Capital (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capital is money invested for the purpose of profit. A glance at any of the company prospectuses that figure so often in the papers is convincing evidence of this. Whenever a new company commences business, or an old one proposes extending its business, an appeal is made for capital—money from investors. To obtain this money the company issues a prospectus in which figures are given with the object of proving to the prospective investor that dividends will be good and dependable.

An illustration may make the position plainer.

In the Evening News one day there appeared a notice on behalf of Parkinson & Cowan, Ltd. According to it the company offered for subscription 150,000 ordinary shares of £l each at 25s. per share. Underneath this came the statement: “The company has in every year since its incorporation in 1900 paid a dividend on its ordinary share capital; these dividends have averaged over 8¾ per cent. per annum for the whole period of thirty years.” Then followed a list of profits and dividends, showing that from 1927 to 1930 dividends of 10 per cent. were paid each year. The last paragraph gave the reason for the issue: —

“There is a continued and growing demand for gas and electricity for heating, lighting, cooking and other domestic purposes, and the directors anticipate further expansion of the company’s business.”

It will be seen that the company proposed extending its business, and for this purpose called for further capital, assuring the investing people that the company was making good and regular profits, and consequently regular dividends were assured. Dividends, of course, come out of, and depend upon, profits. What profits come out of, we will see in a moment.

The bulk of the production and distribution of wealth to-day in this country is carried on by companies that obtained their capital for starting operations, and later, for extending their operations, by the method illustrated above.

The capital obtained is spent on plant, machinery, raw materials and labour, and the business begins to take shape.The capitalist who invests may be in England, France, Germany or Africa. American capitalists invest in England; English capitalists invest in America. When it suits them, American groups cry that “Capital is going abroad”; and groups in Japan, Germany and England do likewise, because capital is international—it knows no country as its own. It is always going abroad and coming home.

The capitalist who invests in a company receives his voucher entitling him to dividends on his investments and then he has nothing more to do but sit down or roam while he waits for the dividends to roll in. And now let us see why they roll in.

Among the things the company buys with the fresh capital obtained is one that gives a greater return than it costs—the labour power of the worker. A worker produces in a day’s work goods of far more value than his wages—the price of his labour power—will purchase. Year by year the difference between what the worker produces and what he gets grows greater and greater, owing to improved organisation and labour-saving devices. The difference between the value of the labourer’s work and the value he gets is surplus value. From this surplus values comes the profits the company dangles alluringly before the investor, and provides the latter with his dividends. Capital, then, is based upon the exploitation of the worker.

Gilmac.

An Englishman’s Home! (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Ministry of Health report of the census taken last year contains information of the abominable housing conditions suffered by numbers of London workers: —

“Despite a general improvement there were still 2,086 families of from six to ten persons occupying a single room when the census was taken.”—News Chronicle, June 24th

Pioneers, Oh Pioneers! (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Observer for June 26th gives an extract from their paper of a hundred years ago, which contains the following: —

“The expedition sent out by the American Government in 1820-21 to explore the Rocky Mountains has at length been heard of after an absence of eleven years.

While west of the mountains they fell in with a tribe called the Copper Indians, who receive their name from owning extensive copper mines ; 300 of them, armed with bows and copper darts, attacked the company in day time; a severe action ensued, and only about 30 of the Indians escaped ; the rest were killed or wounded, with a loss of two killed of the company.” (Italics ours.)

Snowden’s Goodbye (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On September 28th, Philip Snowden (now a noble Lord) wrote a letter to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald (not yet a noble Lord) giving his reasons for resigning from the National Government. Whether he proposes staging a “come-back” as leader of the Liberal Party, we do not, of course, know, but the possible future appearance at a general election of Ramsay MacDonald leading the Tories and the noble Lord leading the Liberals would certainly add to the gaiety of elections.

Lord Snowden’s long letter contains only one reference to the workers, that since the National Government has been in existence “unemployment has greatly increased.”

The following extracts from his letter (taken from the News-Chronicle, September 29th) give the basis of his reasons for leaving, and are an illuminating expression of his outlook and where his sympathies lie.

He writes: —

“But I can no longer, without loss of all self-respect, remain a member of a Government which is pursuing a policy which I believe is disastrous to the welfare of the country, which will lead to the disruption of the Empire, and which is fraught with great danger to our international relations.” (Italics ours.)

The main purpose for which the National Government was formed has been achieved. . . . The acute national emergency which then existed no longer exists. The Budget has been balanced: stern economies have been enforced; borrowing for the dole has been stopped; a great conversion scheme has been successfully carried through; and the threat to our national credit has been removed. (Italics ours.)

The Agreements (Ottawa) have surrendered our fiscal autonomy, and handed over to the Dominions the control of British trade policy, reducing this country below the status of a Dominion.

