No More Family Life. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

This is the awful pronouncement which greeted readers of the Daily Distress one morning in October. Said the Editor:—

“We have proved from the writings of Socialist leaders that atheism is one of their principal creeds, and that the marriage ties are not considered to be of any importance. But our exposures have caused consternation at the Socialist headquarters, and every effort is being made to deny our charges in order to allay the fears of those who have succumbed to the blandishments of the smooth-tongued street-corner orators. Socialism cannot endure exposure. It flourishes in the dark.”

Socialism flourishes in the dark, you see. Only a day or so previously a leading article in the same veracious journal impressed upon its intelligent clientele that “the greatest mistake we can make in dealing with the Socialists is to debate with them. It is just what they want.” It is painfully evident that we Socialists don’t know when we are well off. After all, why should we seek the light of debate when, so the Express says, we “flourish in the dark” ? To us, our hundreds of meetings in the open air, in parks, at street corners, at factory gates, have savoured of extreme publicity, and the invariable presence of the police would appear to warrant the assumption. We have nurtured a phantom. On the authority of the Express we have been in Stygian blackness the whole time. Hence our flourishing condition. This, of course, is Express reasoning. If the editorial tongue were not so plainly visible within the editorial cheek, a plain man might be tempted to style it twaddle. Mr. Pearson further informs us that:

“Under advanced Socialism every child is to belong to the “State.” Parental responsibility in every shape is to be ended. Feeding, clothing, training, educating—the State is to do it all. One stands aghast, and wonders whether the result would be more disastrous to the parent than to the child,”

but on page 4 of the same issue a Mr. Claude Lowther “dealing” with the “Canker of Socialism” says “of course we recognise that the child belongs to the community and that the health of the child is the well-being of the State.” So it would appear that Socialism has stolen a march upon us and is here in all its hideous nakedness. And the mother don’t seem to mind. Or shall we say that Mr. Lowther would be well advised if in future he compared notes with the Editor before rushing into type ? There is a possibility of a glimmer of sense creeping in by accident whilst the present haphazard arrangement lasts. Don’t risk it, Claude.

Education again, we always understood, was the particular concern of the State. But read this first :

BARRACK NURSERIES

And what about character ? What about individual care ? What about family life and that affection which makes childhood’s days so sweet in the remembering ? Because many homes are unhappy; because many poor little children cry for food in the slums ; because some parents are without love and kindness, are all children to be without parents and to have a barrack for a nursery and a soulless “State” for a mother’s care ?

THE HOME IS TO GO. FAMILY LIFE HAS TO GO. Let the little ones wake in the night and cry for their parents — Let the mother stretch out for the child.

It is not hers at all. It is the State’s !

Socialism has no care for empty arms and wistful mothers. The child is the State’s, and mothers must go desolate. The little shoes, the little baby clothes—the kind “State” will provide those, and they will be all of a pattern and all alike.

Under Socialism every child will be a workhouse child. If the mothers dressed them, one would be prettier than another—and that would not be Socialism.”

Let me emphasise the fact that the article here quoted appeared in the Daily Express, Oct. 8th, not in Punch as perhaps might be imagined.

Only one thing is lacking to complete the harrowing picture. Why not prevail upon the talented artist who enlivened the last L.C.C. election with his beautiful and soulful conceptions to endeavour to depict the interior of a “barrack nursery.” Nothing appeals to the masses like a picture, and one such of a very long room, tall and broad, filled with hundreds of squalling infants, each seated before a “soulless” half yard of indiarubber pipe, through which the State pumped nutriment, would carry conviction. I present the idea to the Daily Express for what it is worth.

But coming down to hard facts and above all, those of present-day life, how does this strike the Editor of the Daily Distress and those who think with him that human society has reached its highest possible expression in that of to-day, so completely does it meet the individual wants of its components ? This is from the Boston American, July 28th :—

”MINOR EMPLOYES OF STEEL TRUST SOLD BODY AND SOUL.

Parents Are Compelled to Sign Release Deed Before Work is Secured.

Hundreds Execute It.

Worcester, July 27.—The American Steel and Wire Trust is buying children in Worcester for one dollar a head.

Several hundred have already been sold to slave in the three huge mills of the trust in this city, and the sale of hundreds of others will soon be consummated it the State authorities do not interfere.

Many parents have refused to sell their children into slavery, and it is expected that they will soon have to find employment elsewhere than in the trust mills for their boys and girls.

The Steel and Wire Trust is determined that it shall own its employes body and soul.

To secure absolute control of the children the trust recently demanded that their parents sign “A MINOR’S RELEASE.”

Each parent who signs this receives one dollar, and for that dollar he or she waives forever all control over the child: all right to collect his or her pay and all legal rights, in the opinion of the trust’s attorney, to collect damages should the child be killed or maimed in the mills.

Here is a copy of the “minor’s release,” by which the parent makes his child a slave for a mite of the trust’s gold:

MINOR’S RELEASE. 

Know all men by these presents, That, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and other good and valuable considerations, to me in hand paid, I ………. of …….. have emancipated and do hereby emancipate …… of …… my son, of and from any and all liability to render or account for his services to me, and all obligations to me of whatsoever kind or nature, and do hereby release and forever waive any and all right which I may have in and to his services, or any wages or salary earned by him; and do hereby authorize any and all persons whomsoever to contract with my said son without any liability to me, and to pay him his wages, and to do any and all things and make any and all contracts, with said son, without any liability to me ; and authorize the said son to appropriate and receive, for his own use and benefit, without any liability to me, his services, and pay and all proceeds or avails thereof.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal at …… this …… day of 190…

Witness : ……………………………………………………………………

(Seal)”

Comment is almost needless. The Socialist is simply charged with certain proposals : here is an actuality. What of family life ? “Let the little ones wake in the night and cry for their parents—let the mother stretch out for her child.”

