the artillery. The lice crawl all over the body, driving one nearly frantic, and the rats are in swarms and run over us. But there are some corpses lying out on the top, with plenty of rats around them, so they won’t go hungry. (A Soldier In The Trenches, The Ploughshare, March, 1917.)

The War for “Freedom”

The Daily Mail wants the names of every known pacifist or active friend of Germany in your city, town or village . . . the names of every speaker or writer who favours Germany, with all you know about the source of his income, the societies to which he belongs, and the relations he has, or has had, with Germany. (The Dailv Mail, October 25th. 1917.)

Talking about Homes . . .

It is a pitiful thing to think of, but thousands of these brave men of ours have belter homes in the trenches of Flanders than in the sunless alleys of our Motherland. (Arthur Mce, writing in Lloyd’s News, March 26th, 1916.)

Sir Derek Keppel (Master of the King’s Household) arrived and went round to inspect several Chateaux considered suitable for the King’s occupation. He fixed one which (for secrecy) is to be prepared for me. Derek is enjoying himself so much that he has asked to stay another day. (The diary of Sir Douglas Haig. Commander of the British forces in France. August 2nd, 1916.)

Marching on whose stomach?

We then went to Poperinghe. It was now past 2 o’clock, so we stopped and had lunch near some stacks on the road south of Steenwoorde. A party of refugees passed us and a well-dressed woman and a man came up and asked if they could go by Tournai to Brussels. . . . They had walked all the way from Ostend with a basket on the arm or a pack of clothes on their backs. All that was left to the poor things of their property. . . . I gave them 2 doz. “Oxo’’ soup squares for which they seemed most grateful. (The diary of Sir Douglas Haig. Commander of the British forces in France. October I7th, 1914.)

Prince Arthur of Connaught arrived with the Crown Prince of Servia. . . . Lunch lasted two hours and all enjoyed themselves hugely. (July 7th, 1915). We had coffee after lunch in my writing room, and Joffre enjoyed himself so much that it was 2.20 p.m. before he went. . . . They are, indeed, difficult Allies to deal with! But there is no doubt that the nearest way to the hearts of many of them, including that of the “Generalissimo”, is down their throats, and some 1840 brandy had a surprisingly smooth effect on him and Castlenau! (May 26th, 1916.)

A PRAYER FOR THE TROOPS

by Alderman Henry F. Morriss

Keep the Officers who lead us; help us all to render them cheerful obedience. May we all endure hardness, as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. When suffering or death comes to us. may the Holy Comforter be as a friend at our side. Grant us speedy Victory over our Enemies; if it be Thy Will. God save the King, the Queen, and all the Royal Family. Give wisdom and courage to all who control the affairs of our Empire. Bless all our Allies, and save them and us with Thy Great Salvation; through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen

Election activities (1964)

From the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a tribute to the strength and determination of the tiny band of founder members that in 1906, only two short years after the formation of the Party, Socialist candidates contested wards in Battersea and Wandsworth Borough Council Elections. A total of twelve candidates were put forward—nine in Battersea and three in Wandsworth—and although the votes cast for us were small (Craske and Moody topped our list with 117 each), it was an encouraging start to the electoral activities ranging over the whole of our existence. Particularly is this true when one considers the circumstances then, as outlined in the December, 1906, Socialist Standard: —

  All the candidates fought on the election manifesto published in our October issue, a few were distributed in each ward. They had no programme of ear-tickling, side tracking, vote-catching “palliatives” and did no canvassing. The candidates were practically unknown and had not climbed into popularity on the backs of the working class, by posing as “leaders” of unemployed deputations, “right to live” councils and similar confusionist conglomerations.

Incidentally, it was following the Battersea elections that the Executive Committee ruled that only Party Members should sign our candidates' nomination papers, and this was embodied in a Party Rule which stands to this day.

1908 saw the Burnley branch fighting Gammon and Whittlefield wards. Although the two comrades polled only fifteen votes between them, the Party was by no means discouraged by the results, because around the same time, three candidates polled sixty, fifty-eight and fifty-six votes in one ward at Tooting.

Parliamentary contests were still a long way off for the Party, but, nevertheless, 50,000 manifestoes were distributed during the 1910 General Election. As always, we posed the straight choice of Capitalism or Socialism and exposed the anti-working class policies of the other parties. In the same year, Tottenham Branch was busy, with Comrade Stern fighting High Cross.Ward, and Anderson and Rourke in St. Anns Ward of the local Urban Council elections. The voting was: Anderson 143, Rourke 67, Stern 63. They were the last S.P..G.B. candidates to contest municipal elections for many years.

By 1928, our organisation had recovered sufficiently from the war to think once again about putting forward Socialist candidates, and in February of that year a meeting of members declared overwhelmingly in favour of entering (the Parliamentary lists. But national elections are much more expensive to contest than local ones and with only £21 1s. 2d. in the kitty, a proposal to fight North Battersea in 1929 had to be abandoned. Despite this, however, Battersea branch ran a very successful challenge meeting which the Tory and Liberal candidates attended. There was an audience of about nine hundred, so this first gesture of ours in the Parliamentary field was not entirely a disappointment.

One of the East Ham constituencies was earmarked for our attention in 1937. We obtained committee rooms, meetings were held and comrades did a great deal of door-to-door canvassing. Once again, however, our hopes were dashed, this time by the outbreak of the second world war.

The Party was able to do only a small amount of active work during the war, but 1945 presented us with an opportunity we were quick to seize, and Comrade Groves fought North Paddington for us in an atmosphere of tremendous enthusiasm. The good Summer weather enabled scores of members to canvass our literature and plenty of outdoor meetings were held. But the grand climax to our efforts came with the rally at the Metropolitan Theatre in Edgware Road. Packed from top to bottom, it was a thrilling milestone in Socialist Propaganda.

We fought North Paddington again in the by-election of 1946 and in the General Election of 1950, this time with Comrade McClatchic as our candidate. We also put up H. Young in East Ham South. In yet another by-election we went again to North Paddington in 1953, with W. Waters as our representative and filled the Metropolitan Theatre with an eve-of-poll rally. Sadly, the last one, because the Metropolitan Theatre is no more.