You cannot expect Free Traders to acquiesce, even passively in such a policy of national humiliation and bondage.”

How sad. How very sad ! Like the sea waves that always keep returning and telling the same old tale. After helping to enforce stern economies and stopping borrowing for the dole, to be faced with the disruption of the Empire and national humiliation. It is really too harrowing. Will it move to tears the three million unemployed and the workers who have had their wages reduced ?

Anyhow, the News-Chronicle for October 17th informs us that Lady Snowden (with portrait, as usual) is supporting the proposal of Sir Landon Ronald for the broadcast of an appropriate prelude to the Two Minutes’ Silence on Armistice Day. On the same page is a reference to a broadcast on disarmament by five Fellows of Oxford Colleges. The reference commences : —

“The writers outline the present alarming state of Europe and the growth of a situation containing the seeds of war, . . .”

However, although he has, for the moment, said goodbye to the Government, Lord Snowden is not out of the “news.” In a message to the National Association of Building Societies he is reported as delivering himself of the following: —

“By the help which this institution offers, about one-fourth of the houses in this country are now owned by their occupiers. The social significance of this fact is tremendous. It has given to this large part of the population a feeling of security and independence.”

Has the noble Lord any conception of the existence of these people who have tied a millstone around their necks for years ? The number who, through illness or unemployment, have had to give up their “own” houses and seen the small savings they had used thrown away after stinting themselves and struggling fruitlessly to meet the demands of the building societies and the expenses of their jerry-built houses ?

The value of an Englishman’s home and the reward of “thrift” is shown up in a significant manner by the following extract from the News-Chronicle of October 13th: —

“CARDIFF, Wednesday.

The Ministry of Labour are likely to become the owners of considerable house property in the mining towns of South Wales in the near future as the result of instructions recently sent to local public assistance committees.

This instruction, which is issued under the powers of the Poor Law (Public Assistance) Act of last year, requires that any applicant for relief who is an owner of property in any shape or form must first of all lodge the deeds of such property with the Public Assistance Committee.

A member of the Pontypridd Public Assistance Committee to whom I spoke to-day said the order had caused much resentment, particularly in view of the fact that hundreds of aged ex-miners, who had bought their cottage homes with their life’s savings, had, owing to the depression, come to the end of their resources and were now compelled to part with the last remaining link with prosperity and happy days.

UNABLE TO REPAY.

Doubtless, said the Member, the Ministry will compel us to hold these deeds until the loans from the Public Assistance Committee are repaid. As, however, there is little likelihood of many of the being ever in a position to do this the Government looks like acquiring a lot of cheap house property.”

From the above the “social significance of ownership” certainly does appear to be “tremendous” when it is a case of workers “owning” houses which they get if they live long enough, keep up the payments, and the houses are still standing at the end of the term.

Fellow workers, how much longer will you allow shallow self-seekers, like Snowden and his kind, to throw dust in your eyes and divert you from the only thing that matters—the control of your destinies by yourselves.

Gilmac.

Notes by the Way: Tall Stories from Russia (1932)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tall Stories from Russia

Owing to technical deficiencies and the repercussions of the world crisis, the industrial development of Russia is failing to come up to expectations, and many exaggerated claims are now being written down. Information is not easy to obtain. For example, as soon as the monthly output figures in various branches of production began to fail below the figures for the preceding month and the corresponding month of the previous year, the monthly journal of the Soviet Bank in London conveniently ceased to publish the figures at all, although hitherto they had appeared regularly.

Much has been written of the enormous motor works built on “Ford” lines at Nijni Novgorod. It was declared open on November 1st, 1931, but it was soon apparent that it was beyond the present capacity of the Russian workers to operate this up-to-date mass production, plant. Mr. Emrys Hughes (Forward, September 17th) writes of these difficulties, and then says : —

“From nothing the output had reached 30 cars a day, and then 40. Order was slowly emerging from the chaos. Every day brought more experience: in 1933 Nijni would turn out 70,000 cars.”

Mr. Hughes is, we believe, mistaken, his figures refer to “trucks” not passenger cars, although the works are equipped for both. The claim for 30 or 40 a day is far below the promised 70,000 a year, and a very sorry output in comparison with what was promised in January, 1932.

The Moscow Daily News Weekly Edition, (August 15th) publishes an article by Victor Vacsov dealing with the car output of the Nijni Novgorod works. In it Vacsov admits that “the automobile industry of the U.S.S.R,, which is only one year old, has not as yet produced any passenger cars. The first cars of a Ford Model-A type are now being produced.”

He says that research is still going on to decide “What type of car is best suited to Soviet conditions.”

