The Capital Levy. (1923)

From the August 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent war caused an enormous increase in the National debts of most of the belligerent nations, and the burden of finding interest has helped to popularise an old bogey, trotted forward in a new disguise as the Capital Levy. It has been made one of the main planks in the Labour Party’s programme, and was presented in various lights and with varying degrees of warmth by Labour men at the General Election. In the main, it seems to have been useful to that party as a rallying cry for the more aggressive of the industrial workers; and in quarters where the votes were sought of the mentally more slavish section, which goes by the misleading name of the middle class, the local members did their best to explain that the levy really didn’t mean much. Most opponents relied chiefly upon the iniquity of robbing the capitalist of his savings, etc.

We, however, are not concerned with this purely superficial attitude towards the proposal. As Socialists, we are bent on discovering by what means the position of our class may be advanced. Our class consists of all those people who, not being owners of property, must sell their mental and physical energies to those who are owners. This proposal must stand the general test—Is it or is it not one which is useful to the workers?

In the “Forward” (Saturday, May 5th, 1923), Mr. F. W. Pethick Lawrence, a Labour candidate and prominent advocate, sets out what he calls “The Case for the Capital Levy,” with the sub-title, “Lift the Burden of Debt from Industry and Labour.”

Now, we are agreed that there is a burden ; and, further, that people who have burdens are naturally interested in having them lifted; but Mr. Lawrence makes the somewhat important omission of not troubling to prove that the debt is a burden on the workers. If it isn’t, why should the workers trouble to lift the burdens of the capitalist class? And, on the other hand, what are we to think of an organisation which asks them to do so?

Let us consider the matter in an elementary way. First, can Mr. Lawrence deny that a small class does own the bulk of the means of producing wealth in this and other capitalist countries? This is a matter of common knowledge, for which it is not necessary to quote statistics.

Owning the means, the capitalist class also own the products. If you are a boot operative, you know that all the boots, when they are finished, belong to your employer ; and so throughout the productive system in which we live. As a worker you receive wages or salary at certain intervals, the length of which is immaterial. Your wages are drawn from the store of wealth produced by you, but owned by your employer. The reason he gives you something he would willingly keep, is surely not that he loves you. It is a simple necessity that you must have the means of obtaining food, clothing, and shelter, recreation, etc., in order that you may continue alive and in a state of sufficient fitness.

Then, what is it that determines for the workers as a whole the amount given in return for services rendered? We contend that, broadly regarded, that amount is based for different sections of workers, under different climatic conditions and with different social standards and different lines of historical development, on their standard of living. This may change, and in an immediate sense it fluctuates up or down according as there is a comparatively large or small supply of labour, and according to the degree and method of organisation. Generally, however, the capitalist class must pay away so much wealth for the upkeep of the wealth producers, and the surplus is theirs.

But the matter doesn’t end there. The same class also controls the political machinery, the Government, in all these capitalist countries. It must control politically in order to safeguard its private ownership. But the great and growing State services cannot be run for nothing. The capitalists must dip into their surplus to find the necessary cash—a proceeding to which they all object very strongly.

Needless to say, sections among the owning class are always willing to hand over their share of the burden to their weaker brethren. Now, the top capitalist dogs and the weaker brethren are all alike dependent on the votes of the workers. Without your support they can do nothing.

And this is where we return to our Mr. Pethick Lawrence.

If the burden rested on the backs of the workers it might be worth while trying to throw it off. But if the workers have no surplus, then they cannot be robbed of what they don’t possess; and, in spite of apparent objections, the workers as a whole do not suffer from high, nor benefit from low taxation. They suffer because they are robbed, and they are robbed whether taxes are high or low, and the degree of the robbery has, over a period, no direct or indirect relation to taxation. As we have seen, the workers receive all the wealth they possess from the capitalist owners, and, further, these owners control at present the machinery by means of which taxes are levied.

Now, the workers either receive a surplus over their minimum needs or they do not. If they don’t, then they cannot be robbed of that non-existent surplus afterwards. If they do, then the capitalists will have given the surplus either because they are philanthropists or because they are compelled by economic forces. If they are philanthropists, then they will not take back the gift they gave; and if they were compelled to give, then the same forces will prevent them from taking it back.

The burden of taxation for the payment of interest or the National Debt is Not a burden on the workers.

But, say these levy advocates, food prices will be lowered. Possibly this is true, but are you certain you will benefit? Is a railwayman, for instance, worse off on 60s. when it costs 60s. to live, than on 30s. when it costs 30s. to live? And although all workers’ wages do not vary automatically on a sliding-scale basis, is there any grade or industry in which wages are not very closely dependent on the general level of prices?

Mr. Lawrence, with unconscious humour, writes: “The workers out of their poverty are paying for all their old-age pensions, all the soldiers’ and widows’ pensions, the State’s contribution to Health and Unemployment Insurance, etc., etc.”

The pertinent question Lawrence might answer is this : Would the capitalists, if there were no taxation at all, give the workers a larger share of the wealth produced, and, if so, why?

Mr. Lawrence says : “The main principle of the levy is simplicity itself. It is to pay off debt out of wealth. The wealth of the country as a whole is the wealth of its citizens.” This, as I have already explained, is quite untrue. The wealth of the country as a whole is the private property of the capitalist class. Only the owners of property can suffer the burden of taxation, and only the owners do suffer. Some of them want you, the propertyless workers, to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, and Mr. Lawrence and the Labour Party are making a bid for office on the strength of offering to do the necessary publicity work.

Mr. Lawrence admits our charge in full. He writes, “Payment of the levy will, in effect, be carried out by means of a reshuffling of the title-deeds of wealth among wealthy persons, and the actual cancellation of a large amount of war debt.”

This is of vital concern to those who hope to get some good cards out of the re-shuffle, but does it matter the least little bit to us whether Mr. Capitalist A. or Mr. Capitalist B. gets the aces? Perhaps Mr. Lawrence and a few others may be suitably rewarded; and perhaps not, for the master class are notoriously ungrateful where there are so many willing servants.

The fact of the matter is that the capital levy, like any other mere juggling with figures, will not alter the amount of real wealth, land, factories, railways, etc. ; it will not alter the worker’s position in relation to the owners, and, finally, it will not affect the capitalist class except to the extent that it leads to some redistribution of wealth among themselves.

While the capitalists will on the one hand be relieved from the burden of paying the debt interest, they will also, on the other hand, be deprived of the present means of paying that interest. Some will gain by reduced taxation what others lose by the paying off by the State of their quota of the debt and their consequent loss of interest on their bonds. The money paid out will, in its turn, be reinvested in industry, and we shall be as we were.

Funnily enough, while the Labour Party wants the Capital Levy in order to stop paying “a vast tribute to the nation’s bond¬holders” (Mr. Lawrence), this same Labour Party wants to create more bondholders to “draw vast tribute” by nationalising the land and compensating the present owners with 5 per cent. bonds redeemable in 30 years (Mr. Snowden’s Land Nationalisation Bill now before the House).

The National Debt, too, was produced by wars, chiefly the last war. The Labour Party opposed that one up to the 30th July, 1914, and then vigorously supported it until such time as the capitalists thought it wise to call a halt in 1918. The apologists assure us that next time the Labour Party will act differently, and in conference they carried unanimously a resolution “calling upon the Government to summon an International Conference, and propose thereat immediate and universal disarmament” (Daily Herald, 29th June). It was then moved that “The Labour Party in Parliament should vote against all military and naval estimates,” and surely a No-More-War Party could do no less. But, as Mr. Henderson pointed out, “It was absurd . . . we could not do without a Navy. If France continued in her present frame of mind, were we to neglect the possibilities of defence?” Mr. Brownlie (A.E.U.) thought it might “embarrass candidates at a future election,” and it would throw out of work his members engaged on building battleships !

So it seems that all Mr. Lawrence’s work trying to wipe out the last war’s debts is going to be rendered vain by Mr. Henderson’s next war. Incidentally, how could Mr. Henderson advocate the use of the armed forces against strikers if there were no armed forces?

After wiping out this war debt Mr. Lawrence says “there will probably be a balance of over £100,000,000 a year on the right side,” and then he adds, “Great things can be done with this sum.” Glorious ! But who is going to decide what “great things” are to be done? Surely the owners ; and the capitalists don’t voluntarily do great things for the workers. On the other hand, if the workers are of a mind to do so, great things, even greater things, might be done now.

