Notes by the Way
More Millionaires
The Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for the year ended 31st March, 1948, gives the usual figures showing ranges of income. As reported in the Press (Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, 29/7/49) there were in 1947-8, 70 people who, after paying income tax and surtax, were left with over £6,000 a year, 3,430 between £4,000 and £6,000, 58,500 between £2,000 and £4,000, and 320,000 between £1,000 and £2,000.
The Daily Mail (29/7/49) makes an estimate of the number of millionaires based on the assumption that those people whose income during the year was £50,000 or more (before paying tax) are in the million¬ aire group. The Mail’s comment is that “millionaires …..have increased since the war.” It will, however,
be seen from the figures that they are fewer than before the war:—
1938-9……… 374
1944-5……… 251
1945-6……… 242
1946-7……… 282
The Mail also brings out that during 1947-8 there were 15,597 estates passing at death whose net value was between £10,000 and £100,000 and that this was an increase of more than 6,000 since 1938-9.
Cotton Workers Stood Off
The News Chronicle (13/8/49) published the following : —
“Two Lancashire cotton mills in the Bolton area closed down yesterday and a third partially closed because of a shortage of orders.
“Managements said this was due to foreign buyers holding back their orders until after the Washington conference in September to see if the £ was going to be devalued.
“The mills are Wallwork and Sussum (1918), Ltd., of Farnworth, employing 70 workers, and Ashworth, Hadwen and Co., Ltd., Grecian Mills, Farnworth, employing 25. Forty workers in the reeling department of Elliott and Pyatt, Ltd., Horwich, have also been stopped.
“It is expected that the closings will be only temporary, but it is feared that other mills in the district might lay off operations during the next few weeks. A Cotton Board statement points out that the sellers’ market under which the industry has been working for so long is being modified in various parts of the world.”
The Daily Worker (13/8/49) reported Mr. R. Gregson, secretary of the Bolton Operative Cotton Spinners’ Association, as saying that efforts were to be made to appeal to the Cotton Board in the matter. He added:—
“Their appeals for production are likely to lose weight if firms are going to close down, leaving workers to walk the streets.”
What Capitalism does to Planning
Under the heading “Bob Cole Starts Big Oil Hustle,” the City Editor of the Daily Express (15/8/49) reports that Mr. Cole is busy on the big Anglo-American Oil Co.’s refining plant at Fawley on Southampton Water. It is to cost £37 million and should be finished by 1952, and Mr. Cole says he means “to be on time.”
In the same column is another news item about oil.
“Another 250,000 tons of U.S. oil tankers were laid up last month, making 11 million tons now idle there. Reasons are the dollar shortage and a 40 per cent. drop in freights since January.”
At the end of the war we were told that the world was short of oil, short of oil tankers and short of refineries (a film on the subject is still going the rounds). Recently American oil production has been cut because demand had been overtaken and prices were falling. Now the busy shipyard workers have produced too many tankers for present traffic. Mr. Cole may know all about building refineries, but neither he nor his employers can be certain that 1952 will not find the world too well supplied with refineries if that happens to coincide with a major slump.
Nicer Wars
All through the history of civilisation there have been well-meaning people trying to limit the horrors of war by securing the agreement of both sides to outlaw certain new weapons or practices regarded as particularly inhuman. They did not have much success. While the badly armed Powers would agree, the Powers which thought themselves strongest in the possession of the latest weapons naturally would not give up then advantage. Russia at the Geneva Red Cross Conference has been following the historically familiar tactic. Their delegation moved a resolution to ban atom bombs and chemical warfare on the ground that they are “incompatible with the elementary principles of international law and contrary to the honour and conscience of peoples.” (Manchester Guardian, 10/8/49.)
In the meantime Russia, like the rest of the capitalist Powers, is busy perfecting atom bombs and methods of chemical warfare, and if they succeed in getting ahead of their rivals it will be the latter which will be moving similar resolutions.
The whole idea of humanising war is ludicrous. It means in effect—”We don’t mind being killed or maimed or starved, but for heaven’s sake let it be done decently according to the rules.”
The aim of the working class should be the abolition of war, but that requires the abolition of Capitalism, in Russia no less than in Britain and U.S.A.
The Dockers’ Defence Committee
According to the Press the unofficial committee that handled recent strikes of dockers has renamed itself “The London Port Workers’ Defence Committee,” with the aim among others of getting rid of Lord Ammon from the Dock Labour Board. It is certain that some, probably most, of those who support the Committee voted to put the Labour Government in power, believe in nationalisation, and cherished the notion that Capitalism with Labour Government nominees replacing capitalist boards of directors, would bring about a fundamental change in the position of the workers. There is therefore something instructive in the name “Defence Committee.” Against whom are the dockers seeking to defend themselves? Answer: against the monster of State Capitalism. Who helped to create the monster? Answer: the dockers. And what should they now do about it? The first step is to recognise that Socialism is the only hope of the working class and nationalisation has nothing in common with Socialism.
And to make the Socialist position perfectly clear let us add for the benefit of any Communists who may also be interested in the Defence Committee that if they were in Russia and tried to form such a Committee to defend themselves against the Russian version of State Capitalism, they would get short shrift.