The failure of the Nijni Novgorod works up to the present, incidentally, shows up many visitors in Russia who came back and reported that all was well. For example, there is the dramatic critic, Mr. Herbert Griffiths, who, in his “Seeing Soviet Russia,” reported—on the strength of second hand accounts from expert eye witnesses–that it was a “star-turn” !

The Communists get very angry when doubt is cast on their figures and claims, but they should remember that they have themselves to blame. A Party which for years has preached the doctrine of “lying and subterfuge” (Lenin’s words) as a method of gaining control of the workers’ trade union organisations, can hardly complain if the world occasionally doubts their veracity.

The Means Test and the Labour Party

The agitation for the removal of the “Means Test” is instructive from several points of view. The unemployed man or woman ceases after 20 weeks in a year to be entitled to unemployment insurance pay on the ordinary conditions. He or she then has to apply for transitional benefit, which is granted in whole or in part according to the means of the applicant and his or her family. The decision is made by the Public Assistance Committee and is based on a minute inquiry into the savings, earnings, pension, etc., of all the members of the family. In short, it is the application of the years old Poor Law system to unemployment insurance pay—which has not prevented the Labour Party (which administered the system for Poor Law purposes when in office) from protesting indignantly at its use for unemployment insurance purposes.

One for the Currency Cranks

The sectional interests of manufacturing, land owning and financial capitalists have always puzzled and misled the Labour Party and its satellites making them easy victims for the quacks who believe that the ills of capitalism can be cured by land tax or by currency juggling. Yet the situation is not difficult to grasp. The workers produce the wealth, the capitalists own it. Out of the mass of wealth they produce the workers receive wages based on their cost of living. Out of the remainder the capitalists must meet all the expenses of production, and the costs of government, etc. Then they divide up the balance on terms which are the subject, of contract between themselves. In a time of expansion, when prices are rising, the capitalist who has goods to sell is improving his position. At such a time—for example, during the War—the Labourites howl loudly about the “profiteer” and the “hard-faced business man.” During the next phase of the normal cycle of capitalism, when prices are falling, it is the turn of the money-lending capitalist to prosper, the man who has contracted to receive a fixed money return on a certain sum lent or invested. Now it is he who is getting a larger and larger relative share of the total wealth of the capitalist class. Then the Labourite turns soft on his poor, dear friend, the manufacturing capitalist, and joins with him in denouncing the wicked bankers who “grow rich on adversity.” What is overlooked all the time is that the workers, as a class, do not alter their general position whatever happens. The ups and downs of prices and interest rates are only a matter between the groups of capitalists themselves, and the changes that take place are not the work of conspiring individuals but are governed by the forces inherent in the capitalist system itself. It is not the “greed of the profiteer” which sends prices up at times of expansion—for, obviously, if it were he would never permit them to fall again. Nor is it the plotting of the bankers which sends prices down during a depression—for if bankers had much control over prices they would never suffer them to rise again.

At the moment the currency cranks are gaining widespread acceptance for their claim that the bankers can and do control prices and interest rates, and that the bankers have it in their power (by increasing or decreasing the supply of credit) to increase or decrease the volume of trade and the amount of money on deposit in the banks, and, in short, to make “prosperity” or “depression” as they choose.

A glance at a few facts will show the absurdity of this. If the banks have such power, why have they allowed the bank rate to fall from five-and-a-half per cent. in 1926 and six per cent. in 1931 to two per cent. now? Why have they allowed the rate of interest paid by the Government on Treasury Bills to fall to the extraordinarily low level of three-quarters of one per cent. And why, after making a concerted move to force the rate up in the week ended October 15th, 1932, were they compelled to take actually less than the week before, i.e., 15s,. per £100 instead of 16s. l1d. (See Daily Telegraph, October 15th, 1932.) The fact is that bankers, just as much as any other section of the capitalist class, have to work within the limits set by the economic forces of capitalism. They can take advantage of, but cannot control, those forces. A glut of money seeking investment in gilt-edged securities (because of the declining profits and insecurity of industrial investments) will force the interest rates down in spite of all the bankers can do.

Similarly, with the stupid notion that bankers can “create credit” at will, and that bank deposits are the result of banks deciding to increase their loans to industry. This theory ignores the fact that banks want security for their loans and that money lent to produce more goods for an already glutted market would be money thrown away. The theory assumes that bank loans and bank deposits rise and fall simultaneously, the former being the cause of the latter. Actually, during the past year bank deposits have increased by over £100 million, while bank loans have not risen but have fallen by over £90 millions. (See Evening Standard, September 9th, 1932.) What has actually happened is what an understanding of capitalism leads us to expect. In times of depression, with production in excess of the demands of the market, the banks lend less because security is lacking; and investors seek safety in gilt-edged securities or by increasing their deposits with the banks. The theories of the currency cranks are in flat contradiction with the facts, but thousands of observers continue to be taken in by them, including many of the so-called labour leaders and representatives of labour colleges.

