A matter of timing (1987)

From the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

A long holiday on a remote island is recommended to anyone who is not obsessively interested in speculation about the date of the next general election. Until the Prime Minister ends the agony by naming the day we shall be harassed by political correspondents picking over the latest opinion poll, by the pollsters asking their irrelevant questions and by politicians whose speeches have taken on the urgency and concentration which was once supposed to influence the thoughts of prisoners on the eve of their execution.

No member of the Cabinet can relax for a moment because everything they say. everything they do. everywhere they go, will be minutely scrutinised for clues. The hysteria has already extended beyond the political field. Take, for example, the recent marriage of failed trainee accountant and rally driver Mark Thatcher to a millionairess from Texas. This union of two heavily-moneyed parasites. a boring and unremarkable event, could not avoid being an element in the speculation about the election. Had the rich and happy pair, it was asked, been rushed to the altar by Tory Party planners to soften Margaret Thatcher's image as the Iron Lady by making her a prospective grandmother?

Of course this might be all just clean fun, to keep the media hacks busy between the end of the Wapping dispute and the announcement of the next royal pregnancy, were it not for the reasons why the timing of an election is considered so important. Indeed, in some cases the outcome of an election is said to have been decided by the day chosen for it. In 1970, for example. Wilson's government was widely assumed to be on course for a third term of office. The original slim majority of 1964 had been enlarged in 1966, in an election fought on the slogan You Know Labour Government Works — which should have been enough to frighten away millions of voters. The local elections of May 1970 were encouraging for Labour and the polls predicted a victory for them at a general election. Apart from that, Ted Heath was some way behind Wilson in the grubby contest to appear as the sort of leader workers admire, to tell them what to do. to blame them for the politicians' impotence to deal with capitalism's problems and generally to exploit their political naiveté. Wilson's ambition to purge the Labour Party of its professed objective of social revolution and instead establish it as the alternative government of British capitalism, seemed close to achievement.

George Meddemmen

There had, of course, been one or two problems — like economic and financial crises — but these are faced by all governments. There had been battles with the workers — notably the seamen — over wages and conditions of work. Living standards had been persistently threatened through rising prices; but these had been prominent features of British capitalism since Labour first won power in 1945. The Wilson government had carried on with providing the British armed forces with the nuclear power of super-annihilation; they had supported the American government's ugly struggle in Vietnam and, aware that the British capitalist class had large investments in Nigeria, and got ten per cent of their oil from there, they backed the Nigerian government's genocidal war against Biafra. It was, as they say, not a pretty picture but neither was it untypical of the necessary actions of the governments of capitalism. The British working class, it was predicted, were satisfied enough with Labour s record to give them another spell in power.

But Wilson, who was supposed to be a master of timing, got it wrong, which led to three years of Tory rule under the despised and derided Ted Heath. At the time the surprise result was attributed partly to the publication, just before polling day, of some statistics which showed that British capitalism was not doing as well in competition with its foreign rivals as the Labour government had hoped. Few things are so likely to undermine the workers' confidence in a government as the suspicion that they are not looking after the interests of the ruling class as competently as they might. There were other factors, not the least of them the bewildered disillusionment which six years of governing capitalism had stimulated in the Labour Party. At times the Party seemed on the verge of disintegration, with the spectacular defections among leaders such as George Brown and Ray Gunter and with the Party at large rent apart over Biafra, Vietnam, nuclear weapons, the unions and so on. Under this pressure Wilson, who had once been lauded as Labour 's man of magic, became exposed as a trickster.

It was apparently even more difficult for the next Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, to fix the date for his one and only attempt to hold on to power. Callaghan's government had been in continual trouble, trying to hold down wages in a series of battles with striking workers — notably the firemen in the winter of 1977. In mid-1978 the unions gave notice that enough was enough, that the pressure from lower paid workers could not be contained much longer. The sewage workers, lorry drivers, local authority manual workers and hospital employees came out in a series of much-publicised strikes which ruined Labour's strategy of wage restraint through the co-operation of the unions. Some of the strikes were supported by workers not directly involved in a dispute but who joined a picket line anyway. How badly the government were shaken was evident when Callaghan — who had risen to power through the unions and who was once, briefly, regarded as a left-winger — said in the Commons:

 I assert very clearly that everyone has the right to work and everyone has the right to cross a picket line. It is not a sacred object and I hope they will do so. (Guardian, 24 January 1979). 

In the same speech he stated, no doubt to an appreciative audience of Thatcherite Tories, that the expenditure limits fixed by the government could not be exceeded and that for private industry the "ultimate discipline" was that workers could lose their jobs — which must have been confusing to anyone who took seriously his mouthings about the "right to work".

In October 1978, in a speech in which he was expected to announce the date of the election, Callaghan committed himself to hanging on into 1979. He must have been hoping that things could not possibly get worse. That was the time when the present economic recession was gathering momentum; under that Labour government unemployment went up — doubled — between 1974 and 1979, from about 600,000 to about 1,200,000 and their response was the established one of cutting back on investment. Labour's Chancellor, Denis Healey, thus gained the reputation as the originator of Thatcherite monetarism. Class society and poverty, after five years of Labour government, was as evident as ever. There were still, as Callaghan himself admitted:

   . . . men and women struggling with low pay, mothers stretching the household budget to make ends meet, youngsters in search of a job . . . patients queuing for a hospital bed or families without a decent home . (Foreword to Labour s 1979 election programme, The Labour Way Is The Better Way).

As it happened the choice of date was taken out of Callaghan’s hands when a defeat in the Commons forced him to call an election; for some time they had clung to power through sordid compromise deals, at first with the Liberals and then with the Nationalists. At least, he might have reflected, he could not be accused of turning victory into defeat through bad timing and the leader of so unpopular a government, which was duly cast aside by the voters, needed whatever consolation he could get.

It was simpler for the Tories in 1983, if we are to believe Cecil Parkinson, who masterminded their campaign. In an article in the Guardian (24 November 1986) Parkinson wrote that Thatcher chose the 1983 polling day after the Tory leaders had spent a day discussing the last local election results and studying two opinion polls they had taken in key marginal seats. It was, he said, a matter of common sense — and nothing is more beloved of politicians, for common sense justifies every human excess of capitalism, from nuclear annihilation to mass starvation. And of course Tory common sense paid off — in spite of millions unemployed and all that meant in terms of even more desperate poverty, in spite of the fact that the numbers living at or below the official poverty line had increased by millions between 1979 and 1983, in spite of the tightening of the screw on those still in work, in spite of the slaughter of the Falklands. . . .

George Meddemmen

It is, to put it mildly, depressing that millions of workers should vote for political parties who indulge in such blatant, cynical manipulation, whether Labour’s attempts at subtlety or Tory common sense. In 1979 Callaghan delayed polling day in the uncertain hope that workers were so foolish and irresponsible that only a few months were needed for them to blot out the miserable memory of his government and then, perhaps, be ready to fall for some vote-catching gimmick. Thatcher in 1983 should have been surprised that deeper poverty and the jingoistic hysteria of the Falklands had not destroyed her chances. But she saw that workers actually seemed hungry for more of her style of capitalism and she took the opportunity to exploit this.