And the workers would stand a better chance of making up their minds if shoddy economists like Mr. Lawrence ceased propagating among them quack nostrums conceived for the salvation of the small fry of the capitalist class. The levy is not to affect owners of £5,000 or less.

Lawrence is aware that “some Socialists contend that it (the Capital Levy) is not Socialism, but only a palliative to buttress up the capitalist system,” and he agrees that “it will leave heaps of evils untouched, and it will not take the place of the Socialist remedy for the reconstruction of society.” He carefully omits to answer the charge that it will bolster up capitalism, and makes the lame excuse that in meeting “the one purpose for which it is designed, viz., that of cancelling a great part of the debt,” it will also remove “some of the worst evils of the present maldistribution of wealth.” He does not say it will remedy the maldistribution, and war could equally be commended, on the same ground as the policy of battleship building, i.e., that it removes unemployment. Lawrence doesn’t even say what those evils are which the Levy will remove.

In short, as cannot be too often repeated, the workers are poor because they arc robbed. They are robbed just the same, high taxes or low taxes or no taxes ; big National Debt or no National Debt; great foreign trade or no foreign trade. At present the workers are often worse off when unemployment is widespread than when trade is booming, but is this not simply because they accept the position? However bad trade depressions may be, do the capitalists go without, and, if not, why not?

While there is wealth in existence not being used to maintain the workers who produced it, those people are deliberately or unwittingly playing the capitalist game, who talk about measures to revive “our trade,” whether they be Labour, Liberal, or Communists.

We are Socialists, and do not ask you to seek salvation by reviving capitalist trade. We tell you there is only one solution to your problems.

Lawrence says there are four alternatives before you :—

1. Repudiation.
2. Inflation.
3. A Sinking Fund.
4. Capital Levy.

We say that each and every one of these is a question of no interest or use whatever to the workers. We add a fifth alternative—SOCIALISM. This is the only remedy for present or future working-class ills, and one that can be applied as soon as the workers choose to apply it.

Edgar Hardcastle

Whence ideas. (1923)

From the August 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is quite a common view that the events of life are governed by the ideas of certain “great” men, some of whom are “good” and some “bad.” If the “good” are in the majority then all is well; if the “bad” are in the majority then all is not well.

Ideas are supposed to be due to some peculiar quality that only exists in “great” men’s minds, and have no connection with the world around until forced upon a willing or unwilling people.

There are many who believe that Socialism is an idea of this nature, and hence Socialists are referred to as “dreamers” and “idealists.”

Socialism is an idea that is born out of the present condition of society. The conditions themselves force the idea into the minds of the workers and are the guarantee of its ultimate accomplishment.

A little thought will convince any average person that material is necessary in order to think at all—and that the material about which each thinks is that which he finds in the world around. This being so the ideas and outlook of people depend, as a rule, upon the way in which they live, or their method of obtaining a livelihood.

When we think, what do we think about? Where do we find our material? We cannot very successfully think about nothing ! A child opens its eyes to a certain set of surroundings, and these surroundings govern the child’s outlook on life, and provide it with ideas. As the child grows to the adult, practical life and books furnish matter for thought and shape the outlook of the grown-up.

For the average person the things that are nearest occupy the bulk of his thoughts. The nearest and most important thing of all for the majority is obtaining the necessaries of life. Where, as with the rich man, the means of life depend upon profit, so his thoughts turn upon methods of making profit. With the poor man, however, the means of living have to be obtained by working; consequently the poor man’s thoughts turn mainly upon work and the problems connected with work. The poor man is the working man. He belongs to a group that depends for a living upon wages. He is therefore a member of the working class. His outlook on life is a working-class outlook—the opposite to the outlook of the rich man, who is his master. The latter also has a class outlook—the outlook of the master class to which he belongs.

In the course of his occupation the worker tends more and more to observe that he is the backbone of society, that he, by applying his labour power to what the earth provides, produces all the wealth upon which the whole of society lives. Later he begins to wonder why it is that, although his class is the only class necessary to wealth production, yet it receives relatively the smallest share of the wealth produced, the rest going to support a group of idlers. By and by he realises that it is not necessary to support a group of idlers— that if the workers own the wealth they produce then there will be no need for idlers. He becomes a Socialist and takes part in the struggle for Socialism.

Gilmac.

“Harder Lying”. (1923)

From the August 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

To distinguish between counterfeit and genuine necessitates close examination. Experts can at a glance detect the spurious, while Socialists know what is and what is not Socialism. But to those whose contact with pseudo socialism is so close that it is accepted by them as “the goods,” Socialism, when expounded, seems a different philosophy. In a leader of the Daily Herald of Monday, June 25th, headed “Hard Lying,” the scribe writes in the following fashion :—

  “When Tories of the Banbury type inveigh against Socialism, they blunder into every kind of foolishness, because they take no intelligent interest in public affairs and have never troubled their heads to understand what Socialism means.”

Unfortunately there are many Banburys who, having control of political power, and possessing vast wealth, have no need to “trouble their heads,” as members of the working class (for a weekly wage or monthly salary) can always be hired to study or understand for them. But even so it cannot be said that they do not understand ; they do, and doing so, are always seeking means, by propaganda, misrepresentation and other methods, of diverting the minds of the workers from proper understanding of their class position and socialist knowledge. They, however, are not the only guilty ones, as the following extracts prove. The writer continues as follows :—

  “But when a man of the intellectual eminence of Sir John Simon misrepresents Socialism and solemnly warns people against a danger which he knows must be imaginary, it is necessary to nail his false coin to the counter. It is necessary to prove that he uttered it knowing it to be false.”

Why this particular lawyer politician should be expected to be exempt from capitalist propaganda it is hard to say, but let the writer continue :—

  “On Saturday, Sir John Simon told a gathering of the ‘Dubb’ family in Yorkshire that the Labour Party aimed at the suppression of private enterprise in all directions, intending to commit the fortunes of this country, the happiness of every man, woman and child, and the delicately poised mechanism of our international trade, to the crude untried experiment of vast Socialistic schemes.”

This indictment the writer disclaims, obviously meaning that the Labour Party are not out for the suppression of private enterprise, a disclaimer with which we are bound to agree.

The writer likens Simon to an utterer of base coin, a clear case of pot and kettle; listen to this :—

   “Let us first take the statement that Socialist schemes are crude and untried, would Sir J. apply those epithets to the London Water Board? Would he apply them to our municipal gas and electric light undertakings? Would he hurl them at the L.C.C. tramways, and all the other systems of road transport which are run by ratepayers, not for profits but for use? All these are Socialist schemes.” (Writer’s italics.)

First he naively states that things are run by ratepayers for use and not for profit ! and are socialist schemes. Reform or improvement is the utmost they can be labelled.

The writer continues :—

  “To say that the Labour Party aims at anything so nonsensical as a complete and simultaneous suppression of private enterprise is to charge it with lunacy.”

In other words, we are promised a social system which will allow private enterprise to operate, and it will be called “socialism,” and it will be the essence of sanity ! That being so, we shall earnestly hope that in the near future the predominating complaint of the workers will be “lunacy.” Could anti-socialist aims be clearer? Now, you workers, adjust your headphones and listen to us.

The common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by, and in the interest of, the whole community.

That is Socialism, and anything based differently is not Socialism. Government control or nationalisation of industries under the existing system does not comply with the demand of Socialists, nothing short of the complete overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the co-operative commonwealth will suffice.

This is not the Labour Party’s aim; it only wishes to apply remedies that have commended themselves to a British Cabinet and a Royal Commission.

The writer concludes by stating :

  “It does equal discredit to Sir J. Simon’s reputation for honesty and to his political acumen.

  “No one can long believe such wild slanders, which merely prove that the Liberals admit the death of Liberalism, and have decided to join with the Tories in the effort to check social improvement by hard lying.”

If the writer hoped that the death of Liberalism would improve the vitality of Labour, and suffers disappointment, we would counsel him to hope on, perhaps Simon will see the error of his simple ways and join the Labour Party.

As for the “wild slander which no one can long believe,” we hope that the wilder slander here reproduced will also be not so long believed.

Griff.

