Sting in the Tail: Winter blues (1993)

The Sting in the Tail column from the December 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Winter blues

Every worker in Britain will shortly have a series of beautifully produced, full colour and glossy pieces of nonsense thrust through their doors.

Your husband can buy you a super collossal new washing machine. Whoopee! Your wife can buy you a new chainsaw. (Well, the kids have become a bit uppity recently.)

In December we are in the month when sellers of commodities wring their hands at the prospects of giant sales. It is Christmas, when alienated workers try to make up for their anti-social behaviour by buying their friends commodities that will never make up for that behaviour.

Inside a socialist system of society women and men will probably celebrate the winter solstice, but it will be without recourse to the nonsense of spending money as a substitute for community and love.

Not in the script

All over the world in every industry the cry is that costs must be cut because of competition. Besides low wages and more unemployment, this also means the lowering of safety standards at work and nowhere is this more apparent than in Britain's mines

The Cost of Coal (BBC2, 29 October) revealed how pressure to cheapen production is leading British Coal to fake the monitoring of dust levels, and the American system of "Extended Cut" is being introduced. This allows coal-cutting machines to cut further without additional roof support and the accident rate in American mines is much greater than in British mines.

Most people used to expect that life in capitalism would inevitably get better: incomes would grow, jobs be more secure and safety at work improve, yet the opposite is happening. Those expectations simply didn’t take into account capitalism’s built-in drive for profit and the competition it brings in its wake.

Fair Trading?

Sainsbury, Tesco and Safeway; the names ring out like a litany of praise to the benefits of competition. Or at least so they would have you believe. The facts are somewhat different.

They were all objectors to Costco, a US warehouse-style club, and its plans to open its first UK store. However a high court judge ruled against them and Costco opened its first store on 30 November.

The reason for the big three being so concerned is not difficult to deduce.

"In the US, although this may not he the same in the UK, food trades off a gross margin of around 10 percent, significantly loner than the 26 percent or so currently achieved by the operators of UK superstores" (Herald, 2S October).

It is that old capitalist story again. 
Competition is good — for other people!

Pads for proles

Prince Charles's visit to Glasgow provided the opportunity for yet another lecture on how to patch up capitalism.

HRH blamed modern tower block housing for creating feelings of "hopelessness and alienation" among youngsters and praised the traditional Scottish tenement which he thought "could, perhaps, solve many of our current problems".

The idea that tenements were full of happy, neighbourly people is an old one. Apparently, you could leave your door unlocked with safety and everybody looked after one another. After a lifetime spent in tenements, and not just in Glasgow, Scorpion’s experience hasn’t been quite like that.

The Prince urged developers to ask themselves before schemes went ahead — "Would I want to live here myself?". That’s the question he should ask himself before singing the praises of tenements, but then he was talking about homes for proles, not parasites.

Cancerous growth

Every year breast cancer kills 13,000 women in Britain, so when the breast cancer gene was discovered somewhere in Chromosome 17 there was universal excitement. It seemed that a breakthrough was on the way to understanding the disease.

Scientific teams world-wide exchanged information regularly in an effort to identify regions of the chromosome that could be eliminated. A wonderful picture of selfless white-coated devotees peering through microscopes and co-operating internationally to cure this scourge emerges. Well, it’s not quite like that. This is capitalism after all:

  "But as the groups edged closer to identifying the gene they began to split apart", said Simon Smith, head of Cambridge University research team funded by the Cancer Research Campaign. "Things have now gone quiet because none of us wants to give information to the other", he saul.
  "In an ideal world we'd be talking to each other and not holding back information. But our work is judged on what is published. If we are always second it's no good. " (Independent on Sunday, 31 October)

So the winner gets the kudos, the big financial rewards and the biggest grants. Isn’t competition a wonderful thing? Tell that to the 13,000 women and their grieving families.

Taken for granted

Towards the end of World War Two the British government set in motion plans to regain control of Britain’s Asian colonies, particularly Hong Kong, from the local politicians who would initially take over from the Japanese.

To this end SOE, part of Britain’s spy network, organized "subversive activities". Lists were drawn up of "who to bribe", plans made for "fabricating the semblance of pro-British demonstrations" and to spread dark rumours that displaying the British flag "was the best guarantee for the safety of one’s person and one’s goods" when British forces returned.

All this and more is contained in the lastest batch of secret documents to be released as part of the "open government" initiative. What is remarkable about these revelations is not so much the greed, cynicism and corruption of our rulers, but their absolute confidence that they can tell us all about it and still retain our trust in them.

Between the Lines: "Life under capitalism is a serious business . . ." (1993)

The Between the Lines column from the December 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Life under capitalism is a serious business, but there are some laughs along the way, often at the expense of the rulers rather than the ruled. Modern political humour comes in a variety of forms, several of which have received a TV airing in recent weeks. Most aim their fire at the easiest targets of them all politicians — and with varying degrees of effectiveness.

Spitting Image (ITV, Sundays, 10pm). the long-running puppet show, attempts political comedy via the art of caricature and lampoonery. and not really as successfully as when it began in Thatcher's heyday. Its 1987 General Election special with Thatcher's cabinet rigged out in lederhosen singing "Tomorrow belongs to me" was a masterly piece of political lampoonery at a time when tomorrow really did seem to belong to them, with their market lunacies and anti-trade unionism all fuelled by the prejudices of the wide-boys in the City

Since then things have turned sour for the economy and the Conservatives alike, and Spitting Image has been struggling hard to keep up with the trend. When "personalities" abound in the realm of capitalist politics caricature is in vogue, but when confronted with the present political vacuum, it loses its bite and has to look elsewhere for entertainment.