It is not hers at all. It is the Trusts !

“And what about character? What about individual care? What about family life and that affection which makes childhood’s days so sweet in the remembering ?”

How awkward for the Express that we here can speak in the present tense. THE HOME HAS GONE. FAMILY LIFE AS WELL.

And the American Socialists have denounced it. And the American prototypes of the Express have denounced the Socialists.

We need not travel so far as Tariff-protected America for indications of the ineffable state of bliss, marital and otherwise, in which the working class exists. We are indebted to capitalist sources almost exclusively for our best and most illuminating arguments and statistics.

The census returns show about 43 millions of human beings as inhabiting the British Isles. Of these 38 millions take just over half the national yearly production of wealth, the other 5 millions taking the remainder. The average income of the larger division is less than £160 per head. Thirteen millions are perpetually on or below the poverty line, and nearly a million receive Poor Law relief. What a bed of roses ! What possibilities for the formation of character and that affection which makes childhood’s day’s etc., ad nauseum. Beautiful language the Express people pour forth. “Because many homes are unhappy; because many poor little children cry for food in the slums ; because some parents are without love and kindness; are all children to be without parents and to have a barrack for a nursery and a soulless “State” for a mother’s care? ”

I reply : Because a paltry, parasitic, useless, one-ninth of the population absorbs nearly 50 per cent. of the national income and own seven-eighths of the whole wealth of the country; because less than one-thousandth per cent. of the population owns more than 50 per cent. of the total area of land ; because 5 millions of the lazy plunder 38 millions of the industrious; because of these and scores of similar facts, are 13 millions of wealth producers to be perpetually on the brink of starvation ? Are nearly 90,000 human beings to die in workhouses, lunatic asylums and similar institutions annually ? Are 120,000 workers, the only people who matter, to be robbed of life or limb every year, whilst creating wealth they never enjoy ? Are nearly a million fellow-creatures to be so reduced by privation that they are compelled to claim public assistance and become, despite the repressive measures adopted by “sweet charity,” paupers, in the midst of colossal wealth?

A million married women are compelled to work for wages. What of home life ? And childhood’s days so sweet in the remembering? Nearly 140 in every 1,000 never have any childhood’s days to remember, for they die before their first year of “life” is completed. And family life too ! What of that ? Yes, what of family life ? The average age of the worker is 29 years. The lunacy figures have doubled during the last 40 years. The unemployed problem becomes ever more intense. The worker’s wife and children have now to turn out on the labour market and help to keep a roof over their heads until the arrival of the undertaker—at the age of 29 or thereabouts.

“The home is to go” wails the Express. “Family life too” it sobs. Pass on ! it makes one peevish.

And now what of the Socialist proposals. Of course volumes could be written and have been written upon the institutions of religion and marriage. But briefly, very briefly, the position occupied by the Socialist in viewing the institutions named is very simple and readily understood. It is this.

Before man can formulate a religion, or a social custom like marriage, it is fairly apparent that he must be living in a community, and that the nature of that community will depend largely upon the methods by which the material wants, primarily food, are supplied. For instance, where animal or vegetable food is difficult of access, there, as history shows, one can confidently expect to find cannibalism. The social customs of that community will be an exact reflex of the way they are compelled to get their living. Their god will be as partial to human flesh as they. Their frailties, passions and virtues will find a truthful mirror in their deity. This is so historically and logically true that the wonder is that any person is to be found who, having given a very moderate amount of study to the question, can for a moment doubt it. Take the ancient Norsemen : men of pillage, rapine and plunder ; wild, restless, roving pirates, as fond of wine as they were of war. Their gods, Thor, Wodin, etc., were glorified counterparts of themselves. Higher in the scale the Greeks, a people who had brought the arts to a marvellous pitch of perfection, personified the arts and graces, that is, they made their gods and goddesses after their own image, and then deified and worshipped them. With the decay of the Greek civilisation, their deities died of the same complaint. So that as regards religion the Socialist position should be fairly clear. Change the economic condition of a people and their god or gods obediently dance to the altered tune. A moment’s reflection should make this abundantly clear. Even in the case of Christianity it is continually changing as the minds of its adherents change. “It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdon of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” said Christianity’s great expositor 2,000 years ago. But a system of society has arisen in which the rich capitalist is looked upon as the mainspring by which Society is enabled to move: a society in which the followers of the humble Nazarene become the possessors of enormous wealth. And—mark what happens. Dr. Akeds arise in scores to prove that Christ did not really mean it. Theologians go to extreme pains to prove that the eye of a needle was something entirely different to our domestic implement. The camel’s task was really very easy : only a bit of a squeeze and he was through. Same with the rich man, and so on.