God or the engineers. (1923)

From the August 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sad, in its immediate results, as is the recent eruption of Mount Etna, it is still more distressing to learn how great is the hold of religious superstition, and the ignorance of the most elementary facts of natural science it signifies, upon the minds of the people. For although the volcanic overflow only actually affects some few thousand wretched Sicilian peasants, the newspapers convey the tidings to their readers in the outside world in a manner most acceptable and understandable by them, and we have, therefore, in our daily newspapers practically no reference in a scientific manner to what, of course, is a natural phenomenon, but are entertained by stories of protecting’ patron saints, praying peasants, and priests appealing to God to stop the flow. Thus the Westminster Gazette (21/6/23) reports:—

  “The eruption of the Mount Etna volcano continues, but by a miracle the town of Linguaglossa, with its 15,000 inhabitants, appears to have been saved from destruction.

  ” ‘A mountain spur just outside the town has diverted the flow of boiling lava away from the town, where ever since the eruption started the people have been in a state bordering upon madness owing to the fear of destruction and the terrible heat.

  “The stream of lava runs to a depth of 20 feet and to a breadth of 500 feet, and in its course has demolished the village of Casozza and fifty houses.

 

  “The statue of the patron saint of Linguaglossa, St. Egidio, stands close to the mountain spur which has diverted the flow from the town, and yesterday priests and people knelt before this statue praying for their town’s salvation.— ‘ Central News.’

“PROTECTING SACRED STAFF.

   “They had carried the saint’s staff, which is kept in a richly decorated coffer, through the streets in procession to the spot reached by the lava. Afterwards, fearing that the staff might be stolen by the inhabitants of the neighbouring district of Castiglione, they handed it over to the Bishop, and it is now being zealously watched over by several citizens. It was formerly stolen by the people of Catania, for its supposed miraculous powers.—’ Reuter.’

   “A Naples message says that Professor Ottorino Fiore, teacher of volcanology and a lifelong student of Mount Etna, states that the eruption will last probably a fortnight.—’Exchange.’ ”

Although the mountain spur was there before the statue of the saint, the latter gentleman has collared all the credit, and although Professor Ottorino Fiore may prove to be correct, the priests will doubtless see to it that God and the Roman Catholic Church share the honours between them when it is a fait accompli.

We learn, however, from an evening paper of the same day that the volcano, after slowing clown a bit, had resumed its former fury, and that in spite of St. Egidio the mountain spur was no longer proving a barrier to the ever-increasing stream of burning lava. Engineers were then set to work to dig trenches to divert its course, with the result that the town of Linguaglossa was saved for the time being. Did the saint then fall from popular favour? Not a bit of it ! He became more of a hero than ever, as witness the Daily Sketch (22/6/23) :—

  “A rumour spread yesterday that the neighbouring town of Castiglione intended to steal the St. Egidius statue and crozier from the people of Linguaglossa, its legitimate possessors.

  “Men, women and children seized whatever weapons came to hand, and rushed to the spot where the protecting statue faced the now almost quiescent lava,

  “Finding there some innocent inhabitants of Castiglione who had never dreamed of stealing the sacred image, they attacked them with wild fury, and but for the timely intervention of a body of Fascisti the visitors would have been killed.”

Apparently, then, although appeals to God were useless, and it was left to the spades of the engineers to save the situation, in the minds of the poor peasants no doubt exists that the former method did the trick. And for this no one who has read Zola’s “Verité” will deny the priests the credit. We can imagine them playing upon the, fears of a terror-stricken mob, distraught by apprehension and suffering, and taking every advantage of the circumstances to regain the hold that the gradual unfolding of the book of science is wresting from them day by day. These rural priests and parsons are the outposts of capitalism no less in Sicilian villages than in the villages of England. It may seem supererogatory to declaim against the foolishness of a priest-ridden Italian mob, but to the Socialist it is just as important a manifestation of the slave position of the international working class, as the shooting down of strikers in Featherstone or Chicago. The destiny of the Catanian peasant is that of the mill-worker of Wigan. Slavery is their common lot. Their emancipation must be the same way.

And we in England, who were rather pre-occupied at the time in praying that the sun would shine down upon Ascot, will doubtless be asked to attend thanksgiving services, to offer up thanks to God for stopping the eruption (and presumably for starting it), just as we were asked to return thanks for the cessation of the late war—although we could blame the starting of that on to the Kaiser. The pity of it is that lots of us will do it without question. Not because we have never been able to question. Never before in the whole history of the human race was knowledge so accessible to the multitude. What is it binds us in our present position? Fear? We have nothing to fear, nothing to lose but our chains. We have the weapon wherewith to free ourselves from economic serfdom and intellectual repression in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. WE ARE THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS !

Stanley H. Steele

Lessons Poland’s workers must learn (1981)

From the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

A phone-in programme on a London commercial radio station; Mike Dickin — the interviewer—invites a caller from the Home Counties to have her say. “If you ask me”, she says, “these militant trade unionists in Poland are being whipped up by the Communists”.

The interviewer is confused: “But it’s the Communists they’re striking against”, he informs her. “Yes, it’s definitely the Communists”, she says, without listening ,to a word (as is the tradition on phone-ins). “These Communists have no respect for other people’s property”. Mr. Dickin verbally scratches his head: “But the Communists own the property. And it belongs to everyone. And . . .".

And there we must leave the poor man, suffocating in his own ideological vapour. Had he been a regular reader of the New Communist Party’s weekly paper, The New Worker, the headline on the front of the 22 August 1980 edition would have added to his confusion: “COMMUNISTS SLAM DGANSK WRECKERS” it said, and then went on to explain that “Irresponsible individuals, anarchic and anti-socialist groups are attempting to exploit work stoppages in the Gdansk coastal region of Poland for their own ends”. And just to make clear quite how much. “Communists” are opposed to strikes, the article goes on to quote the Prime Minister of People’s Poland (sic), Edward Gierek:

  Strikes will not change anything for the better here. On the contrary, they multiply the difficulties in the supplies and production, they disturb the normal life of our society.

To some this may seem odd: here is Mr. Gierek, a so-called Communist, opposing strikes much the same as Margaret Thatcher, who says that she is an out and out supporter of capitalism. But then, Thatcher is not always opposed to striking workers, for it was she who was telling the gin and tonic brigade at the Tory Conference last October how much she admired and supported the Polish strikers. The TUC would be delighted if such enthusiasm could be mustered by the government when British workers go on strike. But then, the TUC is not exactly unambiguous when it comes to striking workers in Poland.

Long before the workers of Gdansk had the audacity to go on strike against their dictators, the Polish government-run CRZZ (Polish Central Council of Trade Unions) had invited a delegation of TUC chiefs to visit the Stalinist Paradise and see state capitalism in action. But when the Gdansk workers started getting bolshie, questions were asked about whether the TUC team should go.

While hacks like David Basnett spoke at the TUC Conference in Brighton about the “recent distressing events in Poland", others diplomatically wrote out a resolution saying that the TUC delegation should go to Poland, but must call in and pay regards to the lads in Gdansk while they were there. The CRZZ go: to hear of this and the trip was cancelled. So, to put it all into perspective, Thatcher cheered the struggling Polish toilers, Gierek told them to go back work for the sake of the nation, the CRZZ supported the employers against the strikers and the TUC attacked Thatcher for not supporting workers —while some of them praised Gierek for being a great friend of the working class.

It is not confusion which led to so many people saying things at one moment which they condemned at another, it is the hypocrisy of a system which gives power to the few on the condition that they are able to deceive the majority. Poland is part of the capitalist system, the difference between it and Britain being that in the former the means of wealth production and distribution are owned and controlled by the state, whereas in the latter they are owned partly by private shareholders and partly by the state.

The hallmark of capitalism is that those who produce all the wealth—the working class—are exploited during the course of production by an owning class who pay them less than the value of what they produce. The profit which the employer obtains is the main objective of production. So, when workers ask for higher wages the employer must resist such claims in order to defend that profit. The inevitable antagonism between the worker—who needs wages in order to live—and the capitalist—who receives rent, interest and profit—manifests itself in a continuous class struggle.

As long as there is class ownership of the means of living this class struggle cannot be eradicated, in spite of the pretence that workers and capitalists have a common interest. In the state capitalist countries of Eastern Europe this pretended unity between classes is given the label "socialism”. Just as Hitler called bus fascist regime “National Socialist”, so the Party bureaucrats who live off the profits in state capitalism have created the ideological illusion that they have socialism. There is a class division in the so-called Communist countries, but some workers in the West have misguidedly been taken in by the claims of the rulers.

