Correspondence. (1924)

Letters to the Editors from the December 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Policy.

Answer to F. L. Remington. 

(1) Your remarks on municipal action have already been dealt with in the answer given in the October issue of the Socialist Socialist. Until you can bring some arguments against our reply your unsupported assertions are worthless expressions of opinions.

(2) To say “the Socialist Party of Great Britain accepts the structure of the working classes (sic) existent industrial machinery in the shape of Trades Unions” (a very verbose phrase which simply means “the S.P.G.B. accepts Trades Unions”) shows a considerable confusion of thought. Practically all who work for a wage have to “accept” Trades Unions where they exist in any strength, whether a member of the S.L.P. or any other Party. It is significant to note that almost every S.L.P.-er that became prominent in the eyes of the public did so by their activities in the Trades Union not by any action in industrial unionism or politics. This confusion of thought is further emphasised by your two statements (a) “the S.L.P. endorses industrial unionism” ; (b ) “the S.L.P. is a political party just as much as is the S.P.G.B.”

As industrial unionism denies political action for the working class your remark proves the S.L.P. to be an anti-political party. The whole question of “industrial unionism versus Socialism” has been debated and dealt with in various back numbers of the “S.S.” which we recommend to your notice.

Another error in your letter is in passing over lightly the matter of “imposing personalities.” Had you read our exposure of the S.L.P. in our manifesto and in various articles in the “S.S.” from August, 1906 onwards, you would have seen that “leaders” with a sheep-like following existed in the S.L.P. since its inception. This was one of the factors that prevented those in England who were fighting the old S.D.F. policy from taking part in the formation of the S.L.P.

(3) It can only be supposed that if you have read the answer to your query on the oath, you have not paid the slightest attention to its contents. You make no attempt to show how the working class can gain control of political power if they baulk at an oath. In fact all your present assertions were met in that reply.—Ed. Com.

* * *

Reply to G. T. Foster.

It is significant that while questioning the definition of Mind given in the article entitled “A Brief Sketch of the Materialist Conception of History,” you fail to give any alternative explanation.

Your statement that “the brain itself is ONLY an idea,” given without the slightest attempt to supply any evidence or reason to support it, is sheer nonsense.

Another unsupported assertion, namely, “We know ONLY modes of our own consciousness” is self-contradictory. Who or what are the “we” that know?

When you can give any evidence for your entirely baseless assertions, it may be worth while to examine such evidence.—Ed. Com.

* * *

Reply to J. Jacobs (Edmonton, Alberta).

Your references to the political antics of the Communists in Canada are noted. Their posing as Labour candidates with a long reform programme of a capitalist nature is very similar to the gymnastics of Communists here. Communists in Canada, once so strenuous for the One Big Union and now shouting back to the American Federation of Labour simply show that they are out to capture the jobs in unions as well as in Labour Parties.

When the working class understands the class struggle it will realise the futility of Communist “Moscow” tactics and the anti-revolutionary character of these so-called Communist opportunists.—Ed. Com.

Notes By The Way: Not this Churchill (1952)

The Notes by the Way Column from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not this Churchill.

Mr. W. Arnold-Forster in “The Disarmament Conference” (National Peace Council 1931, page 23) wrote:—

  “So lately as 1886 Lord Randolph Churchill resigned the Chancellorship of the Exchequer rather than stand for an armament expenditure of £31 millions. He regarded that as an indefensibly enormous expenditure in peace time.”

Whatever Winston learned from his father it certainly has not been a taste for economv in armaments and Lord Randolph seems to have held views the reverse of those now propounded by his son. In a letter to Lord Salisbury at the time of his resignation Lord Randolph wrote:—

   “The possession of a very sharp sword offers a temptation, which becomes irresistible, to demonstrate the efficiency of the weapon in a practical manner. I remember the vulnerable and scattered character of the Empire, the universality of our commerce, the peaceful tendencies of our democratic electorate, the hard times, the pressure of competition and the higher taxation now imposed and with these factors visibly before me I decline to be a party to encourage the military and militant circle of the War Office and Admiralty to join in the high and desperate stakes which other nations seem to be forced to risk."

* * *

Getting Safer and Safer.

The argument of the armament enthusiasts is that if a country is strongly armed the enemy country will fear to attack and thus peace is preserved.

The flaw in the argument is that as all countries join in the armaments race they all become stronger. If they all double their armaments their relative strengths are as they were before.

In 1886 Lord Randolph Churchill thought that something under £30 millions a year was sufficient to provide safety from attack. By 1913 the annual cost had grown to £77 [millions] and his son Winston thought that was not enough, as also in 1939 when it was £523 millions. It is now £1,377 millions, which even allowing for greatly increased prices is about 15 times as much as in 1886.

So now we all feel safe; or do we?

* * *

Engels on the 1888 War Threat.

Two years after Churchill resigned Frederick Engels was reflecting on Bismarck’s increase in German armaments and on the likelihood of a general European war. Along with some accurate and inaccurate forecasts but including the anticipation that war destruction in Europe would give American industry world supremacy, he wrote:—“I imagine . . . that the plan is not to push things to extremities, to more than a sham war. But once the first shot is fired, control ceases, the horse can take the bit between its teeth.” ((Marx Engels. Selected Correspondence, Martin Lawrence Ltd., p. 456.)

* * *

The World Textile Slump.

In a useful survey of the factors leading up to the present slump in the textile trades the Manchester Guardian (26.3.52) shows that it is world-wide, America, Japan, Belgium and other countries being hit as badly as Britain. The principal cause is stated to be the way in which the countries which formerly imported textiles are now manufacturing their own supplies and looking for external markets.

  “World demand for cotton textiles increases as population increases, but the actual volume of imported textiles is falling as more and more countries make and consume their own. .. . The process goes on; India, once Lancashire’s great market, is now a formidable exporter. Pakistan, since partition the largest potential importer, is now building up her own production, as in Burma. Other countries in Latin America, once importers, are now on the edge of becoming exporters. Hardly less important are the political changes which have shut off the Communist world from the industries of the West and of Japan. It was the great mistake of the Japanese that in rebuilding their textile industries after the war they refused to realise that theft marketing field had vastly shrunk."

In the meantime Russia is now entering the world market not only with textiles but with textile machinery, these being among the Russian products displayed at the recent International Industries Fair at Bombay (Manchester Guardian 28.1.52). It was however remarked by the Guardian's correspondent at the Fair that the Russian textiles were being offered at prices appreciably higher than those at which the Indian Mills can put textiles on the market.

* * *

Are there Too Many Textiles?

The Manchester Guardian can discern no solution for the world textile slump except that bankruptcies will thin out the competitors and, in face of falling prices and fiercer competition, the governments whose policy has been to build up their own textile industries will curtail their plans.

All of which means that British and world output of textiles would be reduced, not merely by temporary suspension of production but for a long time ahead by the reduction of manufacturing capacity.

Which would of course be a very sensible course of action if it were true that the world has too many textiles. But it is not true, as the Guardian writer could easily verify without even going farther afield than his own doorstep. Let him look round the Manchester streets and visit the workers' homes (including the unemployed cotton workers) and see if the workers and their wives really are “glutted” with shirts and sheets, and socks, suits and dresses. He would soon find firsthand evidence of a condition that exists in all countries; that the mass of the population make do with the minimum of textile goods (and those of poor quality) because their demands are limited not by need but by their wages.

As it happens the wording used in the Manchester Guardian editorial (26.3.52) is strictly accurate:—“The world’s textile industries have been over-producing; their outlets are now choked with stocks." The textile workers are not out-of-work because the world’s needs have been satisfied but because the “outlets are now choked," the outlets being determined by what people have the money to pay for.

After the last war we were told by Tory and Labour alike, and heard it often in speeches at United Nations' gatherings that never again was the world to see production being restricted while needs were unsatisfied. Capitalism is determining otherwise. When the Guardian writes:—“There is no easy ‘Socialist' remedy; there is no easy capitalist one” the correct version would read:—“There is no capitalist remedy; there is no remedy except Socialism.”