And now regarding the custom of marriage. There is something decidedly humorous in the spectacle of the introducers of the Divorce Courts reproaching anyone with sinister designs upon the “sacred contract.” The severing of the marriage tie by means of divorce is a measure that surely no one will lay to the door of the Socialists. And who is it that fills the Divorce Court ? The very people who are now accusing the Socialist of designs upon the purity and sanctity of home life. Who are the greatest patrons of the horrible social ulcer known as prostitution ? The question is almost automatically answered. Regent Strest and Piccadilly are not working-class quarters; they are not even, remotely “tainted” with the “canker of Socialism.” Yet the bare names of these thoroughfares have become synonymous for the vice which flourishes, unashamed and practically unchecked, upon them. The average man (who is not a Socialist) will tell you that prostitution is a necessary evil, and that the unfortunates who are its victims should receive State recognition and be licensed, as on the Continent. The upholders of the present system cannot conceive of human society without it. “It always has been and always will be” sums up the whole of their philosophy.

The true Socialist position is that the present marriage contract is by no means the last word to be said upon the subject. History shows that as the economic basis of human society has changed, so the customs of that society have altered, including, necessarily, marriage. The present social system is based upon the ownership of private property, and the marriage contract is in essence a property contract. The single sentence from the Marriage Service, “with all my worldly goods I thee endow” is indicative of this, especially as the recipient of this cornucopean shower immediately surrenders all control over it by promising to “love, honour and obey” the benevolent “bestower.” The Married Women’s Property Act legalises the holding of property by married women, but even this becomes an expedient by means of which the bankrupt can secure some of his “hard-earned” plunder against the inroads of his swindled creditors, provided he has sufficient foresight.

It should be clear, then, that present-day society is organised upon a basis of private property in the means whereby the wealth creators live and that necessarily the customs of Society will partake of the general structure. With the change in the basis, necessarily the superstructure must follow suit. Abolish a system where the mainspring of all effort is the glorification, and aggrandisement of the individual at the expense of the community ; where the ideal is tersely expressed as “every man for himself and devil take the hindmost,” and substitute a community whose driving factor shall be collective effort for the mental and material well-being of all, and whose chief concern shall he the free and unfettered development of all its component units ; abolish the one, we say, and substitute the other and the way is easy for a marriage based upon mutual esteem; upon Love in actuality and not as at present, merely as an accessory after the fact—the fact of the possession of a “decent berth” or a banking account.

One thing the Express and those of its kidney appear to overlook is this. In any society where woman were the social equal of man, is it to be imagined for one moment that she would acquiesce in anything the Express portion of the population cared to suggest? No ! Capitalist morals, bourgeois ethics, would follow the Express into the oblivion of a hideous past. Under Socialism there will be no sex barrier. Elementary logic would appear to show that the individuals most interested, or rather more affected, by social changes, should at least be among the first to be consulted. It does not seem to have occurred to the Express that woman would have a voice in the ordering of her sex-relationship. Need her answer be anticipated ? Think it over !

W. T. Hopley

A Look Round. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to “Bradstreet’s” there were 964 business failures in America in October, with assets 124 million dollars and liabilities 139 million dollars. In October, 1893, the failures were 1,753 with assets 36 million dollars and liabilities 55 million dollars. Thus in 1893 the average liabilities per failure were 31,375 dollars and in 1907 they were 144,200 dollars. But of the latter twenty failures account for 114 million dollars, leaving only 25 million dollars for the remaining 944.

* * *

The S.D.F., I.L.P., and the Labour Party were well represented in the signatures to the Memorial, relating to the employment of barmaids, submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month. They included Miss Margaret Bondfield, Rev. R. J. Campbell, A. H. Gill, M.P., A. Henderson, M.P., J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., and D. J. Shackleton, M.P. The memorialists claim that from the advertisements in the trade papers it is evident that the great majority of barmaids are engaged on account of their attractiveness to men customers, whilst the record of the magistrates and other courts gives convincing statistical proof that the career of the disproportionate number of barmaids ends in drunkenness, immorality, misery and frequently suicide.

* * *

Now, if public houses are such demoralising and terrible places as these people would have us believe, why do not they take up a logical position and advocate their immediate suppression ? And why do they suggest that the wives and daughters of publicans should be permitted to continue to work in “surroundings which carry with them special dangers and temptations” ? Do they consider the publican has a right of private property in his wife and daughters so inviolable that he is to be permitted to employ them in a career that “ends in drunkenness, immorality, misery, and frequently suicide” ?

* * *

But the memorialists would even permit barmaids now employed to continue in what they consider such vile surroundings provided they have a licence from the Government. They would “protect the young girls of the nation” but those who have already entered upon this horrible career are to be permitted to go down to their end “in drunkenness, immorality, misery, and frequently suicide” if they have taken out a licence !

* * *

The Government is to place it on record that public houses are places where no decent woman should work. The publican’s wife and daughters are not to count. I suppose the worst surroundings are too good for them, according to the ideas of the memorialists. Licences are therefore to be granted to other men’s wives and daughters, and no doubt the fortunate holder of such a badge of slavery will be regarded as one who has either proved herself able to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, or is so low and depraved that it does not matter what happens to her.

* * *

No one denies that the barmaid’s lot could be improved, particularly in regard to her hours of labour, but in many respects it is vastly superior to that of other women workers. As a rule, she gets plenty of food and good food, which is more than can be said of the girls employed in such highly respectable occupations as millinery and dressmaking, often working for nothing and usually for only a few shillings a week. If they live at home the financial effort required for clothing prevents them from being otherwise than semi-starved all the time, and many of them exist in a condition of chronic anaemia which in due course has its effect upon their offspring. If they “live in”—well, Miss Bondfield, who wishes to abolish the barmaids, being an official of the Shop Assistants Union, has time after time denounced the system. And it is said that there are large establishments in the shopping centres of London where the girls who live in are allowed to stay out all night, provided they pay a fine of ten shillings in the morning. Such a system cannot be charged against the publicans. And as to the alleged immorality, it must be admitted that there is nothing drives women on the streets so much as inability to obtain food and clothing for themselves and their dependents. The barmaid, at any rate, is secured against this.