Six years were to pass before we did electoral battle again. A leaflet was distributed during the 1955 campaign but no candidates stood. It was a period of some heart searching by many members on whether the time was ripe for us to enter the ring. Maybe this pause was just as well, for by 1959 we were again ready with a candidate, this time W. Read in Bethnal Green. The district had been canvassed for two years before and the campaign was indicative of reviving enthusiasm for electoral activity. Eight hundred and ninety-nine votes were cast for the Socialist candidate.

Since then, Glasgow Branch have swung into action with both municipal and Parliamentary campaigns. In May, 1962, they fought North Kelvin ward with Comrade Mulheron as their candidate. Even though only seventy-six votes were cast for him, the effort was well worth while, much of our literature being sold and the candidate appearing on Scottish T.V.—surely something for us to write home about! The valuable experience gained in this, their first effort, served the Glasgow members well when they fought the Woodside constituency by-election in December of that year. Some really hard work was done in bitterly cold weather and they were not disappointed with the 83 votes polled. “We are 83 politically mature people," said candidate Vallar in a press interview.

Perhaps by the time you read this article, the opening shots will have been fired in the 1964 General Election. Comrade Vallar will again be standing in Woodside and Comrade Grant in Bromley South, which just about brings the record up to date. No account of this sort is quite complete, however, without a word or two of tribute to the self-effacing and modest Parliamentary committee, working steadily in the background year after year, and in fact to all those members who have unstintingly helped in this great task over the past sixty years. Their hard work and experience will stand us in good stead in the struggles that lie ahead.

Eddie Critchfield

The Passing Show: Why? . . . (1964)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

So this is the general election month at last. Probably by the time you read this, your letterbox will be bulging with the paper promises of all those who are desperate for your vote. For the first time in five years, you will matter.

But this moment is not something which has landed on us out of the blue, just like that. For some time we have known that the poll would take place in the autumn and the parties have been busy girding their loins for battle. Although you will now have the official election policies of them all, this does not mean that they have been silent these last few months. All sorts of people have criticised and promised to remedy all sorts of problems.

In June of this year, three books were published in the Penguin Special series. They are (as each jacket says) personal and unofficial statements, but they are interesting as an insight to the sort of thinking which characterises the main political parties. For instance, Why Conservative? by Timothy Raison could quite justifiably be called “The Waffler's Handbook”. The Tories have been in power for quite a long time and there’s a fair chance of them winning again, so caution and circumspection—is the keynote of this book.

Politics, he tells us, is “. . . the search for power to achieve ends that the seeker considers desirable”. He does not think that conflict in society is harmful; it may be “essential to creativity”. The Tory Party apparently has “the masculine qualities of vigour, courage, independence, self-reliance and clear sightedness”. It “combines flexibility in policy with a firm psychological and emotional base”. Meaningless, you would say? So would we, but this is the sort of stuff which you arc asked to give serious consideration.

Nevertheless, if we thumb through this book, we can pick out some matters on which Mr. Raison commits himself more firmly. Did you know, for example, that distributed profits are good for the community (he doesn’t tell us how), and that there is money to be made if only you will work for it? -that's an old chestnut if ever there was one. He makes no attempt to square this up later, when he admits the need for the welfare state to alleviate the worst aspects of poverty. For the usual commercial reasons, he doesn't like the welfare state becoming too embracing. Company medical schemes, he thinks, may be preferable, because they would cut down lost production time and old age pensioners would cost less to the State if they lived at home instead of in institutions.

On foreign policy, we are treated to the same old story. The need for alliances, protection of British Capitalist interests abroad. But Raison cannot really make up his mind whether Britain should have nuclear weapons or not.

Now contrast this with Why Labour? by Jim Northcott. His party has had thirteen years in opposition and his writing reflects their current optimistic mood. Not for him the restrained approach of Raison. He is much more detailed in his approach to the familiar problems of working class life, and makes no bones about the actions which he thinks a Labour Government will take, if only we will place our trust in them.

Housing comes early in his list of problems—shades of 1945—and once again we are assured it can be solved. Building Co-operatives, lower interest rates, more council houses, a land buying commission, spreading jobs more evenly; these are some of his suggestions. He admits that working class home ownership is not the unmixed blessing that some people think, involving as it does the worry of mortgage payments, repair costs, etc., but even this does not lead him to the obvious answer—production for use.

He is very proud of the National Health Services — “ the envy of the world*—but opposes additional charges for prescriptions, forgetting that these were started by the last Labour Government. In addition, we are promised more hospitals, medical schools, preventive medicine, improved pay and conditions in hospitals, more trained social workers, and so on through the list. Name some fault or oppressive facet of the present scheme and you're almost sure to find that Mr. Northcott has an answer.

On education he is, of course, in favour of smaller classes and more university places. He puts the naive view that the object of education under capitalism is “to enable all to realise full potential” yet at the end of the chapter quotes the Economic Cooperation and Development Organisation's opinion “that higher investment in education is likely to yield a higher economic return than higher investment in industry”. He admits the superiority of public school education but it is difficult to discern just what position he envisages for them under a Labour Government. Not that it matters overmuch. Most workers will never get the chance to send their children to public schools anyway.

We are guaranteed plenty of all the good things of life. How are they to be paid for? Why, by taxing the rich more heavily and “spreading the burden more fairly”. But that the rich will still be rich enough to pay is an essential prerequisite and one may be sure that a Labour Government, no less than any other, will see that they stay rich.

The cry for increased exports figures prominently in Mr. Northcott's reckoning. He is at one with the other parties on this. But, of course, the exports must be “ planned ” and imports “ controlled ”. In fact this particular chapter (No. 8) is simply loaded with plans of every sort, including steel, electricity, research and manpower. Which only goes to emphasise just how unplannable capitalism really is. Mr. Northcott has not grasped this lesson, despite the record and experience of the last Labour Government.

Why Liberal? You may well be tempted to ask that again when you have read the last of these three, written by Harry Cowie. With many years of wilderness behind them and not much chance of forming a Government this time either, the Liberals can afford to be the sauciest of the three outfits. Mr. Cowie’s book is positively encyclopaedic in the quantity and scope of his promises. Right away, we note that the Liberal Party is the classless party, so everyone must benefit from their proposals.