Edgar Hardcastle

SPGB Meetings (1932)

Party News from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

In all probability the Tory who debated Edgar Hardcastle in Stratford, a Mrs E. Tennant, was Eleonora Tennant. 

Eleonora Tennant stood as a Tory candidate in the East End of London (Silvertown) at the 1931 and 1935 General Elections and, let's be honest, women being so under-represented in politics in the 1930s, what are the chances of there being two Mrs E. Tennants' in the Tory Party active in the East End of London at this time? If you click on her wiki page you'll go down a rabbit hole of far right and anti-semitic politics which covers both Britain and Australia.

The January 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard carried a report of the debate between Edgar Hardcastle and N. Dunbar of the Independent Labour Party which took place in Bethnal Green.

The Dispute in the Textile Trades (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

In January, 1931, the Textile employers declared a lock-out over wages and the attempt to secure the introduction of the more-looms-to-a-weaver system. The workers put up a stronger resistance than the employers had anticipated (all the stronger because the trade union members resolutely refused to give their officials power to negotiate), and on February 16th the lock-out was withdrawn. The employers continued to press this year for wage reductions and more looms—and on July 25th a strike began at Burnley, followed on August 29th by a general stoppage of work by the weavers. After a dispute lasting for a month, work was resumed on September 28th, most of the strikers being taken on again. The terms were a heavy defeat for the workers; wages are reduced by about eight-and-a-half per cent. (1s. 8½d. in the £), the more-looms system is to be introduced as soon as a Conciliation Committee is appointed, which is expected to be within two months, and the provision for reinstating strikers is most unsatisfactory. The Employers’ central organisation is merely bound “to recommend its local associations strongly to persuade all their members to offer employment as speedily as possible to all operatives who have been displaced.” How unsatisfactory this is will be seen from the fact that one of the questions at issue in the general dispute was the employers’ refusal to reinstate strikers already out at Burnley.

Part of the weakness of the textile workers is plainly due to disunity and faulty organisation. The Weavers’ Amalgamation consists at present of 36 district associations, each of which has complete autonomy and can act independently of the others. One of the results of the strike failure is a renewed move to form the 36 associations into one centralised union. On the other hand, the Nelson Weavers’ Association is balloting on s proposal to withdraw from the amalgamation because of dissatisfaction with the settlement, and at Burnley a new local union has been formed in opposition to the Burnley Weavers’ Association, which is also a local organisation. The new union is stressing the principles (embodied in its rules) that “no strike will be initiated or ended without members meeting” and “members’ decision in any dispute shall be final” (Manchester Guardian, October 17th). One of the provisional officials said that the members thought it would be easier to form a new body than to reform the old, and that considerable support is being given among the weavers.

A still further cause of weakness is the failure of the textile workers as a whole to act together. Emboldened by their victory over the weavers the employers then pressed their demand for reductions of pay of the spinners. At first the employers declared that on no consideration whatever would, they agree to a smaller reduction than 1s. 8½d. in the £ (the figure accepted by the weavers in their settlement).

The unions had already agreed (Manchester Guardian, October 19th) to accept a reduction of 9¾d. in the £, and when a lock-out was threatened for Monday, October 24th, a settlement was reached on the basis of a reduction of 1s. 6½d in the £.

One lesson of these disputes is obvious. The workers cannot hope to put up the maximum resistance that conditions will allow if they are hopelessly divided, giving the employers the opportunity of depleting their funds by sectional disputes and defeating them piecemeal.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Communist Party Shirks Debate (1932)

Party News from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On several occasions the Communist Party have played the trick which the letter below illustrates. To impress an audience their speakers will issue a challenge to debate, but if the challenge is accepted the Communist Party subsequently repudiates it. The following letter was sent to the West Ham Branch of the S.P.G.B., in reply to a letter asking for the debate to be arranged : —

The Communist Party of Great Britain,

West Ham Local. 

Reply to 11, Carson Road, Plaistow, E.16.

Sept. 12th, 1932. 

Mr. P. Hallard. 

Dear Sir, 

Re your letter of the 4th inst., enquiries have been made into the authenticity of the challenge, and we are forced to the conclusion that the challenge emanated from an irresponsible source. 

Undoubtedly it was issued from our platform, but the speaker was not a member of the Communist Party, and was, no doubt, unaware that the Communist Party sees no useful purpose served in entering into debates with the S.P.G.B.

Yours faithfully,

(Organiser) S. Warren.

Letter: Socialists and “Doing Nothing” (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blackburn. 

Sept. 10th, 1932.