If the analysts have got it right — if it is true that a few months' difference in polling day can affect how workers vote — the whole exercise is exposed for its futility and irrelevance. A working class who value their vote — their power to change society — so lightly will continue to vote for capitalism, switching from Labour to Tory and back again or even perhaps, to the Alliance. They are not about to make any fundamental change in society, to eliminate the disfigurements which capitalism brings. Such swings are brought about through the most trivial changes in capitalism, such as a set of trading figures; basically the system does not change. The problems we face now, which are the raw material of election promises, are those which have been faced by generations of workers and they will be eradicated only through social revolution.

Because capitalism does not change fundamentally. neither does the case for its abolition. We know why socialism must be established, and how, and who will do it. The one remaining question is: when.

Ivan

Swansea election campaign (1987)

Party News from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

This is the year Swansea Branch has felt strong enough to contest its first election. Since a number of the branch members are concentrated in one particular ward of the city — Uplands — we decided, at the end of 1986, to field a candidate in the May 1987 local elections. The branch elected Gareth Thomas as candidate and I was elected to act as his agent.

In early February, with the aid of the new Print facility at Head Office, we produced 5.000 copies of a preliminary leaflet and put this through every letter-box in the ward. The leaflet, which is reproduced below, outlined the Party's ideas in a way that we hoped would be clear to people hearing them for the first time. We wanted to give it some local interest as well so we mentioned the Singleton Hospital issue — the transfer of the local hospital's casualty service to a hospital many miles away and the protest and outrage this has provoked throughout the community. The leaflet related this to the lack of real everyday democracy in present-day society.

Leafleting was harder work and took longer than we thought. But in the end we covered the lot down to the last multiple occupation and all 10½ thousand voters in Uplands Ward would have had the chance to read what we're about.

We'd already approached the local paper and they'd shown an interest. Brian Walters, one of their reporters, interviewed Gareth and was very cooperative. He did a pretty fair write-up a couple of days later together with a photo of Gareth he'd insisted on taking. Gareth had made the point to him that we didn't go in for personalities; it was the ideas that counted and we only wanted people to vote for us if they understood and agreed with the socialist case. He seemed to get the message and did mention it in his report but he still included a fair amount about Gareth himself. Like any journalist, he was anxious for a bit of what's supposed to make newspapers sell — "human interest". He told Gareth to keep in touch with him and suggested to him that the Labour Party wouldn't be too pleased to have its "socialist" thunder stolen in the ward.

He turned out to be right. After we'd written round for debates to the other parties in the ward (Labour. Tory. Liberal. SDP, Plaid Cymru), we heard through a reliable inside source that our letter had been discussed at a meeting of the Uplands ward Labour Party and that an angry Militant member had suggested that they take up our challenge to debate and "expose" us. Our source, who knows our case well, replied that they couldn't expose the Socialist Party as we had nothing to hide. Apparently his counsel prevailed since we've heard nothing. But there were, so it seems, further mutterings about trying to get us for breaking election law by spending too much money on our campaign (that's a joke) or starting it too early. If they've taken the trouble to look into it. they'll have found out by now that we did our homework before we started.

So far. the only written reply we've had from our opponents has been a letter from the Conservatives (they usually win the seat) who were lukewarm about a debate but said we should ask them again nearer the time. But even if none of them take up the challenge. we're still going to hold our own election meetings in a local school and a community centre in the days leading up to the election.

We've had a certain amount of feedback from our first drop of leaflets, part good and part bad. A few phone and letter requests asking for information and literature, a woman enquiring what our attitude is to homosexual men living together as married couples and one of our leaflets sent back with unpleasant things written on it.

Our next task is to deliver to houses 5,000 free back copies of the Socialist Standard with a handbill stapled to the front of each. The handbill reminds people of the previous leaflet and invites them to read the magazine. In bold black letters it's headed TO READ OR NOT TO READ? THAT IS THE QUESTION and it ends with the slogan we've adopted for the whole of our election campaign "Vote For Yourself For a Change - For a Real Change". A group of members from Bristol Branch are coming over to help us give out the Standards since their bulk and weight will make it a bigger job than the leaflets. We're also hoping for help from other branches for the doorstep canvassing we'll be doing and for the final drop of literature — our election manifestos. We'll be putting out the manifestos in the last week to remind people — if they didn't know already — that a Socialist Party candidate is standing, that he's arguing for something quite different from the other candidates and that they should vote for themselves for a change — for a real change.

Howard Moss

Vote For Yourself For A Change (1987)

Election Statement from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Real Change

In Uplands Ward in the Swansea Council Elections (May 7). there will be a candidate representing the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Our candidate, Gareth Thomas, will be putting forward the case for a society of free access, a society without buying and selling, money and wages, employers and employees. This is what Socialism really means. Over the years it has been changed and distorted in many different ways so that in most people's minds Socialism now means either the kind of dictatorial society that exists in Russia, or state intervention in industry and housing, or the promises of social reform, full employment, higher wages, etc. that come from the Labour Party.

But Socialism means none of these things. It means a society in which everything is owned in common and in which people democratically take all the decisions that affect their lives. The situation at present is that these decisions are left to a government which, whether right or left wing, can only act in the interests of the profit system and of that small minority of the population (about 10 per cent according to official statistics) who own most of the wealth and who, through the profits they make, don't need to work for a wage or salary in order to live.

Local issues and wider issues

We realise of course that this is a local election and that the other parties will be fighting it on "local issues" or on the "personality" of their candidates. But this is not our way. Our candidate is solely there to represent our ideas. He will not be kissing babies or making vain promises. He will be pointing out that "local issues", when looked at closely, are invariably wider ones. The Singleton Hospital issue, for example, may seem local but it is really an issue about whether people shall make their own decisions on matters that concern them or whether those decisions shall be made for them from on high for political or money-saving reasons.

Gareth Thomas will also be pointing out that most of the problems, whether local or wider, which most of us experience (poor public services, not enough money, dissatisfaction at work, anxiety and stress, etc.) derive from the fact that we have extremely little control over our own lives. We are made unable to exercise control both because our personal resources are limited (lack of money) and because important social decisions are out of our hands (lack of democracy).

Do you trust leaders?

The Socialist answer to this is for people not to put their trust in leaders but to take steps themselves, peacefully and democratically, to bring about a free access society without the use of money or any such thing where we all take freely what we need from the abundance of goods and services which with modern technology we are capable of producing. A society where we organise things for the benefit of all not in the interests of a wealthy few.

This is an entirely practical proposition once the majority of people want it. The Socialist Party exists to help spread the idea and to encourage people to establish a society which will put it into practice.

Our election campaign

Between now and May 7 you will be receiving further material from us through your letter box. In the near future we will deliver a free back copy of our monthly magazine, the Socialist Standard. We hope you will read it. And if you find you agree with our ideas (but only if you agree), we will be asking you to vote for Gareth Thomas on May 7. We also hope you will come to the public debates we shall be trying to arrange with the other political parties nearer the time of the election. We will keep you informed.

Cartoonish Politics (1987)

From the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bye-Elections (1987)

Rosie Barnes

From the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Greenwich groan

There is one way in which the SDP/Liberal Alliance, self-proclaimed mould breakers of British politics, are set rigidly in tradition. Whenever they win an election they elevate the result into an historic event which will change the face of politics.

