A "Simple" Cure For Industrial Trouble. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily News of Wednesday, February 27th, 1929, reports : “That the General Council of the Trade Union Congress considered the draft interim report on Unemployment which has been prepared by the Mond-Turner Conference.”

The report was adopted with a few modifications. The news goes on to say: "That the report deals with more or less palliative measures for unemployment and that more preventive measures will be covered in the final report, assuming that the Conference continues its work. It discusses the practicability of the Organisation of National Works to supplement measures, such as credit facilities, to foster a general revival in trade." The question on providing pensions at 65 was also discussed.

This appeared on page 9. On page 11 we find another report. It is headed. Psychology Removes Worries in British Workshops. Six Girls Now Do the Work of 120. Increased Output and Greater Economy.

The report is a long one, but the following extracts will suffice:—

  "The phenomenal labour saving referred to above was achieved in the design and equipment of a new safety glass works. Radical changes have been achieved in production methods and labour-saving devices have been introduced which have led to a marked reduction of manufacturing costs. Thus in the case of two connected operations six girls will now do the work which formerly required 120. Waste of material has been reduced from 18 to 5 per cent, and the new factory will be able to produce in one shift almost double the output originally specified. The scope of the National Institutes of Industrial Psychology includes, the layout of factories, the sequence of processes, the elimination of waste of effort, material, and time in production, the selection of appropriate employees, and, lastly, the greater efficiency and contentment of the employees by improved working conditions.” 

The report finishes by quoting the World's Economic Conference's opinion: 

  "That the workers should be safeguarded from temporary unemployment, resulting from this rationalisation, otherwise the movement will encounter the same opposition as befell the first attempt to introduce Taylor’s system of scientific management.”

Viewing these reports together, the thing that suggests itself is the fact that here we have two organisations, both claiming to strive for the good of the workers and yet one nullifies the effects of the other. The trade unions struggle for shorter hours and more pay and confer with the masters in an endeavour to foster trade to bring about more employment and when they have succeeded the masters employ psychologists to find out how they can do without a great percentage of the workers, leaving those still in employment more efficient, turning out as much if not more work with less waste and yet being contented with their job, keeping at bay those elements of industrial unrest which are so disturbing to the capitalist. Thus the trade unions find themselves precisely where they were, but with probably a bigger army of unemployed to deal with. Being Socialists, we realise that psychology when used simply for the benefit of mankind can be a great aid to human happiness, but in the hands of the masters, being used as a means to further exploitation, it becomes yet another burden upon the backs of the workers. The watchword of industry to-day is produce more, yet all the time the competition for the world’s markets is becoming more fierce and the markets more limited, making the disposal of the commodities less and less certain with the result that the unemployment figures increase and the different countries, in spite of peace pacts, etc., are heading straight for war. It is a time for serious reflection, fellow-workers.

Do you not find all these social remedies simply cancel each other? It is a ceaseless following of blind alleyways in which the workers get bewildered and hopeless. Unless they understand the Socialist position, they are tempted to make useless angry demonstrations and riots which can only result in loss of life or injury to our class and give the Government a chance to demonstrate their power and make an example of a few of the workers. There is only one sound policy to pursue, and that is the constant preaching of Socialism. When we have sufficient knowledge as a class, we can obtain political power. Remembering that the salvation of the workers must be the work of the workers, we must neither put our faith in the Lord, nor leaders, nor psychologists. Given the knowledge, the rest, by comparison, will be simplicity itself. Join the S.P.G.B., fellow wage slaves, and help to spread that knowledge that Socialism may come in our time, and we enjoy the fruits of our labour.

May Otway

An Echo of the Past. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

“A denouncement of young women authors who write obscene books was made by Miss Christabel Pankhurst in a speech at the Æolian Hall, Bond Street, yesterday. She said that pagan novels were much in evidence to-day, and she was grateful to the Home Secretary for the step he had taken regarding books which were not decent to read. This is not the sort of freedom for which we women fought and got the vote” (Daily Chronicle, March 7th). We do not know by what standard Miss Christabel Pankhurst judges what is decent to read, nor do we remember any special protest being made during the war by either Miss Pankhurst or the present Home Secretary when reams of literature with plentiful detail of war-time atrocities were circulated among young people in order to fan the war fever. We gave it as our opinion at the time that under normal conditions such material would probably meet with the attention of the police. Evidently what is necessary to our masters at one time shocks them at another. In view of the recent extension of the franchise to women it may be interesting to recall that the “freedom” the Suffragettes fought for was only the freedom which would enable Capitalist ladies to vote on equal terms with their property-owning males. Before the Suffragette movement the Working Class had sufficient votes to out-number the Capitalists. To-day, with the extension of the franchise as a means to stabilise present-day Society, the preponderance of working-class votes is greater than ever. Without class-consciousness, however, votes merely enable the workers to continue their enslaved condition. For women, as for men, the only hope lies in the coming of Socialism, the triumph of emancipation, without distinction of race or sex.

Mac.

Editorial: The Labour Party and Unemployment. (1929)

Editorial from the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing in the Morning Post (February 18th), Mr. Tom Shaw, M.P., Minister of Labour in the Labour Government, gave a statement of his Party’s policy with regard to unemployment.

The first point to notice is that Mr. Shaw without hesitation accepts the view that unemployment in this country is a national problem to be solved on national lines. His criticism of the captains of industry here is that they have allowed their foreign competitors to out-distance them :—

 Rationalisation, standardisation, combination, and centralisation, have made relatively more progress in other countries than our own.

Mr. Shaw blandly assumes that more rationalisation will mean less unemployment, something the very reverse of the truth. These various processes are introduced with the set purpose of securing economy in production; a greater output with the employment of fewer workers; the continual addition of surplus workers to the army of the unemployed. If Mr. Shaw does not believe this, will he show us the capitalist countries where unemployment has been permanently lessened by any or all of the means he enumerates?

Then he goes on to say that it "makes his heartache" to go into country towns and villages and see the shops " full of Danish products.” He wants British tummies lined with British butter made by British hands from the milk of British cows, reared on British grass. He does not dislike the Danes. He has to be sure a profound admiration for their success as exporters of dairy produce. The whole secret of their success “is that Denmark's farmers have adopted co-operation and scientific methods." Mr. Shaw wants British farmers to adopt the same methods and secure the same success. Beautiful; but how will this solve the unemployment problem? Denmark suffers just as much from unemployment as any other capitalist country, and when the promised greater efficiency of British farmers threatens to ruin their Danish competitors, some Danish Mr. Shaw will be telling his compatriots to adopt still more efficient methods, with the object of still further under-cutting the prices of dairy products; and so on in the manner normal to the capitalist system.