* * *

Again, the atmosphere of thousands of coffee shops is much more immoral than the bar of a public house is ever likely to be, and the girls employed have no protection. Customers may use vile language concerning the food (as it is called) supplied in these places, and this language the waitress has to listen to. A remonstrance on her part to her employer would probably result in her getting “the sack,” as the competition is too keen, and the profits too small, particularly in the poorer districts, for the “guvner” to be able to afford to quarrel with his customers. But if a customer in a wicked public house uses vile language to a barmaid and the manager or proprietor overhears or it is reported to him, the culprit is either warned, or put out and sometimes forbidden the house altogether. And the conditions of the girls in these coffee shops, as to hours, wages, and food, are certainly much inferior to those of the majority of barmaids.

* * *

Of course the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., through their members who signed the memorial, are being made the tools of the most bigoted section of that nonconformist conscience which they have so often denounced. These pharasaical humbugs really wish to prohibit the sale of alcoholic liquors, but lack the courage to openly declare themselves.

* * *

According to the Daily Chronicle’s Rome correspondent between 50,000 and 60,000 Neapolitans have formed a passive resistance movement, and for six months have refused to pay rent or quit their tenements. The Government are taking the usual course. Controlling, as they do, the armed forces of the nation, which armed forces they will continue to control so long as they are politically dominant, they are using those forces against the workers. In the early part of December ten thousand troops from various cities had been despatched to reinforce the Naples Garrison preparatory to evicting the working-class families concerned.

* * *

Once more “the impracticability of the Socialist schemes” has been demonstrated, this time by a Mr. Moreton Frewen. He says that the total accumulated capital in the country is estimated at £9,000,000,000, which invested at 3½ per cent. would bring in about 5d. a day per person. The total income from all sources Mr. Frewen estimates at £1,500,000,000 annually, equal to about 14s. per head per week. “Thus,” says our oracle, “the Socialist ideal of happiness would result in every individual in the country being possessed of a revenue of 16s. 11d. per week.” And Mr. Frewen adds that this would not be “a very prosperous state of affairs.”

* * *

16s. 11d. per head per week, says Mr. Frewen, will be the income under Socialism. It is computed that the average family consists of five persons, so that each family would receive £4 4s. 7d. per week. But it is known that the working class have larger families than the well-to-do section of the population, and the amount would therefore be increased for working-class families. And this “would not be a very prosperous state of affairs” !

* * *

Well, if Socialism really meant dividing up what is known as the National Income, it would mean the trebling, at least, of the income of the mass of the working class. Chas. Booth has shown that 1,250,000 of the population of London are in receipt of a wage of one guinea or less per week per family, and in commenting on the Railway dispute the Daily Telegraph pointed out that, in the event of a strike, an enormous number of men would be willing to blackleg at £1 per week. “Twenty shillings a week is no luxurious wage we admit,” said the Daily Telegraph, “but it is better, alas, than many thousands of workmen in both, town and country can secure.” So that the “prosperity” of the working class under capitalism is represented by one-sixth or less of what, according to Mr, Frewen, they would receive under Socialism, And this proves “the impracticability of the Socialist schemes ” !

* * *

It is not surprising that opponents get the idea that Socialism merely means the equalisation of income or wages when those professing: to be Socialists endeavour to popularise the same idea. Recently I heard a Mr. Dean, on the I.L.P. platform in East Ham, inform a questioner that “of course, it would be quite possible for anyone to save up his money under Socialism, if he preferred not to spend the wages paid to him each week by the State. But he would not be able to employ anyone else with the money so saved. He would be a capitalist, but unable to use his capital.” And after delivering himself of this he read the titles of pamphlets which he advised the audience to buy and study, some of which explained that the wages system would be abolished with the abolition of the capitalist system and the establishment of Socialism.

* * *

This misconception of Socialism arises largely out of the advocacy of palliatives by both the I.L.P. and the S.D.F. So obscured is the issue, even to members of these bodies, by their talk of the “right to work,” “better wages for the working class,” “free maintenance for children” etc., that they appear unable to conceive of any system where the hooter shall not sound the time for commencing and leaving work, and where the people shall not be the wage-receiving slaves of the machine industry that they are to-day. They would merely “humanise” the conditions of employment.

J. Kay

Mr. James Parker, M.P. and the “Socialist Standard”. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our November issue we printed two articles, headed respectively, “A Travesty of Socialism” and “Labour Members and Child Slavery,” in which the utterances of the Labour Member for Halifax were criticised. In the first he was accused of talking twaddle and calling it Socialism, thus proving that he was either ignorant or fraudulent. To that accusation he makes no reply. The second article dealt with a speech he had delivered at Burton-on-Trent on October 7th, and concluded as follows: “Thus Mr. Parker, having thrown over ‘political independence’ and made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election, now shows himself prepared to throw over anything else that may endanger his seat. We wish the I.L.P. joy of these ‘political job hunters.’ ”

Mr. Parker has sent us a letter which is printed below:—

Abercoynan.

1/12/07. 