* * *

Then Let Us Increase Production.

Early in March Lieut.-General Sir Thomas Hutton, general manager of the Anglo-American Council on

Productivity spoke at a productivity conference at Leamington Spa. According to the Sunday Times (2.3.52) he “ said . . . that an overall increase of productivity of five or ten per cent. which was perfectly possible, would solve the whole problem of the crisis caused by our inability to pay our way.”

He was not talking about the textile slump but about the productivity of British industry generally, which he said is often only half to two-thirds as high as productivity in America. Had he been addressing Lancashire textile workers he might have told them that if they would increase their productivity to the American level Lancashire’s competitive position would be improved and things would be better. One wonders however what he would have said if it had been pointed out to him that American textile workers are also suffering unemployment “Of New England’s 140,000 textile workers some 62,000 were out of work.” (Manchester Guardian, 26.3.52).

* * *

The Communists and the Atom Bomb.

The logic behind Communist Party attitudes towards all issues is that whatever Russian capitalism does is right. But as this must never be admitted they are forced to put forward other arguments to justify whatever policy they are pursuing at any time. This leads them into difficulties each time Russian policy changes. The atom bomb is a case in point

When America alone had the Atom bomb they could use the simple argument of denouncing it altogether. But in 1949 the Communist Daily Worker (26.9.49) announced that Russia had then had the Atom bomb herself “for at least two years”—which means that they were working on it for years before. The Daily Worker then had to think up an argument to show that it was a bad thing for America to have the atom bomb but a good thing for Russia to have it. So in its issue of 24th September, 1949, the Daily Worker used the argument that Russia’s atom bomb “will encourage peace-loving people everywhere" because this meant that “the United States no longer possesses a monopoly of this terror weapon,” and this would “ restrain the ‘ atomaniacs.' "

So far so good. But early in 1952 the British Government announced that it too had the bomb, it having been completed under the Labour Government.

The Daily Worker, 18th February, 1952, dealt with this new situation. It pointed out that the British bomb “has been produced without the assistance of the United States of America.” But at this point the logic of the former argument no longer served. Logically on its own argument the Worker could have said that as the Russian Atom bomb made Russia safer so the British Atom bomb made Britain safer, for did it not represent a further breach in the American monopoly? Instead however of saying that peace-loving people welcomed it the Daily Worker now called it, as far as Britain is concerned, “an unmitigated curse.”

It went on to describe it as:—

“A coward’s weapon, designed for the unrestrained massacre of the civilian population. . .’’

The Daily Worker editors know as well as anyone else that all war weapons are designed to kill, maim and destroy and that in all wars the civilian population as well as the Armed Forces are the target of all war-making governments,

If the Russian government thinks fit to use its atom bombs civilians will suffer; but then of course the Daily Worker will think up some new justification to exonerate Russian capitalism.

The advance lines of the justification have already been provided by the Russian Professor Kretov who has broadcast to Russian listeners on “just” and “unjust” wars. (Reproduced in the Manchester Guardian 28.3.52.)

He names several sorts of war that are “just." “The most just, legal and holy of all wars is a war whose purpose is the defence of a country in which socialism has triumphed.”

Under this head of “socialist” countries he lists Russia and her satellites.

We can imagine the Daily Worker arguing (like all the capitalist apologists for war) that as the war is “just” so are all the “necessary” weapons for waging it.

* * *

Wages and the Cost of Living since 1939.

For various reasons all calculations of the movements of the average level of wages or of the cost of living are liable to some margin of error and should be regarded as approximations only. Even when a factor which causes error is known it may be impossible to measure it. For example wage rates indexes are based on trade union or other standard rates of pay. It is known however that in recent years of low unemployment workers in some industries have been paid more than these standard rates while in times of heavy unemployment many workers are forced to accept less than the standard rates; but nobody can know to what extent this factor operates in either direction. The index of wage rates therefore represents movements of agreed rates of pay not of the rates actually paid.

Similarly the Ministry of Labour Cost-of-Living Index showed hardly any movement between 1941 and 1947 though the cost of living was rising. This was due to the way the government used subsidies to keep down the prices of articles on which the Index was based. The cost-of-living rose but not the Index.

It also has to be remembered that the figures are “averages” and may look quite unreal to individuals whose conditions happen to be well below or well above the average. For example while on an average wage rates are more than double what they were in 1939 this average includes miners and agricultural workers whose wages are about three times the 1939 level, and also includes dock workers and lorry drivers whose increase has fallen far short of the average.

Subject to these reservations the available figures show some interesting features.

The official cost-of-living index covering the period 1939 to 1947 showed an increase of only 31 per cent. This was absurd and nobody treated it seriously. Workers making wage claims at the time soon ceased to pay any attention to it and wage rates during the same period rose by about 66 per cent.

Since June, 1947, the new official cost-of-living index, which is at least much more reliable than the old one, has shown an increase of 33 per cent.; but during this period wages have been lagging behind and have risen by only 28 per cent.

If comparison is made between August, 1939, and the present time it would seem that the average level of wage rates has about kept pace with the cost-of- living.

The official figure for wage rates (arrived at by combining the old wage rate index which ended in 1947 with the new index which started in 1947) shows an average increase since 1939 of 113 per cent. Professor Bowley’s Index of wage rates also shows 113 per cent, if coal miners are excluded, and about 120 per cent if they are included. (The technical reasons for difficulty about coal miners' wages are explained in the Times “ Review of Industry ” March, 1952).

If we took the official index figures for the cost-of-living the increase since 1939 would be only about 75 per cent. The figure is however of no value. An alternative provided by the London and Cambridge Economic Service shows an increase of about 111 per cent., i.e. a figure almost identical with that for wages. (See Times “Review of Industry” March, 1952.)

Edgar Hardcastle

Bevan—Reformer, Prophet and Politician (1952)

Book Review from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his book “In Place of Fear” Mr. Bevan states his case in opposition to official Labour Party policy and pleads his alternative. It is skilfully done; clever in the way in which it uses quite a lot of words to say nothing, and in telling the old, old story to make it seem quite new, proposing what are in fact the old reforms but making them appear revolutionary.

Mr. Bevan has been connected with the Labour Party from youth and it is an understatement to say that he knows it very well. He knows the sort of working men and women who make up its membership, and the mixture of ex-working men, capitalists, aristocrats and careerists who lead it. Mr. J. Strachey, reviewing Bevan's book in the Daily Herald gave it some faint praise, but warned Mr. Bevan of the fate that will overtake him if he splits the party. That would not be forgiven. That, however, would depend on the size of that part of the split that might be behind Mr. Bevan if the split occurred. And there would seem to be little doubt of Mr. Bevan’s opinion of his chances if it did. It could be that Mr. Bevan, who has seen many a previous attack on official policy in the past prove abortive, might believe that he will achieve the changes he desires without splitting the party. The chances would seem fair. Despite six years of Labour governments, discontent and frustration rankle more deeply than ever among members and supporters of the Labour Party. And if Mr. Bevan’s proposals can crystalise this discontent he may find himself leading the Labour Party.

It may be no accident that Bevan opens his book with an emotional narrative of his early days as a worker in the mines. Certainly from what can be judged from some of the many comments in the Labour press this might have a calculated purpose. Knowing the workers it is, of course, not unlikely that Mr. Bevan considers that emphasis on his youthful experience and sufferings as a worker might give him an advantage over the sort of “middle class” uplifter that so often send working-class audiences to sleep. Mr. Bevan was a sensitive young man and learned from the working-class movement. He read, among others, Marx, De Leon and Morris. The evidence from this book is that he learned from them how to clothe his challenge to wealth and privilege in anti-capitalist phraseology without committing himself to Socialism. The intellectual food that came the way of the young aspirant in the Labour movement in Bevan’s day was the sort of food that fed the Socialist. Like others with him, and before him, he stopped short of Socialism, and applied what understanding he acquired to the advancement of Mr. Bevan and the perpetuation of Capitalism.