If you return the Liberals, Mr. Cowie expects them to:—modernise the Government machine, stimulate economic growth, re-plan our cities and stop the Southward drift, solve the housing problem (yes again!), improve transport and solve the traffic problem, have a ten year educational development plan, greatly increase old age pensions and abolish the earnings rule.

Surprisingly he gives profit sharing only a brief mention but thinks that employees should be allowed representatives on directors’ boards, as a recognition of the “common interest of both sides”. But the workers would still be workers and the bosses would still be bosses. That much is painfully obvious from the rest of this chapter.

Mr. Cowie wants a “new partnership with Western Europe” as part of a Liberal foreign policy and quotes the words of former Liberal Leader Clement Davies, that the common market is "the greatest step towards peace which has ever been taken”. He doesn’t tell us how or why, and anyway the stupidity of such a statement is apparent when later in the chapter he enters into the usual discussion on nuclear and conventional arms. As a sign of his confidence in the peaceful influence of the Common Market, he is in favour of the British forces in Germany being increased to four fully equipped divisions.

You could almost ask: What is there to summarise? There is a choice of sorts, if you like, between three variations of the same theme capitalism. It does not matter which one you make from the point of view of solving your problems— they will still be there whichever leader is called to Buckingham Palace. Why Conservative, Labour or Liberal? Why indeed!

Eddie Critchfield

What's happening in East Germany (1964)

From the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

The information contained in this article is taken from the Democratic German Report (DGR) which is published and printed in East Germany. Its general theme is anti Bonn Government, but in most issues there is an article on some aspect of life in East Germany. Recent articles have dealt with Agriculture, Gambling, Women, Religion and Education.

If East Germany were a Socialist Society as claimed one would expect the economic and social conditions in East Germany to differ from those in Britain. However, a perusal of the articles in the DGR show that the aims of their society, the problems and the suggested solutions are the same as in Britain.

I. Agriculture (Quotes from D.G.R., Vol. XIII No. 6. 20/3/64.)
Having split the land into small units after the war to hand to the peasants they are now .

  “having a big drive to get all farmers , to join co-operatives” and “the final aim is to transform them into enterprises run like industrial enterprises; ”
  “the choice of specialisation will depend on the region, the type of soil or grazing land, and on the traditional farming carried out in a particular part of the country."

Further,

   “Labour productivity must be vastly increased through rationalisation and mechanisation of farm work.”
    “Investments will have to be channelled into the most important projects.”

Note that this is the pattern of agricultural development in the “Western World.” Farmers in the U.K. and U.S.A. specialise; they attempt to raise the productivity of labour (i.e., raise the value of the output of the labourer proportionately more than any percentage increase in wages); they are mechanising and enlarging their holdings.

Why do they do this? Capitalism has only one God—profit, and the aim in farming, as in any other enterprise, is to increase the opportunities for maximising profit. It is no different in East Germany. Commenting on the larger cooperatives the D.G.R. states they

  “now had their own machinery and were trying out new farming methods on their larger fields; their bigger herds of livestock were better housed, could be looked after with proportionately less labour power and were more profitable.” (Our italics.)

In this “desirable Socialist” society there is a “steady drain of young people away from the land and into better paid, more comfortable jobs in industry.”

Who paid them so badly in farming? The state farms? The Cooperative Farmers? Or the 50 per cent. of farmers who are not in cooperatives? In the U.K. we all witness the drain away from the land. In the USA the farm population is falling by nearly a million people every year, It seems that in East Germany, the UK and the USA, workers have the same need—“better paid, more comfortable jobs,” and these are not to be found easily on the land.

The subsidisation of farming in the UK has long been a cause of argument between the reformist political parties. Not for, or against, but how much and in what manner. The Presidential Election in the USA was in part fought over the farm programmes of the major political parties, and as in the past subsidies will be one of the central themes. But in East Germany, of course; “Walter Ulbricht, Chairman of the German Democratic Republic State Council gave some examples of how subsidising would work in the future”;

It is well said that one can know a leopard by its spots. The spots of East German farming—Profit, lowly paid labour, productivity not production, subsidies—place it fair and square with its capitalist counterparts in the U.K. and the U.S.A.

II. Gambling. (Quotes from D.G.R., Vol. XIII, No. 9 1/5/64.)

The article in the D.G.R. was in response to a letter from a Miss M.B. of Birmingham, who asked: “Are there any football pools, betting or gambling in the German Democratic Republic(G.D.R.)?"

The following quotes state briefly the situation;

   “There is quite a lot of betting and gambling in the D.G.R., but no overall figures are available on the sums spent on these pastimes. You can lose your money on the horses at two race courses near Berlin, but the most popular forms of betting are football pools, similar to those in Britain, and various forms of “Lotto” in which you pick your numbers which you hope may come up in a weekly draw. In addition, there is the old fashioned lottery in which you just buy a ticket and hope for the best.”
  “All these various forms of taking a chance are nationally owned or municipally owned and nobody makes a fortune out of betting with the exception of a very few winners who may get pay outs ranging up to about 500,000 marks (about £45,000).”
   “What happens to the winnings? They are not subject to income or/and property tax so long as they remain in the bank and are not re-invested, and they accumulate the usual 3 per cent, interest paid on bank savings."
   “Some (winners) say they must go home and think. . . .”
  “Others say they want to buy a car or a house first. Most winners take out the odd thousands and deposit larger sums. Older people sometimes decide to settle sums on their children or open savings accounts for their grandchildren, and many give quite large sums to various good causes, including the Society for the Protection of Animals.”
 “People very seldom seem to give up their jobs on the spur of the moment and go on the spree, although some cases have come to light. . . .”

These quotes (emphasis ours) are of interest. Much of them could apply with equal validity to Britain.

It is evident that despite the claim that gambling is a “pastime,” many gamblers in East Germany, as in Britain, “hope for the best.” Why? Because “they want to buy a car or a house,” “settle sums on their children,” “go on the spree.” As in Britain they seek release from the struggle within society, the need to seek “better paid, more comfortable jobs". Gambling is widespread in East Germany for the same reason as it is in Britain—it may be a short cut to greater social and economic security.