Dear Sir,—I have just seen a copy of Socialist Standard for November. The words I used at Burton-on-Trent were the very opposite of those you quote. If you get the other paper (I forget the name) published in Burton-on-Trent, you will find that the words I used in reference to child labour were these : “Speaking for myself, I would never seek to hold any seat in Parliament if it were necessary for me to support half-time labour to hold it,” If you care to look up my record in this matter you will find no man in the Socialist movement has spoken out more strongly against half-time employment of children. Not only is this true, but I think you will find if you get the paper who were represented at the meeting you refer to by a reporter and I think the paper you quote from had no reporter present, you will find that my speech went the “whole hog” for the proper feeding, training and education by the State.

Yours truly,

Mr. James Parker, M.P.

A copy of Mr. Parker’s letter was submitted to the Editor of the Burton Daily Mail, and he has sent us the following communication :—

Horninglow Street, 

Burton-on-Trent. 

Dec. 12, 1907.

R. H. Kent, Esq., London.

Dear Sir,—I find on enquiry that Mr. Parker, was not properly reported in our issue of Oct. 8th. Our reporter was present, but he did not get Mr. Parker’s reply to the question accurately. What I understand the hon. member did say was that “members of the I.L.P., as a Party, would take up the attitude of getting the age limit raised if they had the opportunity.” I am sorry that our Reporter’s carelessness has caused so much controversy.—

Yours faithfully,

Arthur E. Brown, 

Editor & Manager.

We apologise to Mr. Parker and of course withdraw our criticism in so far as it was based upon the incorrect report sent to us. We have obtained the “other paper” but do not find the words Mr. Parker claims to have used. It reports that he said Socialists would like to get the State to look after their human needs. They wanted a doctor in the schools to deal with the ailments affecting the children, such as bad eyesight, defective hearing, and to see that all were properly nourished. He also advocated one good meal in school each day. To-day they spent a few millions on education and about ten times as much on armaments, but when they became a wise nation and a Socialist nation the figures would be reversed.

We have taken these words from the Burton Evening Gazette and must express our inability to understand Mr. Parker’s conception of a Socialism which would require a “few millions spent on armaments.” The coming of Socialism will mean the triumph of the wealth-producers over their exploiters. As the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. fully explains, “in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to be emancipated,” and the emancipation of this class “will involve the abolition of all class distinctions and class privileges and free humanity from oppression of every kind.” Whence, then, will arise the necessity to spend a few millions on armaments ?

It will be noticed that Mr. Parker does not deny that he won his seat by making a compact with the Liberals. Of course he is not the only I.L.P. leader who has done so, particulars of several of these compacts being given in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto. With regard to his claim that he “went the ‘whole hog’ for the proper feeding, training and education by the State,” if one who believes that children should be fed, and trained, and educated by the “State” is a “whole hogger” we are glad we are not “whole hoggers.” The mother, for whom a State institution, however beneficent and well-equipped, can never be a substitute, is the proper person to feed and care for her children, and it is because we know that Socialism alone will make it possible for mothers to properly feed, and train, and educate their offspring that we are Revolutionists.

Jack Kent

The Proletariat (The Working Class). By Karl Kautsky (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from December issue

Specially translated for The Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

But the supply increases too rapidly for it to be possible to make a great deal out of education even if one sells with it his own personality. It cannot be prevented that masses of the educated are driven into the ranks of the proletariat.

It is as yet uncertain whether this development will lead to the educated joining the fighting proletariat en masse rather than individually, as until now, but one thing is certain—with the proletarianising of the educated the last chance of the proletarian to rise by his own efforts into a higher class has been frustrated.

It is out of question that the wage-worker can become a capitalist, at least in the ordinary course of things.

A prize in a lottery or a wealthy uncle abroad are not taken into account by sensible persons when considering the position of the working class. But under exceptionally favourable circumstances a better-paid worker may here and there succeed in saving—owing to his more abstemious way of living—sufficient to commence a small concern as handicraftsman or to open a shop, or to send his son for a course of study in order to become one of the “better” class. It has always been ridiculous to point to such possibilities for the workers for improving their own position or that of their children. In the ordinary course of things a workman may be glad, if he is at all able to save, to put by so much in good times, as not to be quite destitute when he falls out of employment. But to-day it is more ridiculous than ever to attempt to console the workers with such prospects, for the economic development not only makes it less possible for the worker to save, it also makes it impossible even if he succeeds in earning sufficient to raise himself and his children above the proletarian existence. To commence working on his own account means for him to get from one misfortune into another, and to return as a rule to his previous misery, recognising that petty enterprise cannot be maintained, but only results in the loss of previous savings.

More difficult even than commencing an independent petty enterprise, almost hopeless indeed, to-day is the attempt of the proletarian to send his son to college. But supposing such an attempt has been successful, of what use is his education to the son of the proletarian who cannot turn to account his acquirements, who has no protection, especially now when hundreds of lawyers, engineers, chemists, and commercial graduates are walking about in search of employment ?

Wheresoever the proletarian may turn, everywhere he discovers proletarian conditions of life and work. Proletarian conditions are increasingly forced upon Society; the masses of the population in all civilised countries have already sunk to the proletarian position. As far as the individual proletarian is concerned the last prospect has long vanished of rising by his own effort and on his own account out of the morass into which the present system of production has thrown him. He can only raise himself by raising the entire class to which he belongs.