For there is no mistake about it: there is no proposal in this book which is fundamentally different from the reformism of the Labour Party’s policies for fifty years. There is no proposal which could not be the official policy of any capitalist party if it happened to suit the interests of any one of them. If Mr. Bevan differs it is on a question of degree and not principle. The reviews of the book in the capitalist press show not a little pleasure and relief at his mildness and “statesmanship.” Here is no leader gathering his armies for the final assault on Capitalism. He had seemed much more of a menace in speech than in writing. How right they are.

Here are some of Mr. Bevan’s main contentions. There should be much less private, and much more public, spending. Hence he argues for more controls of investments. And he says, “Once Competitive Society is compelled to serve a general social aim the automatism of the market is interfered with and we are no longer in the capitalist system at all. . . . From this point on, moral considerations take precedence over economic motives. . . . The decision what to do without, or take less of, necessarily places that item of consumption lowest in the order of priorities.” It is sufficient to note that Mr. Bevan considers that the restrictions on production, the controls, and the rationing of the past six years' Labour Government as “no longer the capitalist system at all.” He would extend that policy. Under his proposals he says “We shall have abandoned selection by competition for selection by deliberation.” This statement epitomises Mr. Bevan’s conception of the function of the State over which he would preside. Social security, that guarantee of working class poverty, would administer to the needs of the poorest of the workers and soften and offset the worst effects of low wages and salaries. He also agrees that the middle class and professional men should have incomes comparable with “status.” There should be more Nationalisation. He says, “Once a larger proportion of industry is publicly owned, a larger part of public spending could be finance out of the surplus which now accrues to private incomes. This would mean compensation at a low rate on gilt edged securities, and more surpluses from these communally owned industries would accrue to the national exchequer and taxation would be correspondingly reduced. . . . . This would not mean that the taxpayer would have more money to spend. As we have seen this could only be done by hurting the recipients of public benefits. But it would mean that more of the whole would be distributed in the form of private income could in the main be privately spent, and the individual would be spared the pain of seeing so much taken from him that he thought was his to spend.”

There it is. Sort it out. Something for everyone. Gilt edged securities for the capitalist. Reduced taxation for the taxpayer. And (touching thoughtfulness) consideration for the recipient of public benefits, sparing the taxpayer (excepting the millions of workers who do not pay income tax and the recipient of the public benefits) the pain of seeing so much taken from them. He continues: “I am not suggesting the abolition of income tax. That would only be possible if all industry belonged to the community.” (Our italics.) Really what box of tricks could produce more.

There is more to come. “ Suppose we fix a date —towards which we should at once begin to work— when a definite percentage of what we are spending on arms shall be set aside for the peaceful development of backward parts of the world.” The reviewers have really fallen for that one. It has really put him amongst the “statesmen.” It seems they are impressed even though he thought of it after General Marshall and after the Labour Government had inaugurated something like it through Colonial Development schemes.

On the question of Russia Bevan spreads himself out. There is an “over assessment of Soviet military strength.” Russia is “less belligerent than some American publicists.” Russia “would have struck by now if she were going to strike at all.” Russia has her own internal problems. The more her industrial economy grows, he argues, the more Russia will develop the need for democratic institutions through which ideas and technical knowledge must find free expression in order to develop. Equally conjectural arguments could be found to deduce conclusions the opposite to Mr. Bevan's. This part of Bevan’s case, however, is in some part suspect as a rationalisation for his resignation from the Labour Government This was defended on the grounds that the country could not afford the burden of £4,700,000,000. Mr. Woodrow Wyatt M.P., casts some light on this in the News Chronicle (7.1.52).

  “It is always difficult to convince the Labour Party of the need for armaments, and I am glad that it should be so. Mr. Bevan was a key figure in securing general Labour support for the defence programme and his achievement in that direction culminated in his brilliant speech in the House of Commons a year ago.

   “His concluding phrases on that occasion still echo in my ears. ' . . . we do beg that we shall not have all these jeers about the rearmament that we are putting under way. We shall carry it out; we shall fulfil our obligations to our friends and allies. . . .’

  “When he withdrew his backing for the £4,700 million programme last April it was understandable that the confidence of many Labour supporters should be shaken. At the same time he said that the earlier and smaller defence programme—£3,600 million over three years—was sufficient.

  “Adherence to the smaller programme was repeated in 'One Way Only' and maintained until the announcement of the Conservative Government's defence programme for this year. Then it was disclosed that the balance of payments situation, never anticipated by Mr. Bevan and his friends, had forced a slowing down of the larger programme.

  “The speed of rearmament, allowing for rising prices, has been reduced to that of the smaller programme which Mr. Bevan had always said was within our capacity even without American aid.

   “Did Mr. Bevan welcome this reduction and support the new programme? No, astonishingly, he attacked again and divided the Labour Party in the House on it." 

Mr. Bevan’s friends say that this book intends to convey a “mood.” It could also be the intention to create a mood favourable to the idea of Mr. Bevan as the "Man of Peace.” That would seem to have quite good political prospects.

And there is no doubt that Mr. Bevan is quite a politician.

Harry Waite

Workers Beware—or the Withered Labour Party (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

As was to be expected the Labour Party in opposition is looking around for means and ways to regain power. Having put their programme into practise and been thrown out of office after six years they must find something new, or at least something that looks new. When in opposition there is no time to lose, preparations must begin at once for further wool pulling and political scheming in order to get back, and who should be first to see the necessity of this than that worthy journal with “Forward with the People ” as its slogan—the Daily Mirror. A month or so ago this paper drew attention to the fact that the Labour Party’s aims had been put into operation and they now needed a new plan to meet the challenge of the times. On Monday, 25th of February, a series of articles entitled “Whither Labour" began in the Daily Mirror. These were written by ex-ministers of the late Labour Government and Mr. Sam Watson, a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party. We will review these articles here to show how empty they really are and how unworthy of working class support First let us stress that the very need for a new programme shows the futility of the first one. But if nationalisation and all the other past reforms, designed to bring better times and upheld as the cure for all ills by the Labour Party, have proven fruitless, what indication is there that they can dream up something new to solve workers problems?

Mr. Morrison and “Social Justice.”

The first contributor was Mr. Herbert Morrison who made a great deal of play with “social justice” but skilfully avoided telling us what it is. He said social justice is as much part of our defence as "planes, warships and guns” so perhaps he had in mind the prosecution of the dockers last year by Sir Hartley Shawcross under order 1305 or the banishment of Seretse Kahma or may be he thinks the record-breaking profits under Labour rule alongside the wage freeze policy was socially justified. Mr. Morrison goes on to gloat about “publicly owned industries, the great health and social services,” but fails to mention that despite these things the mass of the workers still live in poverty. Unemployment is creeping back and wars are still going on in which Britain is involved. He then says something quite funny which he should know is not true:—“What we were doing was new” as if Britain was the first capitalist country to go in for nationalisation, in fact all of these things had been done years before in Germany or Denmark, Australia or New Zealand, Russia or Italy and in many other countries sometimes by avowedly capitalist governments but in not one instance did they alter the lot of the masses. Just like the Tories he stresses the need to export and “rearm to protect the freedom we have won over the centuries.” One might almost think Mr. Churchill had written this. The freedom such as it is has not been won by re-arming or going to war but by bitter battles between workers and capitalists here at home. The right to strike or even form trade unions, the right of free assembly, even the vote, were not obtained by bloody wars in other countries but in the class war in this one. The big “if” on which Mr. Morrison pins the Labour Party future is whether they can kid the workers to sink their differences with the capitalists and think of the nation “as a whole” a “socially inspired community,” the workers working as usual and the capitalists, state and private, playing their important rolls by hogging 90 per cent. of the accumulated wealth.

Then Mr. Gaitskell

Mr. Gaitskell wrote the second article which appeared the next day. He right away declared himself to be in favour of increased efficiency. Workers must scrap “all restrictive methods and practices” if we are to achieve “a peaceful world, a steady job, a decent house and rising living standards:” these are “the things that really count.” Weird indeed is the fact that six years of Labour government have not removed the need for these things. Who says the Labour Party was once really anti-war? Mr. Gaitskell declares he “supported rearmament in the 30’s” and he maintains that arms are the way to lasting peace.

