Housework and socialism

Scan page 8

THIS column was suggested by the Nottingham Socialist Organiser group - a short article each week explaining some basics of socialism, maybe by an excerpt from one of the socialist classics.

This week: an excerpt from 'America's Road to Socialism', by James P. Cannon.

ONE thing I'm absolutely sure is going to happen early in the period of the workers' government, maybe during the first five year plan. Under the slogan of more efficiency in production, reinforced by moral arguments which are powerful in the case - the rights of women to leisure and freedom for cultural and spiritual growth — there will be a tremendous popular movement of women to bust up this medieval institution of 40 million separate kitchens and forty million different housewives cooking, cleaning, scrubbing and fighting dust.

Thirty or forty million women every day of the year trudging to the market, each one loading her separate basket and lugging it home to cook thirty or forty million different meals for thirty or forty million different families. • What a terrible waste of energy, waste of productivity; to say nothing of the cultural waste; to say nothing of the imposition upon the women ictims.

The enlightened socialist women will knock the hell out of this inefficient, unjust, and antiquated system. The mass emergence of the socialist women from the confining walls of their individual kitchens will be the greatest jail break in history - and the most beneficent. Wamen. liberated from the prison of the kitchen, will become the free companions of free men.

The drudgery of housework will be organised like any other division of labour, on an efficient communal basis, so that women can begin to have some leisure too. Cooking and house cleaning, like any other work, can be dore much better, much quicker, in an organised, scientific manner.

Proper air-conditioning and dust-catching "PRECIPITRONS* - which will be standard equipment for every home - will take care of most of the house cleaning automatically I cannot see why the average housewife, who isn't specially trained for it . or specially adapted to it, should want to bother with it. I cannot see why cooking, house cleaning and janitor work shouldn't be one of the national divisions of labour, for which various people take their turns in the process for a certain number of hours a day, a certain number of weeks in a year, however it may be allocated.

Or if some people prefer to live communally, as many have found it advantageous, they'll do that, and simplify things still more.

By this forecast I do not mean to draw a picture of regimentation. Just the opposite, for any kind of regimentation such as that imposed by the present social order will be utterly repugnant to the free and independent citizens of the socialist future. They will live the way they want to live, and each individual - within the limits of his general obligation to society - will decide for himself.

Better, in this case, say 'herself" — for old-fashioned reactionaries who ignorantly think they know what "woman's place" is, will run up against the hard fact -for the first time since class society began — that women will have • something to say about that, and what they will say will be plenty valued at £500 million.

Sir Frank Sanderson, Tory!

MP for Ealing, Chairman of Salts (Saltaire) Ltd., the Humber Fishing Co. Ltd., and a director of United Premier Oil and Cake Co. Ltd.

Mr Norman Hulbert, Tory MP for Stockport, also chairman of British Steel Construction, Birmingham Ltd.

There were many others -Tory MPs, industrialists, high ranking civil servants, bankers, members of the armed services. As the Secretary of the Fellowship, Mr E. Wright, told a reporter of the News Review in January 1936, "It isn't numbers that matter. We want 'names' otherwise how can we have any influence with the Government or the Foreign Office?' And they got their 'names' Lord McGowan, Chairman of ICI, H.B. Schroeder, along with two fellow directors of the banking firm of J. Henry Schroeder & Co; Mr F.D' Arcy Cooper, member and later Chairman of Unilevers; Sir George Beharrell, Chairman of the Dunlop Rubber Co; Sir Barry Domville, Admiral, who was also founder of the fascist paper, The Link; Wing Commander AWH James, also Tory, MP for Wellingborough and a fervent supporter of Franco.

Not only did these 'names' join the Fellowship but, in many instances, they took up a •corporate membership' option. Schroeder's were enrolled, as were the banking firms of Lazard Bros, and Guinness, Mahon & Co.

Dunlops were 'corporate members' • So too was ICI.