A popular offshoot of caricature has been the art of mimickry and impression. Mike Yarwood made this popular in the 1970s with his homely impersonations of Wilson and Callaghan, but just like them, what he said was always secondary to the way he said it. Yarwood eventually took to the bottle when his principal targets left the political scene, leaving him devoid of replacements. His line in political impressionism was eventually taken up by Rory Bremner (C4. Saturdays. 10.05pm and Wednesdays. 11.05pm). Bremner. who is possibly no more talented a mimic than Yarwood. succeeds where Yarwood failed through greater flexibility and better scripts. Bremner aims at much more than simply poking fun from the sidelines and consequently his show is often one of the most overtly political on television. Its mimickry is frequently blended with satire to highlight the cant and hypocrisy of the ruling elite in society. The politician/interviewer sketches involving John Bird have been particularly effective and haven’t shirked from showing up not just the insanities of the political process itself but the market system which dictates the parameters within which politicians are bound. Bremner and his supporting cast appear to have a deep antipathy towards the market economy which can only be applauded by socialists, though unsurprisingly it has already provoked the wrath of Tory politicians and sections of the tabloid press.

A more subtle approach to political comment has recently been provided by Andrew Marshall and David Renwick's new black comedy If You See God, Tell Him (BBC 1, Thursdays. 9.30pm). In this sitcom the lead character, played by Richard Briers, has suffered a freak accident which has left him with a thirty-second attention span ideal for memorizing TV adverts, but little else. Briers’s character becomes obsessed with TV advertising, organizing his life around what he has been influenced to buy, and spending his “happiest" hours attempting to get his dishes whiter than white with the latest revolutionary brand of washing-up liquid. Needless to say, the compensation money from his accident is spent within a matter of weeks and his life becomes a market-driven living nightmare in every sense.

Just like One Foot In The Grave, which emerged from the same writing stable, If You See God, Tell Him takes the particularly frustrating aspects of capitalist life and magnifies them until they emerge at the level of obsession. The humour has a somewhat sick edge to it in parts, and will not be to everybody's taste, but it sure beats the trash usually served up as an excuse for situation comedy. And it is refreshing to see a sitcom — often the most tame form of comedy — which shows a willingness to illuminate some of the inanities and insanities of the market system.

Dave Perrin

Go for a million update (1993)

Party News from the December 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our plans to contest four seats in next June’s elections to the European Parliament are well advanced. The candidates have now been chosen and we are preparing the information pack to be sent to the thousands of replies expected to the million leaflets that will be distributed by the Post Office.

The four Socialist prospective candidates are Ron Cook (Birmingham East), Jim Fleming (Glasgow), Clifford Slapper (London Central) and Brian Gardner (Lothians).

Those replying to our leaflet will be sent a socialist information pack containing a special issue of the Socialist Standard and leaflets on particular subjects as well as a personalized covering letter. This will be the main work of the campaign and will be organized at our Head Office in London. The plan is to have a team of up to twenty people working there over the election period and immediately after. If you would be available to help over this period in London (last week in May to third week in June) by opening letters, answering the phone, keying in names and addresses, and putting the information packs into envelopes, please get in touch with us.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those readers, members and sympathizers, both here and abroad, who have contributed to our Election Fund. We are well on the way to achieving our target of at least £20,000. At the time of writing (mid-November) the amount paid into or pledged to our Election Fund stood at £14,883. So we still need a further £5,000

If you want to help finance this biggest ever campaign to get Socialist ideas across and have not yet contributed you can do so by sending a cheque or postal order (made payable to the "Socialist Party of Great Britain") to Election Fund, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN.

Editorial: Collapse of the Popular Front in France (1938)

Editorial from the February 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The French Popular Front Government has gone the way of all attempts to operate capitalism according to non-capitalist rules. It came in with a great blare of trumpets and goes out silent and discredited, each faction blaming the others for the miserable finale. Yet, paradoxical as it may sound to those who do not understand the true function of Labour Governments and Popular Front Governments, it was quite a success. That function is to get capitalism out of those political storms which arise when the working class, driven too far, revolt and threaten to upset the mechanism of exploitation. The French capitalists faced such a revolt two years ago, when the fever of sit-down strikes swept France. In came a Popular Front Government led by Blum, a “Socialist," and backed by the Communist Party. It passed some reform legislation, told the workers to be good boys and wait for better conditions when the “Socialist" Government got to work, and so the trick was done—or, at least, the French ruling class think it has been done. The workers are now confused and disappointed, the employers have recovered their nerve, and the old gang of capitalism think they can safely take the reins again. Altogether, the Popular Front has been a good investment for French capitalism.

The way the Government came to an end contains a lesson for those who hold the theory that a Labour or Popular Front Government can be neutral in the class struggle and keep the ring fairly for both employers and workers. A fortnight before it collapsed the Government invoked special powers to smash the Paris transport strike. “But," the apologist will say, “it is the duty of a Labour Government to keep the public services going and not allow the public to be intimidated by either workers or employers.”

We won’t waste time examining the fallacy of that argument but turn to the way the same Government acted to the employers a fortnight later. The Government called a conference of employers' and workers' organisations to discuss economic peace. The French equivalent of the Trades Union Congress readily consented, but big business treated it with disdain, and refused to attend except on unreasonable conditions, which they knew would not be acceptable.

Did the Government then call out the armed forces, clap some big business leaders in jail, and threaten the rest with martial law? Nothing of the kind.

What the Prime Minister actually did was to make a bitter speech in which, in addition to attacking speculators, he attacked the workers for striking. (Daily Herald, January 14th, 1938.) So ended the Popular Front Government.

