Notes by the Way
Top, Bottom or Middle?
Labour Party spokesmen say that the present economic crisis and “austerity” are largely caused by the very high prices of food and raw materials imported into this country. They also said in 1932 that that crisis was largely due to the world prices of food and raw materials being too low, with the result that farmers and raw material producers all over the world could not afford to buy British exports. Now Mr. Strachey thinks he has found a middle way, not too high, not too low. He was defending the Government’s policy of entering into long-term contracts at fixed prices and said:
“I do not take the view that it would be in the best or long-term interests of the country to see a catastrophic fall in the price of world staple foodstuffs and other primary materials. … It is true, of course, that long-term contracts on prices, and national agreements in general tend to prevent those sudden catastrophic falls in primary prices, hut I believe that to be in the real and long-term interest of this country. . . . On the other hand, a moderate and steady decline in primary producers’ prices—above all, food prices—is to the great interest of this country . . .” (Hansard, 20/1/49, column 362.)
It is all in vain. Capitalism will go its way to the inevitable next slump irrespective of the plans of all the planners.
Russia and the World Market
Russian planners, like their British counterparts, still believe that their planned State capitalism can safeguard them against the effects of world depression. It is instructive, therefore, to notice what is happening in the world wheat market. Owing to increased harvests world prices were already shaky when sud¬ denly the Russian Government announced that they could export large quantities, estimated at 100 million bushels. The result, according to a correspondent at the International Wheat Conference, was that the British Government is in a stronger position to bargain to get wheat at a lower price than the agreed levels at which it has been standing. A British official at the Conference is quoted as saying that a likely consequence is “that Britain, already pressing for a price under 10s. per bushel because of coming world surpluses, will now drive to an easy victory with prices as low as 7s. 6d. per bushel.” (Daily Express, 4/2/49.)
Now observe the sequel. When the big wheat exporting countries moved to retain the existing 10s. minimum price and Britain, as importer sought to reduce it, Russia lined up with America and the other exporters to keep the price up to 10s. (News Chronicle, 8/2/49.) Then the Struggle went on for several days between the exporters and the importers but the effect of the big wheat surpluses made itself felt. On 11th February, 1949, the Financial Times correspondent at Washington reported :
“… it is believed by observers here that the exporters—the United States, Canada, Australia and Russia—have agreed to drop their demand for $2 (10s.) a bushel, the price agreed in the last year’s agreement which the U.S. Congress failed to ratify ….
“It is believed the price decline in the American wheat market in the past week has influenced exporters to lower prices.” ( Financial Times, 12/2/49.)
Whatever the immediate outcome may be, sooner or later world prices of wheat will fall (partly as a result
of Russia’s big exports) and then Russia’s plans to use her wheat exports to pay for much-needed imports of machinery and other manufactures will inevitably be affected. Neither Russia nor any other country can immunise itself from the effects of world capitalism.
As it happened, Mr. Pollitt, speaking before Russia’s action in trying to keep up the price was known, had this to say :
“The world may gel a surprise very shortly at the amount of wheat the Soviet Union can put into the wheat pool and it will be an important factor in bringing down prices.” (Daily Worker, 31/1/49.)
Like every other capitalist trading group Russia wants to “sell dear,” but will have to accommodate its prices to conditions in the world market. It is comparatively easy to plan to produce, but planning to sell at a planned price is another matter. No part of the world can escape dependence on the market.
“Industry Needs More Bankruptcies”
One of the secondary contradictions of the capitalist system of society is that the interest of the capitalist class as a whole often conflicts with the interest of individual capitalists and a more or less clear-headed Ministry ruthlessly acts in accordance with this. But a Labour government is restricted by its own good intentions and is reluctant to undertake measures that a Tory government might push through. A case in point is the continuance of controls. While some industries and some powerful concerns in all industries would like to see government controls over materials, prices and profits removed there are others which find the system of controls very acceptable—they fear what will happen to them when controls are removed and they face renewed competition. The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Harold Wilson, recently stated that many trades would like to see controls kept on and when the government proposes removal of them the biggest difficulty is to get it agreed with the trade concerned. To which the City Editor of theEvening Standard cold-bloodedly replies:
“Free competition and a few bankruptcies would do more to increase efficiency in British industry and to bring about a reduction in prices, than the Government will ever he aide to do.” (Evening Standard, 6/12/48.)
While the Evening Standard thinks that capitalism needs competition (not to mention unemployment) the government has to take into account the outcry that would be heard from the workers for whom more
bankruptcies means the loss of jobs.
The “Daily Express” and “Human Nature”
When Conservatives are trying to show that Socialism will be impossible one often-used argument is that the Socialists who will have joined together to achieve Socialism will then, as individuals, get busy wrecking it. But when the Daily Express wants to attack the present government it forgets that argument and argues that people do in fact behave sensibly:
“TAKF, IT OFF
“Here’s good and cheerful news.