So it was in Greenwich where Rosie Barnes, ex-Labour Party and straight out of the Posy Simmonds mould of a Blackheath liberal, won a by-election famous for making an issue over whether the Labour candidate's father had been a drunken wife-basher. Another enduring tradition ensures that elections should concern themselves with such irrelevant nonsense.

The Alliance claimed their victory was evidence that the working class are fed up with the established two party system and are looking for another way, a third party. This does not square up with another well used Alliance ploy, to encourage people to vote "tactically" to keep one party out rather than let another one in. Tactical voting — if it ever happens — could be used to the benefit of the Labour and Tory Parties; it does not indicate any disillusion with the two party set-up but a strong revulsion against one or other of those parties. And there is nothing new, or mould-breaking, in that.

In any case it is the depth of negative thinking to argue that workers should vote for a party they don't really support rather than another which they like even less. That is a cynical misuse of workers' political power to change society. The Alliance, which is a re-arrangement of the failed leaders and policies of other capitalist parties, is bound to feed off the cynicism and disillusion which those failures have nurtured.

The two Davids, then, offer nothing that is new or hopeful. On economic policy they deal in the same sterile ruses of trying to make British capitalism more profitable by holding back wages. On war weapons they concern themselves with trivial debates about which method of mass annihilation they favour.

The authentic mould breakers of politics aim for a fundamental change — for a different social system with none of the desperate social ailments which are the stuff of capitalist politics and of the parties, like the Alliance, which seek power to run the system.

. . . Truro Tremble

In Truro, "tactical voting" had a different meaning for the Alliance. There they urged voters to support the candidate of their choice — because they always assumed they had victory in their pockets. The big issue was the "Cornishness" of the candidates with the Labour man. who comes from decidedly un-Cornwall-like Hillingdon in West London, upstaging the rest by speaking Cornish. A famous victory for the Liberals, they say; a typically cynical and irrelevant contest, we say.

Reluctant anarchists (1987)

Party News from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

In January our Newcastle Branch invited the local Anarcho-Syndicalist group to take part in one of a series of debates and forums, with a title on the lines of "Socialism or Anarcho-Syndicalism: How Can Workers Achieve Freedom?" The branch pointed out that as a democratic, leaderless socialist group they are committed to the free exchange of ideas with others who are interested in changing society. The invitation was sent after a member of the Syndicalists' editorial group had attended several of the Branch meetings, had taken part in lengthy discussions and claimed to share our aim of a classless, moneyless society based on common ownership.

This was how the Anarcho-Syndicalists replied:

Dear SPGB.
 
  I have been asked to inform you that the Syndicalist does not wish to take part in the type of public debate as you propose. While believing that public meetings are a major part in the growth of revolutionary ideas we do not, as anarcho-syndicalists, wish to take part in the political power struggle of the left vanguardist parties and have no intention, either now or in the future of participating in the type of political competition to see which theoretical and "politically correct" ideas will prevail under such circumstances. 

  We are however willing to discuss our ideas with any member, or any of your associates, that are interested in the ideas of anarcho-syndicalism on a personal level. If you would wish to further this conversation as we have stated please contact us at the above address. 

  Due to the short amount of time you gave for a reply this decision was reached at an Editorial Group meting and will be put to our Full Business Meeting in March. Though the decision will most certainly stand.

As our Newcastle group comments, the reply shows the Anarcho-Syndicalists' complete lack of willingness to be open about their political ideas in a forum of members of the working class. This lack no doubt leads to their undemocratic practices in decision making, as evidenced in the final paragraph of their letter. Notwithstanding, the Newcastle Branch will continue their propaganda work, including regular challenges to their opponents.

50 Years Ago: The depression is over (1987)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

The depression is over and prosperity is here once again. This is the good news discovered by politicians, bankers and captains of industry and passed on to the workers in speeches and articles up and down the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Neville Chamberlain, in a speech at Birmingham on January 29th said that the Midlands are "enjoying a greater prosperity than had ever been known in the history of living people". (The Times. January 30th. 1937.) Mr Colin Campbell. Chairman of the National Provincial Bank. Ltd., in his survey of the country's affairs at the annual meeting of his bank, sees "prosperity firmly based on well-distributed purchasing power". (Economist, January 30th. 1937.) Indeed, the bankers and economists are becoming alarmed at the comparative shortage of skilled labour and consequent ability of the workers to secure wage increases. The question occupying their minds is when the next slump is due to break and whether by any means they or the governments can prevent it.

It need hardly be said that the prosperity which so impresses the spokesmen of the propertied class is the prosperity of that class, hence their view that higher wages due to scarcity of labour is an "evil".

[From an article "This Prosperity", Socialist Standard, April 1937.]

Socialist Correspondence Club (1987)

Party News from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1983 a Socialist Correspondence Club was formed with the aim of breaking down the sense of isolation felt by many socialists across the world. Since then the number of participants in this project has grown substantially and now includes readers of the Socialist Standard in America, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, India, Ireland, Mauritius, New Zealand, Poland and Zimbabwe.

The club's membership list is now being updated. Would readers who wish to join please contact the co-ordinator. Louise Cox c/o Head Office. SPGB. 52 Clapham High Street. London SW4 7UN. stating their name and address, and most importantly, any specific interests they may have e.g. Victorian history, cycling. Dire Straits etc. The deadline for all letters is the end of July 1987. Those already on the list are asked to advise of any change of circumstances.

Shortly afterwards a complete list of members will be sent to all participants for each to decide with whom to start a correspondence. If you want to join please don't delay. And if you know anyone who might want to join, tell them about it! It costs absolutely nothing (except your stamps) but any donations to party funds would be most welcome.

Political Notes: Union Bashing (1987)

The Political Notes Column from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Union Bashing

The government has recently published a green paper (discussion document) entitled Trade Unions and Their Members which outlines phase four of its union bashing programme. Having whittled away at the rights of trade unions to engage in industrial action, and dictated how they should constitute themselves and run their affairs, the latest proposals are primarily concerned with bolstering the rights of individual trade union members against their unions. The intention is to provide legal protection to trade union members who refuse to take strike action, even though that action has majority support as expressed through a ballot of the whole membership. The Green Paper states:

  Every union member should be free to decide for himself whether or not he wishes to break his contract of employment and run the risk of dismissal without compensation. No union member should be penalised by his trade union for exercising his right to cross a picket line and go to work.

And to ensure that the rights of individual union members are so protected, it is proposed that a special commissioner for trade union affairs be appointed by the government to provide advice to trade unionists wishing to take legal action against their union.

The language of the Green Paper is that of "rights" and "freedoms", but it is individual rights that are to be protected at the expense of the collective rights of the unions themselves. The only strength that unions have comes from their collective strength and ability to remain united when involved in industrial action in defence of wages and conditions of work. The rhetoric of "rights" and "freedoms" disguises the government’s real purpose which is to undermine trade unions by helping to create divisions within them. The fact that some of the proposals contained in the Green Paper are concerned with the democratisation of trade union organisation — such as the proposal for secret ballots for elections of union officials — should not blind us to the fact that this is not the real reason for this latest round of trade union laws. It is up to workers themselves to ensure that their unions are democratic and that governments do not interfere in the internal structure and constitution of trade unions.

Teaching Teachers a Lesson

Another blow was struck against the trade union movement with the passing of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act, which completely removes from teaching unions the right to negotiate with their employers (local education authorities) about pay and conditions of work. Instead the Act imposes a pay settlement and contains provision for the appointment of a committee which is to be responsible for advising the Minister for Education on teachers' salaries and conditions of employment. The minister will then decide whether or not to accept the recommendations of the committee.