Dear Sir,

I have been a reader of the Socialist Standard for the past year or so, and I find that the “letter to a young Socialist” in the current issue expresses very well indeed the point of view consistently put forward by you. As a worker who is in a regular job and not at present suffering the pangs of hunger, I can sit back in my chair (after reading this article) and say “very good, indeed.”

I quite agree that we must go on educating the workers until we have an intelligent class conscious democracy, but I wonder if I, and you, too, my dear sir, would be quite so satisfied to wait, if we happened to be out of job and well below the starvation line. Suffering is increasing rapidly among the workers, as we all know, and it is very easy for us to tell them to be patient, but quite a different matter when in their position. Do you think it is possible to make all the workers understand Marxism any more than it is possible to make them all understand the technicalities of wireless. Many of them have not the desire to do so, even if they had the intelligence.

J. G.

Reply.

Our correspondent has only partly grasped the point of the article to which he refers (“The Time for Action” September Socialist Standard). We say that certain forms of activity which deal with effects are only of limited use and that certain other forms are useless and dangerous, but we certainly do not add, as our correspondent seems to imagine we do, that therefore the workers should do nothing. We do not say that they should be patient and passive, but that they should act intelligently. The only activities which will lead to emancipation, studying and teaching Socialist principles and organising to take the necessary action to get Socialism, are not jobs for those who are satisfied to sit back in their chairs and wait. Nor are they jobs beyond the capacity of the average worker. Our correspondent asserts that it is not possible to get all the workers to understand the technicalities of wireless. True, but then the majority of the workers do not need or desire to do so. But J.G., we notice, does not commit himself to the further assertion that the workers are incapable of doing so. Actually, the workers have to understand the technicalities of the productive and other processes at which they earn their living. Are they capable of running industry but incapable of understanding the running of society? When it is driven home to the workers that understanding the latter is at least as important to them as the former, they will grasp it without much difficulty.

Incidentally, we do not agree with the view of J.G., that the workers in work have no troubles and have reason to be satisfied. Neither do they, for millions of them show signs of active if misdirected dissatisfaction with the conditions of their lives.

It would have been helpful if J.G. had told us what he thinks the unemployed can usefully do, since he agrees with us that blind revolt is useless, but at the same time rejects intelligent revolutionary action.

Ed. Comm.

Answers to Correspondents (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

H. A. Heddon, 1120, East Century Blvd., Los Angeles, California.—Thanks for your letter. The “Open Letter to Norman Thomas” is rather out of our line. Why not send it to Norman Thomas’s own paper? Our criticism of his position would be different from yours. We do not agree that capitalism is near total collapse. Nor do we agree that a socialist programme would at present attract as much support as a reformist programme. If Norman Thomas put the Socialist case he would lose the support he now gets from reformists, but his opposition to Socialism does not prevent you and other Socialists from lining up with the Workers’ Socialist Party of the U.S.A. and helping on the work of making Socialists.

Ed. Comm.

“One who was in Russia.“—If this correspondent will give his name and address, not necessarily for publication, we will reply to his letter.

Ed. Comm.

Scraps from the Press (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The railway workers are promised a wage cut on the usual fantastic ground that the Companies were not working on a profitable basis. It is, therefore, interesting to read the notice in the Evening News (20th October) which states that owing to heavy over-subscription, the lists for Southern Railway £4,750,000 Debenture Stock issue have been closed. Evidently the capitalists consider the railways a profitable investment, which means that the railway workers are producing plenty of surplus value already. It is also an illustration that there is plenty of money available for investment—perhaps the credit cranks will make a note of it.

* * * *

The News Chronicle for October 3rd records the fact that Mr. Samuel Insull, a former United States electricity magnate, was at one time a director of 85 companies, chairman of 65, and president of 11. One wonders how much time per year (allowing for the periodical cruise, etc.) he was able to devote to each company, and also whether his absence was noticed when he was away. Perhaps if workers ponder a little over cases like this they will realize what little part the capitalists play in the actual running of industry.

The champions of “self-help” and the boosters of the “Great Man” theory appear to be having a thin time of late years. Hatry, Kreuger, Insull, and the rest have given their theories some nasty shocks. It is becoming almost a commonplace to learn, after one of the frequent financial crashes. that the “great man” at the centre was responsible. In fact, however the “great man” is made the scapegoat for their cowardly and fat-headed ideas.

* * * *

The following shows how sectional interests clash over Free Trade in Germany. Herr Krupp, head of Krupp’s works and president of the Federation of German Industries, along with Dr. Luther, president of the Reichsbank, have protested against the carrying out of the quota system by the Von Papen Cabinet. On the other hand, the agricultural interests are becoming alarmed lest the quota system should be suspended. Herr Hugo Stinnes has aligned himself with the agricultural interests in support of the restriction of imports.