Something rotten in the State of Denmark

Mr. Shaw is careful to say that he does not hate the Danes. It is then difficult to see why he discriminates between them and other peoples also unfortunate enough not to have been born British. For although the sight of Danish eggs makes his heart ache, he goes on in the next column to say that "every effort ought to be made to develop trade to a much larger degree" with "China, India, and Russia." Does Mr. Shaw really believe that trade with China, Russia and India, or with any other country, can be developed on a one-sided basis consisting only of the export of British manufactures without corresponding imports from those countries? Why do Danish eggs make his heart ache, but not Chinese eggs? and Danish butter, but not Russian butter? When Russia buys agricultural machinery, tractors and ploughs and other means of increasing the productivity of Russian agriculture, the effect will be to throw still cheaper Russian wheat on to the British market to undercut British farmers.

Mr. Shaw also wants to develop Empire trade, and says: “We want to see . . . Canadian fruits and Canadian grain far more widely sold in our markets." And what about British fruit growers and grain growers? Is it any nicer to be ruined by Canadian competitors than by Danes. And again how will this solve the unemployment problem?

Foreign Trade and Unemployment.

Mr. Shaw makes the usual assumption that unemployment can be reduced by the development of export trade and by the development of home manufactures. Let us remind him, therefore, that in 1928 exports were greater than in 1927, and imports were less than in 1927.

The total amount of wealth produced in this country was greater, yet at the end of 1928 the numbers unemployed were 200,000 or more above the level at the end of 1927. More wealth and more exports accompanied by more unemployment!

Lastly, Mr. Shaw speaks of remedying unemployment by reducing the expenditure on armaments. What is going to happen to the thousands of men now withdrawn from the labour market for service in the forces ? What of the ship workers engaged in naval construction and the engineers employed in the manufacture of rifles, ammunition, etc.?

And, lastly, does he not recall that in 1924 the Labour Government incurred some criticism because it laid down 5 new cruisers, and that one of the reasons given by authoritative Labour Ministers for that step was the need for making employment?

Editorial: What Lloyd-George Promised In 1906. (1929)

Editorial from the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Bungler or Rogue?"

Mr. Lloyd George has made a definite pledge that if returned to power his party will “reduce the terrible figures of the workless in the course of a single year to normal proportions.” (Lloyd George’s address to Liberal candidates on March 1st, 1929.) The unemployed are to be absorbed in road and bridge work, in land drainage, telephone development, house building and other schemes, financed by means of a big loan. By “normal proportions” is meant the pre-war 4.7 per cent., “representing something over half-a-million unemployed.” (See “We Can Conquer Unemployment,” p. 6.) It is, of course, not impossible for capitalist governments to put some or all of the unemployed on camouflaged relief works and call this the abolition of unemployment. We are, therefore, much more concerned with an earlier, comprehensive, and totally unfulfilled pledge, which was given by Mr. Lloyd George in 1906. Speaking at Birmingham on October 22nd of that year, Mr. Lloyd George referred to signs of widespread unrest among the workers, and said:—

  The new movement represented a real upheaval, due to the impatience of the people of the slow progress made by existing parties, in redressing wrongs. . . . No wonder the people asked “why all this tarrying and dallying?” They said to the old political parties, “If you are in earnest you are bunglers; if you are not in earnest you are rogues! ”

What the Liberals would do in three years.

Mr. Lloyd George confessed that past “reforms” had failed to cure the evils for which they were intended as a remedy.

  Here you have been tinkering for generations with reform, and the end of it all is slums, pauperism, and great want in a land of plenty.

He then gave his definite pledge that the Liberals would achieve something material in three years or forfeit their claim to the confidence of the electorate :—

  The answer rested with the Liberals during the next three years. . . . The people had said to them “We are going to give you your chance, but it is only a chance." The whole future of the Liberal Party depended upon the practical answer they gave to the expectations of the people.

The Pledge Broken.

So much for the pledge. Now for the performance.

Speaking at Park Hall, Cardiff, on December 29th, 1911, that is five years after the giving of the pledge, Mr. Lloyd George said

 To-day you have greater poverty in the aggregate in the land than you have ever had. You have oppression of the weak by the strong. You have a more severe economic bondage than you probably ever had; for grinding labour to-day does not always guarantee sustenance or security. At any rate that condition of things was foreign to the barbaric regime of the darker ages. (Supplement to Christian Commonwealth, January 17th, 1912.)

The Futility of Reforming Capitalism

More than 20 years have passed since then. Numerous “reforms” have in those years been placed on the statute book, By Liberals, by Tories, and by the Labour Party, yet the position has become so much worse in many respects that Mr. Lloyd George can actually dazzle the eyes of thousands of working-class voters by promising to reduce unemployment to its pre-war level, that is to take us back to the condition of "normal” poverty and insecurity depicted by him in 1911.

This is capitalist "progress”; the natural fruit of Tory, Liberal, and Labour reforms of capitalism. Only Socialism will remove the causes of working-class poverty by abolishing the private ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth. You are poor, whether in work or out, whether trade is good or bad, and whether capitalism is organised in independent companies, in combines, or in the State capitalist or nationalised undertakings so beloved of the Labour Party.

You are poor because the capitalist class own and control your means of living (the land, factories, railways, etc.) and live on the wealth you produce. This is capitalism. Why not end it?

John Wheatley's Friends. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under the Labour Government, Mr. Wheatley, as Minister of Health, was responsible for a Housing Act. When he introduced the Bill in the House, Mr. Wheatley pointed out to some Conservative critics that "The proposals which I am submitting are real capitalism—an attempt to patch up, in the interests of humanity, a capitalist ordered society ” (Parliamentary Debates, June 3rd, 1924).

Mr. Wheatley’s consideration for his capitalist friends has not gone unappreciated among them. A public meeting was called by the Property Owners’ Protection Association at the Cannon Street Hotel on March 1st to protest against Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, passed by the Conservative Government. At the meeting an attack was made on Mr. Chamberlain, present Minister of Health, and Mr. E. T. Campbell, M.P., rose to protest. "I ask you,” said Mr. Campbell, "whether you prefer Mr. Chamberlain as Minister or Mr. Wheatley? ” This question, according to the Daily Telegraph (March 2nd), was greeted with cries of "Mr. Wheatley.”