The teaching unions will play no part in this process since the Act only states that the unions can be consulted on the Advisory Committee's recommendations. So in other words the government, acting on the advice of a body appointed by, and responsible to, itself will be able to decree what teachers should be paid, how long they must work and so on. And this from a government that claims to be committed to the "free market"!

Teachers have once again voted to take strike action in protest at this erosion of their union rights. However, in taking further industrial action they may well run up against other restrictions on the right to strike. The government and the media will undoubtedly try to present teachers as irresponsible, unprofessional and even in breach of the law. The fact that the government, in passing this Act. is itself in breach of the International Labour Conventions is likely to go unnoticed.

Unemployment Tactics

The government offers two tactics for dealing with unemployment: job training schemes and financial support for small businesses. Since the usefulness of the former depends on sufficient jobs being available when people are trained, even the most complacent of government supporters can have very little confidence in this remedy. The president of the Confederation of British Industries in his New Year message for 1987 was certainly not over-optimistic about future trends in employment: he "warned of fewer jobs in manufacturing in 1987" but thought that "demand for labour by service industries should more than offset the loss to bring about a slow but steady fall in unemployment of about 100.000 over the year".

However, the government has shown its determination to support small businesses by making David Trippier the "Minister of Small Firms”. One of his jobs is the encouragement of investment in small firms by insurance companies and the controllers of pension funds. Barely one per cent of their huge financial resources, he claims, are being used to back small companies.

  Given that their total funds were estimated at £170 billion in 1983, and taking account of the 100 per cent rise in the FT share index since 1983 this is a national disgrace. . . . I can't believe that they would be taking too big a risk by investing up to 2 per cent in the smaller companies which are not quoted on the Stock Exchange (The Times 2 February 1987).

Under the present economic system, capital flows to those areas of the economy where the prospect of profit is greatest, for maximising profit is the very basis of our economic system. David Trippier has been given a thankless task indeed, but it could be worth quite a few votes.

To Fit the Crime?

If anything excites the gutter press more than a horrific rape it is a horrific rape for which the rapist receives a comparatively light sentence.

So we should not be impressed when newspapers like the Sun report (they would probably prefer the word expose) sexual offences, in a mixture of relish and indignation. while at the same time they publish girlie pictures with captions like this:

  Sexy Sammy Fox simply shines — as she gets set to make you and your partner BULLIONAIRES.

This merchanting of distorted femininity — superficially inviting but actually unreal and unattainable — is good for sales but not for sexual harmony. Deliberately and cynically, it preys on the repressed and malformed sexuality which is ail too often evident in offences like rape.

The Ealing vicarage rape case — particularly brutal and horrifying — was all the gutter press could ask for. It also gave a few publicity-crazed MPs the opportunity to get themselves a bit more media exposure. Notable among these, seizing his chance like the pro he is, was the local Member Harry Greenway, who annually shows how he rates women by arranging to have himself photographed clutching some haplessly smiling contestants in the Miss World festival of female degradation.

Punishment freaks on the right wing like Peter Bruinvels — who wouldn't mind the job of hangman if capital punishment is ever brought back here — were in sympathy with feminists and left wingers in outrage at the Ealing sentences. It was, they agreed, a simple matter to reduce the incidence of rape — dish out harsher sentences to the rapists. Clearly, there is need for a few words from another point of view.

The Ealing sentences were short only by the standards of the English courts, which are notorious as among the most punitive in Europe. The sentenced men are likely to suffer grievously at the hands of their fellow prisoners. They are unlikely to learn anything about how capitalism with its poverty, its slums, its repression, its cynicism, discourages people from trusting or caring for each other. What sort of attitude does the Sun. for example, encourage men to adopt towards sexy Sammy Fox?

The mock horror in the press at a judge who seemed to set property at a value higher than human beings was particularly sickening for these same newspapers ardently support the capitalist system which operates on exactly that principle. What else was the Sun saying, when it gloated over the slaughter of hundreds of Argentinian workers when the Belgrano was sunk?

The outcry over "inadequate" or "lenient" sentences encourages workers who are afraid or disturbed about what they see of capitalism in the 1980s to think they can leave the remedy to politicians to introduce harsher laws and to the judiciary who will impose them. Crime springs from the roots of capitalism and. contrary to the hysteria of the gutter press and vote-obsessed MPs. it will not be eradicated through punishment.

Business as usual

The Tower Commission's report into the sale of arms to Iran by the United States has left the way open for things to continue pretty much as usual. The Commission concluded that the (unelected) National Security Council. from which the policy apparently emanated. on the whole does a good job; that the decision-making processes are basically sound; and the President, although incompetent. is a good guy at heart. Ronnie has gone on television to put things right with the "American people" by admitting that he goofed and his popularity ratings seem to have recovered as a result. Nancy gave Don Regan the boot and a new Mr Clean has been brought in as the White House Chief of Staff. No doubt, as a consequence of the continuing investigation by Senate and House of Representatives committees, a few other people will be asked to resign. There may even be a few prosecutions and the self-styled Rambo, Oliver North, may, with luck, be certified insane.

What is unlikely to happen is large numbers of people in America asking the question why, in a country where there is a long history of shady deals by politicians, covert activities by those responsible for "national security" and deliberate attempts to conceal what is really going on — and all this in a country which boasts of its democratic political system — why is it that the majority continue to grant power to the minority?

Testing to Destruction (1987)

Book Review from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poisoned Reign. French Nuclear Colonialism in the Pacific by Bengt Danielsson and Marie-Therese Danielsson (Penguin Books 1986)

On 10 July 1985 the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior was blown up in Auckland harbour by two French agents. This act might appear to be surprising, considering the fact that both France and New Zealand are members of the "free world". This book tells the story of how successive French governments, including the "socialists" who changed from opposition to support, have been determined to use French Polynesia for nuclear weapons testing and not let any opposition get in the way.

The post-war years saw the great European empires in decline. When the French were being kicked out of Algeria, they were on the lookout for an alternative nuclear testing site to the Sahara. French Polynesia seemed the best bet — its islands are spread over an area the size of Europe and the 120,000 inhabitants were easy-going and the French had been manipulating them for years. The fact that the South Pacific is rich in food, metals and oil was another reason to maintain French dominance.

Other countries at this time were also testing nuclear weapons — the British at Christmas Island, the Americans in the Marshall Islands, the Russians in Siberia, and the Chinese in parts of Mongolia and Tibet. None of them showed much concern for the effects this would have on the local population.

When the French nuclear testing programme was announced in the early sixties the local people were mostly opposed to it. But this opposition was ineffective — the islands were run from France and the various institutions available to the islanders, to have a say in their affairs, were powerless. The authorities used various methods, devious and oppressive, to neutralise this opposition.

On 2 July 1966 the first French nuclear bomb was exploded above Moruroa Atoll. The French President, de Gaulle, was there to observe. He had made many flowery speeches claiming a great regard for. and affinity with, the Polynesian people, who were the first overseas territory to recognise the Free French during the war and who had sent a battalion to two world wars.