This Labour leader also urges us “to work together for the common good.” At the end of his article he shows that he knows the Labour Party is sunk “unless we first win over a million doubtful voters:” he might well explain what made them doubtful in the first place.

Bevan the “Rebel"

The third writer was that bloodcurdling rebel Mr. Aneurin Bevan. From him, the “leftest of left,” many workers may have looked for something different, but no it was the same old song being sung, only off-key. Political parties must be ready with the right “kind of action required in the national interests at any time.”

He engages in the usual mock battles with the Tories and private enterprise, though Mr. Gaitskell had said the day before “smaller businesses will need help in finding capital,” so perhaps they should have got together to see which it is to be.

Mr. Bevan makes an observation made by the S.P.G.B. years ago that we are “faced with the prospects of semi-starvation, if not actual hunger, at a time when the physical sciences dazzle us with their achievements.”

He stated that “the pursuit of profit failed to ensure the provision of essentials first and secondary things afterwards,” but how empty all this vote-catching becomes when we read on—“ If the community is to survive, then investment must be compelled to follow the discipline of long-term planning.”

Capital must be controlled, for capitalists when on the loose compete and in time of crisis this does harm to "national interests,” so they must be collectively looked after.

The Labour Party only left office in October last after six years of power, yet Mr. Bevan tells us “Private enterprise has failed to make sure that our manufacturing capacity is matched by a flow of the necessary raw materials. Thus unemployment and short time working are once more showing themselves in our midst, and this has been aggravated by a rearmament programme of impracticable proportions and unrealisable speed.”

He forgot that he was a member of the Government which brought in the arms programme, but then he only objects to its “proportions” and “speed,” not to its existence. The rest of the article shows his deep concern for the welfare of British capitalism. He challenges the Americans’ right to world leadership on the ground that Britain is looked to to provide those counsels “for which she is fitted by her experiences and her sacrifices.”

Labour Supporters are not Socialists.

The miners’ secretary in Durham, Mr. Sam Watson, came next and although this gentleman is also a member of the Labour Party National Executive, we must bear in mind when reading what he says the fact that trade unions came into existence to fight the capitalist class in the economic field. Like those who wrote the previous articles, Mr. Watson starts with the Nation and ignores class divisions, but what he says further on must come as a shock for all who expected or expect great things of the Labour Party. It drives home full-swing the accuracy of the Socialist Party’s claim that there can be no Socialism without mass-understanding. After forty-five years of the Labour Party in and out of office he says, “It is wishful thinking to believe that there are millions of people in the country, especially in the trade union movement, who are 'raring’ to go forward for the kind of society Labour wants, and are held back like dogs on a leash only by right-wing leaders in the union or in the Labour Party.” And again: “We deceive ourselves if we refuse to face up to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in the Labour movement have either no knowledge, or only limited knowledge, of the causes of the present grave situation.” Surely Mr. Watson can understand their ignorance, for when has the Labour Party ever made any effort to teach them?

He is typical of the people who sneer at the S.P.G.B. because it is small and insists on understanding. Perhaps this is a good lesson in where mass membership without understanding leads to. Socialists have always said that votes cast for something other than Socialism cannot bring it about. Mr. Watson, just coming to, says, “We had the largest vote in the history of the party in 1951, but it was not secured on a basis of fundamentally changing our economy, but in the belief that if the Tories won they would immediately proceed in principle to cut down the standard of living and might even increase the danger of war.” Votes cast out of fear and ignorance will never solve anything, yet throughout the election this is exactly the kind of vote the Labour Party sought. It is now an established fact also that the late Labour Government made preparations for atom bombs here in this country. How they must blush when they call the Tories “warmongers”! Like those who wrote earlier Mr. Watson hopes for the sinking of class differences, greater efficiency and cheaper production to keep or capture “the markets of the world.” “Fair shares for all” is still to be Labour’s call and those words echo down the corridors of time as Labour Governments come and go without effecting any change in the distribution of wealth.

The “Daily Mirror’s” Contribution.

Having heard from the brains of the Labour Party on Friday, 29.2.52, the Daily Mirror made its own contribution for our enlightenment. Their writers notice that the number of skilled workers is “going down,” which they say is a “disastrous trend.” They first claim credit for having “supported the Labour Party in its struggle to achieve certain declared aims— fair play and fair shares for everybody,” and then they have the nerve to ask “why at the last election the people of Britain rejected a Labour Government”! The answer is simple: they didn’t bring home the bacon. The Daily Mirror can talk about a greater say in industry for the workers and advocate a greater sharing of the wealth produced, but while Capitalism remains, profit making is the motive for production, and the more workers get the less there is for the capitalists, and this would never do. If all the old men in responsible positions in the Labour Party were replaced by younger men the capitalist class would still own the means of living and workers would still be subjected to this as wage slaves, for, high wages or low, the people who pay wages still live on profits sweated for by those who receive wages.

By facing storms the Daily Mirror thinks that “Labour can become a really great NATIONAL party.”

We already have one National Party, but if what this newspaper is getting at is the fact that there is nothing to choose from, we agree. The history of Capitalism has been one of crises, yet the Labour Party have not learnt to do otherwise than to try and patch it up.

A little later on (March 11th) an article entitled “Short Time” appeared in the same paper. Remembering all the social reforms and the “benefits” of six years’ Labour rule this article tells us of the 8,000 workers on short time in Oldham where a family of six exists on £5 13s. a week and have only 18s. 9d. to spend on “milk, meat, fish, gas, electricity, fares and clothing.” They are on short time, says the writer, Claud Morris. After being used to working overtime they work for three days a week at £3 10s., and make it up with unemployment money and family allowances if they have children.

The mill went on short time “because of lack of orders.” All the “industrial efficiency” and “economic planning ” in the world cannot abolish the problems of Capitalism. While politicians here are cooking up schemes to extend trade and capture markets, the politicians of Japan, China, Russia, America and the rest of the world are doing the same. In the final throw, trade routes like the Suez Canal, raw materials such as Malayan rubber, and Persian oil, and the markets of the world have to be retained or obtained by force. The wars of Capitalism, past, present and future, are not in the interest of the working class because they own neither the raw materials, the trade routes, nor the markets.

During the same week that saw publication of the articles, Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the late Labour Government, was writing a series of articles in Labour’s own, the Daily Herald. These were on the same lines as the others mentioned, and equally empty.

“The positive remedy is to increase our exports.” We have already seen where this leads. “We must cut down our imports, especially from dollar countries. This means going without some things, but we shall have to put up with this.” We don’t have to re-elect Labour to be told this; the Tories are already doing it. To draw any loose ends together it might be as well to bring to our reader’s attention that the whole lot of articles in both newspapers never once mentioned the phrases “working class,” “capitalist class,” “Socialism,” “fellow workers,” or “workers of the world, unite.” They are concerned with running Capitalism and all their ideas, old and “new,” are in line with that basic fact. One final stunning blow to Labour leaders who brag of their achievements while in office and who are trying hard to trick their way back, is their contribution to the housing problem, the building of the Festival of Britain. As a party which alleges concern over workers' problems and affects to blame shortages of materials for their failings, they stand indicted.

Nobody can say we are being wise after the event, for we state that their future programmes will fail and we know why. There is no way of running Capitalism beneficially to the masses and without war, slumps and crises. To abolish Capitalism is the only way to peace, plenty, happiness and security. Socialism is the solution, common ownership of the means of life and production for use the world over. Socialism is the solution and the urgency for its establishment is now. So don’t be fooled, fellow workers. It's your votes they are after. Socialism requires your understanding. It may be a long road, that depends on you, but until you bring about Socialism you have nothing to look forward to save a fate worse than death and lots and lots of promises.

Harry Baldwin

About New Books (1952)

Book Reviews from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Professor V. Gordon Childe is probably the foremost pre-historian of the day. By pre-history we mean the study of the development of human society prior to the time when written records were made. Professor Childe’s newest book is entitled "Social Evolution," and is published by Watts & Co.