A Letter From An Australian Reader. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

As we have just recently got over an election, it would be interesting to you to have a few words in connection with this important event in the lives of the Free Australian Workers.

The employing class won again or, rather, the workers here handed the political machinery over to the representatives of their masters to do with as they may. The Bruce Nationalist Government got a majority, but only with the aid of the Country Party, and although the so-called Labour Party is the largest individual party in the House, they have to take a back seat owing to the pact between the Country Party and the Nats.

As usual, during the campaign we had the old cries trotted out. The most emphasised was that of "Law and order,” which was trumpeted through all the agencies of the master class. The Nationalists accused the Labourites of wanting to subvert the constitution of the country to the "Communist-revolutionary-disloyal-bolshevik-moscovian-red” policy of the extremists, and the Labourites just as emphatically denied the charge. Just how revolutionary the Labour proposals were can be gauged by the fact that the Federal Treasurer accused the Labour Party of stealing the Nationalist’s Party’s policy, and the Labour leader, Mr. Scullin, threw the charge back in his teeth with the accusation that the Nats, had stolen Labour’s programme.

Comparing the two policies, one is hard put to it to find a great deal of difference. Of course, both are straight out for Capitalism, but each have certain little peculiarities which are probably inserted for the purpose of making a noticeable distinction for the benefit of the electors. Both parties contained the following proposals in their programmes:—

• Retention of the White Australian Policy.
• Loyalty to the British Empire.
• Industrial Peace.
• Law and Order.
• Interests of the Community.

While they are prating about the White Australian Policy, the Nationalist Federal Government is allowing Coolie Labour to discharge ships on which White Australians refused to work for reduced pay which a constitutional Arbitration Court has forced upon them. And the Coolie Labour is being protected by State Police under a Labour Government. This is the same State Government (Queensland) which dismissed 11,000 railway men because they refused to blackleg last year on the sugar workers. They also stopped the unemployment dole during the strike on the excuse that there was plenty of work on the wharves.

As far as the British Empire goes, when Bruce (Nat.) accused Scullin (Lab.) of not being loyal because he never mentioned the Empire in his political speech, Scullin replied that as he thought that everybody knew how unswerving his loyalty was, he did not think it necessary to stress the point.

As for industrial peace, what they are going to do in this regard is almost beyond comprehension. Mond will be jealous. Havelock Wilson will jump with joy when he hears how his gospel of Industrial Peace is permeating the intellectual pates of our Capitalist apologists. The Labour Party say that Bruce (Nat.) has had his chance for six years to bring about Industrial Peace but he has failed. Consequently, they ought to be given an opportunity to show just how they can do the job. All the Labour politicians gave it out that “Labour” is the only party that can usher in this Peaceful Industrial Era. And they are right, too. If they cannot quieten the workers, then nobody can. Has not Premier McCormack fought against the workers on every opportunity? He has allowed seamen to be jailed for refusing to sail in ships loaded by blacklegs. He has allowed the police to be used to protect Italian workers who, owing to their ignorance of local affairs, have been used to break strikes, and to reduce the standard of living.

During the recent water-front strike, the Victorian State so-called Labour Government allowed the police to shoot down wharf-labourers (dockers) who were kicking against reductions in wages and worsening of conditions.

Just prior to the dissolution of the last Parliament, the Nationalist Government passed an Amended Arbitration Bill. All the Labour Pollies designated the Bill as a Union-smashing medium, attacked the Government for introducing it, and held public meetings telling the workers not to submit to this dastardly piece of iniquitous legislation, etc., etc., and yet when the Waterside Workers repudiated an award given under this very Bill, they were told to get back to work by the most loud-mouthed denunciators of the Bill. But then, it is not expedient for the workers to strike at election times, as it reacts on the Labour Party or, at least, the Labourites say it does. The most flagrant betrayals of the workers of this country have taken place during election times when the slaves are told that if they do anything “It will jeopardise the Labour Party at the elections.” To this political dirge the conditions of the workers are allowed to be broken down almost without protest in many cases.

Another sop the Labour Party dished up for the workers was the Leg-puller for the Ladies, namely, Child-Endowment. This has been a great election cry for Labour for a long time now. But a few years ago the Labour Party got into Power in New South Wales, and Mr. Lang introduced this wonderful “humane” legislation. This is what their own supporters said about it in the “Australian Worker” (Sydney, 28/10/27):—

  . . . . As a matter of fact, the Family Endowment Act—for which, in its present form, the Nationalist Members in the N.S.W. Upper House are entirely responsible—is “manna from Heaven" for the employers.
  It is now common knowledge that if the N.S.W. basic wage had been increased, in accordance with the increase in the cost of living, the increase would have been 12s. per week, or approximately an addition to the wages bill of the State of something like £13,000,000. Under the Family Endowment Act the employers' contributions amount to £3,000,000 per annum—equal, as Industrial Commissioner Piddington pointed out, to an increase of 3s. per week in the basic wage.
  It is plain that, because of the adoption of Child Endowment, the employers in New South Wales have been made a present of something like £10,000,000 per annum, which they would have had to pay if the basic wage had been computed on the old basis. Industry in New South Wales can hardly be said to be unduly penalised when, as a matter of fact, the employers are actually saving £10,000,000 per annum because of the change in the method of computing wages . . .

The excuse that the Nationalist Members of the Upper House are responsible for the Bill “in its present form" is a sly get out. Prior to this, Labour Premier Lang had flooded the Upper House with Labour Members with a view to abolishing that Chamber. Unfortunately, the appointed ones were so true to Labour that they could not forsake its old policy of twist and turn, with the result that when they were appointed, they ratted on the Party and the Chamber is still in existence.

The election result has rather a "Gilbertian" touch about it. Although the Nationalists lost several seats, and Labour did not get the Governmental Benches, both parties expressed the greatest of pleasure when the number went up.

Several commercial papers were counting on Labour getting in; in fact, were hoping that Labour would do the trick with a view to getting Theodore, ex-Premier of Queensland, in a position where he would be able to use his “administrative ability" in the interests of the Australian manufacturers. Knowing his record in Queensland, they had the greatest faith in him to look after the welfare of the “community." However, they slipped, and they will have to wait another three years for Ted unless he goes the way of all (Labour) flesh, that is, into the ranks of the Nationalists.