The French nuclear authorities, when dismissing the dangers of the tests, had said that the bombs would only be exploded when the wind was blowing east, away from the inhabited areas. This was despite the fact that winds in the South Pacific can blow in many different directions during the same day. However, when de Gaulle was there the wind kept blowing straight towards inhabited areas. Rather than keep the General waiting, the bomb was exploded anyway. The fall-out reached as far west as Fiji and Samoa. Islanders in the vicinity of Moruroa were given advice on how to protect themselves They were told not to drink rain water or eat fish for a while. This advice was not particularly helpful as this is precisely what the islanders exist on.

The nuclear programme had other effects on the islanders. Many of them were needed to work on the project. They were enticed to Tahiti by high wages only to end up in slums around Papeete, the largest town. They had to endure filthy conditions and crime, prostitution and drunkenness all increased sharply. As most of the work was needed at the start of the programme, when this finished they found themselves unemployed and unable to get back to their islands, as they had been promised.

By 1974, 42 French nuclear bombs had been exploded in the Pacific skies. Due to pressure from other Pacific countries and environmentalists the French government decided to continue its testing underground. They still used Moruroa. despite the fact that a Pacific atoll is one of the worst possible sites. The rock is thin and brittle and the many tests carried out almost certainly caused radioactive leakage and contamination of fish, plankton, shells, dams and squid regularly eaten by the local population.

The extent of the pollution caused by these tests and their resulting effect on the population can only be guessed at, as the authorities engage in the usual practice of secrecy and cover up. No reliable health figures are published and safety standards certainly appear lax. Much of the nuclear waste was dumped on the north of the atoll and washed away by several cyclones and tidal floods which have become more common in recent years. Some of these tidal waves will have been caused by explosions blowing out the side of the atoll, spilling out its radioactive muck. The fact that by 1985, 115 French nuclear devices had been detonated in the Pacific along with 106 American and 21 British, does not bode well for the future health of the islanders.

The authors tell the story of the French nuclear programme well, but their analysis of why it took place, with stories of politicians' duplicity and pride is weak. They clearly disapprove of French attempts to keep up with the superpowers and be independent and are sad that French public opinion doesn't seem to care. Unfortunately, the fact that any capitalist government exists to defend its national interest, and will develop whatever weapons it can to do this, with scant regard for the effects on people, escapes them.

There was a statement recently from a French government spokesman that they might stop nuclear testing at Moruroa as even they think that the atoll cannot take any more blasts. The underground rock is apparently in a very fragile, unstable condition. This will come as a relief to the people in the Pacific, although others had better watch out — the spokesman said they were searching the North Atlantic for an alternative.

Ian Ratcliffe

Letter: "The poisoning of the Rhine" (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades.

Carl Pinel does not, unfortunately, quote the source of his figure of 30 tons of poisonous chemicals "accidentally" released into the Rhine. ("The poisoning of the Rhine", Socialist Standard February 1987 p.265).

According to the New Scientist (13 November 1986) Sandoz, the superpolluters involved, admitted the amount to be 1,300 tonnes — including 934 tonnes of pesticides and 12 tonnes of compounds containing mercury.

But this is merely one incident, spectacular in itself, in a steady routine of pollution in the name of profit. In the same month BASF leaked 2,000kg of herbicide from rusted pipes; Giba-Geigy spilled chemicals into the Rhine on the day prior to the Sandoz incident, didn't tell anyone, and were only discovered because the journey of the Sandoz chemicals was being monitored; Hoffman LaRoche leaked toxic liquid methyl vinylketone from its Sisein (Switzerland) plant; the German state of Hesse claimed that the chemical giant Hoechst spilled 50kg of chlorobenzol into the Main, a tributary of the Rhine on November 22.

Clearly the Rhine is an open sewer. By the time it reaches the sea its daily load of pollutants is a staggering 60,000 tons (40,000 tons of salts. 16,000 tons of sulphate, over 200 tons of iron, and thousands of other poisonous products). At the height of public concern over the pollution of the environment it was reported that the city of Basle (home of the Swiss chemical industry) dumped its sewage direct into the Rhine, and that many other cities downstream only had mechanical sewage works. Prior to European Conservation Year (1970) Hoechst were spending a mere £5m per year on anti-pollution measures compared to £30m paid in dividends. Bayer's dividend for one year equalled what they spent against pollution over 15 years. (Figures quoted in the "European Business Magazine" Vision, October 1971.)

The argument that capitalism pollutes because of its need for profitable trade, and will continue to do so, was underlined at the time by the following comment from Vision (December 1971)

  . . . complicating the pollution control issue are the likely repercussions on international trade. It is difficult enough to ensure uniform application of anti-pollution standards (and hence equal sharing of costs) within national frontiers; how much more difficult it will be internationally once a number of major trading nations have set up differing standards.
  . . . German firms facing tough legislation governing pollution by their products — as well as in production processes — thus claim their competitive position is being unfairly prejudiced by costs not imposed on their foreign competitors . . . Bayer's annual report for 1970 claims that such costs are already reducing the competitiveness of German industry.
  . . . pollution control means eating into profits. And business is about profits . . . Firms can only afford and will only be willing to act against pollution so long as their competition does the same.

Fifteen years later the problem remains — and the solution is still socialism.

Fraternally

Gwynn Thomas,

Welling. Kent

Reply:
The source of the figure of 30 tons was the Independent 10 November 1986.

Editors

Jottings. (1921)

The Jottings Column from the March 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Commenting on the ridiculous demands of the French and British plunderers in connection with the reparation clauses the "Hamburger Volkzeitung" (31.1.21) says: "Let those pay who can. Let the conscienceless bourgeoisie of all countries settle their accounts between them. It is their concern that is going bankrupt. The workers can renounce the inheritance. Their account is on another page." Very nicely put and very true. We have been saying this for years.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Gilbert Frankau, a person addicted to writing novels, is, despite his name, a British patriot 100 per cent. pure. So much so that he gets quite frantic about it. Loving his country as he claims to do, he is bound to see a menace in almost everything. Writing week after week in the "Sunday Herald," he has covered almost every phase of human activity, and sees in each and every one a menace to the British Empire. But writing on politics and economics is not like writing novels Even his colleague, Robert Blatchford, has had to remonstrate with him as to the accuracy of his statements. But apparently he is not particular as to his facts so long as space is accorded him in which to let himself go. Of course he had to lash himself into a fury when dealing with Karl Marx and Lenin (who, for some strange reason, he couples together), but his knowledge of both must be very scanty indeed if what he has told the "Sunday Herald" readers is all that he knows. In the issue for Feb. 6th he deliberately states that Marx was a lunatic and that he died in a lunatic asylum. This absurd lie Marxists can, of course, afford to laugh at as emanating from an ignoramus, but for the fact that a great portion of the working class bases its whole philosophy of life on the contents of the Sunday papers. This being so, it often falls to the Socialist to correct the erroneous views disseminated by such papers. Karl Marx is accredited, even by capitalist historians, with having written a masterly analysis of capitalist society in which he laid bare the whole system by which the workers are robbed and kept in subjection. It is admitted that "Das Kapital" had the influence that Darwin's "Origin of Species" had, and this from a lunatic ! It is a scientific study of industrial conditions, and from these investigations the theory is maintained that materialist conceptions have guided the history of man. The theory of surplus value is also deduced, that the workers' wages tend to fall to the minimum of subsistence and that all profits, etc., are part of the value the worker has produced but hasn't got—are, in fact, surplus value.

