Notes by the Way
Labour Party Chairman on Tory Nationalisation
Mr. Maurice Webb, M.P., Chairman of the Labour Party, is on his way from Canada to U.S.A. to answer “gross misrepresentations” about the Labour Government. Before he left he gave an interview to reporters:
“Much of the misinformation being spread in the United States is done by British people and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They blame all Britain’s troubles on Socialism, forgetting that only about 20 per cent. of the economy has been nationalised and the rest is private enterprise. And about 12 per cent. of the 20 per cent. was initiated by the previous Government.” (Manchester Guardian, September 10th, 1949.)
While he is clearing up misrepresentations he might start with himself and stop calling Nationalisation “Socialism.”
Can Yon live on 92s. 6d. a Week?
The Conciliation Board has rejected the railwaymen’s claim for a 10s. increase, also rejected the contention that 92s. 6d. a week is too little to live on.
“The Board cannot accept the contention that earnings, as apart from rates, should be excluded when assessing the adequacy of basic rates, nor is it satisfied that the minimum rate of 92s. 6d. is below the figure necessary to maintain the minimum standard of human needs.” (Times,, September 9th, 1949.)
It has been estimated by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics (“Bulletin,” July-August, 1949) that working-class cost of living has increased by 79 per cent. since before the war. If we make allowance for this increase of prices a present wage of 92s. 6d. is equal to a pre-war wage of about 51s. 8d. Actually the minimum wage fixed for porters in October, 1939, was 47s., 48s., or 50s., according to area, but the Railway Union complained that it was much too low, and no Trade Union official or Labour Leader would have defended 51s. 8d. a week.
Yet after nationalisation and four years of Labour Government a present minimum wage, which will buy no more than 51s. 8d. bought before the war, is defended as adequate by the Conciliation Board!
Is There a Shortage of Money?
The following needs no comment: —
“Application lists for the £6,500,000 offer of shares in W. H. Smith & Son (Holdings), the newsagents and booksellers, were open for only five minutes in the City yesterday morning. Even before the lists opened at 10 a.m. the brokers handling the issue had received applications from the public covering the amount offered by a large margin.
“By yesterday evening, although the count had not been completed, the public’s response was estimated at over £20 million.” (Daily Telegraph. September 2nd, 1949.)
Mr. Morrison’s Duty to his Country
At a press conference in Strasbourg on August 26th Mr. Herbert Morrison uttered a few words “before leaving for a three-week holiday in the South of France.” This is what he said:—
“It is my duty to my country to get a holiday. It is merely an elementary duty of public service.” (Manchester Guardian, August 27th, 1949.)
The comment of the Guardian’s Diplomatic Correspondent is, “No one doubted it, but why so pompous about it?”
If a miner thought that it was his duty or pleasure and if he had the money to go to the South of France for three weeks, he would be charged with inexcusable absenteeism.
Production and Consumption, by Sir Stafford Cripps
In a speech at Washington, Sir Stafford Cripps gave the following information about production and consumption in Great Britain:—
“Industrial production in Britain is to-day at an all-time high, about 25 per cent. above the immediate pre-war level. Industrial productivity is rising steadily. In the first half of 1949 output per man was 4 to 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier and well above the pre-war figure. The average working week to-day is just over 45 hours. The volume of exports in the first half of this year was 51 per cent. greater than in 1938, the volume of imports 15 per cent. less. . . . In spite of the great increase in production, personal consumption has risen by only 4 per cent. over the past three years. The reason is that the extra output has been used partly to boost exports, partly to support the largest capital investment programme in our history which is currently absorbing more than one-fifth of the whole national output.” (Manchester Guardian, September 10th, 1949.)
“Nobody Knew the Difference”
Some American politicians affect to believe that Britain has been revolutionised by the Labour Government’s nationalisation schemes, though they are not all so ill-informed. Mr. Hoffman, Marshall Plan Administrator, speaking at a Press Conference in Washington on August 29th was asked about this, and replied:—
“The coal mines in Britain were no better and no worse for having been nationalised. The same was true of the railways, and though the Bank of England was also nationalised, nobody knew the difference. (Times, August 30th, 1949.)
The German Elections
The general election in Western Germany, held in the middle of August, made the Social Democrats the second largest party in the new Parliament with 131 seats out of 402. Their total vote, 6,932,000, represented 33 per cent. of the votes as against 35 per cent. given to the Christian Democratic Union and 13 per cent given to the next largest party, the Free Democratic Union. The new Government is a coalition dominated by the Christian Democratic Union.
The results are an answer to those who thought that with the disappearance of the Hitler Dictatorship the electorate would give their votes to the Social Democrats, a party much like the British Labour Party.
The German Social Democrats, in spite of their reformist and strongly nationalist programme and policy designed to capture all sections of the population (except those who stand for Socialism), are thus shown to have made little headway. Their voting strength compares unfavourably with what it was 30 and more years ago. As long ago as 1912 they received 35 per cent. of the votes (“Labour Year Book,” 1916, P. 411). Then at the elections in January, 1919, after the setting up of the Republic, the Social Democrats were by far the largest party with nearly 40 per cent. of the votes (45 per cent. if the “Independent Socialists” are added), and remained the largest party until 1932. Their vote had, however, been falling and at the 1930 election was down to 25 per cent. of the total.
The Communists, who in 1930 obtained 13 per cent. of the votes, fared badly in the elections in August last, receiving 1,360,000 votes, about 4 per cent of the total.