[Conclusion]

Blogger's Note:

It was the German SPGBer, Hans Neumann, who translated Kautsky's writings from the German into English for the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (1908)

Party News from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

News in Review: Wall Street slump (1962)

The News in Review column from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wall Street slump

Wall Street got the twitch last month and so did London and the Bourses on the Continent. The newspapers rushed out pictures of the panic in 1929 and then had to set their City Editors to work to explain why 1929 cannot after all happen again.

Everybody seemed to have forgotten that just before 1929 the financial experts were assuring us that the crash which was in fact just around the corner could never happen anyway. If this does not make the experts of 1929 look very impressive in retrospect, it must also teach us that the forecasts of all capitalism's economic experts are not worth very much.

Nowadays the experts are fond of pointing out the precautions which (they are confident) would prevent a runaway boom like the one which preceded the 1929 crash and therefore (they reason) would also prevent the crash itself.

This ignores the fact that slumps are not the result of an attack of jitters on the Stock Exchange; rather is it the other way round. Nineteen-twenty-nine was one of capitalism's classic crises and no amount of stock juggling could have averted it.

Nor should we assume that hotheaded speculation is dead. The Observer correspondent in New York reported that the “intellectuals" of Wall Street thought that: “By the end of last year the market had reached heights that brokers now, without blushing, describe as insane." and quoted one New York broker:

"The way some of (the big brokers) have been pushing over-priced stocks at naive investors is nothing short of criminal."

Perhaps a repeat of 1929 is not so impossible after all. For some of the experts were mystified by Wall Street’s 1962 twitch. The Guardian said: "The continuing retreat is puzzling commentators in that there seems to be no apparent reason for it. Mr. Walter Heller, President Kennedy's economic adviser, said there were no economic grounds for the condition of the market." Does this fill us with confidence that capitalism’s economists could not be taken unawares by a repeat of 1929? It does not.

Capitalism could have something up its sleeve, just as it had thirty-three years ago, to surprise the experts and impoverish the rest of us.

Liberal Party promises

Nobody can accuse the Tories of not being worried about the Liberal revival. Faced with the fact that some of the electorate undoubtedly find the Liberal Party attractive, the Conservatives have set out to prove that the very allure of Liberal policy lies in its irresponsibility.

This is being done in the time- honoured way of accusing the Liberals of pushing vote-catching policies without also mentioning that they would increase taxes to finance them. Mr. Iain Macleod has estimated that full application of the Liberal policy would put another eleven shillings on income tax. Most workers are convinced that they are the people who pay taxes: to them, the prospect of a standard income tax rate of 18/9d. in the pound must have seemed like black nightmare.

To back up his case. Mr. Macleod had his research boys dig out some choice examples of Liberal promise-mongering. He quoted Liberal policies for spending more on roads and education, for increasing pensions, repaying post-war credits and much more besides. The Liberals claimed that Macleod‘s quotes were taken out of context.

Yet in one way Macleod had a point, even if he did not know that he was making it. All capitalist political parties have to make a lot of attractive promises and boast that they can do things which they know are beyond their abilities. The Tories, for example, said in 1951 that they would stop prices rising.

Such promises can be effective vote-catchers. The one snag is that a party which is liable to be returned to power cannot make its promises too extravagant, because that would only make their betrayal that much more obvious. On the other hand, the more remote from power a party is, the more reckless its promises can be. The Liberals have little immediate prospect of becoming the government of British capitalism.

We may be sure that if the Liberal revival really gets under way their promises will become dimmer and more sober as the votes mount up. And if they ever get into power again most of the promises will disappear. Grimond and his men would run British capitalism in roughly the same way as the parties they now decry.

End of Eichmann?

No time was wasted, after the Israeli President bad written the quotation from the Bible across the petition for reprieve, in sending Adolf Eichmann to his death and scattering his ashes into the sea.

Why was Eichmann executed? For revenge? One man cannot adequately expiate the murder of six million people; a split-second execution is hardly revenge for the years of pitiless concentration camp horrors.

P

erhaps nearer the mark were those observers who think that the whole thing—the abduction, the trial, the execution—was meant to establish Israel as a political reality among the other capitalist nations. Political acts in themselves do have significance and for Israel to put to death the man who organised the extermination of the Jews is significant indeed.

Israel has asserted her power—even if, in terms of capitalist legality, she had little right—to bring the Jews' tormentors to book.

But what else has Israel done?

Perhaps she has made a martyr of the clerk-like Eichmann. Racial theories still live in capitalism's jungle; the execution of Eichmann could be the grain of sand around which they crystallise and flourish.

There is no easy explanation of the Eichmanns of the thirties and forties; Nazi Germany will remain a horrifying enigma for a long time to come. But we can say that part, at any rate, of the reason for the electoral success of the Nazis was the crisis of German capitalism after 1918 and the despair and cynicism which this bred in the minds of the German working class. In this mood, they would have supported anyone who sounded as if he had the answer to their problems. And Hitler, with his race mania, sounded like that to them.

Capitalism is always liable to convulsion and in any case it will never stop looking for scapegoats for its own shortcomings. This means that racial hatred is still with us and that even the madness of the Nazis need not be very far away.

The world may not have seen the last of its Adolf Eichmanns.

Coal profits

The nationalised coal mines made £28.7 million operating profit last year. If the Coal Board were a normal commercial company, said chairman Lord Robens when he announced these figures, it would be paying a dividend of 2½% from its profits.

But the coal mines are not, of course, a normal concern. The N.C.B. is liable to pay out on fixed interest stock and loans, which means that its dividend payments bear no relation to its working profit.