Karl Marx died in 1883, at 8 Maitland Park Road, London, in full possession of his faculties, though he died in broken health, probably accentuated by the death of his wife, whom he loved dearly. Like others of his kind, he was persecuted to his dying day by the Frankaus of his time. But it says much for his teaching when, nearly forty years later, people can work themselves into a fury simply because what he taught has been verified over and over again.

"When the tool arose the tool-less men became the slaves of those who owned the tools." That was stated by Marx, and was never more applicable than at the present day in this glorious new England of ours—or rather, Frankau's—where men and women who fought and worked that the British Empire might be extended to accommodate a lot of gluttonous robbers, are waiting day after day in long queues for a dole of bread and soup from their masters who own the tools, and upon whose permission they must wait before they can use them. If these lines should be read by any of Frankau's readers they may perhaps stimulate them into enquiring a little further into the writings of Marx, when they will easily be able to distinguish which is the lunatic—Marx or Frankau.

#    #    #    #

The impression that Liberalism and Labour possess identical aims seems to be a pretty general one. During the anxious times of a bye-election when Coalition meets Liberal there is a dread on the part of Labour that Coalition might win. If the candidate opposing the Coalition happens to be Labour similarly Liberals are agitated lest their favourite be beaten. Sir Hamar Greenwood couples Liberals and Labour in his denunciation of those who would besmirch "the fair name of England." Greenwood's opponent, Joseph Devlin, appeals to Liberals and Labour to arrive at some modus vivendi to clear the "fair name of England." Mr. George Lansbury, the spotless champion of the British proletariat, likewise appeals to Liberals and Labour to combine. "Let us all— Liberals as well as Labour men and women— work together to throw out this Government which is a disgrace not only to England (that fair name of England, how useful everybody finds the gag!) but to the world " (Albert Hall. 15.2.21). Finally an examination of the new economic and industrial policy issued recently by the Executive of the National Liberal Federation discloses hardly any point of difference from the policy of the Labour Party. Indeed, the "Manchester Guardian" claims that "the new Liberalism has stolen not a little of the Labour thunder, and has even taken some hints from the Guild Socialist" (28.1.21). Thus all bourgeois-loving Labourites can—and no doubt will—give the new Liberalism their full acquiescence and support without in any way endangering their status.

#    #    #    #

We have been repeatedly told by those who profess to be our leaders in matters industrial and political, that we, the workers, and constituting the largest portion of the community, bear the largest share of the burden of taxation. If this be true, then obviously any reduction or relief in taxation should redound to our benefit. When Mr. Will Thorne asked the Minister of Transport who would reap the advantage of a reduction in railwayman's wages consequent on the fall in food prices Sir Eric Geddes answered the taxpayer would. He meant by this that the increases of wages to railwaymen—and presumably those of other industries where "control" has been exercised—have been borne by the taxpayers, and that therefore any reduction should revert to them. If we, as workers, are also taxpayers, we should expect to find the sum total of all these reductions, or nearly all of it, spread out over the whole of the working class. What I want to know is, if a reduction in wages is going to find its way back into our pockets, will any Labour leader now come forward and discourage any resistance on our part to wage reductions ?

#    #    #    #

Even if the worker be not sanguine that he will experience a return of the suppressed portion of his wages indirectly there are yet many who believe that there is some justification for the complaint of the master class that high wages are responsible for high prices. At any rate the bluff appears to have done its work. At Roubaix and Tourcoing in France, where the same gag was tried, the workers in all the mills, including those whose wages were not immediately threatened, decided to cease work as a mark of their resistance to any reduction. If any protest is offered in this country the plan seems to be to stop the job for a week or two on some pretext or other, and then in the interval put up a notice inviting those who are prepared to start back at a reduced rate to give their names in. The real facts, of course, are that owing to the vast numbers of workers looking for jobs and the prospect of destitution staring them in the face, they are compelled to accept. Apart from the quick realisation of profits there is nothing more desirable to the master class than to have a decent-sized army of unemployed always on hand. This it is that tends to keep wages low.

#    #    #    #

All the same, it is rather pathetic to find some workers anticipating the wishes of their boss and asking for a reduction ! It marks a very low stage indeed in the development of knowledge of the factors governing industry. One such case has been extensively advertised in the Press recently, presumably to encourage others in a like course. It occurred at a mill in Manchester, and the method of approach was something like this: "Your employers have decided to approach you with the suggestion that our wages be reduced by 10 per cent. We hope that this offer will be accepted, as it is felt that the present high cost of living exists primarily owing to the very high cost of production." Needless to say, their hopes were quickly realised, along with the satisfaction of knowing that a strike was not necessary in order to enforce their demands.

#    #    #    #

Enforced leisure, as a rule, is not exactly pleasant to think about when applied to the case of the worker. But I often wonder if a thought is given any time to the way in which our "betters" spend their leisure time. Do they (the workers) ever read the reports of "our special correspondent in the Riviera," who appears to be having a posh time recording the doings and the latest fashions in vogue among the wealthy Britishers out there? Just now Nice, Monte Carlo. Mentone, and the other places are simply packed with people who have gone to escape the rigours of the English climate. Back here at home those who look after interests are busy trying to dope us with the tale that unless wages are reduced they will have to shut down because they simply cannot carry on!

Judging from the reports, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of money on the Riviera ; and all this, mind you, represents profits wrung out of the toil of the workers. Other things remaining equal, any increase of wages must come out of their profits. Consequently if they can get the workers to accept less wages, they will have more profits to spend in the Riviera and elsewhere. Whilst the workers here are walking the shoes off their feet looking for jobs and wondering how their children are going to be clothed, or even where the next meal is coming from, these parasites are promenading in straw hats or minx coats, or magnificent sables costing a thousand pounds apiece. One lady appeared at a ball in a dress made up of feathers of humming-birds obtained at "stupendous expense."

Think of this, you ex-warriors, when next you or your wife take up your position in the queue waiting for your dole of bread.

The latest report says that black is de rigueur—which means no class—probably because it is a colour affected mostly by the working class —when they can get it. They need it most. What are described as "wonderful" silk stockings at £4 a pair are very fashionable. It is wonderful—why it is allowed to go on.

Tom Sala

Bread Cast Upon The Waters. (1921)

From the March 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the midst of the terrible want, disease, and stark misery that the workers of to-day are getting inured to, that they are generally acquiescent in as being a condition of things utterly inseparable from the existence of their class, it is interesting to notice how much money is being spent on various forms of education, and by whom it is spent.

For some time past, prominence has been given in the columns of the "Daily Telegraph" to an appeal for funds, under the patronage of the Prince of Wales, to effect general improvement in the organisation of the Boy Scout movement.

A casual glance down the lists of subscribers of sums of £5 and over, as published in the "Daily Telegraph" of Feb. 5th and 7th (to take two days at random) will reveal the fact that roughly three out of every four subscribers are large business firms.

Now this is rather startling, for it is a rare thing to find these "captains of industry" falling over each other to give money away, but astonishment evaporates when the inevitable reason for this "generosity" is disclosed.

Investigation shows that the various sums donated to this movement are, briefly, investments. They are expected to yield a profit.

No doubt a good many people would wonder how on earth a subscription to the Boy Scout movement can be called a profitable investment for these capitalists, but the words of the investors themselves, in fact the words of the Chief Scout, Baden-Powell, himself, will remove any doubts on that score.