Professor Childe is an archaeologist, and, as he says:

  " . . . archaeologists to-day have realised that they are dealing with the concrete remains of societies, and that these societies, albeit illiterate, have left concrete embodiments not only of their material equipment but also of their social institutions, superstitions and behaviour, fragmentary and ambiguous though these undoubtedly be."

So he has taken the theories that Herbert Spencer and Lewis Henry Morgan deduced from their comparative studies of the pre-historic societies that were still in existence during the nineteenth century, and he has examined them in the light of recent archaeological discoveries, or, as he puts it, ... “ in the light of the science which presents societies in a chronological sequence."

The book is not easy reading. In fact Childe himself refers to it as a “ . . . rather tedious examination of archaeological data." All the same, to the student of social evolution, it is a landmark in the study.

Lewis H. Morgan, in his book, “Ancient Society” (1877), divided human history into three main “ethnical periods’’--Savagery, Barbarism and Civilisation. He then made sub-divisions of the former two periods. Morgan made his divisions and sub-divisions on the basis of the technological development of society. The objects of archaeological study are, therefore, useful in an examination of Morgan’s theories, providing proof that Morgan was unable to obtain.

Prof. Childe warns us against a common error. We should not judge the rank of any technical device or process from a general principle. Each device and process must be considered in relation to the conditions in which it was used.

 “Any superiority possessed by an automobile over, say, a bullock-cart cannot be inferred from comparing their respective efficiencies on English roads, but only from the historical fact that automobiles do supersede bullock-carts wherever conditions for their employment can be created.” (P.9.)

Prof. Childe shows that human needs change just as much as the “efficiency" of the instruments for their satisfaction.

  "Did a reindeer hunter in 30,000 B.C., or an Ancient Egyptian in 3000, or an Ancient Briton in 30, really need or want to travel a couple of hundred miles at 60 m.p.h.? . . . . To a Magdalenian society in the last Ice Age a harpoon or antler was just as efficient as a steam trawler is to-day. With the former, tiny groups could get all the fish they needed; the load of a trawler would have been an embarrassing nuisance.” (P. 9.)

You cannot legitimately take some discovered object from one part of the world, give it a label, compare it with something similar from another part of the world, and so deduce its origin and the nature of the society to which it belonged. Professor Childe shows us how, in Ancient Egypt, when the habitable land was seldom as much as two miles away from the River Nile, which was a splendid highway, wheeled vehicles were less useful than they were in Syria which had no natural waterways. Wheeled vehicles were used in Syria fifteen hundred years before they were used in Egypt, but this does not prove that Egypt was more backward than Syria.

So, the professor marshals his evidence in the main part of his work, to show the successive steps through which different societies have actually passed on their way to civilisation in contrasted natural environments.

In his concluding chapter Prof. Childe examines the effects of intercourse between societies at different levels of development, even modern civilised societies, and he takes to task, very successfully, those who would claim an analogy between social evolution and organic evolution.

A very useful book.

Whilst we are dealing with Professor V. Gordon Childe we must mention another of his books that is well worth reading—"History” published by Cobbett Press, 1947. In this excellent little book the professor examines the various theories of history that have held the field at different times. One is astonished at the number of theories of “Historiography.”

Prof. Childe accepts the theory deduced by Karl Marx, the “materialist conception of history,” or, as Mr. Childe himself calls it, “Marxist historiography.” He uses this theory throughout this book. The professor has one misfortune. Like many others his eyes are turned towards Moscow and “the promised land” behind the iron curtain. But his vision does not appear to have become impaired—not yet.

B. Traven is claimed to be a mystery man. He lives somewhere in Mexico, operates through an agent in Mexico City and cannot be interviewed, photographed or “got at” in any way. He is one of the world’s best-selling story writers. His latest book is “The Rebellion of the Hanged,” translated by Charles Duff and published by Robert Hale, Ltd.

Capital must always have wage-labour and it has always been ruthless in the methods by which it has built up its armies of wage workers. B. Traven in this book shows the trickery, the callousness and the vile “legal” practices by which the Mexican Indians were dragged away from their small plots of land and poverty stricken farms in order to be made wage-slaves in the great lumber camps of Mexico.

The story of Candido Castro, Celso, Martin Trinadad and other Mexican Indians is set in the period just before the Mexican revolution which deposed President Porfirio Diaz in favour of Madero. It tells of the brutality and the abominable tortures inflicted upon these poor natives in order to make diem work ever harder and harder. The output of logs demanded from them is continuously stepped up by the lumber camp bosses and failure to satisfy the demand results in floggings, hanging naked by the feet in the tropical sun or being buried up to the nostrils in the sand with the uncovered head exposed to the sun and insects. The hanging is the favourite form of torture with the bosses and foremen and it is that which gives the book its title.

The Indians finally rebel and become more ruthless and cruel than their erstwhile employers. They torture, maim and kill, partly in revenge and partly because they know that they have no hope of clemency if their uprising is suppressed. Their adventures as they march through the tropical forests in the rainy season make stirring reading.

Mr. Traven has no illusions about rebellions. He sees their limitations and knows the difference between a rebel and a revolutionary. When Mexican peóns are killing the landowners their object is to claim the land for themselves, to share it out amongst them. Says Martin Trinadad towards the end of the story:

   ". . . the instinct of possession and property are more anchored than before in this ranch. Only the name of the owner has changed, and I can predict to you, comrade, that to-morrow or the day after the new proprietors will fight like devils amongst themselves with machetes until only one is left, if even one, to enjoy the property. The man who gets possession of the revolver will be the new master, the one who has the shotgun will be overseer. And those who by chance survive will become peóns again.”

And again:

  “Ease and speed are not worth anything to revolutionaries. These here have changed ownership of fields and pigs. What ought to have been changed are the ideas on which the whole system rests. Yesterday the master was called Don Churcho. He'll be called Florencio tomorrow, after now being called Eusebio. There will always be a master; that is to say, nothing will have changed.... A revolution which is explained and needs motivation is no revolution. It's merely a fight to get property and jobs. The true revolution, the one that is capable of changing systems, is deep in the character of all revolutionaries. The real revolutionary doesn't think in terms of the personal benefit he may get from the revolution. He tears down the social system in which he suffers and sees other men suffer. He sacrifices himself and dies in order that he may destroy and bring about other ideas.''

Now that I have read "The Rebellion of the Hanged,” whenever I see the name of B. Traven on the cover of a book I shall be searching through my pockets to find if 1 have enough ready cash to buy it.

W. Waters

Editorial: Nationalisation or Trust Busting? (1952)

Editorial from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

While capitalism in Britain, Continental countries and the British Dominions has gone in for a certain amount of nationalisation and Russia has carried it to the point where all important industry and about half of agriculture is run under the State, capitalism in America has followed a different policy. In Britain Liberal and Tory governments in the 19th century nationalised telegraphs and telephones when the capitalists as a whole felt their interests adversely affected by those two services being in the hands of private monopolies. For the same reason Gladstone in 1844 was responsible for the first Act giving die government power to nationalise the railways, a power that was not used because the government held that the mere threat of it served to keep the railway directors in check.

In the United States nationalisation has so far made little headway as the capitalists have preferred to use Anti-Trust laws as a means of curbing too-powerful monopolies.

Because of the pre-eminence of the United States in world production and because private capitalism still holds the field there, more than half of world production, transport, etc., is still in the hands of private concerns. This applies to basic industries such as coal, steel, food, rubber, oil, textiles, motor cars, railways, shipping, road transport, telephones and telegraphs, banking, insurance and manufacturing generally.

In the past few years nationalisation has had a certain set-back in a number of countries and British capitalism, following the American example is now experimenting with the Monopolies Commission as a means of checking monopoly; both the Conservatives and the Labour Party being committed to developing this line of attack.