What the “Daily Worker” Suppresses
Following the publication by the British Government of documents on the forced labour camps in Russia, the Daily Worker (25/7/49) published an evasive denial under the heading “The ‘Forced Labour’ Myth,” mainly based on the argument that “corrective labour” is the punishment in the Soviet Union which corresponds to imprisonment in this country.”
To start with, this line of defence tells us a lot about the mentality of the British Communists. Their lying claim is that there is Socialism in Russia, but as soon as they are met with charges about the Russian Paradise that they cannot entirely ignore, their defence is to assure us that Russia is no worse than capitalist Britain or capitalist U.S.A.!
Secondly when they quote the regulation that forbids the infliction of physical suffering on the inmates of the prison camps they should look up the Webb’s “Soviet Communism” for a description of some of the brutalities perpetrated in these camps in the years before the war. The book is one they sell themselves.
Thirdly the Communists avoid the very important aspect of what constitutes a “law breaker” in Russia. Under Russian law anyone who tried to form a party corresponding to the S.P.G.B. or the Labour Party or the Liberal Party or any other Party opposed to the Communist Party is a law breaker, and according to the Russian criminal code can find himself despatched to such a camp, with or without trial.
The Holidays of Ministers and Miners
The Sunday Express (31/7/49) put over a piece of typical opposition propaganda by publishing a list of Ministers going abroad for their holidays and suggesting that they should not do this at a time when “the most serious economic crisis in our history will be developing steadily in gravity.” It is only necessary to note the heading “Ministers go where the going is good” and to see how the list was compiled to guess that the Sunday Express also hoped to stir up some resentment in the minds of those less fortunate. Here is the list: —
The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, is resting in the best suite in a luxury hotel at Evian, in France, where, by the courtesy of the management on request from London, he has been granted a cut rate on the usual terms.
The Health Minister, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, is enjoying the sunshine and good food of Italy, with his wife, as a guest of the Italian Government.
The Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, is leaving on a yachting cruise down the French coast.
The Lord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison, is reported to be planning a three weeks’ holi¬ day in the South of France.
The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Harold Wilson, is beginning a motor-car tour of France.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade, Mr. A. G. Bottomley, is off in a few days to Switzerland.
The Minister of Pensions, Mr. H. A. Marquand, is bound for France via the Channel Islands.
The Minister of Civil Aviation, Lord Pakenham, goes to Eire as guest of Eire’s Air Lines.
Ministers have shown on occasion that they resent attacks on them of the kind here used by the Sunday Express and it is indeed a piece of cheek for one defender of capitalist inequality to attack others. But Socialists certainly are entitled to ask the Labour Ministers how, at a time when they urge austerity on the workers on the ground of the serious condition of the country, they defend their own relatively privileged position. What has happened to their ancient propaganda in favour of equality and fair shares for all?
Many workers now have a week’s paid holiday a year, some have two weeks, and a smaller number more than two weeks. But in 1946 the T.U.C. put in a plea for three weeks for everybody, and Mr. Bevin. in 1943 said he ” could foresee a time when industry will benefit by giving workers four weeks’ holiday with pay each year.” (Daily Herald, 22/7/43.)
But at the present time the miners who have a week want more, and their claim has so far been refused. And the Industrial Coal Consumers’ Council has just reported to the Minister of Fuel: “We should view with dismay any decision in regard to hours of work or holidays which would have the effect of restricting further the barely sufficient supply of coal available.” (Daily Express, 29/7/49.)
As we hear so often from Labour Ministers the argument that the undermanned industries must be made more attractive in order to get more workers, and as there is a shortage of miners, but certainly no shortage of people wanting to be Ministers, why doesn’t the Cabinet set a really persuasive example by cutting its own pay and holidays in order to spare a bit more for the miners?
An Admission by Mr. Shinwell
Mr. Shinwell, Minister for War, has been forecasting the result of the next election.
“I am convinced that Labour will be returned to power at the next election, with a smaller majority perhaps, but with a working majority. Then we shall be all right for another five years, and the country will never be governed by the Tories.” (Daily Herald, 1/8/49.)
Mr. Shinwell has involved himself here in something of a tangle. If the Labour Government is returned, he says, “we shall be all right for another five years.” Whom does he mean by that “we”? Is it the Ministers who will be all right? Obviously Mr. Shinwell did not mean to say that. Is it then the workers who will be all right for another five years? Are we then asked to believe that the workers are all right now? If so why the unofficial strikes? And above all, if the workers are all right now, why does Mr. Shinwell expect the Labour Party to get fewer votes at the next election? And if one five years makes some voters turn against the Labour Government surely another five years would make more turn against Labour Government? Why then does he think that the Labour Government will go on for ever?
Before we leave Mr. Shinwell’s speech, a Herald summary of another part of it deserves notice. The Herald reports: —
“Tories do not want power, but would like a coalition so that Labour could handle the unions and do the job themselves.”
We suggest a disturbing thought for Mr. Shinwell to contemplate. Some day the workers will wake up and refuse to be “managed” by the Labour Party managers of Capitalism.
H