The Fruits of Anarchy. (1915)

From the November 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

Curious effects of divergent interests.

When a period of trade activity has been unusually protracted, the inevitable crisis invariably startles the economists of the ruling class in the midst of ruminations on their good fortune, or genius, in having at last overcome trade epidemics. As with the trade crisis, so with war comes as a bolt from the blue, shattering theories, exposing contradictions, dissipating hopes, and falsifying prophecies.

Anarchy in Interests Produces—

Conflicting interests must always produce conflicting ideas. A survey of prevailing ideas will consequently give some notion of the underlying anarchy of capitalist interests and conditions.

One group of idealists we can afford to leave to their own shallow cogitations. Those who argue that without war to develop and ennoble—and kill off the fittest—the human race is certain to degenerate. They are backed up by the “war traders” for obvious reasons. Opposed to them are the humanitarians, the anti-militarists, and the peace-loving bourgeois traders, whose ships, heavily insured, are on every sea. These traders, always fearing for their markets, express vehemently their belief in arbitration and their suspicions of diplomatists generally. In the interest of trade Andrew Carnegie subscribes two millions to finance a peace tribunal. At the same time armament firms subsidise the Press and frighten the ignorant with scares, bribe high-placed officials through their agents in all parts of the world, cater for every nation or province that happens to lie inflicted with agitators, whose business it is to keep alive feuds and magnify every action of a neighbouring-State into a sinister threat against the cherished freedom of the people.

Anarchy in Ideas.

The following quotation from the “Daily News and Leader” (15.7.14) presents quite typically the attitude taken up (in peace times) by the peace-mongers :

“If there is not soon a world-wide movement against the tyranny of war and of all the infamies associated with it, it will not be for lack of lessons. Wherever we turn, to France or Russia, Germany or Japan, Italy or our own country, the evidence accumulates of the burden which the war-traders put upon the backs of the people. Their business has no relation to patriotism. It is cosmopolitan in its operations and soulless in its motive. It works upon the fears and hates of ignorant people, uses the Press as the instrument of its purposes and makes tools of the diplomatists and the statesmen, many of whom are financially interested in its success. In Russia, in France, and now in Japan we have seen how it can buy up the very services and make lackeys of the generals and admirals of army and navy. Its maleficient influence overshadows the democracy of every land and until we have found a way of uprooting the whole evil system there will be no real progress made towards peace or an enduring civilisation.”

“Our own country” is not excepted in this sweeping statement. The Prime Minister, when confronted with figures relating to the operations of armament firms abroad, said he dared say the figures were correct, but he knew of no sufficient reason for instituting an enquiry. Shortly after two of the largest British firms entered into a contract with the Turkish Government to carry out extensive works at Constantinople that meant the virtual re-modelling of the Turkish navy, while just before the outbreak of the war, according to a prominent war correspondent, “the British Admiralty was lending missions of naval officers to Greece and Turkey, to hasten in co-operation with the contracting syndicates the preparation of their war forces.” The same writer added : “There is not a feud, or the possibility of a feud, but these tradesmen are at hand to egg on the rival adventurers, and to ‘equip’ them with the latest instruments of the science and art of wholesale homicide.”

Circumstances, you know, Alter Cases.

The peace-mongers forget their former denunciations when their country is involved in war. The “business” of the war traders has a close “relation to patriotism” when the “latest instruments of the science and art of wholesale homicide” must be placed in the hands of the workers to defend capitalist interest. The cry is then “Pile up the munitions ; more elbow room to the war traders.” They forget what they have said—but they cannot unsay it.

Before the war it had become almost a platitude that great wars of conquest, religious wars, etc., were things of the past ; that to-day commerce and industry dictated the policies of the different nations. Since the war every capitalist hack has been busy denying the economic cause—even while crying : “Capture the enemy’s trade”—repeating again and again that the struggle is between “militarism and democracy.”

“Prussian militarism” has become an everyday phrase. Exactly what is meant by it has never yet been clearly explained. According to some supporters of the so-called voluntary system, it is synonymous with conscription ; others affect to see difference between the French and German forms. One fact beyond dispute is that the capitalist class of every country maintain armed forces up to the strength they deem necessary to cope with their enemies within and without ; and it is even more certain that the capitalists of no country hesitate to use them when their interests are at stake. The methods may be slightly different, but the object is always the same—to retain possession or ownership of the means of life.