But this does not mean that the Anti-Trust legislation in America has fulfilled the expectations of those who backed it. Loopholes in the law have enabled the big monopolistic group such as the American Telephone and Telegraph company with its concentration of telephone services and the manufacture of equipment, to go on expanding. When an amending bill to the Gayton (Anti-Trust) Act of 1914 was being debated on 15th August, 1949, Congressman Celler, New York, stated that between 1940 and 1947 more than 2,500 formerly independent concerns had disappeared as a result of mergers and acquisitions, and that “two hundred and fifty concerns now control two-thirds of the industrial facilities of the country that were controlled by 15,000 companies before the war.” He added, “The anti-trust laws are a complete bust unless we pass this bill.” (“Labor and the Nation” New York, September-October, 1949.)

Most of the demand for action against the Trusts and for amendments to strengthen the laws comes of course from the small traders and businessmen.

In addition to the Anti-Trust laws the charges that may be made in America by such services as the telephones and telegraphs are subject to regulations issued by the State Utility Commissions and the Federal Communications Commission. If complaint is made that charges are too high these bodies are empowered to investigate whether the companies are making an unduly high profit. The companies may and, of course, do appeal to the Courts against Commission rulings. In 1934 the American Telephone and Telegraph company reported that through adverse court decisions one of its associated telephone companies had the prospect of refunding 20 million dollars to subscribers.

One of the leading anti-trust politicians, Senator Benton, spoke on the Trusts to the Anglo-American Press Association in Paris in November last He maintained that in Britain the electors have had to choose between nationalisation as advocated by the Labour Party and the Conservative policy of leaving industry to private monopoly, and that if American electors had the same choice they “would line up for Government ownership" and that by an overwhelming majority. (Manchester Guardian, 8.11.51.)

He also made the curious suggestion that if Marx were alive today “he would certainly have approved" of American capitalism though not of the “cartel-ridden capitalism of Europe.”

But later on the same Senator Benton charged that the British Imperial Chemical Industries group “has a deal with the DuPont firm not to go into the United States.” (Daily Mail, 22.11.51). As this must be a violation of the American Anti-Trust laws it suggests that the laws are by no means as effective as the Senator believes.

In the meantime the alternative capitalist method of dealing with monopolies by nationalising them is under fire in Great Britain where the Conservative Government, having disowned responsibility for the rise in railway, etc., fares, now professes to discover that under the Act which nationalised the railways the government has no power in the matter of fares except to refer them to the Consultative Committee which can merely make recommendations. A group of Conservative M.P.'s are now therefore proposing an amendment to the Act to enable the government “to put the Transport Commission under more effective Parliamentary control.”

It need only be added that whether nationalisation is carried very far, as in Russia, or much less far as in Britain, or whether the government relies on Anti-Trust laws as in America the state of the mass of the population continues to be that of poverty existing alongside the great wealth and large incomes of the privileged few.

A Philosophical Digression (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Zeno of Elea was an early Greek philosopher who denied the existence of motion. He said that the change and movement going on everywhere was illusory, had no real existence, and he devised some very subtle arguments to try to prove this. One of those “proofs” was that if an arrow is shot from a bow, the arrow must, at every point in the line of flight, occupy space; therefore it is at rest at those points. If it is at rest it can’t be in motion. The Eleatics, the school of philosophy to which Zeno belonged, were the first to question the senses as a reliable source of knowledge, and their arguments prepared the way for the view that only through reason alone could real knowledge be attained.

Readers who haven’t read the philosophers and don’t know the questions they have asked may think it absurd to mistrust the senses. Those readers may say that the philosophers have had a lot to think about and that if they had some practical work to take up their time they wouldn’t be asking such silly questions. There is some truth in this opinion as such questions could only be asked when a leisured class had arisen and had the time to think about them. Taking no part in the practical work of producing society’s needs, these philosophers would exaggerate the part played by reason in the understanding of the world. But those questions and the answers given to them have been steps in the development of human understanding. And those readers who think such questions absurd should note that to-day many scientists claim that the qualities perceived in things, like colour and taste, have no real existence, the real world being a whirling mass of protons and electrons.

Since the days of the Eleatics, succeeding ruling classes, once they had become firmly entrenched as the State power, found the belief that the senses are false witnesses very useful. The subject class or classes may reject this view when it is stated simply and clearly yet accept it when it is applied in particular instances.

For example, in present-day society, the evidence of the senses indicates that the working class are exploited. They are compelled by economic necessity to produce wealth for the capitalist class and receive back insufficient to allow them to live decently, while the capitalist class don’t have to work and yet live in luxury.

Those who wish to preserve capitalist society say it only appears as if the working class are exploited, and, like Zeno, they provide many arguments to attempt to show that appearances are deceptive. They attempt to explain the “seemingly” privileged position of the capitalist class.

They argue that members of the capitalist class work also. This may be true in certain very small concerns, but not for the giant companies which produce most of the wealth in modern society. The shareholders in these companies take no part in production at all.

And it is argued that the large shareholder with investments in dozens of different companies earns his huge dividends because of his organising ability. It is impossible for one man to have the knowledge of the complicated processes involved in running one company, let alone trying to run several. The capitalist class employ workers to do their organising for them and even employ members of the working class to advise them how to invest their money.

Another argument put forward is that the capitalist class are entitled to their large profits because of the risks they take with their investments. What risk is involved buying State bonds? And in these days of “increased” crime is the person who keeps his money at home not taking a bigger risk of losing it? And what about the meagre compensation the working class receive though they risk their lives and health in such industries as mining, transport, etc.

Another aspect of the “risk” argument is that for saving his money and sacrificing present pleasures the capitalist must have some recompense. To talk of the Rothschilds, the Ellermans or the Nuffields foregoing pleasures because of their investments is absurd. Again to abstain from the pleasures of present spending is to indulge in the pleasure of making more money for future spending.

The capitalist class also claim that by investing their wealth they provide the working class with the means to live. Many a black page has been written describing how the rising capitalist class dispossessed the majority of the population of the means to live. The capitalist class invest their money to procure profit. They buy the workers' physical and mental energies by the week or the month and after the workers have used their energies for the specified period producing wealth for the capitalist class they receive back just sufficient to enable them to live. The difference between what the worker produces and what he receives is the source of the capitalists' wealth and is the object of the whole process.

The senses do provide dependable information, but the arguments based on it by the supporters of Capitalism are deceptive.

Man evolved from some ape-like ancestor between one million and 500,000 years ago and his survival is proof that the senses are reliable. Millions of years before man's arrival on earth other living things not endowed with the faculty of abstract thought existed depending on their senses. Many of these species are still in existence.

Reason, though it can be deceptive, does provide true knowledge when it interprets sense-experience accurately. But reason is often led astray by overlooking certain facts because of prejudice or through not being acquainted with a sufficient number of facts. And reason is also limited by the circumstances of the time. Just as the telescope and the microscope extended the range of the senses so the new facts brought to light enlarged our ideas and increased our understanding, and the only way that reason can be trusted to give accurate information is if it is continually tested by the evidence of the senses.

J. T.

The Problem of Distribution (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The increase of unemployment, particularly in the textile industries, has once again raised the problem of distribution. Workers are unemployed in the textile industries because their employers cannot sell for a profit all the goods which their employees have produced.

This is not a new phenomenon, but since the end of the second world war it has up to quite recently been fairly easy for any capitalist organisation to dispose of the commodities they own. The S.P.G.B. has on many occasions pointed out that the absence of large-scale unemployment in this country since the second world war was not due to the late Labour Government. It has been largely due to the fact that such a large number of goods were required to make up for the low production of civil goods during the war years, and the need for new plant, equipment, factories, etc. When the war ended nearly everything was in short supply, about the only thing which was plentiful were the promises of the politicians.

Now, however, certain industries have produced a surplus of goods, that is, the supply is greater than the demand. This does not mean that more goods are produced than are required or needed, but that more goods have been produced than can be sold for the time being at a profit. It is only the rearmament programme which has prevented this happening in many other industries.

It must be recognised that under Capitalism the worker always faces the threat of war or large-scale unemployment. In a lifetime one usually gets a taste of both.

It has been shown once again that the capitalist method of production is capable of producing a surplus of certain goods. The problem once more arises as to how to dispose of this surplus. We know that in the past production was cut, the surplus of goods gradually disappeared and when the demand became greater than the supply then production went forward once again.