Since the war

To understand recent events in Poland it is necessary to consider the country’s history. The workers of Poland faced some of the worst atrocities of Nazi rule during the Second World War. In the Warsaw Rising of 1944 the section of the Polish Resistance which not only opposed Nazism, but also rejected the Moscow-instigated National Home Council, headed by Bolestaw Bierut, was massacred. In July 1944 the National Home Council became the Committee of National Liberation; in June 1945 this became the Provisional Government of National Unity, which declared Poland a “People’s Democracy”.

That not all of the Polish people wanted their new Stalinist-imposed government was demonstrated by the armed resistance to it which lasted until 1947. In January 1947 a “Democratic Alliance”, comprising the Communist Party of Poland and the Socialist Party of Poland, won 9 million out of 12.7 million votes in the last election that Poland has had in which more than one party was allowed to stand. After the election the leader of the opposition Polish Peasants’ Party was exiled and the Socialist Party consumed by the Stalinist Communist Party.

For ten years the Poles, having got rid of the Nazis, then suffered all the dictatorial repression of a Stalinist regime. In 1956 there began a brief period of “de-stalinisation” following the deaths of Stalin and Bierut. This liberalising of the regime was partly in response to demonstrations by workers in Poznan in June 1956. The new Prime Minister, Wladyslaw Gomulka —who had been imprisoned by Bierut in the 1940s for being too “liberal” — was no friend of the Polish workers when they voiced any objections to the dictatorship which he headed.

In 1968 a wave of student demonstrations, which demanded freedom of speech and publication, was suppressed and several of the prominent participants were imprisoned. In December 1970 workers in the Baltic ports went on strike in protest at increasing food prices. They demanded the right to organise in their own unions so as to negotiate with the government over wages—a right they were denied by the government, which said that if the workers wanted to negotiate they should do so through the government controlled unions!

When the Baltic workers refused to accept the government’s answer and organised demonstrations through the streets of Gdansk, the government responded by sending in their uniformed thugs— the “People’s Army" —with instructions to shoot down anyone who disturbed their law and order. Fifty-five Polish workers paid with their lives. Again, in July 1976 workers demonstrated against increased food prices and were violently suppressed. There is nothing new about such a reaction by the ruling class at times of working class dissent. In 1819 workers in Manchester were murdered on the streets when they posed a threat to the dictatorship of their masters. The same in 1834 in Tolpuddle when workers were deported for joining a union. The uniforms of the state bully-boys may be different, but it is all the same class struggle.

On 1 July 1980 the Polish government increased the price of meat. With queues in the shops, chronic shortages of basic requirements facing most working class families and rumours everywhere that Communist Party officials were stockpiling commodities and gaining privileged access to them, the patience of the Polish workers expired. In a spontaneous demonstration of concern for their material interests, reminiscent of the strikes which spread throughout Tsarist Russia in February 1917, the workers began to fight back. This time they were careful not to fall victim to the guns of the state dictatorship; they realised that the first step to liberation must be the organisation of their own, democratic trade unions. Bernard Guetta, who was in Gdansk throughout the summer of 1980, reported in Le Monde what he saw:

  Talking to six strikers sitting in the sun, we soon gather a crowd. When one of them answers, they all voice their approval. “Why are you on strike?” “When things are going that badly, you have to. Meat queues, unions that never do a thing for us, the government always lying and deceiving us—that’s enough! We’re not allowed discussion, we have no information, if we’re politically active we always have to suffer for it.” “What do you hope to achieve?” “Concrete improvements.” “What would be the most important?” “First the free trade unions, then the question of food and wages. We must have unions that are prepared to defend us.” (19/8/80).

“Solidarity”

The union which these workers established, Solidarnosc (Solidarity), was a well-organised and democratic union of workers, who deserve the support and admiration of the workers of the world. Guetta reports a typical instance of their democratic practice which could serve as an example to trade unionists in Britain: 

At 5 p.m. the talks with management are resumed at the Lenin yard. In the big coference room, under the central gaze of Vladimir Illyich on his pedestal, the Director and his assistant directors face 110 delegates representing 17,000 of their comrades. Twenty of them are members of the strike committee and known militants of long standing. The others were elected in their own shops and are novices. Outside, with the benefit of loudspeakers, the rank and file do not miss a word, and since the amplification works both ways, their comments are heard in the negotiation room. Disagreement is soon established: the management refuse to grant any more than 1,200 zlotys and the workers want the 2,000 they asked for. A few moments later, an appeal for reason by the Prime Minister is not even listened to. “I’ve better things to do than listen to all this twaddle again,” mutters one worker. (Le Monde, 19/8/80)

The question is, will the limited victory of the Polish workers lead to “better things”? That there has been a victory — albeit possibly temporary — is beyond doubt. The workers have won the right to form independent trade unions. By November 1980 “Solidarity had at least 10 million members in a country of 35 million.” (Sunday Times, 18/1/81) Dissident groups like the Polish Committee for Self-Defence (KOR) are now able to operate openly, which means that any genuine socialists in Poland would now be in a position to organise in the open. There are presently between twenty and forty anti-government publications in Poland and “some books and periodicals are being reprinted abroad and smuggled back to Poland, together with books written and signed by writers and essayists living in Poland, but openly published in emigre presses.” (Tadeusz Szafar, in Survey, Winter 1980). Copies of a statement from the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain have been translated into Polish and sent to the strike committees. Political questions are once again being discussed in the factories, farms and streets of every Polish town and village. For all of that to have happened in an East European state capitalist country is a victory which should not be ignored.

The main lesson that Polish workers must learn is that they are operating under capitalism To win the final battle they must understand how the system works. Some of the Polish rebels have naively assumed that they are living in a socialist society and that their troubles would be over if only they could transform Poland into a western-style capitalist state. They are often strengthened in this belief by the so-called intellectuals.

Poland is also a staunchly Catholic country: 80 per cent of Poles follow the ignorant superstitions of the Polish Pope. It is vital for the Polish workers that at all time they substitute a concern for their own material advantage for their religious beliefs. In the early days of the British labour movement vaguely socialist ideas were mixed with religious ideals, but in time the latter declined. Similarly, it is encouraging to note that when the strikes were in full swing in Poland “even an appeal by the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszinski, could not get the strikers back to work.” (Guardian 1/9/80)

The Polish working class must learn that strikes can only be a limited defence weapon within capitalism. Working class problems cannot be solved by trade unionism. The Polish nation may be likened to a large trading company, with the state bureaucracy the board of directors. As with any capitalist board, it can only concede to the workforce as much as is profitable for the smooth running of the company. As a trading company, Poland has major economic difficulties. It owes over 20 billion dollars to the West as a result of importing equipment and technology:

   Poland . . . now occupies tenth place in world, and sixth place in European, industrial production . . . If this growth is to be sustained, a prerequisite will be efficient and uninterrupted production. The last few months, however, have seen widespread industrial unrest in Poland, and at one point workers were on strike in over fifty plants and factories throughout the country. And the upshot of this has been a 15% pay rise granted to workers — which will cost the government an estimated £60 million. (Industrial Purchasing News, September 1980)

Increased productivity and increased profitability matters more to the defenders of Polish capital than the needs of the working class. The Polish coal industry is a good illustration of this. In 1979 Poland exported 41.4 million tons of coal, amounting to 20 per cent of all the country’s production; 26 million tons was exported to the West. British imports of Polish coal increased by 50 per cent, and 70 per cent of the coal used by the British Steel Corporation was imported from Poland “on straightforward grounds of price and quality.” (Industrial Purchasing News, September 1980). In August 1980 thousands of coal miners in the Silesian region followed the example of the Gdansk shipbuilders and went on strike. One of their main demands was for improved mine safety:

  The number of mines on strike has nearly doubled after an underground accident at the Halemba Colliery, near Katowice, in which eight miners were killed and eighteen injured. The accident is the latest in a series of mine disasters in southern Poland which have caused the deaths of sixty miners over the last year . . . Many miners blame declining safety standards on a new shift system introduced last year with the aim of ensuring a continuous 24-hour operation at the coalface. Critics of the new system claim that proper maintenance and repair of the mines have been sacrificed to increased production. (Guardian, 3/9/80)

The Polish ruling class, like their counterparts in the West, will go to any lengths to increase production, export more and pay their creditors. If this interferes with the well-being of the miners who dig the coal out of the ground it is too bad. Meanwhile, the workers want more pay and better conditions. This is class struggle. In the short-term it is useful to the workers to form trade unions and negotiate with their bosses, but such negotiations will never resolve the fundamental antagonism between wage labour and capital.

