Notes By The Way
The Hunt is Up—Profiteers on the Run
Someday, someone who has the time and the interest will make a study of the way capitalism has corrupted thought and expression and debased language to such an extent that millions of people are incapable of making plain statements of fact and words rarely mean what they should mean. Most people know, in a general way, that the claims made for advertised goods are mostly false and irrelevant, yet always thousands of people will be taken in by the extravagant claims made for some new product or by a newly-phrased puff for an old one. Look at the description employers are allowed to give to the pay and conditions of their employees, the “high wages and bonuses,” the welfare services and the “good promotion prospects” and promise of security for the “right man”; yet, still under the Servants Characters Act of 1792, workers who use false references to get one of these falsely advertised jobs may be proceeded against. Read the tricky, deceitful language used by professional politicians, whose skill lies in gaining confidence and votes not in a truthful statement of the nature of the problems before the electorate. Notice the traditionally evasive and obscuring habits of expression of the majority of religious preachers and writers. They are probably the worst offenders, because they are so utterly dependent on the favour of the rich and powerful in their church, and even lack the robustness of the politician and journalist who, though similarly dependent, have the confidence that comes from the knowledge that they have behind them the backing of their own party or paper within well understood limits.
The hall-mark of expression under capitalism is that everything is twisted and blunted. The golden rule is that, all plain, unqualified statements of condemnation of anti-social conduct are sure to hit some individual or group among the propertied and influential and must therefore be avoided, or toned down, or clearly directed only against some sub-division of the evil doers. Thus all politicians declare themselves in favour of the abolition of “undeserved” poverty, but not, of course, of poverty itself—as if “deserts” had anything to do with the poverty of the working class. All denounce the “profiteer,” but not the profit-maker, though nobody knows what “profiteering” means if it does not mean the lauded capitalist aim of making as much profit as possible. All parsons and guardians of morality are agreed that lying and deceit are to be condemned; except, of course, for purposes of waging war or diplomacy, or to attract buyers for goods, or induce workers to vote for capitalism at elections; in short, except for nearly all the normal activities of capitalist life.
At the moment the hunt is up again for “profiteers,” and the News Chronicle blandly announces (July 25th, 1941) that “the days of the profiteers in clothing and other necessities of life are numbered.”
The News Chronicle does not care to recall that the profiteer was killed times without number, finally and forever, in the last war and in each and every year since 1918 up to 1939, and that when this war broke out it was universally agreed by the newspapers that there would not be, and could not be, any such person in this war.
The latest, and really the last, antidote for profiteers, according to the News Chronicle, lies in “thirty-four Board of Trade inspectors,” who are going “to track them down.”
They must forgive us if we smile at the spectacle of the 34 Board of Trade rabbits out hunting down the capitalist stoats. The advice of Socialists to the working class is to forget these whimsical side-shows and get on with the real work of ending capitalism.
A “Socialist” Councillor Hates Working-Class Ingratitude
According to the Evening News (July 24th, 1941) the Erith Council have decided to serve notices to quit on 20 tenants of Council houses in arrears with their rent. The report continues : —
“Councillor T. C. Pannell, leader of the Socialist Party, said these houses were not let at economic rents. Some of them were the cheapest in the town. Some people thought that because the Socialist Party was in power they could do what they liked.
Councillor T. Mantle, chairman of the Housing Committee, said:—”I am amazed at the unscrupulous and unprincipled way in which some of these tenants have dealt with us. Tenants have lied to me and taken advantage of me. .Some are in good work, and get high wages. If they will not pay in these circumstances, they will not pay at all.”
It is hardly necessary to have to explain that it is not the Socialist Party in control at Erith, but the Labour Party, and probably the two Councillors mentioned are guiltless of having claimed to be Socialists, but they certainly must share responsibility with the rest of the Labour Party for the common misconception which regards Labourism as Socialism.
But see what happens ? Possibly some tenants have absorbed a vague idea that under Socialism, while they could not expect to do just what they liked if that meant looking after themselves regardless of others, they could expect that under Socialism they would have no rent to pay. Further, they may have heard the Labour Party propaganda, which represents Labourism as an approach to Socialism by degrees. What could be more natural than that they should interpret this as paying less and less rent until it reached zero.