It is a short statement "that production was cut.” But it would take many pages to describe what it meant to the worker and his family to be unemployed. Surely the working class have learnt something since the 1930’s, then large-scale unemployment and war—and now, both are seen once more in the distance getting more threatening all the time.

Yet there is a way out. The socialist knows the answer. It needs, however, a majority of the population to take the necessary action. The socialist spends time and energy propagating the socialist case because he knows that unless the majority of people understand and take the necessary action, he can, by himself, do nothing to end the present state of affairs.

With the wages system there is bound to be sooner or later a surplus of certain goods, the supply becomes greater than the demand. (Always remember that demand depends on the ability to pay.)

Certain supporters of the capitalist system believe that this can be partly overcome by a national minimum wage. They argue that if the workers had higher wages they would be able to buy the goods which the capitalists were unable to sell. The Beaverbrook press, for example, often puts this or similar ideas. They show a lack of knowledge as to how wages are determined and of the nature of crises which occur under capitalism.

When supply is greater than demand the only thing the capitalist can do is to cut production. We, however, are not concerned with the problems of the capitalist class. Their problem is to sell at a profit, our problem is to obtain the things we need.

The solution for the working class is the abolition of production for profit. Production solely for use is the answer.

With production for use a surplus would only arise when mankind’s needs of a particular article was satisfied. When this situation arose production of the articles in which a surplus had accrued would be cut. The matter would be decided by the whole of society. Unemployment would not occur.

Unemployment is only a problem to the wage worker. A capitalist who does no work does not worry over the fact that he does not receive a wage nor does he consider himself as unemployed.

The division of labour in the capitalist system, whereby a worker is often skilled at only one particular job, would change as Socialism progressed. That is after Socialism had been established and a period allowed for a sufficiency of goods to be produced. Men and women would have a greater opportunity to change and vary the nature of their work. At the present time this is seldom possible without considerable hardship and privation.

Social production with private ownership can never provide for the needs of man. The wages system always prevents the distribution of goods, for demand is restricted by the ability to pay. Social production with common ownership is the only way in which distribution can be arranged to satisfy mankind. It is the establishment of common ownership of the means of production and distribution which the S.P.G.B. is striving to obtain.

D. W. Lock

Carry On Up the SPGB. (1952)

Excuse my jokey self-indulgence but this wee notice from the back pages of the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard caught my eye. 

Of course a public political meeting in 1952 entitled "Sin & Sex" would have drawn in a bigger than usual crowd. I bet Fulham Branch didn't have to turn people away from their public meeting at the same venue the following week because of lack of space: that meeting was entitled "Geography and its Effects Upon History".

I also love that they retitled the "Sin & Sex" meeting to the more mundane "Socialism and Human Nature". That was one way of ensuring that the more prurient - but less political - proletarian didn't turn up for the follow up meeting. 

Why Socialists Oppose Nationalisation. (1924)

From the November 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Case Against Government Ownership.

The Socialist propagandist is frequently asked by opponents, and by those who sympathise but are only slightly acquainted with the Socialist case, to defend “Nationalisation.” It is usually with surprise that the enquirer learns that the Socialist Party is not in favour of, but opposed to, the many forms of State or Municipal ownership.

While a few Conservatives, considerable numbers of Liberals, the bulk of the Labour Party, and the I.L.P. are advocates of Nationalisation, the Socialist Party does not hold that the workers can usefully support this demand. Our general reason is one that lies at the back of all our principles, that is, that Nationalisation will not benefit the workers. It is a matter of complete indifference to us whether this or any other proposal is, or is not, useful to the other class, the employers.

What, then, is Nationalisation? Let us take the mining industry as an illustration. At present certain moneyed people, capitalists, invest part of their capital in the lease of coal-bearing soil, machinery, etc., and use part in employing miners and clerks and managers to carry on the various processes connected with the hewing, hauling, sale, and distribution of coal. After they have paid wages and all expenses, they expect to, and actually do, receive in the price of their coal, an amount greater than the total they have spent on getting and selling it. The difference between income and expenditure goes into the pockets of the shareholders or owners as profits or dividends, and this happens irrespective of whether those shareholders have or have not any knowledge of coal-getting, and irrespective of whether they spend the whole of their time idling and enjoying themselves, or whether they take an active interest in the concern in which their money is invested. Generally speaking, the amount of their profits depends not on their own efforts, but on the amount of capital they happen to possess.

This is the normal organisation of the capitalist system in its undeveloped or “competitive” stage, and it is objected to by us and by the advocates of Nationalisation. The agreement between us, however, does not go very far. We object to the control of the means of life being in the hands of non-workers. We object to the owners of capital being permitted to consume part of the wealth the workers have produced while they take no active part in production themselves. We hold that society can now dispense with the capitalist class, because they no longer perform any function which cannot be performed at least as well by members of the working class, by which we mean all those people who, because they do not possess property, are compelled to offer their services to those who do. We do not regard the investment of capital as a service which entitles the owner to live at the expense of those who do the work. We therefore advocate Socialism, which is a social system in which every able-bodied person will be expected to engage in wealth production before he earns the right to enjoy the use of those things which society can provide for its members. Society itself will set aside wealth in the form of machinery, etc., for the purpose of future production, instead of paying a privileged class for permission to use the results of the workers’ past labour, as is done at present. The capitalist class will cease to exist.

This is Socialism, but it is not Nationalisation. Nationalisation, or Municipalisation, is said to exist when the State or some local authority takes over or initiates an undertaking instead of leaving it in the hands of any capitalist or group of capitalists who choose to invest their money in it. Thus the railways in Germany, the Post Office and Telegraphs in Great Britain, and butchers shops, sawmills, and other concerns under Labour Governments in Australia, are nationalised. This development is a natural successor in certain industries to the early competitive stage of capitalism. For instance, the overwhelming importance to a great trading nation of efficient means of communication and transport makes it imperative that private individuals shall not be entitled to act quite irresponsibly. The result of leaving such industries in individual hands would have been a chaotic lack of organisation which, while profitable enough to the owners, would have been fatal to those industries which needed cheap and, above all, dependable and widespread transport services. In self-interest, therefore, the capitalist class as a whole, through their Governments, had to step in and either take over, or at least control, those services which had become too big and important to be left in individual hands without grave danger to the stability without which trade would be impossible. There may, of course, be other reasons for the introduction of national control. Bismarck took over the German railways partly for military purposes, partly in order to have a source of income outside the control of the German Parliament, and lastly because he hoped with centralised control to be able to deal more effectively with any attempted insurrection by the German workers. He and other Continental Ministers have used bureaucratic control to stamp out Socialist propaganda by penalising the active workers, and by denying State employees ordinary political rights. In France, State employees, like those in most Continental State concerns, have been denied the right to organise or to strike, and have been compelled to carry on blackleg services by the simple device of calling them to the colours. Sometimes in wartime and only during that emergency it becomes imperative for other industries temporarily to be put under the sole control of the Government. This happened here during the last war.

Again, it may happen that, owing to changed world conditions, new inventions or some such reason, a powerful group of capitalists may be faced with the threatened loss of the whole capital invested in an industry, as might happen, for instance, if oil fuel completely replaced coal. In such circumstances thé owners, if powerful enough, would become enthusiastic supporters of Nationalisation, in the hope that they might get compensation and pass their losses on to the State. A circular recently issued by a firm of Leicester stockbrokers to their clients, explaining why they favoured Nationalisation of the mines, may very well be dictated by a fear of this kind. (See August issue.)

There is yet another frequent explanation of capitalist enthusiasm for State control. La Follette, who is running as Third Party candidate for the U.S.A. Presidency, is an old-fashioned representative of capitalist interests who regards trusts and combines as a departure from the early “purity” of the capitalist system, and he wants the Government to intervene and, if necessary, take over certain vital industries. He is getting quite an unexpected amount of support from a host of small capitalists, manufacturers, farmers, etc., who are being slowly throttled by the banking, railway, and other rings, and who wish to put back the economic development of society. In this country we have Mr. Clynes, who believes, like La Follette, that it is better to have a large number of small capitalists than a small number of large capitalists. (Preface to the “Failure of Karl Marx.”)