Nearly three quarters of all land in Poland is owned by peasants, who produce about 80 per cent of all Polish foodstuffs. For 35 years they have successfully resisted the State’s attempts to collectivise the land. As long as production for the market continues, the land-owning peasants will resist the workers’ desire for cheap food. The Polish government has three problems: how will it increase production, feed the workers and pay its creditors? Like any capitalist government, it will fail. Some Western economists have suggested that the EEC countries should give financial aid to the Polish ruling class. The USA has already invested 3 billion dollars in Polish industry. All that this shows is that capitalists of the world, despite national and ideological divisions, have a common interest.

The Polish rulers fear the class consciousness of their subjects no less than Thatcher, Reagan and Brezhnev do. Nothing hurts a capitalist so much as a worker who is beginning to think. Predictably, they offer reforms in order to pacify their wage slaves:

   The Party . . . will fight against transgressions of social justice and it will tackle the reforms of the economic system. (Polityka, the Polish CP weekly paper)

We’ve all heard that promise before. And we’ve all heard this one too:

  The Party, however, rejects the possibility of any compromise with the forces which are against the foundations of our system. (Polityka)

Our system? The capitalist system. The forces which are against it? Socialists or communists — the words have the same meaning. Why are we against it? Because we are workers and capitalism cannot be made to run in our interests. In Poland our fellow workers have won the right to strike. The next step? It is for the workers of all lands to join together in real solidarity, not merely to ask for a bigger slice of the cake, but to take over the bakery. 

Steve Coleman 

Foolish antics of Tass (1981)

From the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Necessary though the continuation and extension of trades union activity is under capitalism, the true interests of the workers lie instead in the political struggle to establish socialism. On the other hand, the vast majority of trade union members are not socialists. Consequently their political motivation does not go further than reformist activity, which they believe will improve their lot under capitalism. Some, particularly the more active, would claim that they are socialists and that their political activity will help to hasten the establishment of socialism. However the acid test is to examine their definition, or rather lack of definition, of socialism.

In Britain it was the unions which brought the Labour Party into being, in the first place motivated by the need to reverse the Taff Vale judgement of 1901. While this specific object was achieved, it involved a deal with the Liberal Party. Since that date British unions have often taken a leading role in agitating for all kinds of reform measures, both through the Labour Party, to which most large unions are affiliated, and outside it. This is the dual role of unions today. On the one hand the day-to-day class struggle in industry, on the other reformist political activity.

An excellent illustration of the contradictory nature of the unions is the case of TASS, the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (AEUWi. Before amalgamation with the AEUW, TASS was known as the Draughtsmen’s and Allied Technicians Association (DATA). About 15 years ago union membership among the white collar staff whom TASS represented was low, with plenty of the criticism of unions in general which is common among those workers who consider themselves a cut above the “common herd”.

That situation has now changed considerably. A concerted drive by TASS has led to the recruitment of a large part of the technical staff. This has reflected also the growing frustration among these workers at the erosion of their standards when compared with those of the more militant. While there has not yet been a full-scale strike, there have been a number of walk-outs, works-to-rule and other “non-co-operation". It is noticeable that while the management are now adjusted to dealing with unions on the shop floor, they seem unable to accept the evidence of their own eyes when dealing with those described as “staff”. Evidently the idea that white-collar workers don't do such things is dying hard. .Although it is now eight years since the drawing office walk-out, employers still appear to believe that the unions will go away if they wait a little longer.

TASS also deserves some credit for the partial erosion of the elitist attitudes which have long prevailed among engineers: such views have been encouraged by professional bodies such as the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. These bodies have recommended that engineers should join small unions or staff associations, which encourage the idea that they are essentially an a different position to other workers. In one typical factory, while draughtsmen and stress engineers have joined TASS, aero-dynamocists still cling to the elitist attitude which is basically a hangover from the craft unions of old. These elements were largely behind an attempt to form, a company “union”, which some members of the board of directors at first appeared to encourage. When the board were compelled to give TASS negotiating rights, they could no longer go along with the idea of a company union, although the actual organisation still operates without the blessing of the company. This withering of elitism is reflected in a more sympathetic attitude towards union activity in general. The change in attitude can now be seen at quite a senior level, and this is an area of the country which has always been very conservative politically.

However, the political side of TASS is another, altogether sadder, story. The more active union members, the fairly small proportion who regularly attend branch meetings, are mainly “left wing” supporters of the Labour Party. Instead of giving their attention to the recruiting of new members and the best methods of waging the industrial struggle, a fair proportion of the available time at meetings is devoted to discussing reformist measures very similar to those which will be pushed within the Labour Party. If anything, this could put off potential members w'ho might join if propaganda were confined to the need to organise and the benefits of so doing. The reformist views of TASS are well illustrated in their monthly publication AUEW/TASS Newss and Journal. To read this can often give you the same breathless feeling as the Socialist Worker does: fight this, demonstrate against that, smash the other. Apart from the total misuse of the word “socialism"—in the January 1981 issue Russia is described as a “highly developed socialist country . . . (which) wants peace and security above all else"—there are some three underlying themes to their political propaganda.

When the necessary translations of have been carried out (for "socialism” read “TASS is for it”, for "capitalism” read “TASS is agin it”) one theme recurs—TASS is keen to fight the battles of British capitalism when the others have given up. The attempts of super patriotic TASS are, so we are told, being sabotaged by the very people who would benefit from them, assuming that they work out as planned. For instance, the January TASS News carried the headline “S.O.S.—Save our Steel. Press industry to buy from Britain”. Ken Gill, General Secretary of TASS, writes “TASS believes that British companies should put their money where their mouths are and act in the country’s interest.” A statement of the concern of TASS for British capitalism, which is in a more restrained vein, is contained in their submission entitled “Qualified Engineers — The Way forward”, to the Committee of Enquiry into the engineering profession.

Recently TASS, in conjunction with the TGWU, put forward a “Plan to save British Leyland”. The argument is that BL is too small to compete with the giants, and suggests that it should join forces with a multinational. Even if such a scheme were to be successful, unless there were a corresponding increase in sales, it could do no more than create some employment for a few British workers at the expense of workers overseas. Many TASS backed schemes and branch resolutions at best transfer problems elsewhere, and often involve deals with interests with doubtful records in their relations with unions. Members engaged in the manufacture of war weapons, for instance, will call for increased expenditure in this direction. The effort spent concocting this sort of scheme would be far better expended in trying to organise multinational union activity to combat the use of low pay and lack of organisation in, for example, Eastern European [countries] as a weapon against unions elsewhere. Such action would help foster international working class consciousness, and could well assist the spread of socialist ideas.

Again, in the current January TASS News, Joe Ashton, a TASS sponsored Labour MP says that “while it took Moses 40 years to find the promised land, the public these days won’t wait that long". This is part of a comic “prayer to god” for a better 1981, but it illustrates another theme which continually recurs in TASS as well as other left-wing propaganda. The “militant masses” are apparently waiting impotently for the leaders to lead them to socialism. Indeed, a very old idea, but it is a myth.

The political antics of TASS are yet another illustration of the need to pay attention to basics. The class structure of capitalism has not been correctly studied, so that they have not understood the causes of the evils which afflict the working class under the present system. Given this lack of understanding of the cause, it is not surprising that some fantastic and utterly useless remedies are prescribed. The basic assumption, despite confusing terminology, is that everything can be solved within capitalism, suitably patched up.

E. C. Edge

Running Commentary: Not cricket (1981)

The Running Commentary column from the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Not Cricket

Life as a working-class “non-white” in South Africa is an especially abject experience. We say working-class because many wealthy members of the capitalist class who would otherwise be regarded as “non-white”, notably Japanese industrialists. have enjoyed all of the privileges of accommodation, travel and services usually reserved for “whites”. Here the white African capitalist’s thirst for profits from Japanese trade overrides his racialist prejudices.

The lot of the propertyless black in South Africa is to be treated as subhuman, herded in ghettoes and camps, segregated in squalor from whites in every walk of life and relentlessly harried by the forces of the state. A “white” wanting to return a book to a public library, for instance, will probably have to comply with a rule requiring the book to be enclosed in a polythene bag if it is taken back by a black servant.

Against this backdrop it was understandable that the English Test cricketer Robin Jackman was recently ordered out of Guyana because of his links with South Africa. But as this issue developed and the Test match against the West Indies was disrupted, various contradictions were exposed.