“But,” the apologist will again say, “if the Government were to take action against the capitalists the existing organisation of society would be endangered and public opinion would be against them.”

All very true, but what then is left of the Labour Party’s case for reforming capitalism? And what is there left to say against the Socialist argument that working class problems can only be solved by abolishing capitalism, and capitalism can only be abolished after a majority of the population have been won over to want it abolished ?

One step forward can be recorded in France. Having had experience of this sort of thing, the French workers will not be so easily roused to enthusiasm next time capitalism lets a Popular Front Government extricate it from a crisis. Capitalism masquerading as Socialism is a fruit which the French workers will find less enticing in future. It has, if we may say so, lost its bloom.

Before the new Government was finally formed, Blum tried to get a Cabinet together.

Although he long ago declared that he would in no circumstances desert his Party, as did the late J. R. MacDonald in Great Britain, Blum attempted to form a coalition of seven parties, including' parties not in the Popular Front. His statement was as follows: —

  I am attempting to form a national coalition round the Popular Front.
 This becomes in practice an attempt to associate the representatives of all the parties of the Popular Front with men who have until now belonged to the Opposition, but who are known for their attachment to democratic liberties. (Daily Telegraph, 17th January, 1938.)

The attempt failed because M. Reynaud, who was expressly invited by Blum to join the new Government as Finance Minister, and "who has held this post in the Right Wing Governments of M. Laval and M. Tardieu . . . stipulated . . . that M. Marin's Right Wing group should be included." (Daily Telegraph, January 17th, 1938.) This condition M. Blum would not accept.

It will be noticed that the idea of a National Front, including Conservatives, was being canvassed about a year ago by Thorez, leader of the French Communists, and that when the new Government asked for a vote of confidence on first presenting itself to Parliament on January 21st, the Communists (and the Conservatives) were among the 500 who placed on record their confidence in this frankly capitalist Government.

Editorial: Socialists and A.R.P. (1938)

Editorial from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist class is perhaps the most harassed property-owning class that history has produced. Problems and fears press in upon it from all sides. The individual capitalist may wake up one morning and find himself dispossessed of his ownership or of his share (part ownership) in some industrial undertaking which he never saw, of whose processes he was entirely ignorant. He might be fleeced by the sharks of his own class and nationality who are the more cunning; or his investments in some distant part of the earth might be stolen from him by the growth and expansion of some new capitalist power, like Japan in China or Italy in Abyssinia. It is very distressing—for the capitalist. The distress is the more manifest when threats to their ownership press acutely upon any one national section of the capitalist class. Socialists do not share the distress of the master class. Rather do they seize the opportunity to show that capitalism’s contradictions can only disappear in Socialism.

One persistent problem for the capitalist is to ensure the acquiescence of the working-class in the property-owning rights of its masters. But capitalist interests demand much more than that. If any national section of the capitalist class is to survive in its struggles with its competitors it must have a working class willing to defend its interests. It is the perpetual concern of the capitalist class to arouse that willingness. It is a task which inevitably brings out capitalism’s contradictions. For example, there are many thousands of workers attached to various religious organisations who are opposed to war despite the assurances of Archbishops that it has the approval of the Almighty: there are many thousands of working-class supporters of the various political parties who see through the smoke screens of pretence set up by their leaders. (The Editor of “Forward,” for example, espouses an attitude to war approximating to the Socialist position despite official Labour Party policy.) These tendencies are possibly more widely spread than before the war, 1914-18. The reason is not far to seek. Modern war brings whole populations within the area of military operations. All have to be regimented and disciplined in one vast co-ordinated military machine. It adds to the problems of the capitalist class that the conditions which more and more demand loyalty to its interests at the same time makes that loyalty difficult to ensure. Nevertheless the immediate difficulties of the capitalists are perhaps not insurmountable. Attempts are being made to canalise opposition to war into channels which are linked up with the preparation for war.

Air Raid Precautions provide an example. Here the opportunity arises for many who claim to be opposed to war to engage in an activity which does not appear to be in conflict with their opinions. The situation is on a par with the conscientious objector who would agree to certain war work on humanitarian grounds, but would object to being a soldier.

The position of the Socialist Party on the question is quite clear. We are opposed to war not on humanitarian grounds, but on the grounds that wars arise out of the struggle between competing sections of the capitalists over the question of the possession of the wealth of the world and matters relating to it. Being opposed to war on these grounds we are therefore opposed to preparation for war. Moreover, we shall express our opposition to it at every opportunity. That is not to say a Socialist will never be found taking part in the prosecution of war as a soldier or in some other form of war activity. The pressure exerted in a war-mad world where the majority were against him would perhaps be too strong for resistance in some cases. But this is no argument against the correctness of the Socialist position. Our attitude on war cannot be toned down because we happen to be in a minority or because any other attitude at any given moment appears to be more consistent with the humanitarian instincts of social beings. The Socialist attitude to war and war preparations is sound because the degree to which it became accented by the workers would to that extent make war more difficult (if not impossible) for the capitalists to pursue. It does not appear likely that workers are yet in a position to accept the Socialist position on war in any great numbers. Nor would it be reasonable to expect workers who do not accept the Socialist case against capitalism generally, to understand and accept our attitude to war. Nevertheless, that provides no grounds whatever for compromise. To water down our opposition to war in any of its aspects would be to lessen the possibilities of its more general acceptance should conditions develop favourably for it.