Note that in Britain also, winnings are not subject to income or property tax, and here the only tax free investment that you can make is the first £15 in the Post Office Savings Bank, where the interest is 2½ per cent., not 3 per cent. as in East Germany.

The most significant thing, however, is that some people in East Germany own more property than others, and there are ways in which this property can be passed on to their heirs. Property owners can invest, and not only in savings accounts. The interest on these investments can be met only out of the unpaid labour time of the workers. Workers are exploited in East Germany just as in Britain, or if we believe their propaganda that all their citizens are workers, some are obviously more “worker” than others!

Gambling occurs in East Germany because workers there, as in Britain, are looking for something more in life, and have the desire to change their social and economic situation. They can do the same thing with their winnings as here, including investing them and thereby exploiting the working class and perhaps sopping their consciences by making a donation to a “good cause.”

Only Socialism will change this. In a Socialist society people will be engaged in useful, fruitful pursuits. The property basis of capitalist society will be gone. There will be no need to gamble, nor will be so monotonous that it will require something like gambling to give it a kick.

The "spots" of East German society look even more like those in Britain. There is only one reason—it suffers from the same disease—capitalism!

Ken Knight

Class War in Australian "paradise" (1964)

From the December 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Politically, paradise, it seems, is all things to all men. Among one loosely affiliated group (Labour and Communist Party supporters), it means (A) rising wages, (the Arbitration Commission of Victoria, Australia granted a £1 per week increase in the basic wage a few months ago). (B) a large and increasing proportion of nationalised industries, (recently all state loans have been over subscribed) and (C) little or no unemployment, (lately there have been more vacant jobs than workers to fill them). Among another and opposing group (the ruling class), paradise means (D) an expanding economy and rising profits, (overseas investments into Victoria, and profits have never been higher) and (E) a stable government, (last June elections, the Conservative government was again returned after many years in power). Thus at the present moment of the history of this State there are all of the conditions for paradise.

Yet from the midst of all these idyllic conditions, there is to be heard over the air and read in the newspapers, (Age 16th September 1964) that there exists a condition of “War” in this State. No less a person than the Premier Mr. Bolte, (pronounced Bol-tee) declares it to be so.

Now let us look more attentively at this state of purposeful war, waged by human beings among themselves. Usually we find it to be prefixed by a descriptive term e.g. generalised, such as “ Colonial War,” “Civil” or “ World War”; or, more specifically, “Zulu War,” “Civil War of England,” or “ World War I.” In the case of which Bolte speaks we must read further down into the smaller newsprint to find out what he refers to. Here we discover it to be nothing less than “Class War." It should be noted that Bolte does not directly classify it as such, but the implication is unmistakeable. Yet this implied admission of the existence of class war from the mouth of the Conservative Premier surely sounds strange and awesome to the ears of postwar society. For years we have been told that class antagonism and therefore class wars just no longer exist. These, we have been informed, belonged to the bad old days.

Since Bolte sounds off so urgently on a topic of vital concern to us all we feel it our bounden duty to more closely enquire what is the form of this warfare that he finds so alarming? And by whom is it conducted ? The Age tells us;

  A 48 hr. strike by 120,000 State Government workers was a “declaration of war on the Government and the people” the Premier said last night.
  The Trades Hall Council disputes committee decided late yesterday that the strike would begin at midnight on Monday. It will cancel or severely restrict—trains, trams, some buses, electricity and gas services and the Port of Melbourne operations until midnight on Wednesday.
  Members of 39 unions in 30 Government instrumentalities and departments will be involved in the stoppage.

The Unions thereby were serving 6 days notice upon the Chief executive of Victoria. “The strike will be called off ONLY if the Premier agrees to see T.H.C. officials immediately to discuss longstanding claims by State Workers."

And these claims four in number are : (1) removal of differences in the rate of pay of workers doing the same job in different departments. (2) increased margins. (3) £4 per week industry loading. (4) an extra week of annual leave.

These threatened strikes and ultimatums are not a bolt (no pun on the Premier's name is here intended) from the blue. Immediately before and since the June elections of this year returned his Government to office, Bolte has faced several manifestations of this lately admitted class war. On May 29, Government workers held a 24-hour stoppage of work and on August 12th again a similar stoppage was intended but was deferred by a compromise. Indeed, this latest proposed 48-hour strike of Victorian State employees has again been deferred.

Two more items of interest for those who vaguely feel that perhaps nationalisation of industries is in some manner to their advantage and thereby worth striving for; And both items are provided by the Age Melbourne. In headlines (17th September, 1964), we are informed that “Army to do work of Dock strikers” . . . The Federal Government has decided to use servicemen to load troop transport H.M.A.S. Sydney if a strike of civilian crane drivers continues at Garden Island Dockyard in Sydney.

The crane drivers who belong to the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemans Association declared the Sydney “black " following the dismissal of a union delegate.

So the Army, itself a nationalised institution, under the sole and direct control of the Federal Government, is always ready to act as strike breakers.

The second news 25th September, 1964. Nearly 20,000 railway workers throughout Queensland began a 24-hour work stoppage at midnight last night.

This stoppage stems from demands for restoration of service leave, payment of £4 per week industry allowance, and wage increases.

Yet the Labour and Communist Party trade union leaders and politicians, actual and would-be, still ask us to believe that immediate and future ailments such as poverty can be remedied by more and more nationalisation of industry.

What can we expect for the future ? The answer is simple. Within the prevailing class divided society there can be no paradise, only a parasite/host mode of existence for capitalist and working class respectively.

Peter Furey

How Labour Ruled Mespot. (1924)

From the December 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Truth About The Slaughter

When it became known that bomb-dropping was regularly used by the Labour Government as a means of peacefully persuading Irak Tribesmen that British capitalism had a better right in their country than they had themselves, many simple supporters of the Labour Party were shocked. They had supposed that Empires can be built on love and maintained by soft words, and they were greatly relieved when Mr. Leach explained the whole matter away.