Communist Party Contortion. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist Party at its formation opposed the Labour Party. Then for a time they supported and opposed Labour candidates in different places at the same time. Finally they gave them unqualified support everywhere. They now propose a new line of action which involves opposition to the Labour Party once again. Though claiming to oppose, they still desire to affiliate with them, but “the fight for affiliation, however, must be converted into an offensive fight against the treacherous leadership of the Labour Party ” (The Communist, April, 1928).

Apparently all would be considered well if the Communists could only become the new leaders of the old politically ignorant followers. The way these would-be revolutionaries propose to "come out" as an independent political party is to change their attitude towards the Labour Party and Labour Government, by replacing the slogan of “Labour Government” by the slogan of “Revolutionary Workers’ Government.” This drastic change need not alarm their vote-catching competitors, the Labour Party, because "in some districts active support to Labourites, who pledge themselves to vote for the elementary demands of the Working Class and accepting the Communist Party into the Labour Party is admissible.” (Ibid.)

Needless to say, these pledges, and more if necessary, will be given to such political simpletons if the votes are forthcoming. The Labourites know how to outdo even the Liberals at that game, because the Daily Herald (March 4th) tells us that the Lloyd George gamble for votes "is a good programme as far as it goes. There is not an item in it to which the next Labour Government is not committed.” Add to that some of the Communists’ very elementary demands, which include Land Nationalisation and the Abolition of the Monarchy, and we get some idea of what “revolutionary” means to a Communist. Those who do seek to revolutionise society, and not to reform and patch it, will not be misled by Communist clamour. Such aspirants to Leadership must, like their Labour brethren, trim their sails in order to cater for the muddle-headed discontents who are looking around for a party that appears to them to offer most in exchange for their votes. Only voters with Socialist knowledge know that it is not Parliament as such that can achieve their objective, but a Parliament that contains representatives of an organised working class outside it. We do not expect the capitalists to surrender unless faced with an organised working class in control of political machinery, nor do we imagine for a moment that such an experienced class will be disturbed by any intellectual (!) minority with a following fed on silly slogans and chatter about “disarming the Bourgeoise."

The political control that the working class will acquire as a result of Socialist knowledge, including control of the armed forces, will be acquired only when they gain such knowledge, and, therefore, cease to support capitalist agents. There will then be no power available for use by the master class that could prevent an organised majority of workers from using the present political machinery to establish Socialism.

Mac

A Curious "Class" War. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

As an insight into the minds of the people to whom it is necessary to direct propaganda, surely there has been nothing better for some time than a little incident just lately reported in the Daily News and which they describe as a cruel hoax upon 10,000 hungry ex-Service men.

In the issue of that paper dated January 9th the report is made of a rumour which was spread in regard to the proposed Ford factory at Dagenham and, according to which, a contingent of 400 miners were being brought to Romford with the object of work associated with this factory being given to them. The report continued that the unemployed ex-Service men in the district accepted the rumour as true and that in consequence 500 of them went to the neighbourhood of the proposed factory to offer resistance, by force if necessary, to what they regarded as an unfair measure and so as to obtain for themselves all such temporary jobs as there might be available.

The point to be noted is that one section of the working class was prepared, if necessary, to use violent methods in order to coerce a number of other workers suffering from the direst poverty—possibly in a sorrier plight than they themselves were in —to take no advantage from this possibility of a job. An intention by one section of workers, we may say, to fight another section in order to get a job—the only thing all workers now live for.

What a sad reflection it induces as to the state of their minds. Or, rather, what a reflection upon the means used to produce that state of mind.

Communists imagine that, by some method that they alone understand but which they are entirely incapable of explaining, that they are going to lead such a divided rabble against all the powerful, devastating and horror-producing means of destruction that the capitalists know so well how to use, in an attempt to overthrow the capitalist class.

Just imagine the case of these ex-Service men. Having been willing to make every possible sacrifice for "their” country and that glorious Empire upon which the sun never rises, they come home to this country of “theirs” and in which their permission to live is conceded by the luxurious provision of a dole or a pension, and are willing to fight men by whose side they fought in the War in an attempt to secure a job which it is certain would only be temporary from a firm owned by those “hated foreigners" who have brought the art of exploitation to the highest pitch of efficiency.

The Press and capitalist parties, the school histories, religion, etc., we know, are responsible, as we also know who foster the "education" supplied through these agencies.

There is only one conclusion: the nature of capitalism and the remorseless and ruthlessly brutal nature of the pirates who exploit them will have to be brought home in a very clear manner to a very large number of workers before a Socialist society becomes a nearer possibility.

Miners, ex-Service men and others: Wake up!

G. M. A.

A Foggy Knight on Socialism. (1929)

From the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Through a twenty-four page article in a 3/6 monthly (“Fortnightly Review,” February and March issues), Sir Reginald Mitchell-Banks, M.P, asserts, warns, and re-asserts regarding what he terms ”The shifting sands of Socialism.” The amount of Socialist criticism his contribution contains may be estimated by the fact that he merely concerns himself with the vague definitions given by such enemies of Socialism as Philip Snowden, Sydney Webb and Bernard Shaw.

By this method he avoids the task of having to meet scientific generalisations and provable theories. By assuming that Nationalisation, Municipalisation and other forms of Capitalist development are Socialism, Sir Mitchell reaches the conclusions he wishes to arrive at. This question-begging method makes it easy then to attribute Capitalistically-produced evils to Socialism. It can then be shown that where Socialism has been ”experimented with” that ”not one success has been recorded.”

In fairness to our critic, we will allow that he states: ”All I can do is to indicate what I believe to be the essential points in the Socialist case.” We then see how convenient is such a proviso. Sir Mitchell claims that: "Socialism is based on the ground that Capitalism has failed to provide a decent standard of life for the mass of the people.” What is "decent” we are not told, but we may add that Capitalism is the Capitalists’ own system, and presupposes a working-class who are content to provide their masters with luxury and comfort while accepting a slave’s portion themselves. That Capitalism has failed to provide a "decent standard” for the mass, our critic says is "demonstrably contrary to facts.”