The internecine warfare between capitalists over Protection and Free Trade may push into the background the movement of the German Fascists in the near future. And while German and English workers are suffering from the miseries arising out of their bondage to Capitalism, their self-appointed spokesman in the two countries will be shouting themselves hoarse over imports and exports—matters that are of real interest only to the capitalist.

* * * *

The Church struggles hard to keep up with the times—and keep its congregations and its magic. In these days of trials and troubles, with growing unemployment and restive workers, one of the Church’s principal spokesmen, Dr. Barnes, the Bishop of Birmingham, has made a portentous pronouncement. Speaking at Westminster Abbey on the 11th October, he said:

“Again, the social evil which has increased most disastrously in our times is gambling. In Ireland the Roman Church is all powerful and the Dublin hospital sweepstakes flourish.”

Perhaps if the noble Bishop were in the ranks of the unemployed he would hold other views of the nature of the social evil. Anyhow, his working-class parishioners could give him some information on the subject. But the Church has always been a prop of oppression, and its professional advocates can always be depended upon to find any cause but the real cause of the social evils suffered by the majority of the population.

* * * *

As the Armistice will shortly be celebrated, it is fitting to recall to mind “poor little Belgium” and all that was said about her sufferings during the Great War. Workers in England who fought in Belgium in the effort to end all wars may be interested to learn that war in Belgium did not end with the Armistice.

“BRUSSELS, Saturday. 

Troops were to-day sent to the coalfields, where an ugly situation arising out of the strike over wages led to battles with the police, who had been given orders to disperse gatherings.

At Charleroi, early this afternoon, three police and several strikers were injured in a collision. Two of the police were seriously hurt. At Peronnes, near Binche, fifteen strikers were slightly hurt when the police charged a crowd that had refused to disperse. The dispatch of troops followed a meeting between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Defence. A regiment from the Malines garrison has been sent to Mons, and one from the Arlon garrison to Charleroi.”—Reuter. Observer, July 9th.

Is comment on the above needed ?

* * * *

Under the Washington Treaty the tonnage of warships was restricted, and on this account the Treaty was boomed as a great step forward in disarmament and an indication of the pacific intentions of the participators. Ever since, however, each nation has been endeavouring to produce more effective and murderous implements with a reduced tonnage, and in this, America, the leading advocative of this “pacifism,” has had the most success, as witness their new and efficient battle cruisers.

The Evening News of the 17th July reports a further step forward in America. At the end of the War it was decided that an aeroplane carrier, to be effective, must be of at least 20,000 tons. Under the Washington Treaty, America was only allowed a total tonnage of 135,000 tons for aircraft carriers; in other words, they were allowed about seven of these vessels, the idea presumably being to reduce the number of these ships that might be built. The result, however, has merely been to set American designers the problem of obtaining all the assistance they needed from such ships within the stipulated 135,000 tons. As the Evening News puts it: —

“But America wants plane carriers on the Atlantic as well as the Pacific and also in the Far East, so that her strategy would be badly cramped by the small number of large ships allowed. It is this point, in addition to the financial side, that has American designers on their mettle.”

And the designers have risen to the occasion and produced a ship of 13,800 tons that “will be the last word in construction, carrying no fewer than 75 planes.” Another step towards the peace of the world !

Gilmac.

Love and Marriage (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist press occasionally amuses us by holding up their hands in horror at the possibility of “free love” under Socialism. That love is not absolutely free under capitalism is proved by the following extract from the Croydon Times (10/9/32): —

“Young man, refined, aged 28 years, dark, height 5ft. 9in., considered good looking, would marry lady age up to 40 years, who could place him in a better position. Genuine; small capital. Write in confidence. Photo exchanged.”

The extract shows to what extent ideas of morality can be influenced by economic conditions.

York and Ottawa (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is not often that one of the leading lights of science can be quoted as authority for what Socialists have been saying for years, but the speech of the President of the British Association, Sir Alfred Ewing, at their meeting at York, on August 31st, 1932, as reported in the Daily Herald of September 1st, certainly gives some colour to the view and contains food for thought. He says : —

“More and more does mechanical effort take the place of human effort, not only in manufacture, but even in the primitive task of tilling the ground.

Almost automatically the machine delivers a stream of goods in the creation of which the workman has taken little part. . . . He has lost the joy of craftsmanship and in many cases unemployment is thrust upon him more saddening than drudgery.

…. And the world finds itself glutted with competitive commodities produced in a quantity too great to be absorbed.”