Scan page 9

THE mild exposures of fascist bankers and landowners, al "infiltration' into the Tory marched together down tha Party will quite quickly be road to barbarism sharing thi forgotten as events more fruits of it and leaving a mem activity in the fringes of the ırn this week, with four leadright Monday Club resigning im within the Club as their West London has sent us this * round - the 1930s.

fundamental difference of outlook r parents, the Conservatives? For let us rentage ... It, (the British Union of the Conservative Party ... Surely the ad more friendly".

P for Ayr Burghs, writing in praise of ly Mail, 25 April 1934).

Sir Alfred Knox, previously British Military Attache in St. Petersburg in Tsarist days and who went to Washington to 'win over America to the Allied policy of intervention' was a member.

So were the Hon. W.W. Astor, son of Lady Astor, and Sir Robert Bird, Chairman of Bird's, the custard makers, both of whome were also Tory MPs.

L.H. Boyce, Chairman of the Gloucester Railway Carriage Co. and director of seven other companies, was a member. So were Major A. Braithwaite, director of Guardian Eastern Insurance Co, Sir William Brass, a fellow director and Tory MP and Sir George Broadbridge, Tory MP for the City of London and former Lord Mayor.

The list of members covered every aspect of the British Establishment. The Fellowship was formed specifically to strengthen the ties between the Establishment and the fascist dictators, to create an aura of respectability for the savagery of the Nazis, to form commercially profitable links with Nazi-controlled interests, and particularly to assist in Hitler's rearmament policy. Among the first guests of the Fellowship were Hitler's Foreign Minister Ribbentrop; Field Marshall von Blomberg, Minister of War; and Freiherr von Halden, SS Adjutant to Himmler, head of the Gestapo. • The Fellowship reflected close links between British and German industry.

Connections One example of the connections is the following. The head of the powerful Cologne banking house, Stein, one Henrich von Stein, was also a director of the Stollberg Co.. which in turn was largely controlled by the enormous combine Frankfurt Metallgesellschaft, which again in turn had on its board of directors men who were also chairmen of I.G. Farben and of Siemens.

Herr Bosch, chairman of I.G. Farben was also a director of the Nobel Dynamite firm, in which the British firm, ICi, had a heavy interest.

To complete the circle. Lord McGowan, Chairman of ICI, was a member of the Fellowship.

Even more significantly, Heinrich von Stein had as a partner a certain Baron Kurt immediately demanding of our time and energies take precedence.

I make no claim to an intimate knowledge of the fascist organisations today. But I do know something about the role of our own ruling class in the rise of fascism between the two world wars, the results of which I and millions of other workers remember as the descent into the abyss.

I do not truly believe there are adequate words in any language to describe the years of the fascist dictators. I only know that there is no choice more descriptive of our absolute necessity to triumph than 'socialism or barbarism'.

The Tory Party, the fascists, the captains of industry and commerce, the ory of such horror that wi who lived through that perior will never forget.

Our own ruling class begar their courtship with fascisn in the 1930s when the! recognised a kindied spirit it the fascists' answer to thi 'labour problem': smash thi unions and institute a State controlled Labour Front.

Today, the Tories' attack: on the unions, the race laws the dictatorial posturing, thi war jingoism, the strengthen ing of State power, thi attacks on the unemployed the drive towards compul sion, are all designed te create the dung heap or which the germs of fascisn breed and grow strong.

Let us view with thi utmost alarm the knowledgi that the fascists have, onc again, returned to thei natural home.

von Schroeder — in whose house was held the meeting between von Papen and Hitler which had 'legalised' the rise of Nazism in Germany 223.023 salute before The banking house of J. Henry Schroeder was 'corporate member' of the Fellowship.

Of course the activities of the Fellowship did not inaugurate the cartels and combines in which ICI (for example) was and still is so deeply involved, but through the political clout of high Tory MPs and ministers a much smoother path for profits was obtained.