On the very next page we are told that this same Capitalism has "found colossal annual sums for assistance of children, the aged, the sick and the unemployed,” and a few lines further on that there is no evidence to prove that Socialism will abolish the evils which he now tells us "admittedly still exist.” Of course, Russia has to be touched on because "there you may see Socialism of the Marxian type in being, and it is beyond doubt a failure.” Same method of unsupported assertion, same want of evidence that it is Socialism. Instead, we get another contradiction, for we learn that: "Wherever you discern a ray of light it is produced by a resumption of Capitalist methods.” This is a novel method of making your case good, for we are to believe that there are two social systems in existence in Russia. Where Sir Mitchell sees in Russia what he terms failure, it is labelled "Marxism in being," and where he sees "rays of light" (presumably wages, trade, profit) they are produced by Capitalist methods. Very convenient ! We claim, and have supplied evidence in the past, that Capitalism is the system in vogue in Russia at present. Social systems cannot be tried one day and abandoned the next in the fantastic manner inferred. All the material, economic and intellectual, for the establishment of a new system of society is generated in the system that precedes it. Advanced Capitalist countries have developed the necessary industrial technique, but the intellectual material for the establishment of Socialism, a Socialist majority of workers, has yet to be generated in these countries. This is more so in economically and politically backward Russia, where the majority are peasants and large scale social production, the basis for Socialism, has still to be developed.

Sir Mitchell’s article is a wind-beating onslaught upon a "Socialism" of his own making. His attempted criticism makes one wonder why members of the Capitalist class are not wise enough to leave such tasks to their hired journalists. They, at least, would hardly exhibit such mental poverty as is contained in the following statement, made without a scrap of evidence to support it: "Nothing worth mentioning is left of Marx as an economist or as a prophet. It seems his speciality was being wrong.” The best answer to this is to advise readers to study for themselves the correctness of an analysis of Capitalist conditions and tendencies that has stood the onslaughts of the paid professors of the Universities for over half-a-century. Sir Reginald Mitchell Banks, M.P., may be considered a great man in Capitalist circles, but his entry into the field as a critic of Socialism reminds us that pygmies remain pygmies, even though perched on stilts.

Mac.

Our First Prospective Candidate For Parliament. (1929)

Party News from the April 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

At a member of the Battersea Branch, Comrade Barker, of the Tooting Branch, was adopted as prospective candidate of the Socialist Party of Great Britain for Battersea.

It now remains for those who desire to see our candidate go to the polls to give practical effect to their wishes by swelling the Parliamentary Fund to the required dimensions.

As we pointed out originally, our candidate will go to the poll if we are provided with sufficient funds to carry the business through.

Kings and Cabbages (1969)

From the July 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

The British monarchy, which in theory is divine, eternal, and immutable, has changed as much as many other institutions of privileged society. Today, the royal family is a pretty bloodless lot, and no matter how much the Duke of Edinburgh may play for the headlines with cheeky, irascible turns of phrase, they know their place — and keep it.

This was not always so. The Prince Regent was active in the political battles and intrigues of his day and did his best to hasten his own ascension by aggravating his father’s illness. But a monarch actively involved had to take the consequences and the London mob was not slow to show its disapproval of the man who became George IV.

Victoria also was more than inclined to meddle. She tried to obstruct Liberal policy after the 1880 election and conspired against Gladstone’s government of 1886. She condemned the cause of female suffrage as a ‘mad, wicked folly’. But she was sustained by the propaganda which represented her as the embodiment of the growing wealth and power of the capitalist class of Victorian Britain. Workers endured their miseries, children starved, soldiers died, praying for long life for the queen. This did much to refurbish the image of the monarchy, and to re-establish it as a propaganda weapon of the ruling class.

Even so, Victoria came in for some criticism when, after her husband’s death, she withdrew from wholehearted devotion to her job. When her son, Edward VII, came to the throne the monarchy became associated with the dubious activities of high society — gambling, overeating, and of course the prodigious sexual adventures of the king himself who, despite this hectic existence, was lovingly known among the slum-dwelling proletariat as 'Teddy’. The reign of Edward VII did little to improve the stability of the monarchy.

The ruling class were clearly determined that there was to be no more of this and when George V succeeded he did so as a ‘constitutional monarch—in other words, one who did as he was told. It is true that he was drawn into the fringes of the bitter struggle between Lloyd George and the 1914-18 generals but George V never committed himself and certainly did not try, once the politicians had won, to jeopardise their victory. As a whole his reign made the monarchy more secure; and this at a time during which, in other parts of the world, five emperors, eight kings, and eighteen minor dynasties disappeared.

Reluctant hero 
George V had little talent or ability (left wingers used to call him George the Fish) and the fact that he unwaveringly trod the ‘constitutional’ path was enough for this arid man to be written into British history as a ‘good’ king. His son, Edward VIII, conformed to the same requirements and emphasised the fact that the capitalist class virtually employed the monarch as their figurehead and super salesman, when he was dismissed from the job because he wanted to choose his wife for himself.

The Abdication might have been a serious blow to the royal institution and this was the signal for the public relations boys to go to work. The unfortunate subject of their labours was George VI, who seemed to be a shy, awkward, and nervous, but likeable, fellow and who was certainly a reluctant hero. This delicate man had to work hard to plug the holes in the dyke and his employers made sure they got their money's worth, subjecting him to extremities of working conditions which would have provoked the most moderate trade unionist into an immediate strike. When the press prostitutes wrote that the strain of being king killed George VI, they were probably, for once, telling the truth.

Elizabeth II has followed the same well trodden path as her father. Indeed, so colourless has been her devotion to the job that men like Malcolm Muggeridge and John Carigg (when he was Lord Altrincham), who cannot be described as fiery revolutionaries, were once moved to protest at the regularly inane platitudes of her speeches. But this, of course, is what she is paid for; a special Coronation issue of the Economist, published on May 30, 1953, made the point, delicately but firmly, when it said:

  If, in the person of Elizabeth II, Her Majesty is more majestic than in the person of the great Victoria, it is because she seeks to rule only in the hearts of her people.

As any reader of the daily press knows, the Duke of Edinburgh has done his best to have the best of both worlds. Naturally it is perfectly permissible for him, in his capacity of chief export salesman for British capitalism, to criticise British export techniques and to tell businessmen to get their fingers out (how they laughed at that during the tea-breaks in the factories and typing pools!). It is even more acceptable for him to be rude about strikers and importunate students.

But even the Duke must not overstep the boundaries of his job and Philip has run into serious trouble over his attitude to the press. At one time he kept up a continuous campaign against newspapermen, covering the range from publicly saying that the Daily Express was a 'bloody awful’ paper to the childish prank of turning on a lawn sprinkler at the Chelsea Flower Show and soaking some nearby reporters.