“Britain’s sugar beet harvest has exceeded all records. The factories have produced 567,000 tons of white sugar—138,000 tons more than in 1947.
“Sugar stocks are swelling. What about passing on the surplus to the housewife in preserving sugar? Or better still, taking sugar off the ration and trusting the people not to be greedy.
“TRUST THEM
“One of London’s big restaurant groups has abolished sugar rationing by taking its plated sugar basins out of store and putting one on each table full of sugar.
“And the result? Just what these shrewd caterers expected. People take as much as they need for their tea and coffee, and no more.
“This firm trusts to the honesty of its customers. So why not the British Government?”
(Daily Express Editorial, 12/2/49.)
People Who Live in Glasshouses
The Daily Worker in an editorial comment on the newspapers that have been publishing articles by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley called it degrading material, dung on the dunghill.
“Is it for this purpose that the newspapers have been granted extra newsprint?
“The spreading of this muck in millions of copies is propaganda for spivism, it debases public taste and, by putting a large sum of money into Stanley’s pockets, places a premium on rascality.
“The sole purpose of this scandalous behaviour by the newspapers concerned is to gain more circulation, and in this way to increase advertising-revenue and net profits.
“The duty of a newspaper is to inform and enlighten . . .” (Daily Worker, 31/1/19.)
The Daily Worker is on rather thin ice when it criticises its rivals. Readers of the Daily Worker will see that the desire to get advertising revenue, and the efforts to boost circulation, arc responsible for some use of space hard to bring under the heading of information and enlightenment. The Worker itself claims that it attracts readers by its racing tips. Much of the space is taken up with advertisements for Sherman’s and other football pools, and advertisements for patent medicines. Then there is the revenue the Worker gets for putting in government advertisements, among them the series telling the workers what a good job coal mining is.
In the House of Commons on 20th January, 19149, Sir Stafford Cripps gave figures of the expenditure by government departments on advertising in the Press. One item for the year 1947-8 was £7,431 on advertisements in the Daily Worker, though out of this amount comes the commission paid to the agents through whom the advertisements are placed. (Times, 21/1/49.)
The New Regime in India
Indian workers who were persuaded that independence would bring with it different treatment of the workers by the employers and the government are learning how wrong they were. Capitalism does not become a different system because the rulers and the flag are changed.
The Trade Union Record (Bombay, November, 1948), published by the All-India Trade Union Congress, states that the Bombay government has recently amended the anti-labour Industrial Relations Act, by further restrictions :
“Protest strikes against the actions and policies of the Government would be henceforth banned as illegal. The anti-working-class measures of the Government, hence, would be protected by banning the workers’ right to protest against them. Even sympathetic strikes would be banned as illegal under the amended Act. Lastly, a Union which has entered upon an illegal strike would not be granted registration for a period of six months under the Act.”
The Record also protests against a circular letter issued by the General Manager of the South Indian Railway, which requires “every worker to sign a declaration form, stating the facts as to his membership of a Trade Union. Whenever a worker enrols himself as a member of a particular Union, or resigns his membership or changes from one Union to another, he would be required to send intimation to his superiors without delay.”
“While the representatives of the Government of India in I.L.O. Conferences still boast about the freedom of the Trade Union movement in India Trade Unions in India are gagged, suppressed and lastly workers joining them are threatened with victimisation in a manner violating all canons of civilised regulations. This case is a challenge to all workers’ organisations in the country and we hope that they would raise their indignant protests against the action which betokens a blow at the existence of the free trade union movement.”
The Co-operatives and Nationalisation
It is always assumed by Labour Party advocates of nationalisation that at least all their own supporters will approve of additional measures of nationalisation. It was recently disclosed, however, that a difference of opinion has arisen with the co-operative societies for they take a dim view of their own concerns being taken over by the State.
“The Labour Party has had under discussion the possibility of nationalizing a number of sections of the food industry, including flour milling and sugar refining. The cooperative movement has already, in discussions with the Labour Party, expressed its opposition to the nationalization, of flour milling, in which it has substantial interests.
“Its view is that for such industries ownership through consumer organization is more suitable than ownership by the State. It does not seem, however, to have expressed any strong opposition to the nationalization of sugar refining.” (Times, 10/2/49.)
It was probably the same desire not to offend the co-operatives that led the Labour Government spokesmen in the House of Lords to announce that they are not intending to nationalise retail trade.
“Lord Lucas of Chilworth has lifted the veil on Labour’s election programme to the extent of announcing that the Government does not intend to nationalise retail trade. He made the announcement when winding up for the Government a debate in the House of Lords today on the position of the small trader which had been introduced by Lord Lloyd.” (Manchester Guardian, 10/2/49.)
H.