Monopoly

As S. Aaronovitch points out in his book 'Monopoly'. •These cartels were not disrupted by Hitler's rise to power or by his aggressive policy. On the contrary their number grew, their relationship became more intimate and ICI became a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship.

"Without the help of ICI (as of Duponts), I.G. Farben would not have been able to build up its immensely powerful position which allowed it to give such aid to the Nazis."

There were protests in Britain against the export of essential materials to the Nazis immediately prior to the war, but the hand of the Fellowship can be seen in the statement of government spokesman, Sir Thomas Inskip: "Such exports do help Germany to re-arm, but, it is commercial matter, not within the province of the Government to interfere."

Two weeks before war was declared, the Nazis ordered and were supplied with one third of all the rubber stocks and one quarter of all the nickel supplies in this country. The Tory Minister, Mr Burgin, had powers to ban those deals methods hoosted profits. but refused to do so.

British contracts which were outstanding to Germany at the outset of war were 'diverted' to the American parent companies, or to those companies who had cartel arrangements. Cotton, oil and all sorts of goods suddenly began to flood into Italy (then neutral), to go from there into other countries and finally to the Nazi war factories.

Phillip Jordan, the News Chronicle correspondent, wrote of this profitable trade as it went on in the midst of the most dreadful massacre of human beings this system had ever visited upon a suffering world.

Wolfram

•Until the very day of liberation he (Franco) was sending goods into France for the use of the Germans.

On August 20, the day of liberation here, a train load of wolfram and other goods, including at one time a number of United States aircraft engines, came into Cerbere for transshipment onto the French gauge railways ... sixty trucks passed regularly every Tuesday and Friday.

They brought quantities of pure alcohol, coffee, cocoa, fruit, wool and other commodities for which the starving people of Spain were crying out. In many cases the Spaniards had not even bothered to take off the labels printed on the crates by the British and US consignors.

In 1941, the Nazis, no doubt honouring pledges made, gave to Unilever, who held through their Dutch company a controlling interest in 25 industrial concerns inside Nazi Germany, permission to pay dividends to the British shareholders. Unilever's operation in Germany was under the direct, authority of the Nazis and the workforce was largely "recruited' trom the mass deportations of Jews and others under the slave labour policies of the Third Reich, a fact well known to the British government.

System

Such was the role played by the 'names' recruited by the Fellowship. That they all belonged to the same class, all supported or were members of the same political party, and all, without exception, were active and vociferous in their support for fascism, says a lot about the deeply held beliefs of those who own and control the economic system in which we live.

fascism?

FASCISM is a method of capitalist rule. In conditions of crisis the big bourgeoisie will finance and support mass movements, based on ruined middle class people and unemployed workers, to crush any independent labour movement.

To attract their mass support, fascist movements proclaim themselves as being against both Marxism and finance capital. But their "anti-capitalism' is directed at false or diversionary targets -the Nazis, for example, scapegoated the Jews as the evil genius behind both Bolshevism and the big banks.

Their anti-Marxism is real enough. Before they come to power, fascists smash up labour movement meetings, offices, and picket lines. If they win state power, they crush the trade unions and working class political parties, replacing them by statecontrolled Labour Fronts'.

As Hitler put it, the fascists tell the bewildered little man' that 'though a worm, he can still be part of a mighty dragon'.

The many varieties of fascism use all the traditional ideologies of the right wing to rally their forces: sexism, leader-cults, glorification of war and violence, and, especially, nationalism. In Britain today, fascists base themselves on anti-black racism.

Fascism is not always the best form of rule for the bourgeoisie. In prosperous times they prefer the flexible methods of Parliamentary democracy and compromise with the trade union bureaucrats to the violence and risk of putting fascist gangsters in power.

There is a qualitative difference between bourgeois democracy (even the Tory variety) and fascism: it was disastrous for the working class in the 1930s when the Stalinists talked about all those regimes as merely varieties of fascism.

They saw Hitler's coming to power as merely a routine change government, of no special consequence, and refused to fight for a united front with the so-called 'social fascists' (Social Democracy) against the Nazis.