Editorial: Why Collective Security Will Not Work (1938)

Editorial from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The League of Nations, so happily described by Lenin as the “League of the Older and Fatter Bandits," invented the term “Collective Security." The idea was that all the nations, big and small, should bind themselves together to restrain—and, if necessary, attack—an aggressor nation. Then peace would be made safe at last. All so simple; and all so silly and deceptive. It is based on the falsehood that the desire for peace which normally characterises the masses of the population in all countries is also the motive which dominates the outlook of Governments and the sections of the ruling class behind the Governments. The two things are not the same. In a competitive world, where policies are dictated by capitalist groups accustomed to a never-ending, relentless struggle for profits, the temptation to use the threat of armed force as a means to greater profit is always present. Now and again the bluff over-reaches itself and war occurs. Those sections of the international capitalist class who have amassed the most profitable territories are bound to tempt the “younger and leaner bandits." Much the same thing operates in industrial disputes, where the promised eternal industrial peace between employers and employed is constantly broken by strikes and lock-outs (with this difference: that the employing class are always the top-dogs in the struggle, whereas sometimes the international bandits change places).

The League of Nations and “collective security” may look all right to the British and French capitalist victors, gorged with the plunder of the last war, but to the German, Italian and other not-so-glutted bandits “collective security" looks suspiciously like the century-old British ruling-class principle of never risking war on the Continent without first collecting a number of allies—some bought with cash, others with promises to share in the loot, others again just forced into it under the guns of the British Navy. Remember 1914-1918? The Secret Treaties? Russia to have Constantinople, Italy to have various territories, including—so they allege—Abyssinia.

What about Arabia?

The believers in “collective security" are always putting questions at our meetings asking us to consider what would happen if collective security were used against Italy, Germany or Japan. Well, there is nothing like concrete cases, so let us take Arabia. Last year (see May, 1938, “S.S.”) the British quietly annexed sparsely-populated but vast and strategically-important territories in Southern Arabia against the wishes of the Arabs and in defiance of pledges. This should have been the signal for a worldwide attack on aggressor Britain by all the rest of the League powers. Would all the Liberal-Labour-Tory-Communist believers in collective security have promptly rushed to arms to help the League ? Oh, no ! they were too busy denouncing the Japs, the Italians and the Germans.

The area annexed by Britain in Southern Arabia was about 100,000 square miles—just double the size of Czechoslovakia. If we could imagine the League of Nations taking action on the principle of “collective security" there would have been France more or less bound to back Britain because of the need for Britain's backing in Europe, and Italy and Germany interested solely with the view of grabbing some of the loot themselves. Against these four powers the little powers would have been helpless.

So much for collective security. What is more, how do they define “aggression" ?

If the British imperialist bandits want their German and Italian imitators to believe they are on the level they only need to make the trifling gesture of disgorging all the territories they won by past aggression and now hold by force of arms. India to begin with, then the African territories, and lots more to follow on. The Indians want independence. Shall the League rouse a world in arms to conquer it for them?

And before we leave the subject we, the working class, have a point of view. We are the victims of a brutal aggression, renewed day by day in the episodes of the class struggle. We want to be rid of our conquering aggressors, the capitalist class. Will the League of Capitalist Powers give us a hand in this good work ? No, we think they won’t.

Editorial: What of the Future? (1938)

Editorial from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have always and rightly resisted the blindly optimistic reformist view which can, against all experience, hope that things will right themselves and life become progressively better without a fundamental change in the basis of human society. That means hoping that the capitalist leopard will change its spots, and we know it will not. But the people who at one time can hope for impossible benefits from a Labour Government are the same people who, at the present time, are paralysed with fear because they believe the worst about the future of the civilised world. German expansion is on the march and in their eyes it is an avalanche which will gain power and momentum until all is destroyed. They see Germany victorious and greatly increased in population and resources, but they fail to realise the basic instability of capitalism everywhere, dependent as it always is on finding markets for its abundant products. A useful corrective is to consider the position of the victors in the last war. In 1918 Britain, France, Italy and U.S.A. had won history’s greatest struggle. They had the defeated Central Powers at their mercy, and the world at their feet. Yet within a few months British troops with steel helmets and tanks were marching in Glasgow streets to overawe striking engineers. Within a year miners, railway, iron and steel workers and many others were fighting bitterly against the employing class. After a short trade boom in 1920 the sudden oncome of depression in 1921 had forced unemployment up to a level not reached again until 1932. France was faced with similar struggles, and Italy was on the verge of civil war. Internationally the Allies were at each other’s throats over the division of the spoils.

Those who run away with the idea that there is something in the German character which explains the present aggression forget that capitalism everywhere produces its would-be aggressors. Only 40 years ago Britain was devouring the Boer Republics. As recently as 15 years ago France was represented to be the bully of Europe, and the late Arthur Henderson could get up at a Labour Party Conference and speak of war with France as a reason why Britain should not disarm. The Franco-Polish treaty was not directed against Germany, but against Russia. Another year or two may see Europe in still another capitalist grouping, brought about in answer to the present preponderance of German capitalism.

True, the Dictators have perfected a technique of terrorism which makes open resistance by their own populations seemingly impossible for all time, but history shows time and time again that as discontent becomes widespread the apparently all-powerful oppressors prove vulnerable. Bismarck, after 12 years of brutal repression of Social-Democrats and Catholics, had to admit failure, and capitalism to-day even more than half a century ago cannot fail to go on producing discontent among the workers.

The duty of Socialists is, therefore, not to give up the task as hopeless, but remember that economic forces, as well as human reason, are on our side against the brutal power of the propertied class and their agents.