Appealing for funds at a large gathering of business men at Manchester, "B.P." said: "We will find from experience that the boys who cultivate the ideas and habits of the Boy Scouts prove more useful to employers of labour." — ("Manchester Guardian," 1.7.14.)—A cogent and potent reason, which resulted in substantial subscriptions from those interested in increasing the "usefulness" of future workers.

To-day, nearly seven years after the meeting and speech referred to, we find the "educating" of embryonic workers through the medium of the Boy Scouts has proved so valuable to employers of labour that they "part up" with subscriptions with an alacrity positively staggering to those unacquainted with the reason for such "free-hearted" stunts.

Another kind-hearted man by the name of "The Lord Dewar" (what a smell of whisky !) delivers himself of this :

  Sir,—I have pleasure in enclosing cheque for £1,000 towards what I consider a national cause of first importance, believing, as I do, that the Boy Scout movement is a sure foundation upon which to build the best ideals of citizenship, and the best medium to inculcate into the minds of the rising generation courtesy, discipline, courage, and resource. The results of this movement will be of inestimable benefit to the British Empire in future generations.—("Daily Telegraph," 5.2.21.)

This is a letter which reads at first sight as though £1,000 was a very casual and common gift, but which is pregnant with meaning to those who care to find it.

The "best ideals of citizenship" from the point of view of this purveyor of lunatic broth combine in the worker a keen intelligence in making the wheels of production run smoothly and prolifically, an unquestioning acceptance of dire poverty when further production is stopped by the master class because it does not pay, and a deadly dull and apathetic lack of understanding of the worker's true position in society.

That Lord Dewar thoroughly appreciates the benefits that he and his class enjoy as a result of cheerful endurance and unquestioning obedience to authority on the part of the workers is shown by the magnitude of his "gift."

There is every reason to believe that the brutal plainness of expression contained in the following extract from a letter is the cause of the writer's desire to remain anonymous under the horribly suggestive and admissive pen-name of "Lone Wolf," who writes thus :

  There is only one class in the scout movement, the best. That is what makes it so enormously superior in its results to trade unions and middle-class unions and leagues of nations. And the underlying secret? It is, I honestly believe, practically the only great movement of the present time which has realised the practical necessity of subordinating the personal interests of its members to the needs of the community. . . Most people who do not want other people taught to think for themselves have some very good reason for it,—that it is easier to prey upon ignorance, for instance."—("Daily Telegraph," 5.2.21. Italics mine.)

Well, we know who the "community" is. Lliar George did his best to teach us at the times when the railwaymen and miners, besides several other combinations of workers, were doing their best to maintain the already poor standard they "enjoyed" by means of strikes. It was dinned into our ears incessantly that these men were fighting the "community."

Apparently this bare-fanged "Wolf" is one of the "community" and is desirous of having the thoughts of the rising generation trained in the way he indicates.

And yet we find that, through some tortuous and peculiarly kinked up process of "reasoning," the vast majority of workers fully believe that they are members of the "community" that the Welsh twister speaks of so glibly. The Georgian community is composed of people who matter in the present system of society, and the worker of to day who thinks that that includes him is indulging in a pretty but suicidal conceit.

Those capitalists who have not previously taken a long enough view of the enormous power that can be wielded through the Boy Scout organisation, in the manufacture of complaisant wage-slaves are shown where their interests lie in the following extract from an article published in the "Daily Telegraph" as part of the appeal for funds :

  No expression of approval is more welcome to those at the head of the Boy Scout movement than that which comes from business men (28.1.21).

Mr. Wilde, headmaster, Blakely Municipal School, Manchester—a gentleman not prone to making wild statements, writes, concerning the average Boy Scout:

  He subordinates his own desires to a sense of honour and of loyalty and obligation to authority. He perseveres, and does not slack off. . . Surely a movement that is worth developing (38.1.21).

Which is a strong recommendation—from the point of view of any exploiter of labour!

What a game !

In these days the close observer sees that no movement that is in the interest of the workers generally gets a free advertisement in the columns of the Press like this Boy Scout business does. It is not to be expected that the owners and controllers of the profit-seeking (yet "free") Press will allow any thing to appear in their columns that is in any way detrimental to the interests of themselves as a class. That things do happen, too great to be ignored, yet against the interest of the capitalist class, is true.

Then subtlety gets full play, sometimes taking the form of bare-faced distortion of truth, sometimes "damning with faint praise," again deliberately suppressing vital facts, and in ways scarcely discernible, the capitalist class guard their own interests all the time, even making their position stronger by spreading plausible misconceptions which ultimately take the aspect of absolute truth.

A worker who used his intelligence on his own behalf and has become class-conscious, that is, realises that the interests of the workers and the interests of the masters, or capitalists, are diametrically opposed, smells a rat as soon as ever he sees a thing boosted in the Press as this Boy Scout movement has been, and a short search soon discloses the object of the boost.

Penny-a-liners, journalistic place-hunters, religious and lunatic sufferers from "scribearrhoea," soon have the grim features of their works laid bare by the worker of normal mind who has used his intelligence in discovering his own true position in the present terribly cruel system of society.

Then does the Boy Scout movement, shorn of all its ribbons, badges, and sentimental trappings, stand out in its true light as a highly developed organisation for the production of wage slaves whose minds will have been moulded to such a degree of complaisant obedience to authority that the woes suffered by the capitalists of to-day (as a result of the workers trying to think for themselves in even the vague, groping, inadequate way that they do) will be entirely eliminated from their scheme of things, and labour troubles will be practically unknown.

We, as Socialists, know to our bitter chagrin what a hard task it is to dislodge ideas that have been grafted into people during their earlier years, and to day we are face to face with a most successful effort to still further influence the minds of the young against their true interests, a fact hidden from the children and their parents with unscrupulous subtlety.

The prosecution of the Boy Scout movement has in view the cultivation of all the "virtues" in the minds of the boys, but never a word is breathed to them about the abominable evil of a system that ensures the whole of their future being insecure until death.

Selim.

Forward! (1921)

Editorial from the March 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are on the threshold of a new propaganda season. It has been a remarkable winter, with weather conditions that have permitted us to employ our scanty forces to the full in outdoor effort, and much valuable work has been accomplished ; but after all, winter is winter, and it is not only those of heroic minds and hardy constitutions that we have to deliver our message to. Hence with the coming of the season of longer days and warmer suns there is a quickening of life in field of Socialist endeavour, as in most other directions.

The opening season is likely to be one of exceptional importance. It is the first season in which the adverse economic backwash of a stupendous war comes flooding in upon the workers of this country. We have had bad years before and in plenty, but there is this factor about the present period of depression. It follows on years of terrible suffering from the ravages of war, and eloquently belies all the capitalist promises and assurances. Those who have suffered so much to make "a land fit for heroes to live in" will have the real meaning of such phrases borne in upon them with ample force, and will have to ask themselves who the world really belongs to.

In addition, the capitalist have now obtained just those conditions which are necessary to enable them to beat down wages—a clamouring unemployed army—and the next few months will undoubtedly see gigantic struggles over wage and hours issues. Let us strive to take full advantage of the opportunities thus offered.