Altogether it seems that Labourism in trying to administer capitalism at Erith has got in a bit of a mess. Socialists will not be surprised.
The Archbishop Speaks and Heaven Alone Knows What he Means
The following report is from The Times (July 3rd, 1941): —
“The Archbishop of York, Dr. Temple, in a broadcast last night, gave this four-point definition of Christian social principles :—
Property is necessary to fullness of personal life, and this is its justification.
The life of every individual is within the fellowship of the community, and property divorced from all social function or service forfeits that justification.
The mere lending of money should not be a means of acquiring control over another man or his activities, and the interest payable, if any, should be proportioned to the service rendered, not to the relative strength and weakness of the parties to the transaction.
Commerce should be an exchange at fair prices for the benefit of both parties and of the community generally—not a rivalry in which each seeks to buy cheap and to sell dear.”
The Archbishop’s admirers will say that this is an admirable statement of Christian social policy, bold but not Utopian, sympathetic without being sentimental, progressive, but statesmanlike. They will all interpret it to mean what suits their interests and outlook. None of them will be able to say what exactly it means in practice. Property, says Dr. Temple, is necessary to fullness of personal life; but what property and whose property? Socialists are all in favour of everybody having possessions in personal articles needed for comfort and convenience, but this cannot be until the capitalist class are deprived of their ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. The Archbishop is silent on this point, except that the third point (about the payment of interest) makes it clear that he does not see the necessity to abolish investment. As for fullness of personal life, how is the ownership of shares in dozens of companies necessary to the fullness of life of the capitalist investor ? How does Dr. Temple square it with the workers’ objection to being exploited ?
He denounces the “mere lending of money” (what is “mere” lending as distinct from lending?) if it means acquiring control over another man or his activities. But how can there be investment without such control over the activities of the workers ?
He also wants commerce on the basis of “an exchange at fair prices,” but what are fair prices? Prices which do not allow for any payment of rent, interest and profit as a property income to property owners ? But the capitalists (and the administrators of Church funds) will soon tell him that they are not at all interested in commerce except for the purpose of such reaping where they have not sown.
In short, why does not Dr. Temple tell us plainly where he stands. Is he for capitalism or against it? Or just sitting on the fence making friendly (and empty) gestures to the workers on one side of it?
Helping Russia !
The Prime Minister has said that everyone in this country is anxious to help Russia. Roosevelt has said the same of U.S.A. It appears from the report below that a number of people are more concerned about helping themselves.
“Entry of Russia into the war is causing excitement in the London tin market, where prices bounded up £2 7s. 6d. yesterday, making a gain of £4 12s. 6d. a ton in two days.
Arrangements are being made, I understand, for Russia to buy considerable quantities of tin in the East.
At the end of 1938 she had built up substantial stocks, but it is believed that her purchases since then have been small.
Prospect that Russia will buy metals and other materials in the United States, is also accelerating the price rise in that country.”—(Daily Express, July 5th, 1941.)
The Ignorant, Selfish Workers
A Dr. Leslie Housden, of the National Association of Maternity and Child Welfare Centres, told the Evening Standard (July 4th, 1941) that she “would like an assurance to be given that parents will be taught how to spend family allowances for the benefit of their children.”
“The standard of living in .poorer families depends greatly upon the ability of the mother to shop and housekeep properly,” she said.
In a recent address Dr. Housden remarked:—”You cannot turn ignorant, lazy, selfish men and women into cherishers of childhood by giving them money.”
This arose out of an announcement that a Treasury Committee are investigating how much family allowances will cost the Government.
The whole thing is an illustration of the typical condescension of the ruling class towards the workers. As the Bible does not exactly say: “To him that hath shall be given, and to him and her that hath not shall come a spate of impertinent advice from well-meaning busybodies.”
Are the workers ignorant ? They learned what they know at capitalist provided schools. Are they lazy and selfish ? If so, who robbed them of initiative and incentive and taught them that the way of life is to look after number one ? And what right have the rich and well-to-do to argue that the receipt of an income sufficient to buy the bare necessities of life should be dependent on the possession of all the social virtues : What about the ignorant, lazy, selfish property owners ?