Editorial: Assisting Workers Abroad (1938)

Editorial from the December 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

For a long time now working-class organisations have had a splendid tradition of helping workers in other countries in their industrial and political struggles. This has not been confined to any one country, though some workers shed their extreme isolation earlier than others. The fine way in which Continental unions rallied to give their help to British workers during the General Strike and Mines struggle of 1926 is matched by the occasions when workers in Great Britain have given money and other practical aid to their fellows abroad. One aspect of this has been the help given to refugees suffering under the dictatorships, and to Spanish workers.

Yet along with all of these activities there is a harmful side, particularly evident in Great Britain. It consists of well-intentioned but ill-informed pronouncements on any and every event in other countries, to the neglect of a proper attitude towards affairs at home or within the Empire. A case in point is the clash of nationalities in a dozen countries in Europe. Telling foreign governments what they ought to do about Jews and Czechs, Poles and Sudeten Germans, helps nobody, and gives support to the false idea that an all-round solution of the nationalities problem is practicable in a capitalist world. The clash of nationalities will never end under capitalism, because every capitalist state, when it has an object to serve, fosters the clash in order to further its own trading and imperialist ambitions. Hitler has only to point to India, Palestine, and Ireland, to convince his own working-class admirers that British workers who give expression to such views are merely acting as the tools or willing partners of British imperialism. As a German anti-Nazi told Miss Ellen Wilkinson, “the difficulty to contend with is not so much the Nazis as the belief among the [German] workers that the British and French workers are behind their governments—and particularly the British—in keeping Germany down." (Manchester Guardian, August 29th, 1938.)

In other words, the first duty of working-class organisations when they declare their abhorrence of the iniquities of foreign capitalist governments is to show clearly and unmistakably that they are opposed to their own ruling class and free from the suspicion of condoning its actions.

A more positive harm done in the international sphere is the unintentional misleading of groups of workers abroad. It is good to send resolutions of sympathy to organisations in foreign countries, but time after time the effect has been to create the impression that really decisive help could be given when this was not the case. Perhaps the most glaring instance was the impression conveyed to the Russians in 1918 and the following years, that British workers were on the verge of coming to their aid by overthrowing capitalism. Incredible as it may seem now, the Bolsheviks did literally believe that this was in large measure true.

Coming to more recent events, contact with refugees from Austria, Germany and Czechoslovakia shows that many of them feel they have been betrayed by workers in France and Britain. Receiving resolutions of sympathy and support, they translated these expressions of goodwill into concrete pledges of effective help—help which, of course, could not be given.

The fact is that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding among continental trade unionists and Social-Democrats about the power or influence of the British trade unions and Labour Party. They have thought that the latter would be able to force the British Government to give protection against the dictators. Some—in Spain, for example—have even counted on the British ruling class itself taking action on their behalf out of pure love of democracy.

All of this indicates a failure to understand the nature of capitalism—whether governed by dictators or self-styled democrats. That lack of understanding is to be found in every country, and the task of fostering an international working- class outlook and international organisation is made more difficult by ignoring it. Internationalism will only have a sure foundation to the extent to which such illusions are ruthlessly cut out. A first step is to tell foreign workers frankly that with the best will in the world the amount of practical help that can be given is strictly limited, and therefore it is necessary for them not to build great hopes on succour from abroad to make up for their own weakness.

The best help that the workers anywhere can give to their foreign comrades is to redouble their efforts to strengthen the Socialist movement in their own country and hasten the day when the workers will control social affairs.

Editorial: Claims and counter claims (1963)

Editorial from the December 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is traditional that all sides put a brave face on it at election time. Only rarely does a defeated candidate admit that he has taken a beating; it is more usual that, after a bit of smart juggling with the voting returns, he claims some sort of victory, or at least a portent of a future victory.

This is what happened at the first of the by-elections to be fought since Sir Alec Douglas-Home came to power. Luton was a sore blow for the Conservatives; after all, the voters there have, by their restricted standards, done not too badly under Tory rule. The only comfort the new Prime Minister could offer over the Luton result was that his party had suffered similar defeats at by-elections in 1958 yet had won all the seats back at the next general election.

The Labour Party had the same sort of job to do over Kinross, where Douglas-Home got a vote rather better than he probably expected. The Tories said that the result marked a new chapter in their fortunes. Mr. Wilson preferred to remind us that Kinross was a safe Tory seat anyway and to claim that Luton was the more significant result. He may well turn out to be right.

All round satisfaction, then, and all round confidence that both sides are sure to win the next general election.

But one of them, of course, has to lose. The mock confidence which politicians assume when they discuss their chances of forming the next government is nothing but a smoke screen; they all believe that to concede defeat before the count has been taken will discourage their supporters and so cost them a lot of votes. So they whistle, albeit sometimes in the dark.

Thus the merry game of claim and counter-claim goes on. And for what? During the Kinross by-election, Douglas-Home gave out what the press was pleased to call his manifesto. He intended, he said, to “ . . . regulate imports of cereals and meat to produce a steadier and more stable market.” (Kinross, of course, has a lot of farmers). He will ". . . bring our industries up to date and make our railways and roads the best in the world . . .  see that higher education is open to every boy and girl in Britain who is qualified to take advantage of it . . . speed up the rate of house building, slum clearance and modernisation . . .  continue to look after pensioners and all those in need.”

All very familiar. All very much as expected. No politician dare enter the arena without a brief case full of such promises. Political battles are largely a matter of which side can offer the most attractive sounding programme without leaving themselves open to the counter-punch line that they are irresponsibly cadging for votes.

But whichever side wins the battle, the end result is to all intents and purposes the same. The needs of capitalism itself often wipe out many of the promises and those that survive and come onto the Statute Book have little, if any, effect upon the lives of the people who have been persuaded to vote for them. Capitalism grinds on, leaving the mass of its people to be exploited by a privileged few, who do very well out of the arrangement.