"The Case for Capitalism." (1921)

Book Review from the March 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

'The Case for Capitalism' by Hartley Withers (Eveleigh Nash company)

Socialists have been searching for years for a representative statement of the case for Capitalism, and at last it turns up. It is a champion mix-up of truth and error, misrepresentation, and all-round confusion.

To quote the items of interest to us in the book would mean practically repeating the whole work, however, we will deal with a few of the most important passages.

The parts which contain the truth are mere sentiment, and even then are condemnatory of Capitalism rather than favourable to it. Thus on p. 16 Mr. Withers tells us that "the test of an economic system is its success in providing us with a good world to live in "—a piece of daring whose very impudence, in view of the sort of world capitalism has provided for most of us since August 1914, compels admiration.

We are told on pp. 13-15 that under capitalism each one

  can choose what work he will try to do and what employer he will try to serve; if he does not like his job or his employer he can leave it or him and try to get another. He cannot earn unless he can do work that somebody wants to buy, and so he competes with all other workers in producing goods or services that others want or will pay for. . . Whatever money he earns in return for his labour he can spend as he chooses. . . . Whatever money he earns by labour or investment he can, after paying such taxes on it as the State demands, hand on to any heirs whom he may name. . . It is thus very stimulating and bracing, and might be expected to bring out the best effort of the individual to do good work that will be well paid so that he and his may prosper and multiply. IF ONLY EVERY ONE HAD A FAIR START and began life with an equal chance of turning his industry and powers to good account, it would be difficult to devise a scheme of economic life more likely to produce great results from human nature as it now is ; by stimulating its efforts for gain and rivalry to a great output of goods and services and by sharpening its faculties, not only for exercise in this purely material use, but also for solving the bigger problems of life and human intercourse that lie behind it.

Here we have a crushing indictment of Capitalism, mixed with a gross misrepresentation of the facts. True, the worker can leave his job— much more easily, generally, than he can retain it. True, he can leave one employer—much more easily, as a rule, than he can find another. True, he cannot earn unless he can do work that someone wants to buy—a million starving unemployed bear witness to the truth of this statement. And just as the worker can leave his job if he don't mind being out of work, and can leave one master if he cares to take his chance of getting another, so he can spend whatever he earns in whatever way he chooses (within the limits of the law, of course). He needn't buy food with it if he don't mind being hungry ; he needn't buy clothes with it if he can go naked and unashamed ; he needn't keep his wife and kids with it if he hasn't any. Oh, there is a wonderful foundation of truth in much that our author writes, but it is travesty all the same.

Mr. Withers says on p. 51 :

  Labour is frequently used in different senses . . Adam Smith apparently used it as covering all the activities of mind and body required for production. In this sense it covers, of course, the work of the unskilled labourer, and the organising capacity of the manager.

Well, what about it ? Adam Smith's definition is the true one, because it is the only scientific one. As a matter of fact Socialists have always stressed the fact that the labourer, "skilled" or "unskilled," the office boy, and the manager, are all members of the working class, that is to say, wage slaves.

On p. 54 Mr. Withers makes use of the old example of Robinson Crusoe on his desert island. He shows Crusoe while fishing with a hook on a line, meditating various methods of improving his economic position. We are told that if Crusoe takes action for this purpose he must run the risk of something happening to render such action useless; e.g., he makes a boat in order to enable him to fish further out, but his boat may be unseaworthy, or the fish further out at sea may be inedible, and so forth. Mr. Withers finds here an analogy to the capitalist investing money. But whether the capitalist runs a risk or not, in investing his money, the fact remains that under capitalism production is carried on for profit, that all profit is unpaid labour, and that therefore any profit the capitalist does get (and there is no doubt about him getting it in the long run) is wealth stolen from those who produce it.

Our author quotes (pp.65-71) G. B. Shaw's imaginary case of a pioneer cultivating a patch of land. Other "Adams" come along, and the first lets his land to a later arrival. The tenant tills his own land, and also his landlord's, but in his turn lets patches to other newcomers. Mr. Withers argues that the first "Adam" and the others who let the land are entitled to the rent they receive by virtue of the work they put into the land previous to letting it, and applies this argument to the capitalist class generally, ignoring the fact that they (the capitalists) have received the equivalent of their original many times over, yet their investment is still there, and so long as they let it remain they will continue to draw dividends for it, generally speaking.

Our author on p. 80 quotes Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald (''The Socialistic Movement") as saying : "A man can go into the forest and tear boughs off trees with his hands for his fires, but he cannot fell trees without an axe of some kind, which is capital." An old saying runs : " One fool makes many." Capitalists like Lord Leverhulme, and their henchmen like Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Withers, are very fond of this yarn that the primitive woodman's axe (Macdonald), the savage's first stick (Leverhulme), the allotment-holder's spade (Robert Blatchford), are capital. They all have the one object—to lead the workers to believe that there is no class division in present-day society, that all who own any simple tool are by virtue of that capitalists. What none of them will face is, what is the distinctive character of the means of production which leave the product of the workers' toil not in the possession of those who produce them, but of those who own the instruments of labour ? That is the rocky point the Artful Dodgers anxiously try to steer their boat clear of.

Another pseudo-Socialist, Mr. Philip Snowden, is dragged forward to bear false witness on p. 93. Mr. Withers quotes from "Socialism and Syndicalism" :

   But to admit the truth of the doctrine of surplus value does not involve an acceptance of the doctrine in the crude form in which it is expounded in the "Communist Manifesto," where the idea is conveyed that manual labour is the sole producer of wealth. In his later writings Marx seems to express that view at times, . .

This is a deliberate lie, and we challenge Mr. Snowden or any other capitalist hack to find any such statement in any part of the "Communist Manifesto," or in any writing of Marx, Engels, or any other exponent of Socialism.

Our author defines capital as "stored up work," and argues that without "stored up work" the product of labour would be a ''miserable subsistence." Whose work is it that is "stored up" ? And for whose benefit is it so stored ? These are the questions that matter. And if it is true that without this "stored up" labour the product of labour would be a miserable subsistence, that would chiefly affect those who stole the "labour" of others and stored it up, for a "miserable subsistence " is already the lot of those others, and without the "stored up labour" by means of which they are exploited they could not produce a margin for capitalists to lob them of.

Mr. Withers devotes a chapter to the "Achievements of Capitalism." On p. 129 he says :

  It is true enough that Militarism could not have achieved a fraction of its destructive power if Capitalism had not provided the machinery and weapons. 'What d'ye lack ?' is Capitalism's cry, and when humanity said 'Weapons for killing one another, and see that they kill by heaps,' Capitalism delivered the goods with a vengeance.

He might have produced a fine dramatic effect by following that statement with a repetition of his previous assertion that "the test of an economic system is its success in providing us with a good world to live in."

There is an enormous amount of wild statement in the book, travestying the actual facts of life as we find them under capitalism, but limitations of space prevent it being further dealt with here. For the most part the veriest schoolboy would see the absurdities which bristle in our author's pages, for there is no thing subtle in the "arguments" put forward. Nor is there anything new in them either. They are the old familiar regiment which have been on duty so long, and have been roughly handled so often. They want a rest, and it is significant that Mr. Withers brings up no new
 forces to their relief. The truth, of course, is revealed in every fresh effort of Capitalism's 
apologists to put "The Case for Capitalism." They have no reserves, and their case must
stand or fall by these.

Hutch.