In the Summer of 1980 assorted spokesmen and parrots of the “right-wing” (although some Liberals and Labourites were also vocal on this matter) insisted that British athletes should boycott the Olympic Games as a protest against the oppressive regime in the USSR. The policy of the politicians then was to try and use sport as a political medium. Yet a few months later many of these same politicians and their dutiful echoes are sounding the “keep politics out of sport” slogan. The fact is that the politicians have not suddenly changed the principle on which they seek to act from “Use politics in Sport” to “Keep politics out of Sport” as neither of these mottos was ever really their concern. It is economic considerations (and that doesn’t mean yours or mine) which are the reality behind government policymaking in the profit-system. Whereas the Russian Empire and its expansion pose a serious threat to the interests of the British owning class, no such fear is generated by trouble in the West Indies. On the contrary, they have the prospect of continued substantial trading. Looked at like this, it becomes clear why many of the spokesmen for British capitalism could welcome political hostility in sport at the Games and oppose any political disruption to the Second Test match against the West Indies.

Needless to say, governments of several of the West Indian countries, notably Jamaica and Antigua, allowed the Tests to go ahead on their territories to generate some cash for their flagging tourist trades, rather than exclude supporters of apartheid and jeopardise the series. It is not only the white South African leaders who demote principles below the pressure for profits.

Not Cronkite

Walter Cronkite of CBS television was much beloved by many Americans as — in the words of one newspaper — “something between the national flag and God”. Applauded by many at the time of Vietnam for his view that America should withdraw from the war, his recent retirement as a newscaster brought high praises from all and sundry.

Every evening he would enter the homes of millions of American workers to avuncularly present them with a careful selection of reports written unwaveringly from the viewpoint of the owning class. While the working class in America was wrestling with all of the problems of capitalism — inflation, inadequate housing, poverty and insecurity — old Walt would insist on spinning out the old yarns. Every broadcast was impregnated with false assumptions: all American people have a common interest; the protection of property benefits all equally; anyone can become a capitalist if he or she has the talent and initiative; the working class will always have to follow leaders; communism exists in Russia; and if the political ideas of economic equality were given any chance then all mayhem would break loose and Americans would be eating each other alive on the sidewalks.

Did Walt ever open up a bulletin with the news that Americans in employment were being paid less in the form of a wage or a salary than the value of what they had produced? Did he ever report that the wars are the logical outcome of the continuous struggles over trade routes, markets and territories by financiers, industrialists and land owners? Did trusty Walter ever point out that with advanced technology and abundant natural resources there is no need for a third of the world to go hungry? Sadly Walt never uttered a syllable on these points; he dealt only with items neatly processed for general consumption, images and distorted facts designed to maintain the status quo, the string of silent assumptions which riddle every thoughtfully chosen news item.

Gary Jay

Economics of hospitals (1981)

From the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "The durability of public mental hospitals (in America) was based on solid economic and social factors. A hospital is a great source of employment, often in an isolated area, and is also a reliable market for local goods and services."

Saul Feldman (USA)

Private pain cannot be separated from public policy (1981)

From the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "Mental Health professionals should not help to reinforce the myth that “pain can be magickcd away” by prescription pads, especially when that pain goes hand in hand with unfavourable social circumstances like unemployment. Tranquillisers will not only dampen down the pain but also the anger “which . . . is the most appropriate and healthy response to being deprived of the right to work through no fault of your own". This “dampened down anger” can “go sour” and lead to increases in depression, suicide and anxiety states.

  If the medical profession . . . allow themselves to continue to be used as controllers of pain which should appropriately and healthily be expressed in anger, if they dampen down the energy which a healthy person puts into changing an unsatisfactory environment, they are betraying their professional integrity, they are whoring for a collapsing late capitalist society.

  We do not need any more research into the effect on mental health of poverty, injustice and lack of social opportunity; we now need the will to do something about those effects and conditions, we need “the courage to stand up and be counted, not to fit humans to the shape of the world, but to shape the world for humans.

Dr. Kay Carmichael

GLC Election (1981)

Party News from the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Elsewhere in this issue there are details of public meetings and activities for the Party’s GLC election campaign in Islington South and Finsbury. Since last month’s column, which announced that Barry McNeeney will be the Socialist candidate for the election, there has been a significant change in the state of affairs in our constituency: Douglas Eden, the “leader” of the Social Democratic Alliance, has announced that he will be standing in Islington South and Finsbury "to appeal to Labour voters who remember the Labour Party in the mould of Lord George Brown’’. (We presume that he will be trying to find them in the local pubs.) Lord George "will be campaigning for him in Islington’’ (Islington Gazette, 13/3/81). Combined with a proposed electoral pact with the Liberals, we suspect that this might be the kiss of death for the so-called social democrats. Eden is to be challenged to come and defend his views on April 16th when a public meeting at the Prince Albert pub, Wharfdale Road will be asking “Who Are The Social Democrats?" The Islington Gazette has published a letter from a Party member which made clear the SPGB's principled opposition to all other parties. We are hoping that the correspondence will continue (there has already been one letter in response from a "social democrat"). The campaign is going to cost us more money than is readily available and so we once again appeal to you to dip into your pockets and send us whatever you can afford towards the greatest cause facing humanity today.

Letter from India: Conflict with Pakistan (1981)

From the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

If recent official statements are to be believed, and if one is to accept at face value the sensationalist Indian press headlines, Pakistan and India could soon be involved in another bloody war.

Mrs. Indira “Vasectomies All Round” Gandhi, in a recent speech, warned against the military build-up by certain neighbouring countries and called for preparations to meet any external or domestic challenge. The main (unnamed) neighbour she referred to was clearly Pakistan, a fact made plain when she said: “It is also in the air that they are preparing an atom bomb” (Times of India, 9/1/81). In “peaceful” contrast, Mrs. Gandhi hypocritically explained, while addressing a large crowd at Sanswara, India’s use of atomic energy was for “peaceful” ends. It is, in fact, common knowledge that India has atomic weaponry.

In December of last year Mrs. Gandhi spoke of the possibility of General Zia-ul-Haq, the Pakistani President attempting “to divert the attention of the people” of Pakistan with military conflict with India (Times of India 20/12/80). This accusation contains more than an element of truth, as General Zia is overlord of a ravaged economy producing much discontent and is also under pressure to liberalise his harsh regime. These domestic uncertainties, coupled with the Soviet armed occupation in neighbouring Afghanistan, have made Zia look for external scapegoats, and no other countries fit this role better than India, Pakistan’s old rival, and the imperialistic Soviet Union.

Unable to muster the same popular support of his predecessor Bhutto, General Zia has tried to safeguard and strengthen his position by increasing Pakistan’s military potential in terms of both manpower and armaments. Additionally, Zia has recently been able to turn parts of his army into a profit-making concern by hiring out divisions to the Saudi Arabian ruling class at a high price.

Both China and America have greatly aided Zia with armaments and money in his military build-up programme. And it is no accident that when the Indian government went arms shopping recently in America, the latter tied such strings to the deal as to oblige the Indians to withdraw from the negotiations. The American government had no serious intention of selling arms to India; the reason for this is their foreign policy of wooing the Chinese and Pakistanis onto their siIte against the Soviet Union. It thus looks likely that military sales to India from Russia will increase, thereby drawing Ghandi more and more into the Russian sphere of influence.

Ghandi’s inference that Zia is trying to export his domestic problems can equally be applied to herself. For it is no coincidence that she has made these references to Pakistan’s threat at a time when she herself, like Zia, is trying unsuccessfully to manage an unstable economy which has produced waves of worker and peasant protest against her ruling Janata Party. In old-style Gandhi fashion, she is meeting these hostile responses with greater government powers of detention while increasing India’s military weaponry. Both Gandhi and Zia are preparing to deal harshly with potential domestic or foreign threats to the respective ruling classes they represent.

The main conflict point between Pakistan and India is, as with many inter-state conflicts, a border issue. In this case, the fertile and mineral-enriched northwest Indian state of Kashmir is the disputed region. In 1965, the political representatives from the ruling classes of India and Pakistan eagerly sent in their armed forces to butcher one another over the ownership of this region. The Indian ruling class won; the workers of India and Pakistan lost. To depict the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965-6 as a religious one, as was done at the time, is totally incorrect. It was not a case of Hindu India versus Moslem Pakistan, but purely one of the Indian versus the Pakistan ruling class, with the exploited classes of these two countries doing their masters’ filthy work for them.