This is what we of the Socialist Party have been saying for years. Capitalism has long since provided the means of solving the problems of production, and we can produce more than enough for all. Production is social, but ownership is not social—hence the “problems” that beset our masters and the miseries the workers endure. These will continue until the working class see the necessity of studying Socialism, the only remedy for these tilings, and then organising to obtain it. There is no hope in the present system. Let Sir Alfred Ewing speak again (ibid):

“The cornucopia of the engineer has been shaken all over the earth, scattering everywhere an endowment of previously unimagined and unpossessed powers and capacities, but we are aware that the engineer’s gifts have been, and may be, grievously abused. In some there is tragedy as well as present burden. Man was ethically unprepared for so great a bounty. . . . The command of Nature has been put into his hands before he knows how to command himself.”

Exactly. No doubt a great many workmen know of cases where “the engineer’s gifts” have been “grievously abused” in the interest of profit, and many are fully alive to the “present burden” of unemployment. But the sting is in the tail. “Man is not ready for the command of Nature,” Sir Alfred says. Just so. He has not set about studying his position in order to bring about social ownership. Our friend is in this position himself, for he asks: —

“Where does this tremendous procession tend ?” and “Where shall we look for a remedy?” And he answers: “I don’t know.”

Nor is he alone in this. Several English Cabinet Ministers have recently been across to Ottawa to try and find the same thing, but have returned empty handed. They have been wasting their time trying to find out how policies of reduced purchasing power (wages) can keep up with increased production. And we notice that Mr. J. Bromley (Secretary, Associated Society of Loco Engineers and Firemen) went along to Ottawa with them “in an advisory capacity,” in order to help them to find out how not to do it; and says : —

“He could not help it if they did not follow his advice” (Daily Herald, August 15th, 1932).

We would suggest that this paid official’s talents might be better used in the interests of his members on the railways, who look like having a wage cut, but apparently that is not of sufficient concern to this gentleman so long as he can offer himself “in an advisory capacity” to our masters and get a joy ride. Walter Citrine, of the T.U.C., was also there, helping to achieve the impossible.

Thus is shown the worthlessness of these leaders, and when the workers realise this, and set about organising for Socialism, these gentry will soon disappear—and the workers will find a ready solution to Sir Alfred Ewing’s problems, and their own.

C. V. R.

Voice From The Back: Same old story (2003)

The Voice From The Back Column from the November 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Same old story

The announcement that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, the makers of Camel cigarettes, is to cut 2,600 jobs – close to half its workforce – has come as a great shock to the town of Winston-Salem in North Carolina. Between 1,600 and 1,700 of the jobs are in the town. Bad news for the shareholders? Well, no, not really. “The company shocked Wall Street yesterday morning as it unveiled the plan to cut 40 percent of its workforce, although traders welcomed the prospect of cost-cutting and marked the shares 12 per cent higher to $38.24 by midday” (Times 18 September).

The rich get richer

One of the myths expounded by apologists for capitalism is that there are no longer classes in society and that poverty is gradually disappearing. According to the BBC News Online (25 September) the exact opposite seems to be occurring in the USA. “The gap between rich and poor in America is the widest in 70 years, according to a new study published by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The research, based on newly released figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that the top one percent of Americans – who earn an average of $862,000 each after tax (or $1.3 m before tax) – receive more money than the 110m Americans in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution, whose income averages $21,350 each year. The income going to the richest one percent has gone up threefold in real terms in the past twenty years, while the income of the poorest 40 percent went up by a more modest 11 percent.”

Spare parts for sale

Everything inside capitalism takes the form of a commodity, so it should come as no surprise to learn that there is a brisk trade in desperately poor people selling their kidneys. The going price paid to young people in eastern Europe for one kidney is $2,500 to $3,000 and patients receiving the kidneys have paid between $100,000 and $200,000 for a transplant. “John Dark, a transplant surgeon at the Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, said it was difficult to draw a moral difference between the physical harm inflicted on someone paid for a kidney or paid to work in a Third World sweat shop . . . An impoverished man trying to support his family by selling his kidney is no different to putting in shifts down a diamond mine. Society has moved on from where paying for harm was unthinkable. We do it every day when we buy a pair of trainers” (Independent, 30 September).

Compassionate Tories

The Conservative Party at present are going through a crisis as they try to cobble together a series of reforms that might prove popular at the next election. They are making noises about being a caring, compassionate party, so it is interesting to see what one of the delegates to last month’s Tory conference had to say. “Mr Metcalfe, who has ambitions of becoming a Tory MP at the next election, received a rousing ovation when he insisted the way to combat crime was to make it not worth the price. He told the conference: “make prison a genuine punishment. Bring back solitary confinement, take away their TVs and snooker tables and let them earn privileges.” And there was more, “Bring back birching for young tearaways that terrorise council estates and vandalise graveyards, castrate paedophiles and bring back hanging” (Herald, 8 October). Phew, some caring – some compassion.