Mr. Leach accounted for British occupancy of the territory by saying that it was a point of honour to remain and fulfill "our” pledges; and he was able to give the assurance that— 

  under our administration British air operations have so far caused no deaths. Thanks to the method of warning notices, submission takes place five times out of six without recourse to bombs, and has succeeded in the remaining cases through the destruction of property and cattle. —Daily Herald, July 15th, 1924.

Now Lord Thomson, Chief of the Air Ministry, of which Mr. Leach was Undersecretary, has disclosed the real facts. It was not honour but capitalist interest in oil which kept the Labour Government in Irak, and with regard to the bomb-dropping Mr. Leach appears to have resorted to complete suppression of the facts.

The following quotation is from a lecture given by Lord Thomson at a meeting of the Central Asian Society on November 21st. (“The Times,” November 22nd, 1924.)

   After briefly tracing the route followed in his tour, Lord Thomson brought home to his audience the efficacy of bombing by describing the manner in which the recent Wahabi invasion of the Transjordan was crushed. The British forces consisted solely of aeroplanes sent out at the shortest possible notice, backed by armoured cars. The effect of our air attack was appalling Some 700 of the tribesmen were killed and the rest, seized with panic, fled into the desert, where hundreds more must have perished from thirst. Unless some such punishment as swift and terrible as this had been inflicted, the task of restoring order would have been long drawn-out, and in the end more costly in lives and money, while the results would not have been so lasting.
   Lord Thomson went on to say that it might be true that oil was the key of the Arabian riddle, though he considered that wheat-production, for some years at least, held greater possibilities. The primary necessity, however, was security. The country could best be opened up by making the process a gradual one. By using it as a link in the chain of Imperial communications, this would be achieved.
    On the question of the duration of British protection in Iraq, Lord Thomson said that Britain had promised an independent Arab State, and we must honour our pledge, which could only be done by remaining in the country until it could defend itself. We could wriggle out of our obligations in various fashions, but the immediate consequence, in his opinion, would be anarchy, disorder, and confusion. Somebody would have to restore the situation, and if we did not, the Turks would. In the present state of affairs, the British Air Force in Iraq was the cement which kept the bricks together. He hoped that the task we had undertaken would not be left unfinished by any form of withdrawal.

Wells at the World's End. (1923)

From the January 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has become the fashion with those who cannot controvert Marx, to do the next worst thing—belittle him or patronise him. Usually, the most obvious fact that emerges is that the critic has not even a nodding acquaintance with his subject. One of the nightmares that afflict prospective Labour candidates is the probable “voice” from their audience testing their knowledge of Marx. As they will probably have heard that Marx took rather an important part in the founding of scientific socialism, it is clear that some “mugging up” of the subject will be handy, if not essential. Take H. G. Wells, for instance, the prospective Labour candidate for the University of London. I have spent such delightful hours with his Mr. Polly, young Ponderevo, Kipps, and other creations of his earlier fertile fancy, that it seems almost ungrateful to do it, but really  . . .

According to the Telegraph, October 20th, his speech to his prospective constituents included these two sentences:

  “In Marx’s time there was in Germany, a very defined barrier between the aristocratic land-owning class and the traders and the labourers. Marx failed to realise that this was a passing state of affairs which would break down in time.”

That is what Wells said. This is what Marx said 70 years ago. Writing on December 1st, 1852, to the New York Tribune, he speaks of the numerous secret societies which sprang up after the German Revolution of 1848.

   “There were some other Societies which were formed with a wider and more elevated purpose, which know that the upsetting of an existing Government was but a passing stage in the great impending struggle, and which intended to keep together and to prepare the party, whose nucleus they formed, for the last decisive combat which must, one day or another, crush forever in Europe the domination, not of mere 'tyrants,’ ‘despots’ and ‘usurpers,' but of a power far superior, and more formidable than theirs : that of capital over labour.
   “The organisation of the advanced Communist Party in Germany was of this kind. . . . History showed to the Communist Party how, after the landed aristocracy of the Middle Ages, the monied power of the first capitalists arose and seized the reins of Government; how the social influence and political rule of this financial section of capitalists was superseded by the rising strength . . .  of the manufacturing capitalists, and how at the present moment two more classes claim their turn of domination, the petty trading class and the industrial working class.”

And then Wells tells an audience that “Marx failed to realise this was a passing state of affairs which would break down in time.” True, it was only a University audience, comprising the sons of that noble “middle class" who served us so well during the recent international pogrom. Few would have heard of, and less would have read, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, or the Communist Manifesto. Here are a few scattered excerpts from the latter. It was written in German in 1847, as the platform of the “Communist League,” first exclusively German, later international. (Italics mine.)

   “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other : Bourgeoisie and Proletariat ” (page 13, Kerr’s edition).
   " . . . the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway ” (page 15).
    “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal patriarchal, idyllic relations ” (page 16).
    “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production . . .  and with them the whole relations of society ” (page 17).
    “The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns ” (page 19).

After briefly detailing the change from feudal to bourgeois society, he says, “ A similar movement is going on before our eyes ” (page 21).

    “Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie to-day, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry ” (page 29).

And so on. Space precludes quoting more. But is it necessary? Had not Wells better read Marx?

W. T. Hopley

Work or Toil. (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

A cynic has said that “ the height of absurdity is a man running to work, before daylight, laughing.”

The worker, having by his capitalist schooling and training been taught to believe it his inalienable privilege, his birthright, and heritage, any attempt to dislodge his long-cherished affection for toil, meets with disapproval and a few empty phrases. Tell him that work to-day is mentally, morally, and physically degrading and he will look contemptuously upon you. His mental antidote for such taunts is the one so popular anywhere but at the seat of operations, “ Work, boys, work, and be contented.” Point out the absurdity of a system that "rewards” a life of toil with that capitalist dust-bin, the workhouse, and though in all probability he glimpses the truth, through force of habit he reverts to the generally accepted axiom, “Somebody’s got to do it.” How true! But who’s the "somebody” always? Carlyle’s reference to the percentage of foolish people in this country seems perilously near the truth, when we reflect that it is the wealth producers (the working class) who suffer want and insecurity, whilst the loafers, i.e., the landlords, the shareholders, the profit-takers (the capitalist class) possess the bulk of the wealth and consequent security. What a laugh! what irony! were it not for the resulting tragedy of it all. “Ah ! but,” says our work enthusiast, “the master works with his brain.” We might appropriately reply, so does the forger, the burglar, and the bogus company promoter, but not producing and distributing wealth. Ascot, Goodwood, the Riviera, and such rendezvous keep our masters busy in their turn, and whether the season dictates that they shall stay in town or not, the workers will still be found in the factory, mill, mine, or office.