The press does not normally take this kind of treatment lying down. The Daily Mirror rounded off its efforts in the Profumo affair with its famous front page denial of the rumour that the Duke had been another of Christine Keeler’s customers — a denial which was obviously intended to add strength to the rumour. About the same time the Sunday Express published a remarkable middle-page article which attacked Philip for his statements about the press and on other issues. The article ended by telling the Duke to lay off and warning him that if he did not the Express had some nasty facts to reveal about him.

Since then the publicity about the royal family, which has sometimes plumbed the deepest depths of monotonous stupidity, has fallen off. The comparatively low cost of Prince Charles’s investiture — £200,000 — continues the trend although it is probable that, after the investiture, we are in for another increase in publicity, with almost every newspaper and magazine competing for the silliest story about the prince’s good looks, wisdom, grace, athletic ability, courage, erudition, wit, artistry, generosity, modesty . . .

Riddled with lies

One thing which is certain is that when Charles comes to the throne we shall get a lot of nonsense about Charles I and II, all of it riddled with lies about the Stuarts being a lot of dashing cavaliers whose reigns were notable as a rollicking merry time for people of England. It is astonishing, how even the more sober organs of capitalist opinion dish out this kind of tripe — that same coronation issue of the Economist, for example, came out with this drool about Elizabeth II:

  Queens have been lucky for this country. and young queens especially. By name, Her. Majesty recalls the magical springtime of Elizabeth 1. But the parallel is closer— and equally happy—with Victoria, and either augury gives ample reason to salute Quern Elizabeth II with high hearts and hopes.

It does not need an elephantine memory to recall the super-crises and the disastrous (from the Economist's point of view) decline in the fortunes of British capitalism which have marked the years since Elizabeth II became queen. And it does not need any great powers of reasoning to conclude from this, that the personality who happens to be on the throne at any one time does not influence the course of events of capitalism.

To many people, this is a clinching argument in favour of a republic. If a monarch does nothing, they argue, if he has no influence over events, wouldn’t it be better to abolish the institution and replace it with a president who would at least be an active and participating politician? There might be something to be said for this argument were it not for the fact that presidents, too, are impotent in face of capitalism’s anarchies; they also react to events with the additional unfortunate (for them) result that all too often they lose their job if they react in the wrong way or the events are too fierce.

In truth, republics are no more stable, no more prosperous, no more controlled, than monarchies. The lives of workers in republics, like France and America, are generally the same as those of workers in monarchies like Britain and the Scandinavian countries — and any differences are not caused by the differing constitutions. Republics need have no less flummery and ceremony than monarchies and their state occasions can cost as much (as if that matters) as any coronation or royal investiture.

Working class problems are not caused by the existence of an aristocracy but by the private property society which might need an aristocrat as a ceremonial figurehead. Workers should remember this, if they decide (as they should) that they have no cause to wave a flag for their kings, queens, and princes (although they might go along to boggle at the stupefying grandeur of it all). But it is important that they should abstain for the right reasons, and see clearly that the cause of their poverty and exploitation is not to be found in palaces. To put it another way, until the working class stop acting like cabbages we shall continue to have, in one form or another, our kings.

Ivan

Scotch Mist (1969)

From the July 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Scotland today it’s true that there is a struggle – as there is in England, Wales, Ireland, or rest of the world for that matter. But the struggle in Scotland is not, as the Scottish National Party would have us believe, the struggle for home rule, self-government, self-determination, or self anything. The struggle in Scotland, as in the rest of the world, is a class struggle: the struggle between the working class and the capitalist or owning class.

The SNP tell us, the workers, that independence from England and the control of our own purse strings will cure all our problems. What they do not seem to realise is that the problems they are going to try to solve are an integral part of the capitalist system, and history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that within this system there is no satisfactory solution to these problems apart from Socialism.

The SNP talk about the Scottish culture and the Scottish way of life. But in what way is the life of a Scottish wage slave basically different from that of an English, an American, or for that matter a Russian wage slave? There is no basic difference in the way of life of the world’s working class because we all suffer from the same problems such as poverty and insecurity. Independence from England will not cure the poverty and insecurity of the Scottish workers, because they will still be the wages labour and capital relationship.

There is no truly independent country in the world, because international capitalism has made sure of this, and our own experience here in Britain, especially since 1964, should have brought it home to us. The past few years should have shown us just how independent Britain is, when foreign “bankers” tell the British government how to spend money, and how it must not spend money, in order to keep the international capitalist class happy.

Class Struggle
Independence for Scotland therefore is a myth put about by the Scottish National Party, which further confuses the Scottish section of the working class and blinds them from the real struggle – the class struggle.

The outcome of the class struggle is the abolition of capitalism and an end to poverty, insecurity and the ever-present threat of war.

Socialism is a sane society, where the means of life will be owned in common by the whole of the world socialist community. By the means of life we mean the land, mines, factories, railways, and the like – in short, the means of production and distribution. In Socialism the rule of life will be : from each according to his or her ability, to each to according to his or her need. There will be no need for buying and selling, just a free world for a free people. It could be like that now, so why not do something about it ? The world is ours for the taking. So why not take it ?

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE FOR SOCIALISM!

James Moir

Capitalism is Everywhere (1969)

From the July 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since 1917 the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been trying to combat the worldwide impression that the Russian Revolution was a socialist revolution and not a capitalist one. It was not sufficient that Lenin understood the concept of Socialism. A predominating peasant population could not understand it and even if they could have done, the underdeveloped nature of the economy would have proved an impassable barrier. All Lenin could do when the Communist Party came to power in Russia was to hasten the birth of capitalism; make the big private capitalist illegal and establish government control of industry. He called it state capitalism and this is what it was.

A decade later Mao led his peasant army against the Kuomintang who were backed by the powerful landowners. The 20-year civil war culminated in 1949 in victory for Mao and the Communist Party. The Chinese People’s Republic was inaugurated. It was another victory for the Communist Party and the birth of another state capitalist régime. Mao, like Lenin, did not accept that the socialist revolution must be one of class-conscious wage-workers who knew what capitalism was all about and wanted Socialism.

What makes us so certain that these countries are capitalist and not socialist? The presence of an economically exploiting class is not always easy to discern. What is plain for all to observe is the wages system and the buying and selling of commodities; essential features of capitalism and definite pointers to the existence of an exploiting and governing class, who own the means by which all live.

The wages contract safeguards this ownership by ensuring that the workers remain — as they have always been — propertyless, and that they are paid only the equivalent (in wages) of the labour it takes them to reproduce their own energies and support their families.

