Skip to Content

Nationalisation

An Apostle of Public Ownership

 The Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, the late Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, has been invited by the Soviet Government of Russia to go there and reorganise the passenger transport system. The Daily Herald, in reporting the matter, did not mention whether he accepted the offer. It is a curious commentary, however, on the fact that the Moscow International has for years denounced Ramsay MacDonald and his supporters, while the Russian Government seeks the assistance of one of the most notorious worshippers of MacDonald in Labour Party history.

“Common Ownership”: Ourselves v. The Labour Party

 At a meeting in the provinces addressed recently by a member of the S.P.G.B. someone in the audience protested against the statement that the S.P.G.B. was the only party that stood for Socialism; and produced a membership card of the Labour Party, wherein occurred the statement that the party stood for “common ownership.” The above difficulty is typical of the state of mind of many workers who support the Labour Party under the impression that they are thereby helping to emancipate the members of their class.

Wages and Nationalisation


 Mr. Cramp
, Industrial General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Transport, was asked by Major I. Salmon, M.P., whether nationalisation of the railways would lead to higher wages for the railwaymen. Mr. Cramp, who was there as an advocate of railway nationalisation, replied “Certainly not.” (“Daily Telegraph,” 17/1/29.)

 The correspondents of "The Times” and “Morning Post” also record that Mr. Cramp replied in the negative to this question, but curiously enough, the “Daily Herald” correspondent, although his report is much longer, appears not to have noticed either the question or the answer.

Pamphlet Review: Saklatvala on Socialism

 The Communist Party of Great Britain have recently published a small pamphlet entitled "Socialism and Labouralism," which is an "edited" report of a speech delivered by Mr. Saklatvala in the House of Commons on March 21st, 1928.

 Judging by the speech as a whole, Mr. Saklatvala is either ignorant as to the meaning of Socialism, or is prepared to withhold his knowledge from the workers. Let us take one or two points from the speech. On page 5 of the pamphlet he says:—

   " It may be possible without at all disturbing the Capitalist character of society and without coming near Socialism, to extend the ownership of any particular enterprise to all the citizens of a country."

Syndicate content