In passing, we are expectantly awaiting the appointment of another Treasury Committee to find out what, in poverty, blood and tears, the capitalist system has cost to the human race.
In and Out the Barrack Window
We all know how the Communists have been in the war and out again, and are now in full support once more. The former Editor of the Daily Worker, Mr. William Rust, in a letter to the News Chronicle (July 7th) has said that he and Professor Haldane “are quite prepared to give personal assurances to the Government …. that the Daily Worker, if allowed to reappear, will vigorously campaign in the factories in order to achieve the maximum production for victory and to bring about the widest possible unity in the fight to defeat and crush the Nazis.”
It seems that the Communists have their opposite numbers, men who are also in and out, but contrariwise. A Catholic, Fascist, conscientious objector recently told the Tribunal that he was at first opposed to the war (that will presumably have been in the early days when the Communists supported it). Then he became a supporter of the war when France collapsed and invasion of this country seemed to be imminent (that will have been when the Communists were opposing the war). Now, he says, he is a conscientious objector, and quoted from a Papal Encyclical that a Catholic could not collaborate with Communism (at this stage, Russia being invaded, the Communists are in again.).
It all comes of trying to wage war in accordance with ideologies.
Mothers’ Sons who became World Conquerors
When the Kaiser died the newspapers dug out the old story that he had a withered arm and was disliked by his mother and this embittered him and led him to dream dreams of world conquest. We seem to have read that Hitler was his mother’s darling, and this spoiled him and made him dream dreams of world conquest. It is all very puzzling. The only sure conclusion appears to be that the result will be the same however mothers treat their sons. Perhaps, after all, this explanation of war is a trifle inadequate.
Why they did not hang the Kaiser
Two versions : —
“Wilhelm II. ruled Germany for 30 years, and he fled to Holland with all Europe crying, “Hang the Kaiser.” But the Dutch would not hand him over for trial.”—(Evening Standard, June 4th, 1941.)
The Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941) reproduced from Mr. Winston Churchill’s works his account of the matter, and in it he delicately hints, without, however, committing himself one way or the other, that “the subterranean intrigues of old-world secret diplomacy” may have conveyed to the Dutch Government that nobody proposed to do anything to the Dutch Government to compel them to hand him over.
You draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that at the time there were rumours that before the Allied Governments asked Holland to hand over the Kaiser they had informed the Dutch that the request
was not intended to be taken seriously.
Have what you like ; if you can pay for it
In the Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941), Mr. F. C. Hooper, “one of the biggest business men in the Midlands and North,” wrote a strongly worded denunciation of “the cranks who want to change Britain.” His main argument was that things were not at all bad in this country before the war. “Generally speaking,” he wrote, “life in this country was on a higher standard of material enjoyment and well-being than in any other country in the world.”
The first of his reasons for his belief was: —
“We were free and unfettered. We could go where we liked, live where we liked, and, within our means, do what we liked.”
It all depends, of course, on those three little words, “within our means.” Paupers may dine at the Ritz, spend half the year holidaying abroad, or live like biggest noises in the Midlands, if it is within their means, but, although Mr. Hooper goes on to say that “most people did do what they liked,” he does not go so far as to say that these things of anything like them were within the means of the great majority. He does not express an opinion on the point whether the under-nourished third of the whole population liked their enforced condition.
We will not argue about his claim that generally speaking things were even worse in other parts of the capitalist world. We doubt if Mr. Hooper would happily accept a suggestion that he give up his wealth and become a labourer merely because some other labourers in Timbuctoo would still be worse off.
The following, from the Sunday Express of the same day, throws more light on the claim made by Mr. Hooper.
“There is more money in the West End than ever before,” said a man who knows the inside story of the ration racket. “Everything is got from some ramp or another.”
“You can have what you like, if you are ready to pay the right price. It may be a cask of butter, a side of bacon, or a chest of tea. Whatever it is, the ‘boys’ can get it.
“The goods are either stolen (gangs are operating around the docks) or got through bribery. I know one hotel under manager who was offered a fat sum if he could hand over £500 worth of butter. He turned it down flat; others are not always so honest.”
H