War aims

Mr Bush was very clear what the US war aims were in Iraq – topple the wicked dictator – build a prosperous democracy – and 100 percent foreign ownership of many of the state’s resources. Wait a minute, you don’t remember the third aim? Neither do we, but it seems that third aim is going to be realised long before the second one. “Controversial plans to privatise all of Iraq’s non-oil assets have been attacked by Nobel-prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz . . . The laws approved by the Coalition Provisional chief Paul Bremer, allow 100 percent foreign ownership of all state assets apart from natural resources. Trade tariffs and taxes have also been slashed, and the Central Bank of Iraq has been made operationally independent. `This is an extreme version of Republican ideology,` said Stiglitz. ‘Of course it is nothing we would do at home (US), because we’re actually quite protectionist`” (Observer, 12 October).

Another World (2003)

From the November 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have always known that another world is possible. The world doesn’t have to be capitalist. If, on the other hand, capitalism remains, then a world other than we’ve got now – with global problems of inequality, wars and environmental destruction – is not possible. The only other world possible today is a socialist world, in the original sense of the word of course, as a system of common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, not the travesties that passed for socialism in the 20th century.

Many in the alternative-world movement are prepared to call themselves “anti-capitalists”, but only a few are prepared to argue for a world society of common ownership and democratic control with production directly to meet human needs without passing through money and the market. Most are literally what they say they are – anti-capitalists, i.e. opposed to the actions of capitalist corporations, and the governments that protect them and promote their interests, rather than against capitalism as a total, global system.

They are engaged in a never-ending, uphill struggle to try to contain and restrain capitalist corporations and governments from pursuing profits without regard for the consequences. Some of their less radical colleagues – those running the Non-Governmental Organisations – have made a virtue of necessity and see this as their institutionalised role within capitalism, warning those responsible for running it of the long-term dangers for the system of allowing policies to be dictated by short-term profit considerations. They are not really anti-capitalist at all, just advocates of a “regulated” capitalism. It’s a message capitalist governments are prepared to listen to and even welcome (which is why they subsidize some NGOs, which are therefore not as “non-governmental” as all that). The administrators of capitalism are not as stupid as some of its “free-market” ideologues.

These are the same people who see the solution to the world’s problems as “fair trade” and who danced in the hall at the failure of the recent WTO talks in Cancun. If further proof was required that they stand for an “alternative capitalism” rather than an “alternative to capitalism” this is it. Trade – as the exchange of goods for money (an exchange of ownership title as opposed to the physical transfer of products from one part of the world to another that will of course continue in socialism) – is a key feature of capitalism which is in fact a system of universal buying and selling, i.e. trading, on a world scale. “Fair” trade is a capitalist concept according to which producers, or rather producer-countries, would get the full value of what they sell instead of less than this due to more powerful countries distorting the market in their own favour.

Disputes such as took place in Cancun are essentially an argument amongst capitalist countries, with the less powerful trying to regulate the world market so that it does not operate to the undue – in capitalist terms – benefit of the big boys. In this internal squabble amongst capitalist states, the NGOs take the side of the underdogs and offer this as “another world”.

The unequal distribution of the benefits of production is indeed, to continue with their language for a moment, “unfair” and “unjust”. In a sense, socialists start from the same premise as them that every human being, just because they are human beings, should be able to enjoy a life free from material deprivation and insecurity no matter where they live in the world. But we don’t agree that this can be achieved by a regulated capitalism which would put all capitalist states on an equal footing so far as realising the surplus value created by their workers is concerned. This might benefit – enrich – the capitalists of India, Brazil, China and Indonesia and put more money into the pockets of the rulers of African states, but it would not eliminate inequality between humans in the distribution of material goods.

Even in countries such as the United States and those of Western Europe which benefit from current world trading arrangements, there is still inequality: there is still a wealthy property-owning class whose income as rent, interest and profit gives them a privileged consumption and the rest of us, while nowhere near as worse off as those in the shanty towns and villages of Africa, India and Latin America, still suffer from problems of material insecurity. In any event, the division in the world is not between all the people living in North America and Western Europe and those living in the rest of the world. There are plenty of rich people – some of them filthy rich – living in the so-called Third World.

The only way to ensure that every single human being on the planet has an equal chance to enjoy a life free from material deprivation is a world where all the resources of the planet have become the common heritage of all humanity. On this basis, these can be used to provide enough for all, without conflict (between ruling classes) over access to key raw materials and without plundering the Earth’s resources or polluting the biosphere. We are not claiming that this would be an easy task – there will be problems of co-ordination and co-operation to solve, not to speak of having to clear up the mess left by the profit system – but it is technologically possible as well as socially desirable.

Yes, another world is possible but it has to be a non-capitalist – a socialist – world.

Adam Buick