Neither the absence nor the death of any capitalist hinders the production of wealth. What do the capitalists do toward the designing and building of a ship, or the writing and printing of their own Press? Nay! even the making of the money with which they pay the workers? Nothing. Whatever the tasks or services, they are purchased by the masters to be exercised for their profit in that particular capacity. When a disaster or a shady deal brings the idlers to prominence, they themselves reveal this fact by admitting ignorance of the whole business. Do you think, fellow-worker, that if work were an enviable task, that you would have the complete monopoly of it? Hardly! The nice things, the luxuries, the best in food, raiment, and accommodation, are not for you—yet. For you the offal, the adulterated scraps, the shoddy uncomely clothing, the sunless sombre cities, and often an untimely end. What of your masters? Ah! the rolling sea, the blazing sun-bathed terraces of Monte Carlo, the country house, an endless round of pleasure provided in its entirety by you. Come! awaken from your slumbers, realise your manhood and womanhood, and organise for a life worthy of such. Work, in the truest sense, will then become a pleasure, pursued as a means to an end, the life glorious. Today, because you are separated from the means of life, you are slaves to those that own these things. Work becomes toil, because it is to you an end in itself, instead of being, as we would have you make it, merely a means to our ultimate objective, happiness and plenty for all. Capitalism has solved the problem of wealth production. Socialism will organise life, and by using every means science has placed at our disposal to produce wealth for use, reduce work to the minimum. Man’s requirements are microscopic compared with our powers to dominate the earth and its fulness.

Once you understand our position—and it is quite easy to do so—you will no longer demand toil and maintenance, a worthless objective, but you will organise to take “the World for the Workers.”

Mac.

United Front? (1923)

From the March 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been handed a circular that has been sent out by the British Bureau of the Red International of Labour Unions.

The circular is headed, "Now for the United Front.” The “United Front” is the latest "idea” flogged by the sensation mongers in the endeavour to put fresh life into their fading support.

Like all the effusions of the mushroom organisations that live upon phrases instead of upon the recognition of facts and the application of science to problems, the above organisation has its particular set of slogans:

   “Work or full maintenance for the unemployed,” "The forty-four hour working week,” "The six-hour day for miners,” "The conscription of wealth,” "All power to the workers.”

Why the forty-four hour week? Why not the 40 or 30? Why the special concern about the miners? What have the printers or painters done that they should be left out? Why should the unemployed bother about work if they can get "Full maintenance” without working. What exactly constitutes the “conscription of. wealth,” and what "All power to the workers”? Upon these points the circular gives no information. The circular states :

   "We must reply to the coming attacks by taking the offensive. We must concentrate all the available strength of our movement in order to win. ”

How is the "available strength” to be "concentrated” apart from the "slogans”? By the formation of "Councils of Action” through the medium of a conference composed of delegates from "trades councils, trade union branches and district committees, working class local and national political organisations, unemployed organisations, co-operative societies, and guilds”!

What the nature of the action is that this conglomeration of antagonistic bodies is to take we are not informed beyond the fact that it is to "ensure the carrying into effect of the workers9 demand. ”

As the "workers’ demands” at the present moment are varied and many opposed to each other, the "United Front” movement promises to make the usual "progress” of such organisations—that is, backwards, by increasing the number of organisations and thus increasing the confusion already afloat.

The wording of the circular shows that the organisers are afflicted with customary flamboyant and empty Russian phrases.

If more attention was paid to a solid back there would be no need to worry about a "United Front,” and no occupation for those who are making profit out of the propagation of such a mongrel idea. This solid back can only be obtained by the study and propagation of Socialist principles. This may not be exciting, it does not require slogans or frothy phrases, but it is the only way to achieve working class emancipation, and hence is worth the effort.

Punchinello.

Mixed Views. (1923)

From the April 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

The advent into Parliament of a larger number of Labour members than hitherto is causing the working class adherents of the Labour Party to feel highly elated.

To keep the pot at boiling point the “Daily Herald” is daily publishing portraits and histories of these “white hopes." The mixture of aims and aspirations and the national programme are somewhat at variance, but this fact apparently escapes the notice of the adherents.

Some are Trade Union officials, pinning their faith on “industrial action"; others believe in government of the ignorant many by the intellectual few; while quite a lot are Christians !

To the latter “recommendation" the “D.H." expresses deep satisfaction. The only reasonable conclusion is that the greater the addition to their ranks the more complicated will the problems confronting the working class become, the more confused will be their minds, and the more satisfied and appreciative will be the ruling class.

To quote but one example of the democratic instincts of the “oil and water mixers."

On the fifteenth of February last five officials of Civil Service unions, two of them Labour. M.P.’s, dined at the Connaught Rooms with the Duke of York, several foreign ambassadors, some admirals, baronets, knights, the Prime Minister, and other well-wishers of the working class.

They represented the Civil Service. How "civil” that service must be to agree to its hired parliamentary champions acting in such a way is not a mental problem.

No doubt they will receive the usual vociferous applause whenever they find it convenient to address a gathering of their “Unions.” Possibly things of this description happen more frequently than is generally known.

Without doubt the Parliamentary Labour Party is an integral part of the capitalist machine, a part in which it promises to become very efficient; by using identical methods and making innumerable “promises” great adaptability is shown.

The principal question confronting them at the moment is “unemployment,” and all sorts of schemes are being considered, none of which, however, touch even the fringe of the question.

The unemployed just now are being regaled with a species of “soft soap” called “trade revival,” and moreover it is being issued by the Labour Party.

There is a refusal to come to grips with facts, and the chief fact is that “unemployment is a necessity to capitalism.” ‘With the development of the system there is a steadily increasing industrial reserve, which makes the competition for jobs keener and cheapens labour power. If the problem was capable of solution under the existing system labour leaders and T.U. officials would have to change their jobs! One factor is the introduction of more and more labour-saving machinery, calling for less human energy, which in general means increase in unemployment.

