Editorial: The Fruits of “Practical Politics”
The advocate of Socialism has varied opponents but on one thing they are almost all unanimous, that Socialism is not practical. They will concede that is is a noble conception and attractive but say that it fails to meet the needs of the world we live in today; it does not offer practical solutions to the urgent problems that must be tackled at once. These critics sweep aside as nonsensical the Socialist answer that there are no solutions to these problems short of changing the foundations of human society the world over. Let us then examine two aspects of the work of the “practical men” in this country, first their handling of the housing problem and second their endeavours to save us from war.
When the first world war began the Government and the chief Opposition parties agreed that the only practical thing to do in order to prevent rents from rising rapidly was to control them by Act of Parliament. The motives of those who supported this development were mixed. Some thought of it as a means of protecting the standard of living of the poor, while the Government had in mind principally the desire to discourage all-round strikes for higher wages, because this would interfere with the prosecution of the war. But they all agreed in telling us that it was a fine thing and should be continued, as indeed it has up to the present day though with loopholes and with permitted increases of rent in various circumstances.
They still claim that it was a fine thing; or at least they did until some of the consequences that they had not foreseen began to demand attention. So now a widespread call has been made, with backing in all three main parties, that something must be done. A “Reform” is needed—for the purpose of undoing the problem created by the first reform. For it has been discovered by investigators that almost as fast as new houses are being built old houses are falling to pieces because the rents allowed to the landlords of many rent-controlled houses do not make it worth their while to keep the houses in repair.
The results of an inquiry made by the News Chronicle ”lead to an estimate ” that each year 200,000 houses—roughly the same number being built—become obsolete.” (N.C. 26/8/52.)
The local authorities have power (as the result of other social reforms achieved by the “practical men”) of demanding that repairs be carried out. So a new problem has arisen, of the owners of decrepit property finding ways of unloading their worthless property in order to escape liability. The local authorities take over some such properties, carry out the repairs and seek to levy the cost on the owners but are often unable to get “anything like the total amount” (Manchester Guardian 30-8-52).
The Manchester Guardian writer continues:—
“More adroit and less scrupulous owners succeed in conveying their property to men of straw who, for a consideration, will accept ownership of half a tottering terrace. One such, in Manchester, against whom the local authority, in theory, could make a considerable claim as the owner of a number of houses, is an inmate of a social welfare institution.”
The same writer records that many of the houses “unfit for habitation” that continue to be inhabited because the occupants have nowhere else to go ” “are owned by small property owners, often the sons or grandsons of thrifty working men brought up to believe that bricks and mortar were a sound investment.”
But although the practical men have discovered that their original scheme has solved nothing and are calling for a new solution, they do not know what to do.
“Obviously,” says the Manchester Guardian, “the extreme dilapidation of much working-class housing in our industrial centres is not to be remedied by an adjustment of rents, still less by the removal of any restriction, which would merely add rack-renting to the burden of squalor and discomfort” And the writer ends his article with the remark: “To raise them would bring a swelling flood of complaints. How, anyway, can one raise the rents of property on which, since it has been condemned, no rent at all is just?”
We may leave the practical men who sought to solve the housing problem under Capitalism to reflect on the folly of their utopianism. Socialists told them, long before, that the housing problem, like the poverty problem in general, is insoluble within the framework of the capitalist system. In particular we would remind supporters of the Labour Party of their stupidity in thinking that you can improve a social system the driving force of which is the making of profit by cutting out the land and housing capitalists’ prospects of making profit.
How sensible is re-armament?
Let us now look at the problem of war. In a speech at Woodford Mr. Churchill congratulated the trade unions on backing re-armament and hoped “that our policy of keeping our re-armament within the bounds of national solvency will also commend itself to sensible men and women throughout the country.” (Times, 8/9/52.)
Here we have our “practical men” again, this time called ” sensible.” Just how sensible is re-armament? To those who live in Britain and America and their allied countries it appears to be a sensible proceeding when the population are crying out for more and better food and clothing, not to mention habitable houses to live in, to devote labour and resources to the manufacture of weapons of destruction. Their justification for this odd view is that it has to be done because the Russian Government likewise is devoting fabulous sums to the manufacture of atom bombs, warplanes and all the other terrifying weapons of war.
But in Russia other “practical men”—as like their British counterparts as peas in a pod—are deluding themselves with the same specious argument.
They all (in both camps) admit that it is folly, but plead that it is necessary folly, caused only by the unreasonableness of the governments on the other side of the Iron Curtain. And all of them excuse themselves by saying that they are at all times ready to discuss at the round table “reasonable” proposals for the nations to co-operate.
Here the socialist intervenes once more with some real practicality in the form of facing the facts of the world we live in. The world is a capitalist jungle in which all the nations—for all are capitalist—struggle and arm and fight to preserve themselves from going under. They can do no other. The idea that nations in the capitalist world can co-operate on a friendly basis is purest utopian self-deception. Nations cannot co-operate for all are driven on by competition for markets, materials, strategic frontiers, etc. The only co-operation they can envisage is that induced by fear, the fear that drives them to huddle together in the rival camp.
Again the socialist insists that the only solution is to end the world jungle of Capitalism, but to achieve that it is necessary for the world’s populations to turn their backs on Capitalism and all its ways.
Is this practical? It is the only practicality for the human race. Is it immediately possible? Not until the socialist message has been widely accepted. And in this respect all the countries are in the same plight that the populations in the main fear and dislike the consequences of Capitalism but do not reject Capitalism itself. Mr. Churchill was speaking the truth when he claimed of the Tory and Labour parties that “ four-fifths of both parties agreed on four-fifths of what should be done.” They are still living in the world of make believe of thinking that what should be done is to try and reform Capitalism into something beneficial to the human race.
It is the task of the Socialist Party to win over the working class to the conviction that Capitalism should be ended and Socialism instituted in its place.