But with the capitalists democratic principles always count for less than profits. They will work with, or support, fascism if it seems the best way to boost their privileges and power.

Scan page 10

Socialist Organiser no.170 March 15 1984 Page 10 iverpool still stands firm!

COHSEE OFFICIAL STOP THE PICKET At St. Mary's Hospital in West London, three workers have been sacked for refusing to sign new contracts. Far left: Mrs S. Samaroo; second left, Mrs. M. Cato; on the right, Rita Maxim.

SINCE 1979 Liverpool has lost £120 million in Rate Support Grants. Liverpool Labour Party is still standing firm on a policy of no rate rises to cover this loss, no cuts in services and no redundancies.

More than 500 members attended a meeting of the District Labour Party on March 12 and unanimously endorsed the campaign building up to the City budget day on March 29.

This meeting followed the North West Regional Conference of the Party during the previous weekend, which had supported the Council's general policy and also the call for a one-day strike to coincide with the city budget.

The campaign for local strike action on March 29 is gaining plenty of support throughout the city. Mass meetings of both GMBATU and NALGO have voted to support the strike and at least two local NUPE branches have reversed a previous District Committee recommendation and voted to come out. NALGO in neighbouring Knowsley will also be striking. Further mass meetings are planned for numerous other groups of workers, including Merseyside bus drivers, Liverpool dock workers, Halewood Ford workers, and the Bird's Eye factory at Kirkby.

A city-wide petition in defence of the council is receiving good support around the shopping precincts and housing estates.

The campaign is clearly gaining rather than losing strength as budget day approaches but there WHAT is happening to the GLC Labour Group? At their last meeting on Monday 5 March, a furious row erupted, and the leader, Ken Livingstone, made an astonishingly vituperative attack on some of his colleagues.

The dispute was over the cost of the ceremony for opening the Thames barrier. Having taken the (to my mind) unfortunate decision to invite the Queen to perform the opening, the Labour Group has agreed to lash out $240,000, with further £100,000 being contributed by the private contractor. Quite a tidy sum.

Eight of the Group, having consulted their constituencies and General Committees, have put down a motion to be debated in full council, 'That this Council rejects the proposal to authorise expenditure of £240,000 on the official opening of the Thames Barrier on 8 May 1984."

The motion is in the name of Andy Harris and was signed by Deirdre Wood, Bryn Davies, Jenni Fletcher, Leslie Hammond, Steve Bundred, Charlie Rossi and Ashley Bramall.

Join the Labour Party Write to: The Labour IJT.

Subscription is £7 per year, £2 unwaged, 50p OAPs.

By Kevin Feintuck THE Liverpool Liberals say they can devise a budget with no cuts in services and only a 9% rate rise.

But it's a fraud.

They reckon to save £8 million by leaving job vacancies unfilled. But this would mean two thousand posts unfilled!

That is wildly unrealistic.

If it were actually tried it would mean huge gaps in essential staffing in some departments.

The Liberal plan also includes £6 million of 'unallocated icductions" - i.e.

cuts coming they won't say where.

Their other tricks are to transfer a lot of basic housing repair work from current account to capital account, and to sell off a lot of assets.

Even the Liverpool Tories say that the Liberals are bluffing.

are two particular problems to be dealt with.

Six councillors representing the rump of the right wing old guard have signed a document declaring their intention not to vote for an illegal budget. This statement was later endorsed by one more councillor.

The other problem lies in the attitude of the Parliamentary leadership. John Cunningham from the Shadow Cabinet was By Paula Watson, Westminster South CLP observer to GLC Labour Group.

Ken Livingstone Ken Livingstone clearly found this move a source of much vexation and embarrassment. He appealed to the rebels to withdraw their motion, urging them to put loyalty to the group before their personal principles. Above all, he seemed to dread any publicity.

What is he so afraid of, I wonder, the Tory press or the Labour activists?