Relatives are Best Apart.

For instance, the Kaiser, according to Benjamin Kidd (in the “Daily News and Leader,” 7.9.15), appeals directly to his conscripts, saying :

“In view of the present Socialist agitation, it may come to pass that I shall command you to shoot down your own relatives, your brothers, your sons, or parents, which God forbid, but even this you must obey without a murmur.”

while Mr. Asquith, in the House of Commons says, in answer to a question (I quote the “Daily Chronicle.” 24.3.14).

“I think it is a very good rule, where the military force is called in to render assistance to the civil power, in exceptional cases, both as regards officers and men, so far as you can do it, to avoid the employment of those who are locally connected by personal, domestic, or social ties.”

In peace time every increase in armaments raises the war discussion anew and furnishes fresh evidence in the shape of contradictions, confessions, and absurdities. Ten days before the declaration of war the United Methodist Conference passed a resolution “protesting against the ominous growth of armaments.” One rev. delegate declared that

“the war spirit was not in the heart of King George, the Kaiser, the House of Commons, the Reichstag, or in the hearts of the British or German people. It was in the brain of a few irresponsible journalists, who were obsessed with a dastardly kind of Imperialism. He hated strikes, but would be glad to see a strike of the great democratic forces of Europe as a protest against this wicked, inhuman, and sinful waste of money.”

Note how these despicable followers of the mythical Christ are concerned for their masters’ money—a fraction of which comes to them in the shape of livings. One would almost imagine it was of greater importance in their estimation than human life did one not remember that personal ambition overshadows everything else in the mind of the up-to-date Gospel hawker.

Notoriety being their goal, it does not always follow that popular ideas must be applauded ; sometimes the reverse will bring a freak Non-conformist within the circle of the lime-light. At present it is almost criminal to denounce war, even in theory yet the president of the Churchmen’s Union at Rugby goes even further and denounces scientists for their share in it—possibly on principle, because he recognises the antagonism between science and religion. He

“deplored the employment of the latest discoveries of science and the newest inventions of civilisation not in the service of mankind, but to kill, burn, and torture. Men of science and learning had been bribed by the rulers of nations to prostitute their powers to the invention of horrible instruments for the wholesale killing, poisoning, and torture of brave men.”

Parson’s Filthy Job.

Obviously this is a case of the pot reflecting on the sooty condition of the kettle. The priest is equally susceptible to capitalist bribery with the scientist, and just as ready to furbish old superstitions or manustitions or manufacture new ones, to the detriment of the working class, as the scientist is to invent or improve instruments for the perpetration of wholesale murder.

So much for the irresponsibles. There are writers and politicians, however, that are considered authoritative ; but we shall be disappointed if we expect to find their utterances free from similar contradictions and absurdities. Mr. Norman Angell in “The Great Illusion,” we are told by a contemporary,

“Lays down the principle, which he enforces by references to recent history, that in the case of a great war the victor suffers more in the long run than the vanquished. . . . Moreover, because also of this interdependence of our credit-built finance, the confiscation by an invader of private property . . . would so react upon the finance of the invader’s country as to make the damage to the invader resulting from the confiscation exceed in value the property confiscated. So that Germany’s success in conquest would be a demonstration of the complete economic futility of conquest. . . . For allied reasons, in our day, the exaction of tribute from a conquered people has become an economic impossibility.”

In November 1910 Mr. Asquith, speaking on the subject of international relations, furnished the occasion for a Press discussion in which prominent leader writers expressed similar views to those of Mr. Angell. The “Aberdeen Evening Gazette” (11.11.10) said :

“If Germany beat us, she could not destroy our trade : she could not seize any of our colonies or annex any of our territories. She could not exact a ‘thousand million’ indemnity, because credit is now an international business, and to impair British credit would be to shake her own. If Germany smashed us she would smash her own best customer, and her own people would pay the penalty.”

The ”Times” (11.11.10) said:

“They move, as he says, in a vicious circle. They arm because they distrust one another, and they dis-trust one another because they are armed. It is a chronic malady, the cure of which Mr. Asquith is optimist enough to hope for through the growth of a more genial spirit among the nations. A more potent agency will perhaps be the increasing complexity of international relations, which makes it difficult for one nation to damage another without almost equally damaging itself.”