The key to social progress is the level of knowledge and understanding which the masses attain. When they begin to see through the promises and the posturing of their leaders, the first gleam of hope for the better life will be on the horizon. In the meantime, there is unaltering comfort for capitalism. As long as there are results like those at Luton, Kinross, Dundee and the rest capitalism will continue; whether under a Labour or Conservative government is unimportant.

Crisis in the Car Industry (1961)

Editorial from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although the car industry has managed to make some recovery from last year’s slump, its effects are still being felt. In spite of all the optimism a few months ago it is now clear that output is not going to get back to the previous high levels for some time to come. As for exports, the outlook is not bright at all and much of the manufacturers’ former confidence about prospects has evaporated.

The pre-war seasonal sales pattern, high in the spring and summer, and low in autumn and winter, seems now to have re-established itself. There may well be further difficulties later this year, therefore, as the graph turns downwards. Nor are manufacturers reassured to hear of the various dire measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is said to have ready once the 1961 Finance Bill has become law—an increase in the purchase tax on cars is hardly likely to improve their sales prospects.

A further worry is, of course, the Common Market. If Britain stays out it means the end of any hopes to step up sales in Europe since the ever-increasing tariff against countries outside the Market will put British prices completely out of the running. If Britain goes in, the position may hardly be any better since British cars will be open to the full blast of European competition.

Even the second-hand car market is feeling the pinch. Recent large-scale hire purchase defaulting has made the finance companies jittery. Deposits have gone up and interest rates are due to follow. The result has been that many firms have gone out of business or are on the point of doing so.

The situation is hardly different elsewhere. American car production is still bumping along the bottom, with little sign of an upturn. Output in France and Italy is down. In Germany, Volkswagen is still apparently doing well, but Borgward has run into difficulties and may be forced to go out of business altogether. The tempo everywhere has slackened off compared with the hectic scramble of 18 months ago when the U.S. market in particular was wide open to the exports of the European small car manufacturers. This is the present situation. What of the future? It is certainly going to see many bitter struggles.

Like Britain, every one of the other major national producers has large-scale expansion programmes ahead. Some firms are already far advanced with their plans and almost ready to go into production —Volkswagen in Germany, Citroen in France. Fiat in Italy. Others, such as Renault in France and Lancia in Italy, have also actually started work on their big new projects and until recently, at any rate, were pushing them ahead with all speed. Further to these. Alfa-Romeo in Italy has just begun building an important new plant near Milan and Peugeot in France has recently bought a large piece of land near Mulhouse for a further factory. No doubt all these firms are wondering, like their British counterparts, whether all this projected expansion is going to be worthwhile.

At the same time, every manufacturer without exception is working hard on the production of up to date models, constantly introducing new developments in techniques and design All of them are striving continually to discover the secrets of their competitors and to go one step further. If they do not do these things they will just be left behind in the race.

The Daily Mail recently interviewed Sir Leonard Lord, the Chairman of the British Motor Corporation. One of the things they said to him was: "You are raising capacity from 750,000 to 1,000,000 cars a year. Do you think next year you will be able to sell 18,000 cars a week”? He smiled broadly, raised both his hands, and showed two sets of crossed fingers. Which, come to think of it, is a pretty apt comment on not only the car industry—but capitalism itself.

Editorial: Effective Democratic Control (1961)

Editorial from the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that the last delegates have packed their bags, we may well ask what the whole palaver of the Labour and Conservative Conferences really amounted to?

They voted for and against many resolutions. The Labour Party reversed its support for unilateralism. The Conservatives surprised the pundits by heavily voting down a resolution in favour of whipping and the birch. They, all of them, passionately argued their points of view, and seemed to take themselves very seriously. But what did their votes add up to?

After their election defeat in 1959, the Labour Party debated how much say its Conference should have in deciding policy. They searched deep into their archives, digging up a lot of contradictory pronouncements on the question. At the end of it all, the Labour leadership stated bluntly that Annual Conference decisions did not necessarily commit the Parliamentary Labour Party. In effect a future Labour government would act as the needs of the day (i.e., British Capitalism) dictated. And if this meant—as in past Labour governments—breaking Conference decisions, it would be unfortunate but necessary.

Likewise with the Conservative Party (although they have never pretended that their Annual Conference should dictate policy). On the two main issues at Brighton—the Common Market and Penal Reform—there was a possibility that the Government’s policy would be defeated (as it turned out, it was upheld). The Party leaders made it clear, anyway, beforehand that they would not be deterred by any adverse decisions.

It seems reasonable enough to expect that majority decisions of political parties, as expressed at democratically convened conferences, should decide policy. But the Labour and Conservative Parties, both upholders of Capitalism, must take other considerations into account.

Capitalism can only be run in the interest of the Capitalist class. The majority of us—the working class—suffer the brunt of the system’s evils, which only Socialism will remove. Conservative and Labour Party delegates at their conferences, full with their pet reform measures, often take no account of the basic facts of Capitalism, which contradict the intention of their proposals. Inevitably, the Party leaders faced directly with the administering of Capitalism, will ignore their own followers’ wishes.

The leaders of the Labour and Conservative Parties arc concerned with the day to day running of British Capitalism. and their supporters are living in a dream world if they imagine that their grumbles and whims will radically change the direction of Government policy.

Further, it is not possible for Capitalism, with its commercial rivalries, its diplomatic intrigues, its "defence” secrets, etc., to be administered openly, for everyone to see. Socialism in contrast will be based on common ownership and democratic control. And democracy in this context will really be effective.