Andy Harris, Leslie Hammond and Bryn Davies replied to their leader's appeal by stressing three points.

First, that their own GCs were genuinely concerned at the cost of the ceremony. Secondly, that democratic accountability required all the group members to consult their constituencies before reaching a final decision and that had not been done. And finally, that they were being true to the spirit of the manifesto by refusing to acquiesce in the spending of large sums of public money on junkets and ceremonial.

Livingstone, angry and red faced, launched a fierce counter-attack, calling the motion's supporters "left careerists"

widely reported as referring to the seven potential traitors as "brave and sensible". Another of Kinnock's lieutenants, Jack Straw: was sent to Liverpool with his pocket calculator, to correct the councillors' sums.

Unconfirmed rumours are circulating that Straw has put forward a 60% rate increase as his suggested solution.

All the evidence is that Kinnock and his cronies have done their utmost to persuade Liverpool Labour leaders to betray their election pledges. Ihis 1s likely to become even clearer after March 13/14 when Kinnock is due to meet the Liverpoo! Labour MPs and Council leaders.

The mood in the Liverpool Party is determined. We understand that if we are defeated this will be a serious setback for the whole of the working class.

The movement locally will either persuade our seven traitors to mend their ways or will deal with them accordingly. It is up to the Party nationally to make sure that the Party leaders are also shown the difference between leadership and betrayal.

The build-up to the council budget is:

*Saturday March 17. Mass canvass of city, starting from Victoria St., at 10.30am.

*Sunday March 18. Municipal policy conference at NUR Club.

Dean Road.

#Thursday March 22. Lobby of Parliament.

*Friday 23 March. Full discussion and ratification of budget proposals by the Labour Group.

*Monday 26 March. Mass rally St George's Hall.

He argued that anyone who held office in the Group must support the Group's decisions. If they wanted to oppopse, they should resign and do so from the back benches.

Turning to Bryn Davies, he said "I supported you, Bryn, on things like school closures, which were utterly against the manifesto. I did so out of loyalty to you and to the Group, when I privately disagreed very strongly.

'We could all build our careers by striking left attitudes and by writing articles for Labour Briefing. I could do that, but I have not because of my loyalty to the Group.

Their stand, he claimed, was "sheer hypocrisy", , since they had all acquiesced in compromises on much more important matters.

Deirdre Wood rebutted the charges, saying, "I am a working class woman. I come from a working class background and I represent a working class constituency. If the GLC goes I shall have nothing. For you, Ken, to call me a careerist is a joke.

"You are the careerist in this group, Ken. There have been far too many compromises, too many questionable decisions, too many broken promises. Maybe I was wrong to support them, but this time I am going to fight.

Compromise

Eventually John McDonnell put forward a compromise. Explaining that the cost of the ceremony could possibly be reduced to £175,000, he suggested that the group could vote for the motion if it was amended to read that the cost would be reviewed and a larger subsidy would be sought from the private contractor.

This was passed, though Deirdre Wood, Leslie mond, Andy Harris, Jenni Fletcher and Bryn Davies refused to accep the amendment.

AT ITS full council meeting on March 12, the 1984-5 budget of Nottingham's Labour-controlled City Council, fell by 27 votes to The budget, which included cuts of £1.8 million from the initial estimated expenditure of £24.1 million, was proposed by the predominantly right wing Labour Group, despite the local District Labour Party's opposition.

The whole incident revealed a lot about what has gone wrong with Labour groups on the GLC and other councils - and Labour Cabinets.

Loyalty only belongs to such a group so long as that group stays true to its manifesto commitments and democratically decided party policy. Once it starts to deviate or go in the opposite direction, it is the duty of any individual member, whether in office or not, to oppose such changes.

Livingstone's admission that he has frequently supported policies which were against the manifesto and which he believed to be wrong shows an incorrect sense of priorities. His first loyalty should be to his socialist principles.

He sounded much like Michael Foot, who betrayed most of his principles out of mistaken loyalty to the Wilson and Callaghan cabinets.