Now, if you examine all the schemes put forward by these various advocates of Nationalisation you will see why it is that the Socialist opposes them. They all of them perpetuate the very feature which is essential to capitalism and which leads us to seek the abolition of the system. We do not hold that capitalism would be all right if only profits were limited to 5 per cent. or 1 per cent., or that it would be all right if trusts were abolished or prevented from charging high prices. We know very well that it is the system itself which is the cause of the chief economic evils from which the workers suffer, and these were as bad, and in some respects far worse, before trusts and combines had been heard of. We do not share the pathetic belief of the “Daily Herald” in 1923 (November 12th, 1923, and following days) that capitalism would be all right and there would be no unemployment if only wages were higher. Their unfortunate example was America, but we learn from the “Daily Herald” of October 23rd that there are now more than 5,000,000 unemployed in that country in spite of “high wages.” For the Socialist, capitalism is the enemy; not big capitalists or little capitalists, not high wages or low wages, not efficient or inefficient capitalism, but simply capitalism. And the essential feature of capitalism is reproduced in all these nationalisation proposals. IN ALL OF THEM THE CAPITALIST INVESTOR IS STILL GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO LIVE ON THE PROCEEDS OF HIS INVESTMENT. The only difference—a minor one—is that he will receive interest on Government or Municipal Bonds instead of receiving profits or dividends on ordinary company shares. He will still be able to live without working, and the system which permits this will still be the capitalist system.

The main underlying cause of the worker’s poverty is the private ownership of the means of producing material wealth. The class that lives by owning, maintains its position because it controls the political machinery and can invoke the aid of the armed forces whenever necessary. The remedy can only be the abolition of private ownership, and this can be done only in face of the opposition of the present owners. Examine Nationalisation proposals on these three claims : (1) That it solves the whole problem. (2 That it improves the workers’ position within the present system. (3) That is makes the final solution easier than it would otherwise be.

The “Daily Herald” (July 27th, 1923), under the heading “Socialism at Work,” instanced the Port of London Authority as a Socialist success. “… What Socialists propose is to set up other bodies like this very enterprising and energetic Port of London Authority.” It has on other occasions mentioned in the same connection the Post Office, and Municipal tramways, electricity undertakings, etc. Now, are these things Socialism, or do they as Socialists contend, merely alter superficially the form of the capitalist system?

First, let us take Mr. Herbert Morrison, Secretary of the London Labour Party.

  “The Port of London Authority was established by Mr. Lloyd George some years ago to enable the capitalists of the Port to have the advantages of public credit and to do for themselves collectively what they and a number of private companies had been unable to do with success individually. . . . The Port of London Authority is a capitalistic Soviet . . . the constitution of which is thoroughly objectionable from the Labour and Socialist point of view, and which has certainly not been as friendly to the workers of the Port of London as it might have been” (“Daily Herald,” July 30th, 1923).

The last remark refers, of course, to the many strikes to enforce better working conditions. We do not care to question the “Herald’s” assertion that “By the unanimous admission of the capitalist Press it works exceedingly well.” It is, however, sufficient to say that the capitalist Press does not usually describe in these terms anything which is likely to benefit the workers at the expense of their employers. Next, I am going to quote another Labour supporter, Mr. G. T. Sadler, LL.B., writing in the “Herald” on the subject of the capitalist nature of Municipal undertakings (April 2nd, 1924) :—

  “Many socialists have the idea that by municipalisation they can get rid of capitalists. May I remind such that by municipalisation you create State capitalists? This process has been long going on in all our chief towns. Take a few examples— 

The debt of—

L.C.C. £105,000,000

Lincoln £1,667,000

Liverpool £22,000,000

Manchester £31,000,000

Leicester £4,995,000 

“On all this interest is paid, say, 5 or 4 or less per cent.—to capitalists ! ”

Mr. Sadler is wrong in only one respect—in thinking that Socialists share this Labour Party idea.

To show how completely many critics of the capitalist system miss the really vital feature is well illustrated by another reform of capitalism advocated by the Labour Party. In the “Daily Herald” (October 20th, 1924), Mr. Emil Davies has an article in which he holds up for the imitation of English workers a milk-distributing co-operative society formed four years ago in Minneapolis. He says : “Those who produce and those who distribute the necessaries of life” will, in the co-operative commonwealth, “not be the wage slaves of people who allow the real workers a mere subsistence, and themselves take large profits which enable them to live in luxury.” He then goes on to tell us that this concern, employing only 400 workers, actually made £40,000 profit last year ! He admits that the workers who formed it could raise only trifling amounts of capital themselves, and it was to outsiders that they had to go to start the business. Thus they began operations with promises and actual investments totalling £23,000, and it is of course mainly to these investors that the profit goes. If this instance of intensive exploitation were really what Socialists aim at, the workers might justly detest the name of Socialism. In fact, co-operative capitalism is open to the same criticism as State capitalism or any other variant of the wages system. And. as Mr. J. A. Spender, the Liberal economist, correctly says, “the MacDonald-Webb School of Socialists . . . would disown the Marxian doctrine. . . . These men have no economic doctrine about wealth or its distribution between classes, and are more correctly called State-capitalists than Socialists” (“Weekly Westminster,” October 25th, 1924).

Even the “Herald” has been compelled on occasion to see the weakness of its own party’s position when some particularly flagrant case has come to its notice. Thus in an Editorial of April 12th, 1924, we find the following :—

  “We do not believe that there is any fundamental distinction so long as the wage system exists, between the relationship of a private employer to his workers and the relationship of a municipality or State to its workers. In each case the latter sell their labour-power, and their capacity to sell it at a fair price depends on their capacity, through their trade unions to refuse to work.”

This brings us to the second argument in favour of Nationalisation, i.e., that it improved the position of the worker within capitalism. The “Herald,” in April, 1924, thinks that it makes but little difference, and we are all familiar with the poverty and discontent among postal employees, who complain, moreover, that the Labour Government has been not better, but worse, in respect of the restrictions imposed upon Civil Servants in their political activities. There is no evidence that State employees in Germany or under Australian Labour Governments have been better off than workers in private employ doing similar work. And if, as the “Daily Herald” points out, “the price of Nationalisation were the giving up of the weapon of self-protection” (the strike), then “under capitalism a nationalised industry would actually be worse off than those left in private hands” (September 13th, 1922). Lest it be thought that there is no possibility of this right being denied, it is as well to remember that the Court of Enquiry set up by the Labour Government after the London Traffic Strike (“Daily Herald,” April 12th, 1924) recommended that there should be compulsory arbitration, which, as the Editor said, meant in practice the taking away of the right to strike. This report was signed by the Labour representative, Mr. Pugh.

There still remains the argument that Nationalisation is economically desirable because it paves the way for Socialism. If it is merely size that counts, then this argument obviously fails, because the trust has solved the problem of large-scale organisation, and in many industries the international combine has been organised across State boundaries and over a larger field than any single Government can possibly cover. Cotton and oil are instances of this. Further, from the point of view of the future, State enterprises are economically bad, because they often introduce political considerations which are less likely in the trust. As pointed out above, Bismarck, when he took over and extended Prussian railways, was influenced largely by purely military needs and not only by the question of providing an efficient means for the transport of goods. In short, the technical and organisational basis of Socialism has long been prepared, and there is no need for half-way houses. The problem before us is solely one of propagating Socialism, no less in States like Queensland, with its ten years of Labour Government, and countries with a relatively high proportion of nationalised industries, than in countries where competitive capitalism is still strong. The private property of the capitalists, which is what we desire to take for society, cannot be touched until the workers as a whole will back up such a step. Advocating Nationalisation within the capitalist system is unnecessary, because the pressure of their own problems will force the capitalists to do this in suitable industries, and its advocacy is injurious to workers because it obscures the real aim and delays its realisation.

Edgar Hardcastle