The workers’ labour power, or energy, produces a value greater than itself, i.e. more labour (work done) for which no equivalent is paid. In the selling of commodities, the unpaid labour is realised as a sum of money (profit) and is appropriated by the privileged class.

In the Western world, the profit is shared out among investors, bankers, landlords, and sometimes small owner-employers.

In the countries ruled by the Communist Party, surplus value is appropriated as we have just described with reference to the West, but the ’face' of things is different. Instead of nationalisation of just a few industries as in this country, all industry is government owned and controlled. The ‘share-out’ is among Communist Party and government officials who appropriate profit in the form of their own bloated ‘salaries’ or bonuses.

There are signs that private investment does take place, but if we lived in Russia we should call it 'fiddling’ for it is not legal and there is no stock exchange. The legal right of the Russian ruling class to appropriate surplus value is a collective right. This ‘right’ ceases if they resign from their administrative work.

J. MCL

Blogger's Note

From the November 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russian Capitalism: A Correction

On page 107 of the July Socialist Standard we stated:

There are signs that private investment does take place, but if we lived in Russia we should call it ‘fiddling’ for it is not legal and there is no stock exchange. The legal right of the Russian ruling class to appropriate surplus value is a collective right. This ‘right’ ceases if they resign from their administrative work.

Some of these statements are not strictly true and we now correct them. Certain forms of private investment, such as bank accounts, are not illegal in Russia. Nor does the monopoly the Russian rulers exercise over the means of production have formal legal backing. It is a de facto monopoly resting on their control of state power. Finally, members of the Russian ruling class do not of course resign, though they may be cut off from getting their share of the exploitation of the Russian workers through losing their job in a purge.

Editorial Committee

Letter: What about Cuba? (1969)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir,

I would be very interested to know the SPGB policy on Cuba, China and the USSR. Conceptions like the abolition of wages which the SPGB advocates are beginning to take place in Cuba. I can understand that the SPGB have a very good case for saying that the USSR is a state capitalist society, but the problem seems much less clear on Cuba or China.

Do the SPGB imagine that socialism could possibly be achieved without force in Cuba to create a social democracy if not a socialist society.*

C. D. E. Meesom 

Oundle

Reply:

Why does Mr Meesom think “that the SPGB have a very good case for saying that the USSR is a state capitalist society”? From the earliest days of Bolshevik power the Socialist Party argued that only capitalism could emerge there and since the late 1920s we have applied the state capitalist label to Russia. Over the years more and more people have come to accept this but many have done so without fully understanding how capitalism works. Thus we now have Maoist groups referring to the ‘red bourgeoisie’ in the Kremlin and attempting to prove that Russia must be capitalist by the foreign policy it pursues. Similarly there are groups of dissident Bolsheviks who identify the consolidation of capitalism in Russia with Stalin’s triumph over Trotsky and the other opposition forces. But although Russia does, of course, pursue a capitalist foreign policy and although Stalin was instrumental in industrialising the Soviet Union on a state capitalist basis, these are not the basic reasons why Russia must be a capitalist country (and why China and Cuba must be as well).

Because of the way in which the capitalist system works, the ruling class of any country is not a free agent but is subject to certain pressures which act on it remorselessly. It must compete with rival ruling groups for markets and supplies of raw materials and, such is the pace of industrial innovation in the modem world, it must continually accumulate capital — and at an ever-increasing rate. When Marx produced his analysis of 19th-century British capitalism in Capital he noticed how this affected individual factory owners:

  . . . the development of capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot except by means of progressive accumulation. (Capital, Vol. I. Moscow, 1961. p592).

Today these same pressures can best be seen acting on whole industries and on entire national capitals, since capitalist development has virtually eliminated the individual factory owner of Marx's day. Faced with this inescapable need to accumulate capital, the rulers of any country have only one way in which they can act — just like the 19th-century mine master or steel lord they must attempt to increase the amount of surplus value they are wringing out of the working class. So, to take the most obvious example, the pressures of world capitalism acting on Mao and these Chinese leadership are forcing them to develop a modern industrial base (which involves a nuclear weapons programme) just as a generation earlier Stalin had to set his sights on 'catching up with America’. And the development of steel plants, power stations, and nuclear weapons in China is being paid for, as always, in working-class misery.

If we turn to Cuba, it would be a simple matter to point to various features of that island which prove that it cannot be socialist. We could refer to the opponents of the regime in jail (anarchists, trotskyists, even out-of-favour members of the ruling party such as Escalante), to the semi-Stalinist attitude of the authorities towards Cuban artists, to Castro's support for the invasion of Czechoslovakia. But what really proves Cuba state capitalist again is the way its economy works. The aim is to build up industry and to mechanise agriculture and this is being achieved by screwing down the working class (not in an absolute sense — the workers are better educated, probably healthier than under Batista — but in a relative sense, by extracting more surplus value from them). As Che Guevara put it: "The working class is not putting forth its full effort".

As for utopian experiments such as the 'Island of Youth’ (formerly the Island of Pines) where only low wages are being paid and such things as food and housing are supplied free we have already dealt with these in an earlier Socialist Standard (December 1968). As we said then, "the Island of Pines must be seen within the context of the overall state capitalist economy".

Finally, Mr. Meesom asks if we think Socialism can be established 'without force’. The Socialist Party has always held that political power should be used to establish Socialism. In other words the state machine, which is the public power of coercion, will be used to force the capitalists to give up their privileges and hand over their wealth to the community. Whether or not this use of political power will involve actual physical violence — the setting in motion of the armed forces, the firing of guns and the killing of people — will depend entirely on the reaction of any pro-capitalist minority at the time of the socialist victory at the polls.

We think it unlikely that, faced with a determined socialist majority in control of political power, a small pro-capitalist minority would be so foolish as to take up arms to prevent the establishment of Socialism. But if a violent minority tried to prevent the implementation of a democratically expressed will for Socialism, then the socialist majority would have to use violence against them. As the old Chartist and socialist slogan put it: "Peaceably if we may; forcibly if we must”.

Editorial Committee

* We reproduce Mr. Meesom's letter exactly as he wrote it. We would say that only socialism will be a social democracy.

Letter: Myths, Equality and Race (1969)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sirs,

I have recently become acquainted with the facts of race. As I believe that you are honest men at heart I feel sure that you will be able to peruse (and take action upon) the enclosed document in the spirit of scientific investigation and its strict regard for truth. I am sure you will agree that the facts presented in this document make nonsense of the egalitarian myths propounded in Socialist dogma.