Last year the N.C.B’s interest payments came to £42.4 million, which turned its working profit into an accounting deficit of £13.7 million.

There are three things to be said about this.

Firstly, nationalising the coal mines was obviously a good move from the point of view of those who get the £42.4 million interest from a profit of only £28.7 million; much more than they would have got from Lord Robens' two-and-a-half per cent!

Secondly, the fact that millions of pounds profit is being wrung from the coal mines is proof—if anymore were needed—that nationalisation does not alter the capitalist nature of society. For profit, in private or state industry, can only come from the exploitation of workers in the industry.

Which brings us to the third, conclusive point. Many workers in this country were misled into supporting nationalisation because they thought it had something to do with common ownership. The figures which the National Coal Board has produced, and those which the other nationalised industries turn out year by year, show up that it was nothing of the kind.

Letter: Co-partnership, Fact or Fantasy? (1962)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘John Lewis’ replies

Dear Sir,

In the article in your March issue on Co-Partnership—with particular reference to the John Lewis Partnership—there are so many statements which are not in accordance with the facts, that I should be grateful if you would publish this letter in order to correct the quite erroneous impression which your article might create.

The Partners—and the definition you quote is a perfectly happy one, “persons associated with others in business of which they share risks and profits’—are, in fact, joint owners. All the ordinary share capital—the equity—of all the companies is held, either directly or indirectly, by the John Lewis Partnership Trust Ltd. on behalf of all members of the Partnership. You say “the workers in the J.L.P. no more share the profits than do the employees of various concerns who have in recent years taken up the idea known as profit sharing”, This is palpably and demonstrably untrue. Several companies in recent years have issued shares to their employees as a means of profit sharing, but the number of shares so issued is fixed arbitrarily by the Board concerned and the balance of the profit is distributed amongst the holders of the ordinary shares, who may be, and usually are, members of the general public. In the J.L.P. none of the general public can own a J.L.P. ordinary share—they are all held in trust for the “Partners ’—and all of the profit that would otherwise go to ordinary shareholders goes, under irrevocable settlements in Trust, in one way or another to the Partners themselves.

You go on to say that ’’the so called profits are no more than part of their wages—a bonus and an incentive for harder work”. Entirely untrue. The J.L.P. pays wages which are at least as high, if not higher, than their competitors pay and this sharing of profits is something entirely additional and is given pro rata according to their salaries whether they work harder or not. This is pure profit which in most other businesses would go to outside shareholders. It is not irrelevant in this connection to note that last year profits distributed to Partners or applied; for their benefit amounted to £1,500,000—a sum of money which could, had the Founder of the J.L.P. —Mr. J. Speden Lewis—decided to retain the business himself, have gone into his own pocket or, had he decided to float the Company in the normal way, into the pockets of outside shareholders of ordinary shares.

You dismiss gaily the amenities which the J.L.P. offers on the grounds that most of the amenities are also offered—and sometimes bettered—by their competitors. This clearly is no place to go into the detailed merits of amenities offered, but it can be confidently stated that no other comparable organisation offers better or even as wide a scope of amenities. Virtually every type of leisure time activity both intellectual and sporting is catered for and subsidised, e.g.. music, drama, chess, painting, sailing and all normal sporting activities. In addition there are residential clubs at Cookham on the Thames, at Stockbridge in Hampshire and at Liverpool. Partners can also buy subsidised tickets for operas, plays and concerts.

You seem to find it strange that Partners should be prosecuted for alleged dishonesty. This is quite incomprehensible. If, for example a Partner steals, that Partner is stealing from his fellow workers—universally regarded as being one of the most despicable forms of anti-social behaviour. It is surprising that it appears that you take exception to such a course of action.

The committees and councils of the J.L.P. are, you say, “supposed to be democratic bodies but in fact have a large percentage of members nominated by management and in every case are nearly always biased in favour of management This is particularly true of the General Council of the firm". Here the figures speak for themselves. In the Central (Not General) Council of I36 members, 28 are “nominated” by the management and 108 are freely elected by the members of the Partnership.

Legal ownership of the Partnership is vested not in ’’the Board of Directors and the Chairman”, but in the Trustees of the Partnership, who hold it for all present and future members of the Partnership. The powers of the Chairman are certainly wide, but they are limited by a written constitution and a breach thereof on his part could lead to his displacement by the democratically elected Central Council.

Despite your remarks that “J.L.P. workers are. if anything, worse off than workers employed elsewhere”, it is a fact that of our 15.000 members. 55%, have been with us over 3 years and 41% over 5 years. They are all at liberty to go elsewhere anytime they please.

The Founder of the John Lewis Partnership has said that the Partnership is a possible advance in civilisation and perhaps the only alternative to communism. Could it be that the success of this experiment has got “under the skin” of the Socialist Standard?

Yours faithfully.

H. C. Pugh

Public Relations Department.

John Lewis and Company Ltd.

Our reply

Mr. Pugh says “there are so many statements which are not in accordance with the facts” that the article on co-partnership might create an erroneous impression. In fact, the only error was our reference to the Central Council as the General Council.

Apparently Mr. Pugh is happy to accept our definition of “partners" taken from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, but he has ignored the important qualification which we were careful to stress. So, let us repeat that partners have definite—tangible-legal ownership in Capitalist enterprises and in the surplus value extracted from their employees. If this is borne in mind, it is quite clear that J.LP. workers have no stake in that concern.