Indo-Pakistan relations have tended towards frequent breakdowns during the last 30 years and on each occasion the Kashmir question has been a central issue. It is indicative of Zia’s desires to see this region incorporated into Pakistan that even the name “Pakistan” —“P” Punjab, “A” Afghan, “K”Kashmir, “I” Indus, “Stan” Baluchistan—serves as a continual reminder of the Kashmir question. In fact, there is not even a clearly-defined Kashmir border between India and Pakistan, as it appears differently on Indian and Pakistani maps.

Kashmir, and its capital city Srinigar, was once a summer escape from the heat of the plains for the Moghul Emperors who overran much of India, bringing with them their Islamic religion and introducing the caste system. While much of India resisted Islam, the Kashmiris more readily adopted the Moslem faith and even now Kashmir, like Pakistan, is predominantly Moslem. Now many Kashmiris do not consider themselves Indians and indeed there is a growing Islamic-based independence movement, which must please General Zia although it is not clear if this small, but developing political movement identifies with him. In fact, it seems more a case of regionally-minded Kashmiris wanting to set up their “own” state, apart from India and Pakistan—an aim similar to the confused thinking of the Basque separatists of Spain.

China has recently intervened in the. Kashmir dispute and called on India and Pakistan to settle their differences and face what is called “The Soviet Threat” in South Asia (New China News Agency, 15/1/81). The announcement attempted to quell Gandhi’s fears by stating that the Pakistani military build-up, much aided by China, is not directed against India. In other words, it is directed against the Red Army in Afghanistan.

However, despite all the Sino-Pakistani reassurances to the Indian government, the Kashmir problem will not go away. And as long as Kashmir remains a source of dispute (which will be just as long as capitalism remains to engender such antagonisms) Indo-Pakistani relations will remain tense, with possible eruptions into war, as in 1965. But assuming that General Zia and his governmental associates can collectively muster together three or four brain cells, they might then realise that in terms of population, land mass, GNP, industrial and military production and even size of armed forces, India dwarfs Pakistan.

Of more importance than the choice of war or peace by Zia or Gandhi is the decision by the exploited classes of these two nations, that is, those who fill the armies’ ranks, as to whether they wish to be used as cannon fodder in their masters’ dispute.

RSB

50 Years Ago: A Red Herring (1981)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent election in St. George’s raises a few interesting questions.

In the first place, there seems little doubt that Tory, Labour and Liberals were allied in supporting the Conservative candidate against the Rothermere-Beaverbrook nominee. But the first question that strikes one is, Why all the bother and mud- slinging? What is behind the Rothermere-Beaverbrook attempt to run the Conservative Party? And, further, why the comparative unanimity between Conservatives, Liberals and Labour on the Indian Question? Is it all a game of bluff?

That Rothermere and Beaverbrook desire to wield the balance of power in the Conservative Party, and that. Winston Churchill (who up to the present seems always to have changed his political colours too late) desires the position of Prime Minister, may all be true, but yet not the main object behind the trouble.

Ireland was for decades a useful blind to keep the English workers from taking too close an interest in their own political circumstances. After Ireland had passed out of the picture, Russia stepped in, and now India is in the limelight. But in the meantime Liberal, Tory and Labour have been drawing closer together and the Labour Party have given ample evidence of their ability to steer accurately in the interests of capital. There is a danger of the workers getting restive and dissatisfied with the Labour Party’s meek acceptance of capitalist conditions. What better method then of heading off dangerous restiveness than by putting up a sham fight with a new brand of capitalist political parties. The hazier and more indefinite the object and programme, the larger the number of people likely to be attracted.

The way Gandhi has been manoeuvred into such a position that many of his followers are now repudiating him, suggests the nature of the bluff.

The Daily Mail and the Evening News have been publishing furious articles about the surrender to Gandhi, but Gandhi has now discovered that there are certain reservations relating to safeguards in the British Government’s agreement that were (purposely ?) not made clear to him at the time of signing.

In the meantime, mass protest meetings are being held in India by Hindus who threaten to withdraw their support from Gandhi if he agrees to certain demands of the Moslems. It looks very like the old game of “divide and conquer.”

To the worker the issues raised at St. George’s were of no concern, as the interests engaged were capitalist interests. Self-government for India, like self-government for Ireland, is only a question of which group of capitalists will rule. The dinners to Gandhi given by the rich Bombay mill-owners are suggestive of the meaning of Indian self-government to the mass of the population of India.

For over a century the population of India has been exploited for the benefit of European capitalists who broke up the old communal village system of production that had flourished there for ages. In the meantime, native capitalists have amassed wealth and own much of the recently developed instruments of modern production. The latter now want political domination in order to secure a greater share of the fruits of the labour of the Indian workers—hence the movement for self-government.

Indian working men and women are exploited in mills, mines and on the land, like their English brethren, and, like them also, their only salvation lies in the international movement for Socialism. In this movement no help is to be expected from Indian mill- owners nor from the parties in this country that are united in demanding the continuance of present conditions, whether they fly the colours of Tory, Liberal, Labour or United Empire Parties.

(Editorial from the April 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard.)

Briefing: Luddism rides again (1981)

The Briefing Column from the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard 

“It is not just a question of encouraging investment but also of encouraging disinvestment”, declared Viscount Etienne Davignon, European Commissioner in charge of steel, at a press conference in Brussels on 25 February. And a document he sent to the Common Market Council of Ministers for their 3 March discussion on the steel crisis speaks of “disinvestment incentives”.

Let’s be clear what lies behind this bureaucratic terminology: steel enterprises are to be paid to dismantle steel plants. After the paying of farmers not to grow food, or to kill their cattle, or to grub up their orchards, industrial capitalists are now to be paid to smash up their machines and factories!

This time it is not “excess” food that is to be destroyed, but “excess” capacity to produce a key industrial product. Actually, this sort of thing is not new to capitalism; it happens from time to time. The same thing happened in the Lancashire textile industry in the 1960s (and may happen again), and is an apt illustration of how capitalism is geared to profit-making rather than to serving human needs.

Davignon’s document estimates that in the Common Market

  capacity utilisation fell from about 80% in 1974 to about 55% in 1980. On this basis there may now be some 40 million tons of excess capacity for crude steel production. On present plans in 1983 even under the most favourable assumptions regarding demand there would still be more than 25 million tons of surplus steel capacity, for which there is no market at present cost levels.

There you have it! “No market at present cost levels”; in other words, no profitable market. This is true but, in relation to human needs, there is no “excess capacity” at all. Just think of all the railways, tractors and other machines which need to be produced to help eliminate poverty, ignorance and hunger throughout the world. But of course this is not taken into account because production is geared to producing wealth to be sold on a market with a view to profit.

And this is how it has to be under capitalism. On this system’s value, the Davignon Plan to eliminate steel-producing capacity is ruthlessly logical. Why keep steel works open when the steel that would be produced cannot be sold at a profit? So close them down and throw the workers on the streets, paying them a handout to keep them going for perhaps a few years:

  The prospect is for a very difficult employment situation in the industry. The number of jobs in the steel industry, which was increasing up to 1974, has been falling from 792 thousand in 1975 to 605 thousand in December 1980. Although it is difficult to predict future employment, because it depends on the actual decline in capacity and on the increase in productivity, it is clear that the industry will continue to face heavy job losses.

The closures and redundancies will go on until the “excess” capacity is eliminated. There is nothing, within capitalism, that can be done to prevent them. To pretend otherwise would be to raise false hopes. “No profit, no production” is the economic law of capitalism which those who take on the responsibility for running capitalist enterprises (including nationalised, state capitalist ones like the BSC) are obliged to apply whether they like it or not.

Letters: Road to socialism? (1981)

Letters to the Editors from the April 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Road to socialism?

Dear Editors

On page 35 of the February Socialist Standard, ALB states that the majority working class must be organised for the subsequent running of socialist society. Socialist society in practice, however, would at least need temporary delegate bodies. The- democratic machinery needed for electing the temporary delegate bodies of a whole society could not itself be set up arbitrarily by an unelected body; it would have to grow with some functional purposes over a period of time; and ALB does not show how this evolution of democratic machinery preceding socialist society might possibly come about without any existing function 

H. Smith

Bristol

Reply

The working class will be able to make use of some of the existing institutions of capitalism in order to indicate the democratic decision to set up socialism. In this country it will make use of the elaborate parliamentary machine, together with the various forces of the state which it controls. The SPGB urges workers to elect socialist delegates in local and national elections, not simply as a propaganda exercise, but in order to gain democratic control over the machinery of the state. The growth of the desire for socialism can practically and effectively be demonstrated via the ballot box. In most capitalist countries this “democratic machinery” does exist, at least in constitutional theory. What is lacking is a working class which has decided to use constitutional democracy for the purpose of creating socialism.