David J. Hidson,

London SW7

Reply:

The document Mr Hidson encloses is a leaflet issued by the National Front, headed ‘Are You a Multi-Racialist?’ which discusses a recent article in the Harvard Educational Review by Dr Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist. On the back, under the irrelevant and misleading title ‘Human Progress and the Race Problem' is a photocopy of an article, Negro IQ Handicap’, on the same subject from the Sunday Telegraph of March 23, 1969.

Socialists have never said that all men are equal, in the sense of having the same abilities and the same needs. Far from it; we have always recognised that each individual human being has different abilities and needs, a point summed up in the old socialist slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

The NF leaflet asks if we think that ‘‘children of all races possess the same potential at birth”. First, let us have a look at ‘the facts of race’.

The word race is a technical word in the science of biology (Dr Jensen, an educacational psychologist, avoids the word and uses ‘group’ instead, judging by newspaper reports). It refers to a sub-species, a subordinate division of a species. For instance, homo sapiens is a species so the various races of mankind would be its sub-species. Biologists have never been able to agree on how many races there are, and indeed never will, since where you draw the line will always be a matter of convenience and argument. Some argue that mankind is so mixed that it is not worth trying to draw any lines and that the concept of race has no use in the study of mankind. Of course there are recognisable differences in physical and mental characteristics between individual human beings and these can be the subject of scientific investigation and classification. Whether biologists use the word race or not here is not our concern as socialists. That is up to them and we would not presume to tell them what to do in their own subject.

The word race is also used outside biology as a political term. On this we do have something to say. Sometimes it is used as a synonym for nation (another vague concept), language group, those who share a common tradition, those with the same range of skin colour. Even in otherwise careful books and journals you can read about ‘the Celtic races' (language) or the black race’ (skin colour). This causes no end of confusion. So we say the word should be banished from political discussion and confined, if used at all, to a specialist term in biology.

We can now return to the NFs question: Do we think that "children of all races possess the same potential at birth”? This is meaningless, but can be boiled down to two questions:

Do we think that all children possess the same potential at birth? Not necessarily.

Do we think an individual child’s ‘race' is a guide to his or her potential? No, nor does Dr Jensen.

Given the fact that human beings are not the same or of equal ability, it is a valid line of scientific research to see if there is any correlation between the inequality of intellectual skills and some physical characteristic like skin colour.

We have not yet read Dr Jensen’s article and so have had to rely on newspaper reports. But we will take his word for it that so-called IQ tests carried out on groups of the American population labelled ‘Negroes’ and ‘Whites’ consistently show that on average Negroes do worse than whites. So what? All that shows is that the group called Negroes on average do worse in IQ tests than the group called Whites. That is the only fact, Mr Hidson. The real question is why. Dr Jensen’s hypothesis that “genetic factors are responsible for low intelligence among Negroes” has every right to be considered. Mr Hidson seems to forget that a hypothesis (“a position assumed for the purpose of argument”) in science is not the same as an established fact. Dr Jensen’s hypothesis, or any other one for that matter, cannot yet be proved. For, although it is known that genes govern inherited characteristics and although genes governing some physical characteristics have been identified, biology has not yet discovered the genes governing intellectual skills (if there are any). Research into this is only in its earliest stages and certainly it would be premature now to say that there is an established link between genes governing intelligence and genes governing skin colour.

Anyway, this is not what Dr Jensen is saying. From a biological point of view, the American Negroes are a mixed group descended from slaves imported from North and West Africa, from immigrants from various parts of Europe, and from the original inhabitants of America. Their skin colour varies from white to dark black and Dr Jensen has not suggested that the lighter your skin the more able you are to do IQ tests. He has only said that ‘genetic factors’ are involved. Where they came from (perhaps from the Whites!) if they are is another question altogether.

So the American Negroes are not a biological race. The White/Negro division of America’s population is a political division which has nothing to do with genes or biology. And it is not a very meaningful one at that. What, for instance, is the logic of saying that anyone with an identifiable Negro ancestor is a Negro instead of that anyone with a White ancestor is a White? This is an important point, because when you are dealing with averages your results depend partly on the groups you are comparing. Say the political definition of a White had been ‘anyone with a White ancestor’. Then the groups that were compared would be different. So would the results but the individual scores would still be the same.

Dr Jensen has proceeded on the basis of the existing non-biological division of the American population. His results show that on average Whites do better than Negroes. They did not show that all Whites do better than all Negroes. This is why it is impossible to say how an individual White or Negro will do. As Dr Jensen himself pointed out:

  Since, as far as we know, the full range of human talents is represented in all the major races of man and in all socio-economic levels, it is unjust to allow the mere fact of an individual’s racial or social background to affect the treatment accorded to him. (quoted in the Financial Times, April 16).

Another passage (which oddly enough appears on an NF leaflet) from his article, however, goes further than this:

  If a society completely believed and practised the ideal of. treating every person as an individual it would be hard to see why there should be any problem about ‘race’ (quoted Sunday Telegraph, March 23).

Precisely. This is the socialist case on race. Treat human beings as individuals and work for a society where the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” prevails.

Three final points:

Even if science were to establish (which it is nowhere near doing yet) a correlation between intellectual ability and some physical characteristic, that would not alter the socialist case in the least. A world community, without frontiers, based on common property and production solely for use, would still be the solution to working-class problems. The case for Socialism has never rested on the absurd proposition that all men are the same, physically and intellectually.

What relevance have the results of Dr Jensen's IQ tests to the NF policy of ‘Keep Britain White’ and ‘Send Them Home’? Very few immigrants to Britain are American Negroes, the specific group about which Dr Jensen makes his hypothesis. What evidence have the NF for saying that what might be true of the American Negroes is true of other ‘non-whites’? Dr Jensen does not suggest any correlation between intelligence and skin colour. That is something the NF seems to have mistakenly read into his findings.

The word equal has a double meaning— the same and not inferior or superior to. Because people are different does not necessarily mean that they are inferior or superior. Yet this simple error is often made. To talk about inferior/superior is to erect some standard against which people can be judged, a standard that is manmade and outside biology and genetics. Are those who fare badly on IQ tests of less worth than those who fare well? If this is what the NF or Mr Hidson are saying, let them say it. We answer that every human being, whatever his abilities, is of equal worth and should have an equal say in the running of human affairs. That is the equality socialists stand for. Nothing in Mr Hidson’s letter or the NF leaflet makes nonsense of it.

Editorial Committee