The logical conclusion is that as unemployment is necessary to the social order, and that social order is desired by the working class, the attendant but necessary evils of the order are also desired. And the evils are many, though one individual may not come in contact with them all. Poverty in the midst of plenty, vile slums and sumptuous palaces, wooden clogs and dainty shoes, shoddy clothes and warm wool—these, the extremes of but a few of those evils which you, fellow worker, appear to desire.

You do desire them, you vote for them at every election; possibly you will continue to vote for them unless you start seriously to examine.

To do this, have done with all bodies that are only diverting your energies and intelligence to enable them to grind their own particular axes. Forget Tutankhamen’s tomb, the royal baby, and all such things. Concentrate your mind on the future of your own children; their very existence is in jeopardy, and it’s your indifference they will blame.

Perfect the organisation of your class, the Socialist Party, whose object is the ending for all time of systems of society that allow the minority to possess the world’s wealth.

It is a job for the understanding majority. You are of the majority. Get politically intelligent. Your master is; so, if you wish, can you be.

Griff.

Broadcatching the Working Class. (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are thousands of people who to-day have adopted the habit of what has become generally known as “Listening-In.” Everybody seems to have a desire to study this particular science, and we would be the last to suggest that scientific knowledge' should not be acquired, especially amongst members of the working class. "Wireless Telegraphy,” no doubt, is a very interesting subject, in view of its rapid development in recent years.

The conquest of the ethereal waves, possibly provide a very important landmark of progress in scientific research; but if we go a little further into the question, we shall find that whilst there are some sciences which are encouraged, there are others which are fettered and not allowed that freedom to develop which one might expect.

In these days, living as we do under Capitalism, there is one thing necessary before any progress can be made in scientific research—it must have the capitalist “Hall Mark” of profits, after which it may emerge forth into the daylight. That in itself, explains the present “ Wireless ” boom which is producing a rich harvest for the groups of capitalists like Godfrey Isaacs and others of the “Macaroni” type, derived, of course, from the sale of the instruments, accessories, etc.

Suppose for a moment we divert our attention to another phase of science— Social Science—that which deals with the various problems, faced of day by day by the working class. We shall find that no such inducement is being given to the working class to investigate problems of this character in a scientific manner. Why? Because once the working class become afflicted with the desire to understand the cause of their poverty, even in numbers half as great as those studying “Wireless” at the present time, the position of the capitalist class would not be quite secure, hence we find them directing the minds of the working class into other channels.

This state of affairs provides the necessity for an organisation like the Socialist Party of Great Britain to come to the rescue, and thus provide the working class with the necessary scientific education, in the shape of Economics, History, Politics and Sociology, etc.

By the correct understanding of these subjects they will equip themselves with necessary knowledge for accomplishing the social revolution, by wresting from the capitalist class that power which they the workers have hitherto presented to their masters, i.e., Political Power.

Therefore, we say to the working class, study the Social Sciences first, and thereby qualify to take your stand for the emancipation of your class. By doing so you will not only benefit yourself, but the community as a whole. For the first time in the history of the world, mankind will be able to enjoy the best that nature, aided by science, can provide

A. S. C.

The Sacred "Family Hearth" (1923)

From the June 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are often met with the statement that the Socialist proposes to abolish the family and cut the sacred hearth tie. Those whose family relations, from the point of view ot published morality, would not bear investigation fling the taunt that the Socialist is in favour of “free love” and no homes.

A very little investigation will show the emptiness of such statements.

The regular procession to the divorce courts and the legislation relating to illegitimate children, together with the frequent newspaper articles relating to sexual problems, bear witness to the fact that “free love,” of a very sordid description, is already widespread at the present moment.

And what of the hearth tie? What is this sacred family life that the wicked Socialist would destroy?

An article in the Manchester Guardian (2/5/23) gives a little information on the point. It deals with a report on “Excessive Sickness in Dundee" prepared by the Executive Board of the General Federation of Trade Unions Approved Society.

From this article we learn that the percentage of married women in Dundee that are working is 41.4, or nearly half!

  “Sir William Henderson, giving evidence before a sub-committee, said that in most confinement cases there was the difficulty of getting the women themselves to knock off work in time; they were loath to do it. It was also very difficult to check the resumption of work.”

Sir William is not reported as giving the reason that made the women loath to knock off work. Yet the reason is simple. It is not because they are in love with work —it is because they and those that depend more or less upon them must have bread. The articles states :

  "Eleven women whom Miss Quaile visited had, between them, given birth to 78 children, 48 of whom were dead—a death rate of 62 per cent. 'One poor thing’ had given birth to twelve children, all of whom were dead.
 “ ‘These facts—and they are but an epitome of those which lie to the hand of every social investigator—reveal enough' the report states, ‘indeed too much for the sensitive soul, of what is happening, not only in Dundee, but in every centre where life has become unnaturally crowded and complex. Unholy greed and social shortsightedness, resulting in overworked and ill-nourished and ill-trained womanhood; little children, too, thousands of them, carelessly given transient existences—nothing for them but to whimper out in misery too helplessly horrible for contemplation the attenuated span of life which congenital folly and post natal ignorance and criminality have allotted them.’”

What an appalling picture of life under Capitalism? Are these the sacred precincts the Socialist is taunted for attempting to invade?

Family life? What family life has the average modern wage-slave that he should fear its destruction? Working or looking for work through the hours of daylight—in a multitude of cases, both he, his wife, and often his children also. Home at night to a room or rooms that are only called home for appearance sake. In poverty and squalor they eat what the scantily furnished cupboard can provide, then sink into semi-torpor brought on by bad nourishment and excessive toil.

This state of affairs arises from the fact that the worker depends for his livelihood upon finding occupation the carrying on of which will provide profit for the owners of the means of production.

When the means of production are converted into the common property of all members of society, it will be possible for all to enjoy the fruits of labour without excessive toil under bad conditions. Then no one will depend for his existence upon the whim or the desire for profit of another. Men and women, freed from dependence upon property, will mate as mutual affection and mutual admiration dictate, and no property inspired laws will bind them to sordid, joyless lives.