The Faith of a “Christian Communist”
In accordance with the policy of getting the support of anyone no matter what his understanding of Socialism may be, the Communist Party accepts into its ranks people whose religious beliefs are quite incompatible with Marxism and with the views expressed by Lenin.
The following are extracts from an article,44 Why I Became a Communist,” by the Reverend W. E. Allen, published in the Daily Worker (August 31st, 1949): —
“In the three years I have been a member of the Communist Party I have found in the fellowship of the local branch a comradeship, a sense of service to the people, and an intellectual honesty which I feel are truly Christian.”
“What Jesus expressed in religious symbols, Marx saw in scientific terms. Communism has much to give Christianity, and Christianity much to give Communism.”
It is odd that the Rev. W. E. Allen should find “intellectual honesty” in the Communist Party. In three years of membership and in his reading of Marx, which, he says, benefited his understanding, he must surely by now have discovered that the Communists are professed accepters of the materialist conception of history and he can hardly have escaped coming across their former use of the phrase from Marx: “Religion is the opium of the people.”
Communists Who Live in Glasshouses
The Daily Worker (August 19th, 1949) finds it very diverting that an American critic of the Labour Government should accuse them of aiming to “equalise incomes so that everybody will be approximately on the same financial level.”
The Worker says: —
“This is not only ‘news’ for Americans. Workers in Britain’s nationalised industries contemplating the salaries of the heads of the nationalised boards will find it strange, exciting and untrue.”
Bu who are the Communists to throw stones at the Labour Government? True the latter have forgotten their old advocacy of equality of incomes, but what about the Russian workers who can contrast the high salaries and incomes from investment in State bonds in Russia, with Lenin’s declaration that as soon as they got power the Communists in Russia would likewise bring all incomes to approximately the level of pay of the workers?
Very appropriately at this moment comes the statement of one of the admirers of Russia, Professor Bernal. He visited Russia again last month, 15 years after ah earlier trip, and on his return he commented: “How they have changed! The standard of living of the better-paid workers is higher than here. The shops are filled and there are no queues.” (Daily Express, November 10th, 1949.)
We are asked to admire “Socialist” Russia because the “higher paid workers,” not the workers as a whole, are better off than are workers in capitalist Britain!
A Labour Prophet has a Fall
At the Labour Party Conference in May, 1940, when the Labour Party decided to enter the Churchill Government, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, M.P., made a prophecy about the outcome of the war:—
“We shall have a trembling capitalist system which can never recover again. We shall have broken the back of the vested interests, and we can build a socialist commonwealth which will be a powerful factor in the world.” (Daily Herald, May 14th, 1940.)
On the 10th anniversary of the outbreak of war Mr. Greenwood gave a message to the Daily Mail (September 3rd, 1949) which included the following: —
“This peace has not yet been won, and Britain’s effort to-day must be directed towards the fullest use of all human and material resources, so as to play our part in the reshaping of the whole world.”
British Capitalism is indeed in a bad way, but what the Labour Government is now doing is to direct all their efforts to trying to put it on its feet again while urging the workers to refrain from making demands that would stand in the way of British capitalist recovery. The Labour Party’s latest pronouncement of policy is appropriately called “Labour Believes in Britain,” not “Labour Believes in Socialism.”
Why no Celebration?
By a curious oversight the Daily Worker on August 23rd, 1949, forgot to celebrate a great occasion in Communist Party history; yet when the event occurred ten years ago they claimed that it was a “Victory for Peace and Socialism.” (Daily Worker, August 23rd, 1939.) The event in question was the Pact of Friendship between Stalin and Hitler. Can it be that they now wish to forget that “Socialist” victory?
Education and the Standard Oil Co. of America
“The Lamp,” a periodical published by the Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), U.S.A., reproduced in its issue for November, 1947, an address by Frank W. Abrams, Chairman of the Board of Directors, on “The Stake of Business in American Education.” Some of the points made by him are interesting as indicating how big business regards education. His first main point is that the better educated the population are the more they earn and therefore the more money they have to spend on such things as books, newspapers, houses, and, of course, motor cars. His next point was that education increases the workers’ output—”business depends upon education not only to provide more profitable markets but to provide more productive manpower.”
“As every foreman knows, a worker who has had some practice in learning at school usually turns out to be better at learning in a factory. He catches on more quickly not only to the how of his job, but the why of it. His training takes less time. He has a quicker and better grasp of problems and ideas. He is more apt to think about what he is doing and to come up with useful suggestions concerning it. If he has gone through college, he has had an opportunity to acquire the broader perspective and the capacity to think in terms of ideas and trends, which are indispensable in the higher management levels.”
“If business and industry could not draw upon a large reservoir of educated man-power, they would be handicapped in every phase of their operations. American education does a job for business and industry. If our hope of an advancing American economy involves reducing costs, increasing individual productivity, and devising better ways of doing things, we must consider that we have a major interest in helping American education and educators in their work.”
On the financial side he mentions that “many corporations underwrite the expense of research projects in college and university laboratories which they feel will be valuable to their operations. Others grant scholarships.”
He thinks, however, that more should be done in the direction of providing money for endowed educational institutions.
Mr. Abrams also thinks that education makes for political security for the existing social system.
“The experts in this field are convinced that education produces not only a difference in the volume of opinion, but also a difference in the kind of opinion. People with information are inclined to have moderate opinions, whereas those without information are apt to be extremists.”
Of course it all depends on the kind of information. What Mr. Abrams is saying to his fellow big business men is that if they put up the money they can influence the kind of information supplied by the educational institutions and thus help to make America safe for Capitalism.
H.