Livingstone seemed to be putting group loyalty not only above principle but above democratic accountability. The supporters of the motion had consulted with their GCs, the rest of the group had not.

What of the rebels? Are they sincere? Probably. In their speeches I detected a sense of regret that they had been party to so many surrenders and a principle.

And, finally, what of Livingstone's accusations of careerism and hypocrisy?

I think Livingstone, like most of us, sees and judges other people, their motives and actions, in the light of his own. He believes they are as he is. The world is a mirror showing his own reflection.

When he accuses others of striking left wing postures to further their ambitions, I think he is describing himself more than them.

NUPE Unfortunately, only one left councillor, Richard McCance was prepared to break the whip in defence of the Party's policy.

But as the Labour council only has a majority of one, this Bouncy proposals made bi Hounslow Colner's ruling Labour group were defeated at the Council meeting on March 6, with six Labour councillors voting against.

The proposals included rent rises lan average increase of $1.50 a week], 12.8% rate rises and net cuts of £1.8 million, and the loss of about 100 jobs.

The six councillors supported an amendment to refer back the proposals, moved by Councillor John Connolly and seconded by Socialist Organiser supporter, Councilior Chris Hickey.

Opposition to cuts has grown since Councillors Enda Donelly and Heather Wetzel wert xpelled from the Labour grou • the Council's last term c office for voting against cuts.

This year the borough Labour Parties voted overwhelmingly to reject cuts.

Local government unions put out a joint leaflet against the cuts and organised a demonstration of more than 200.

At the borough Labour Parties meeting, councillors speaking in support of the budget laid great store by a separate proposal to launch a campaign against cuts next year. But last year a similar proposal for a 'Make the Govenment Pay' campaign prompted a walk-out from the council meeting by many of the right wing Labour councillors!

The council leadership are now organising another council meeting in a new attempt to get their budget through.

or more, and 30p per ham High Street, London SEI 5. Please add an amount for postage.

ANDREW MOORE was sufficient to force the Labour Group to redraft its budget.

The rejected cuts budget was part of a four-year strategy of implementing cuts in line with government demands. The main result of the cuts proposed this year would have been an austere regime from council offices to the public and local government employees.

Over the whole four years this strategy would have entailed cuts of nearly £8 million, with devastating consequences.

Other councillors used various excuses to side with the right in the council chamber - that the proposed cuts were cutbacks in expansion only, were cuts in wastage, did not involve cuts in existing services or jobs which were conveniently and narrowly defined.

What was predictable was that the discoveries of wastage, etc., only came to light after the budget had been formulated.

The alarming but predictable feature of the events in Nottingham have been the rapidity with which soft lett councillors with quite commendable records of fighting cuts when outside the council chamber, have moved rightwards since taking office.

Six councillors were prepared to break the Labour whip in opposition to rent rises only two months ago. But with the budget only one of those six was still prepared to stand by the principle of accouhtability to the Party's policy. With a strongly right-wing Labour Group on the Council, breaking the Party whip in defence of accountability is clearly the way to try and promote a credible fight against the Tories' cuts.

Councillor McCance's stand this year will ensure that opponents of the cuts outside the council chamber will know that they have an important ally inside.

Richard McCance told Socialist Organiser that "the fight against the rent rises was a start. We must continue the momentum, otherwise all we will be doing is managing the crisis of the Tories in the name of socialism."

50p March"

Scan page 11

Socialist Organiser no. 10 Mars 15 954 Page 1 Organiser

----- pull-quotes -----

ries and fascists he last time round

Party, 150 Walworth Road, London SE17

CUTS END TEMP CONTRAY NO

desire to make a stand, if some- what belatedly, on a point of

50p for a single copy, 40p per copy for 5

copy for 20 or more, from SUPA, 83 Peck-

Diary of a People's

Marcher "How politics were kept out

by Satvinder igh and Tony Purtill Introduction by Jeremy Corbyn, MP