Gilmac.

Socialism and the "Artistic Temperament." (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

In contemplating the social environments of life as constituted to-day, most people (those people, that is, whose mental horizon is capable of embracing something more than a horse-race or a cinema-show) have been forced, often reluctantly, to arrive at the conclusion that "the times are out of joint"; that the world—at least superficially—is little else than a mad conglomeration of sordid toils and yet more sordid pleasures, of brutal tyrannies and ignoble sufferings, of hypocrisy masquerading in the garb of righteousness, of legalised theft and murder.

Many of these people, mainly of the working class, young, in easier economic circumstances, perhaps, than others of their fellow-workers, have what is called "artistic tastes”; that is, they take a more than cursory interest in literature, or some one or other of the arts, or in science, maybe; they dabble as amateurs in literature, or art, or science, instead of following the example of their relatives and friends who, in most cases, are interested in nothing, or in what is often worst than nothing.

These members of the working class (though, doubtless, the idea would be scorned by the high-born and high-bred "artistic” capitalist circles) have, it would seem, by some almost miraculous process, managed to develop a sense of what is beautiful in nature and art, have desires for a fuller development of their faculties. They feel an urge towards a broader outlook on life, but find, as the years pass and their responsibilities increase, that their economic circumstances, even though easier and more comfortable than those of the majority of their fellow-workers, circumscribe increasingly their views on art and literature, their desires for personal development, their cravings for a fuller existence. At this stage some of them drop out, go with the aimless crowd of mediocre beings; some, disillusioned and without hope, turn, in their bitterness, to the blackest pessimism; a few examine and analyse their economic circumstances, delve into the causes that make such circumstances inevitable, obtain a true conception of their place in nature and in society, and finally seek and discover the only means whereby they can emerge from the thraldom of servitude into the freedom necessary for the full development of their faculties. They, a small but ever-growing number, embrace the Socialist philosophy, and in so doing obtain a serenity of outlook, a power of facing reality, unknown to those others, who stand at present, irresolute, disillusioned, bitterly resentful against fate, outside the Socialist organisation.

The aforementioned mood of bitterness and pessimism, engendered by the results of an evil environment, is one to which all the more sensitive intellects of all countries in all ages have been particularly prone; but an examination of the works and lives of the men and women who have in their utterances given expression to their disgust with and rebellion against their social and political surroundings will show that the scientific and historical sense have, as a rule, been largely lacking in their mental make-up. Highly emotional, their minds a sensitive plate scratched and torn by every ugly and vicious impression received, they shrink from an analysis of the evils they experience and visualise, and can only voice their feelings of antagonism towards something— they hardly know what—that threatens to engulf them in a black wave of bitterness and irritability. In practically all such people, while their reaction to bad and degrading impressions is greater than the average, their power of analysing these impressions and placing them in their correct historical perspective, is almost nil. Artists—whether writers, or painters, or musicians—are more liable than any other body to find whatever sense of proportion and humour they may have possessed swallowed up in the spectacle of what they consider a mad and diseased universe, and thus it is that so many of the greatest and noblest works of art are so often overshadowed and obscured by a sense of gloom and foreboding.

But, leaving out of the question people of artistic genius or talent, to anyone not totally blind to the realities of life, the brutality, sordidness, and suffering engrained in present-day capitalist society must strike home continually with a force similar to that with which the waves of a tempestuous sea buffet the face of an unwary or inexperienced swimmer.

From the Socialist standpoint, the mere perception to and rebellion against the evils of capitalism is not enough. We, too, detest the world-evils surrounding us; we too, have a gnawing sense of insecurity and captivity; have the same feelings of revolt against the insults and sufferings to which we, as workers, as wage-slaves, are subjected. But it is here that we as Socialists part company with those who have not yet acquired a knowledge of the Socialist philosophy. The pessimistic non- Socialist is either afraid or unable to face the facts of life; he cannot or dare not attempt to discover why what are called "social evils" exist; he is unable to understand that such things as the poverty of mind and body, the rapacity, the callousness and viciousness engrained in the human race are the inevitable and irrepressible outcome of a social system which bears within it the seeds of the ills and pains and penalties under which mankind is to-day fated to suffer. He can only visualise society, with all its multitudinous evils, as a thing in itself; he can look neither back to the causes nor foresee the results of those phenomena he hates and deplores; while to the Socialist, to the man who has realised that capitalist society, being an organism, must have been born from the womb of an older form of society, must have its period of growth to maturity, and must finally disintegrate and die (and in dying give birth to a new form of society), to the man the evils which he, also, sees and hates and deplores are seen but as a passing phase in the long-drawn-out history and man and his association with his fellows.

There are good and bad in all things, even in Capitalism. By “good” we mean whatever tends to uplift man, as an individual, as a social unit, as a part of the human race, on to a higher plane of life: by “bad” all that tends to drag him downwards to a level even below the appallingly low one he at present occupies. True it is that under capitalism the "good” is most negligible, whilst the "bad” increases in volume and intensity as the death throes of the present system become more violent. The Socialist, being neither optimist nor pessimist, sees whatever good there may be, and accepts it for what it is worth; sees also the bad, and while obliged to bow before its power, at the same time rebels in word and deed against the necessity for so doing. He is neither greatly elated nor distressed at whatever comes. Always and at all times he keeps in the forefront of his thoughts and actions his endeavour to encompass and prepare for the downfall of the system (capitalism) that engenders the bad, and to hasten the initiation of the coming social order (Socialism) which will spread and enhance the good. Unremitting work, based on knowledge, in the cause of Socialism— herein lies the remedy for the depression and feeling of hopelessness that so often overtakes the non-Socialist who is endeavouring to escape from his capitalistic captivity.

The distance to travel before the consummation of our desires is reached may be short or long. What, then—what, after all, do a few years or a few centuries count in the evolution of mankind? It is the inheritance we hand on to the future that will decide our status in the eyes of those who will follow us, will decide whether we be numbered amongst those weaklings "who have never lived,” or with those who, while continuously struggling onward, have only failed in their high endeavours because the fruits of the new order of life were not yet ripe enough to be plucked and enjoyed.

F. J. Webb