Editorial: The Common Market — the Real Issue (1962)

Editorial from the January 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Common Market has become front-page news. Papers that could hardly spare it a thought a few short months ago now give it headlines. Special features set out to explain things in simple terms for “the man in the street.” On radio and TV it is the same. Even ITV did a series and got criticised for slanting the programme too heavily in favour of Britain going in.

There is plenty of such criticism, of course. Dire warnings of what will happen to us if Britain goes into the Common Market are matched by equally dreadful ones about our fate if she stays out.

We are told of other possible consequences. Of how the Government is thinking of going over to decimal currency—after hesitation on the part of its predecessors for close on a hundred and fifty years. And of the way Mr. Marples is apparently making preparations just in case we have eventually to drive on the right hand side of the road! How much keener can British capitalism’s representatives show themselves than that?

But, more seriously, why this sudden about-turn? Why, after resolutely refusing to have anything to do with the Common Market for years, is the British Government desperately trying to get in? Even in 1958, when the writing was pretty plainly on the wall, they still preferred to set up the rival firm EFTA (the Seven) rather than come to terms with the Six. They had the chance of joining then and turned it down.

Even a few months ago prominent Tory leaders were loudly proclaiming that they wouldn’t have anything to do with the Common Market. Now they have eaten their words and are almost knocking the door down in Brussels trying to get in. Why should this be?

The reason is quite simple. The Common Market has become a threat to the interests of British capitalism, too blatant and dangerous to be ignored any longer.

The Common Market has a population as great as that of the United States. It is now not only the biggest importer of raw materials in the world, it has also become the largest exporter of manufactured goods equalled only by the Americans. And even American capitalism is beginning to be worried about its encroachments upon what it has always regarded as its unassailable position —witness the sudden haste to liberalise its trade laws and the recent statements by prominent leaders that the United States may itself be compelled to apply for membership of the Common Market in time.

The reason, then, for British capitalism’s change of front is the one we should always seek when we wish to discover the motive for the really important activities of capitalist nations and their political spokesmen-the motive of harsh, real, cold economic interest.

Plain and inescapable is the fact that if British capitalism does not go into the Common Market, it is going to be left isolated in a world increasingly under the sway of the economic power of the Six. This isolation will become more and more pronounced as the Market’s internal tariffs fall and its duties on imported products increase. Eventually, if the avowed aims of the Common Market were to be achieved. British capitalism would be left high and dry. The Tory Government has, belatedly, woken to the danger and is now fighting a desperate last-minute battle to avert it.

This is the real meaning of the Common Market for British capitalism, and we have thought it of sufficient importance to justify this special issue of the Socialist Standard. It still will not amount to much space compared with the vast resources of the capitalist Press. But it will be sufficient for us to present a really adequate Socialist analysis of yet another aspect of capitalism.

Editorial: Mergers and Take-overs (1962)

Editorial from the February 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The air is thick with rumours of mergers and tales of take-over bids. The past year has seen more company amalgamations than ever before and the pace has become even hotter during recent months.

Within the space of a few weeks ICI has made overtures to Courtaulds. Mr. Gore has tried hard to take Saxone into his shoe empire, Mullard and GEC have joined up to make transistors, and there may be a technical link-up in the car industry between BMC and Rolls Royce. There have been almost daily reports of other such link-ups among firms not so well known.

The same development is going on abroad. The proposed ICI-Courtaulds link-up was a direct reaction to the recent merger of the French giant Rhone-Poulenc with another big firm Celtex which made it into one of the most powerful firms in Europe in man-made fibres. The Mullard-GEC tie-up scotched rumours that Phillips of Holland were out to take over GEC (Mullard is the British subsidiary of Phillips and presumably the new arrangement will satisfy its appetite for the time being). All over the Common Market there are amalgamations, subsidiaries being formed, pooling arrangements being made to exchange technical know-how.

It is the Common Market that has had a lot to do with quickening up this process, of course. With Britain’s application to join the Six the pressure is now hard on British industry to adapt itself more effectively to meet the challenge of European competition. British firms have been actively engaged for many months in getting footholds in Europe, setting up subsidiaries, and forming link-ups as hard as they can. Even the United States, which has been pouring money into Europe since the end of the war, has increased its activities during the past twelve months under the stimulus and threat of the Common Market.

In agriculture also the trend is towards bigger and bigger units. The day of the peasant proprietor is fast coming to an end. In Germany, France and Italy he is being deliberately eliminated. Farm holdings are being joined up into larger units, and the surplus farmers forced into the towns and industry. Even in Britain and America, where the farm population is only a fraction of the whole, the process still goes inexorably on,

The same thing is happening in the sphere of distribution. Supermarkets spread everywhere, with the bigger ones even at this early stage already beginning to swallow up their smaller brethren. We now have super supermarkets. A further recent appearance in this country has been the discount store, narrowing margins still further and squeezing the small man even harder. There may be half a dozen different names over the shoe shops in the local High Street, but if Mr. Clore’s attempted deal goes through they will all probably belong to the same firm.

Even among nations the same forces are at work The Common Market is itself the reflection in some degree of the pressures towards bigger and bigger units, the size of the new giants on the world scene—Russia, the U.S. and China.

This process of concentration is part and parcel of capitalism. Behind it lies the relentless drive for greater and still greater efficiency, and before it the all-important quest for profit. Marx saw it operating in its very earliest stages over a hundred years ago and foresaw that its effects would become more and more profound.

From the hectic pace of events today we know how right he was.