The “Westminster Gazette” (11.11.10) said :

“Trade is a great pacificator, and the international credit on which trade rests is a thing to which war is abhorrent. The fear of breaking the peace and the difficulty of breaking it grows with the growth of armaments. And at the same time the subconscious conviction that the whole collective process is a kind of insanity must gradually project itself into the conscious proceedings of civilised nations.”

These quotations are by no means isolated. In recent years similar opinions have been repeated so often that they should be familiar to every newspaper reader. But note the change since the outbreak of war. Every possible evil, from economic, annihilation to wholesale slaughter, has been flung at the heads of the workers to frighten thorn into the recruiting office or the munition factory. When the international capitalist class saw no immediate cause for quarrelling, their scribes told us our trade could not be destroyed by Germany, nor could our colonies or territory be annexed. A war indemnity could not be exacted by Germany because it would shake her own credit. Yet Britain’s credit is to be shaken by this very action, according to every responsible newspaper, while the self-appointed “Adviser-in-Chief to the British Nation”—Mr. Horatio Bottomley—says that “we shall need an army of occupation to mind the German capital whilst the war indemnity is being paid.”

Many writers have uttered grave warnings on the horrors of war, and have suggested remedies that were almost laughable—if the subject were not so tragic. Mr. Egmont Hake, in the “Daily Telegraph” of September 6, 1892, prophesied that

“We shall have battles raging for days over extensive grounds, hurried and disorderly retreats, desperate pursuits, and consequently, miles of country strewn with carcases and corpses. Should we wonder if to this tragedy Nemesis were to add her epilogue —pest.”

and the remedy is, “a liberal support of our hospitals” !

Professor Gardiner says :

“It should not be impossible to build upon the basis of the international comity of savants a society of men pledged to use their powers and discoveries not for destruction, but for saving life, not for promoting, but for moderating friction between nations.”

Benjamin Kidd told us in “Social Evolution” that the Christian religion was responsible for an ever-growing altruism and humanitarianism in the “Western civilisations.” He is, perhaps, surprised at the calmness with which these peoples regard the slaughter going on to-day, though, he admits his theory is falsified and that altruism is useless as a force to avert war, when he suggests that the Allies should “declare the United States of. Europe”—and, one might add, arm in preparation for war with the United States of America, or some other combination of powers in competition with them for the world’s markets.

But about the most outrageous thing that has been said on the war question is the reply given to those workers who asked what is their stake in the country. “Their wages.” Those wages that for “millions of the workers do not suffice to replace the energy used up in their daily toil.” The wages system is the most complete and tyrannical form of slavery evolved during centuries of class domination. Wage slavery squeezes every ounce of energy out of the workers and scraps them, condemns men, women, and children to degrading poverty and continual anxiety and, as “John Bull” says, “the sordid atmosphere of the office and the workshop.”

This is the worker’s stake in every land—if he seeks diligently and has the luck to find a master. But if he has knowledge concerning the position he will detest the wages system, and if he has wisdom in addition to knowledge he will work for its abolition and the establishment of Socialism. The nationality of his master in the meantime will not count with him : all members of the master class alike are to him parasites that live by his labour and drive him into the factory with the whip of unemployment and hunger, to be exploited.

F. Foan

Our case in brief. (1915)

From the November 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

The previous article under the above heading showed how several very undesirable features of our social existence arose from the private ownership by a portion of the community of the means of production and distribution—the land, factories, machinery, railways, raw material, and the like. It was concluded that private ownership would therefore have to be abolished, and it was finally promised that in a subsequent article it would be shown what would follow that abolition and the substitution of common ownership in the means of living.

A necessary preliminary to the proper understanding of the consequences of abolishing the private ownership of property is a thorough realisation of what that form of ownership is and what it produces.

Now as the very basis of life is the means of subsistence, the production of the means of subsistence is the most important matter in human affairs. The ownership and control of the instruments and resources by and from which these means of subsistence are produced therefore become of tremendous importance. As a matter of fact the property condition is not a mere skin-deep feature of our social life, which can be changed with no more than local disturbance in that life. It is the very rock and foundation of the social edifice, and therefore a change in this property condition must involve a change in every aspect of our social existence.