The best model of how a democratic organisation of men and women can work is the SPGB. We do delegate responsibility to people within the Party, but only on condition that the delegates do what the members want; should they prove to be unsatisfactory they are removed. Socialist society will be the same. Electing delegates does not, of course, ensure that those elected will be the best people for the job in question, but it will mean that the majority can decide how things are done, and, once they have decided, ensure that their will is not ignored.

Membership of the Socialist Party (in Britain or any other country) is an important training in democracy. In the last century, Marx pointed out membership of a trade union helped to prepare workers for democratic action. In short, the job of working for socialism is itself the best means of preparing workers for a democratic future. If anyone wants proof of that, they should attend the SPGB Annual Conference at Conway Hall, London, between April 17 and 19. There they will see for themselves that democracy does work and that when everyone wants the world to be run democratically they have only to put their political strength behind it.

Editors.

Real answers, please

Dear Editors,

Arising out of the letter from Jean Ure (Jan. 1981) and your self-righteous reply to it. The SPGB is strong on the whats and whys of socialism, but weak on the hows. What is socialism? It is a wageless, classless, stateless social system. Why socialism? Because it will give people a better, more secure life. How will socialism come about? Firstly, when the majority want it they will vote for it democratically. Secondly, it must be introduced simultaneously throughout the world. This leaves some unanswered hows:

1. How to persuade the House of Lords to accept the decision of the elected chamber. How to persuade the military to accept the decision. 
2. How to persuade the civil service to accept the decision.
3. How can it be voted for throughout the world when most of the world is illiterate?
4. How do you persuade people to choose socialism when all they car. think about is their empty bellies?
5. How do we prevent ourselves from being blown to kingdom come while we are waiting for socialism?
6. When we have socialism, how do we persuade people to empty dustbins, dig roads, mine coal, dive in the North Sea, without the wage incentive?
7. Without the machinery of state, how is socialism to be administered?

Unless it comes up with some real answers to real problems, the SPGB must be regarded as a religious sect rather than a political party.

Arthur Spender 

Weston-Super-Mare

Reply

1. Socialism will only be established when a majority of workers understand and want it. The workers constitute the vast majority of society. How many of the military are non-workers? How many civil servants are anything other than wage or salary slaves? (Not many, if the recent CPSA strike is anything to go by). How many journalists are able to operate without the aid of their fellow workers who print and sell their pro-capitalist propaganda? Once a majority is organised for socialism there is no reason to think that these groups will not be part of that majority. As for the unelected House of Lords, which is largely made up of members of the capitalist class, once the working class has decided to opt for socialism do you really think that anyone will care what a few unrepresentative old aristocrats have to say about it?

2. The gaining of the franchise by the working class tends to be a consequence of the development of industrial capitalism. Where democratic facilities do not exist, it is the message of the Socialist Party of Great Britain that workers must combine their struggles for such rights with a political struggle for socialism.

3. At the moment it is not only the illiterate who support capitalism; the literate workers are often equally taken in by their masters' propaganda. It is experience of capitalism which makes people think about socialism and the more this crazy system goes on the more likely it will be that workers will realise their real interest. Capitalism is rapidly eradicating illiteracy because the bosses need a literate workforce. In so educating workers the capitalist class is producing the gravediggers for their system.

4. Socialism is the immediate solution to “empty bellies" because production for use is the only alternative to the market anarchy which lets people starve if profit cannot be obtained. Can Mr. Spender think of anything better for starving people to think about than the urgent abolition of the system which deprives them of food?

5. If Mr. Spender cares to tell us how to avoid war other than by removing its cause we may be able to answer him. If he wants us to march up and down asking governments to ban the bomb we advise him to consider the more serious proposition of not electing the governments in the first place. If you wait for socialism to fall out of the sky. do not expect the SPGB to tell you how to spend your time.

6. In a socialist society work will be carried out for the common use of humanity. If people in socialism want a job done they will have to organise to do it. If machines can be employed to do jobs that humans do not want to do, then they will. The incentive in socialism will be that needs will be the primary concern of social organisation,

7. See reply to H. Smith of Bristol.

Mr. Spender has had his “real answers to real problems”. If he is unsatisfied he can come back with more. If, however, he is unwilling to accept the SPGB’s case, preferring to stick rigidly to the idea that the establishment of socialism is impossible, then who is being religious, him or us?.

Editors.

Wrong economics

Dear Editors

Having read a few issues of the Socialist Standard I find that, although mostly correct, certain of your statements on economics seem rather foolish.

Firstly, the statement that as wages are a price (of labour) a rise does not cause inflation. Wages may be a price but they are also a cost (i.e. a “variable” cost to the capitalist), and a rise in this cost will mean that to maintain profit the price of the commodity to the consumer must be pushed up. Secondly, the statement that a lower minimum wage would not increase employment is not thoroughly explained. The reason it would not is because the lower wage would reduce the worker’s spending power and thus cause unemployment in other industries and the recession-depression cycle would recommence. I think that these attacks on orthodox economics, although tempting to us socialists, are self defeating. May I strongly recommend all the editors to read Paul Baran’s Political Economy of Growth, which is an excellent Marxist book on economics and could provide the basis for better attacks on capitalist economics.

Another thing which concerns me is the repeated attacks on the once-socialist Labour Party. You would be better served by trying to persuade the socialist element (there must be one!) to join in your campaign instead of alienating them. As with the Labour Party, so with the SWP, IMG and Solidarity: a united socialist movement is far better than a divided one squabbling about tactics. These criticisms, I must stress, are concerned with your tactics rather than your aim and the majority of the Socialist Standard is excellent and lively leading. But the way in which you attack fellow socialists as much as capitalists is over-harsh—they are well-meaning and sense the correct way ahead if not the right path.

Finally, keep up the good work, for there are far too few of us socialists about. This I have discovered in the debates of the Grammar school sixth form which I attend. It is literally me versus the rest.

David Stubbs  

Sharples, Bolton

Reply

Marx considered the view that wage increases cause a general price rise to be an “antiquated and exploded fallacy”, and dealt with the question in his address to the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association in 1865 (available in pamphlet form as Wages, Price and Profit). Very briefly, profits are not settled by tradition, custom or the will of the capitalist; there is no ideal or “normal” price for a commodity. The capitalist sells his product at the maximum price that the market will bear and cannot therefore raise it at will. To accept the contrary would conflict with the labour theory of value — conceived by Marx and accepted by the Socialist Party of Great Britain — and leave us with the absurd notion that prices (of labour power) determine or regulate prices (of other commodities). Inflation, incidentally, is not synonymous with rising prices: we use the word to refer specifically to the issue of paper currency by governments in excess of that needed for the circulation of commodities.

The trade cycle of booms and depressions is not a consequence of workers being unable to afford to buy what they produce, of there being “too little” money. This is merely the superficial appearance. The present recession is confirmation that capitalism is operating as it always has: anarchy in production leading to the withdrawal of investment from industries in which the prospect of profit has diminished. Production for the market with a view to profit cannot by anything but a system of chaos.

Paul Baran is not a writer we would recommend, since he confuses socialism with state capitalism—in Monopoly Capital, written with Paul Sweezy, he describes the Soviet Union as a “backward and undeveloped socialism” (p. 15, Penguin edn.)—and was not noted for his opposition to Stalin’s economic policies in the 1920s and 1930s.

Our opposition to the Labour Party and left-wing groups generally is not based upon a difference of opinion over “tactics”. The Labour Party was formed as a trade union pressure group in parliament and had no socialist pretensions. In 1918 it adopted a new constitution which included the now notorious Clause Four, a commitment to nationalisation or state capitalism. Nationalisation is not of benefit to the working class or a step towards socialism; and by pretending that it is the left wing make the work of socialists that much harder. We advocate the abolition of the wage labour and capital relationship and its replacement with a world society of voluntary cooperation and free access to wealth. Labourites and left wingers do not share this objective.

Finally, don’t be put off by strong opposition to socialist ideas: we have faced it for more than seventy-five years but are just as determined as our founders.

Editors.