Editorial: Taxing Capital Gains (1962)

Editorial from the May 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lots of speeches have been made and articles written about the "unfairness" of stock exchange and property speculators having been able to buy shares or land or buildings, hold them for a while, and sell at a profit without paying tax on it. The people who see this as “unfair” do not think it “unfair” that the wealth the workers produce should belong to someone else.

Now the short-term speculators will have to pay tax, and we are being assured that this is a small step towards making the rich less rich and the poor less poor. Of course, it will have no such effect. America, which has for years had taxation of capital gains, has seen no lessening of the concentration of wealth. On the contrary, the inequality is as great as, or even greater than, it has ever been, and in nine years the owners of five million dollars or more have multiplied from 2,113 to about 10,000.

Wealth-ownership in Britain sheds even more light on the success of the propertied class in holding on to their own, for here, in the past 100 years, there have been many promises and campaigns to reduce inequality with no result whatever.

One of the advocates of a wealth tax, Mr. Samuel Brittan, writing in the Observer (April 8th, 1962). rejected in advance the idea of a mere capital gains tax. as one that “deserves to be laughed out of court," and stated his case for something much more drastic. He based it on what he described as the “fantastically unequal distribution of wealth” in this country, and urged that there should be a regular annual tax on accumulated wealth itself, not just on the increase of it. He pointed out how easy it would be to collect such a tax because it need be levied only on the 800,000 people who own £20.000 or more and possess between them nearly half of the total personal wealth. (He also thought that the total of personal wealth and the inequality of ownership are probably even greater than the official figures show).

Each time someone like Mr. Brittan comes along to advocate a new scheme for reducing inequality he has to explain why earlier schemes failed. Mr. Brittan recalls the death duties, which in their day were supposed to do the trick, and tells us. what is indeed common knowledge, that death duties “have become a farce." He quotes one example, the Ellerman fortune, but does not tell its interesting history.

In 1933 death duties reduced the fortune from £40 million to £18 million. By 1937 it had increased to the original £40 million and it is now reported to be about £100 million!

Other nostrums for dealing with inequality have included taxation of land values (in the Liberal Programme in 1892), supertax and surtax and taxation of company profits. There was, too, the movement for a “capital levy” after the first world war, favoured by Liberals. Tories, and the Labour Party, but dropped on grounds of administrative difficulties and probable disturbing financial effects.

If it had been imposed it would merely have been a transfer of wealth among wealthy persons, not a reduction of the wealth and income of the propertied class. And nationalisation in some muddled way was supposed by the Labour Party to have the effect of lessening inequality.

After all those years and all these “cures” capitalism exhibits just the same “two nations" that the Tory Disraeli described over a century ago.

One man who saw capitalism as it really is was the banker R. H. Brand (later Lord Brand) who in 1923, in a booklet "Why I am not a Socialist" wrote: “There has always been and there will always be inequality of wealth . . .  nothing like equality can be attained without the abolition of the whole present system of wealth, ownership and production.”

As a wealthy man who prospered under capitalism his attitude was understandable. By the same token the working class should give up following futile schemes for achieving the impossible dream of an equalitarian capitalism. Their interest lies in establishing Socialism,

Fascism and Ignorance (1962)

Editorial from the September 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again, there is a demand that the Fascists in this country should be legally banned. This demand comes most strongly from what we can loosely call the Left Wing. A legal ban was their answer to the Fascists before the last war; they are, it seems, always wanting to ban something. It is no surprise that, as soon as the Fascists come in for some unnecessary publicity, the Left turn their attention momentarily from the bomb to the Blackshirts.

It is easy to see why the Left Wing, which mistakenly regards itself as consisting of democratic socialists, is so often eager to try to ban some other organisation's ideas. They have always firmly embraced the idea of leadership, by which they mean leadership of the working class to some vaguely defined destination by some dubiously knowledgeable Left Wing politicians.

An essential of the leadership theory is the political ignorance of the unlucky people who are to be led. Leadership, in fact could not exist without blind and ignorant followers. The followers, reason the leaders, cannot be trusted to resist the temptations of race hate and totalitarianism. It is a waste of time to try to educate them. Like children who are kept away from a case of chicken-pox, the working class must be quarantined from the infection of fascist ideas.

Like any other favourite Left Wing theory, this one starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers from it. The working class do not need any more leaders to decide what ideas they may and may not come into contact with. Capitalism is full of leaders, pulling this way and that and all achieving nothing towards the solution of our problems. It is high time for the working class to wake up from their slumbers.

It is high time for them to get some knowledge of capitalism. They need to know how capitalism works. Why it breeds ugly and destructive ideas like Fascism. Why it can never solve its own problems. Why its leaders are powerless to staunch its course.

This need is as great today as ever. Racist theories, with their vicious fallacies, are as active in the world as ever. In other fields there is the same depressing story. The endless saga of the test ban negotiations drags on, with both sides making offers which are transparently insincere. The disarmament conference has dissolved again in the usual muddle and exasperation. There is an excuse for anyone who thinks that capitalism is efficient only when it is being destructive.

There are other examples of the unpleasant prospect with which capitalism faces us. Whoever climbs into leadership, and whatever ideas they may try to proscribe, will make no difference. Capitalism will keep producing the evidence of its own contradictions and inhumanities.

There is only one way of cutting through the confusion. The future of society rests in the hands of the people who make it and organise it. The working class of the world can decide whether the waste and destruction of capitalism shall continue.

At the moment ignorance is in charge and capitalism rolls on. But when the working class have woken up, when they have realised that false ideas can only be answered with knowledge, when they have decided that they do not need leaders to run their lives and their ideas for them, capitalism will stop rolling. For the working class will also have realised that Socialism is the answer to the problems of property society.