Let us try and build up the main lines of our social system from the basis indicated, i.e., the private ownership of the means of living.

The first result of the means of producing and distributing wealth becoming the property of a few is to divide the community into two classes. These classes are the property-owning class and the property-less class.

These two classes occupy entirely different positions in society—positions which must of necessity create antagonism and strife.

Those who do not possess the instruments of labour have no means in their hands of gaining a livelihood, except by selling their strength and skill to those who own the means through which alone that strength and skill can he productively applied. The positions, then, of the two classes are those of buyers and sellers of labour-power respectively.

It now becomes clear how the antagonism between the classes arises. Fundamentally there is antagonism between buyers and sellers in every market. Everywhere the seller strives to sell as dearly as he can, while the buyer tries to buy as cheaply as possible.

If this is true in the ordinary commodity market, how much more inevitably true must it be in the market where human labour-power is the commodity bought and sold !

For, be it remembered, human labour-power, applied to nature-given material, is the source of all that wealth by which men and women live (except, of course, such forms as are freely supplied by nature, such as air and sunlight). The wealth of the rich, the wages of the poor, are alike the product of the application of labour-power to material. Consequently, the struggle between the buyers and sellers of labour-power becomes a struggle for the possession of the product of that labour-power.

Let us be perfectly clear upon that point. To use the illustration of Marx, the product of the wage-worker is like a stick which is to be divided into two parts. The whole of the stick is comprised in the two parts, and one part can only be larger at the expense of the other. The product of the worker is divided into two parts—one part going to the worker and constituting his sole means of livelihood, the other part going to the employer and constituting his means living. The part which the worker receives is his wages, the price which the employer pays for the labour ; and as the larger this portion of the “stick” is the smaller must be the portion left for the employer, the struggle between the buyers and the sellers of labour-power must be of the very bitterest nature.

Nor is this all. The private possession by the few of the means of producing wealth alters the whole character and purpose of production. While the workers had access to the means of production—while they had rights in the land and owned the tools with which they worked—they commonly produced goods for use. The peasant-proprietor of the Middle Ages wanted corn for his own bread, barley for his own ale, and so on. He set to work, therefore, and grew his own corn and barley, and his women folk turned them into bread and ale.

Now mark the different sentiments with which the old-time peasant-proprietor and the modern baker and brewer would view the articles bread and ale. The former would feel a lively interest in the product of his hands ; he would be glad to know that the bread was wholesome, and he would not have to taste of the ale to know that it was good. For he and his would have produced the bread and beer to satisfy their hunger and thirst, and the idea of producing anything but the most wholesome food and drink, or of adulterating such products, would have been ludicrous to them. With what a different eye would the modern baker or brewer look upon the product of his factory ! The baker would take no interest in the bread as such. Possibly he would take care to eat none of it himself. The brewer’s chief concern would be to see that his beer was not a thirst-quencher but a thirst creator. Neither the baker nor the brewer produces his goods for use ; they both produce them for sale.

A simple illustration will show the difference between the two methods. The peasant-proprietor started out with a need—bread. The master baker also starts out with a need, but that need is money. The former, having produced his bread, had finished his round. If he had recorded his activities which he had no need to do—he might have written “Finis” there. But the modern master baker is required by law to record his activities, and that record commences with money and ends with money.

The baker expends money in the purchase of flour and other material, and labour-power, and he must record the fact for the edification of the Official Receiver. These are converted into bread, but that is a detail of secondary importance which may or may not find a place in some minor book. What is important is the conversion of the bread into money. When that is accomplished, the round is completed, the books, as far as that operation is concerned, may be closed. They record the conversion of money into material, etc., and the conversion of these into money. The money that the record started with can be compared with the money with which it finished, and the difference between the two sums shown. And only this will any man of business accept as the conclusion of the operation.

So is shown the difference in the systems of wealth production in a society based on the monopoly of the means of production by a few and a social system in which the means of production are owned by those who use them. In the one case all wealth produced presents itself as articles produced for sale, in the other case wealth, with a few exceptions, is produced for use.

The exigencies of space prevent the completion in this issue of this brief examination of the manner in which the whole of our social structure arises from and rests upon the social base—the ownership by a section of the community of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth. The subject will be resumed next month.

A. E. Jacomb