Even accepting the definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary without any qualifying statement, however it is still impossible to fit J.L.P. workers into the category of “partners" unless you want to go into an “ Alice in Wonderland " realm of fantasy and double-talk. For years now the J.LP. has referred to its employees as partners, even though they have come and gone as in any other capitalist concern and in all that time have had no legal ownership in the firm any more than workers have for example in the nationalised industries.

The fact is of course that the J.L.P. workers, like workers anywhere in the world, sell the only thing they have to sell, their ability to work. The wage they receive for expending their energies on behalf of the J.L.P. takes into account not only the actual money received, but includes the various amenities referred to by Mr. Pugh, and part of this wage is the so-called "profits" which we repeat are but a bonus and an incentive to harder work; it is actually referred to by the J.L.P. as a “general bonus" in various issues of their Gazette. Profit is unearned income—money which is realised by investing in industry and it only goes to those who have the necessary legal title. In other words, to those who possess stocks and shares etc. This obviously has no relevance to the mass of J.LP. workers.

Dividends

Mr. Pugh says that “none of the general public can own a J.LP. ordinary share . . ." by which he presumably means that no one can hold any of the 612.000 deferred ordinary shares of J.L. Partnership Ltd.. 6,995 ordinary shares of the Odney Estate Ltd., and 75 shares of the Leckford Estate Ltd. These are held by the J.L.P. Trustees who are also represented on the J.LP. Board. The implication to be drawn from the above statement apparently is that there is no exploitation of the workers in the J.LP. But Mr. Pugh does not mention the £287,000 paid out as dividends upon the preferred ordinary and preference stocks of the company and its subsidiaries, and no mention is made of the actual amount of debenture interest paid out in 1961. According to the Gazette of 3rd June. 1961 Loans and Debentures amounted to £10,227,619 and the interest of Outside Stockholders in Subsidiaries amounted to £6,841,389.

Mr. John Bedford. Chairman of Debenhams Limited, in an interview given to the Gazette touched upon this. He was asked about the efficiency of the Partnership by comparison with Debenhams. He said he thought "his own group's profitability was higher, but it was difficult to make a comparison without knowing exactly what capital was tied up to produce the Partnership’s results. Debenhams made a return to the Stock Exchange giving such information; the Partnership, he thought, did not."

We have already touched upon amenities, but as Mr. Pugh maintains that no other "comparable organisation offers better or even as wide a scope of amenities", it would be as well to deal with some of his figures. 55% of the 15,000 staff have been with Lewis's over 3 years and 41% over five years. “They are all at liberty to go elsewhere any time they please". Apparently they do so, for these figures from another angle show that out of 15,000 staff, 45% have been less than three years with the J.LP. and 59% have been there less than five years. Making allowance for normal wastage for retirement and other reasons it would seem that quite a large numbercome to Lewis's, find they do not like it, and go elsewhere. If on balance pay and conditions are so favourable in the J.L.P. they should be able to maintain a labour turnover much lower than this.

It can happen, of course, that a firm competes for labour by offering a combination of pay and amenities which really are above the average. What happens in that case is that they get a large number of applicants for vacancies and are able to pick the best: best qualified, best trained, and best from a health point of view. They are, therefore, paying above average wages but getting above average efficiency. The other side of the picture is that some other firms cannot or do not want to compete in this way, so they get the least efficient workers and pay wages below the average. Whether the J.L.P. fits into the latter category is anybody’s guess, but one thing is certain and that is that they do not fit into the first category; the staff wastage figures make that crystal clear.

Special Facilities

Mr. Pugh gives information about the special facilities offered to J.LP. staff. Different firms of course use different attractions. Some offer their employees four weeks holiday, luncheon vouchers, and so on. Other employers are able to offer free or cheap travel. Some workers have free or very cheap accommodation, food, clothes, shoes etc., or loans for house purchase at very low interest rates. But it is only necessary to look at the consequences to see that these are not additions to wages. It is obvious that free travel for railwaymen is a necessary accompaniment of low money wages, and the same thing can be found elsewhere.

Mr. Pugh says that we “seem to find it strange that Partners should be prosecuted for alleged dishonesty." But he has again missed the point we were trying to make. A man cannot steal from himself and the very fact that prosecutions take place means that someone else is the legal owner of the stolen goods, not the J.L.P. workers. Apparently Jones Bros, of Holloway (a member firm of the J.L.P) are under no such illusions as Mr. Pugh. They have installed a buzzer theft trap and anyone caught between two white lines near the staff exit when the buzzer goes, is asked by the watchman to empty his pockets, or may even be taken to a private room to be searched. (See Observer 22-4-62).

Regarding the Councils, in particular the Central Council. Mr. Pugh himself tells us “In the Central Council of 136 members. 28 are ‘nominated’ by the management and 108 are freely elected by the members of the Partnership." The nominated members amount to just over one fifth of the Council; in other words, one in five are there on behalf of the management. In actual fact, as many as a third of the members of the Central Council could be appointed by the management, according to the J.L.P. rules. This still doesn't take into account the very high percentage of management members amongst the "freely elected”. A quick glance through the Gazette reveals that this year's council is no different from previous councils, the majority of them being management employees.

Council representation and the percentage of nominated councillors have in fact been the subject of some discussion on the Central Council only recently. The following was reported in the Gazette of 25th November as part of the discussion of the Central Council:—“Ex-officio members are also a matter of concern to a number of Councillors. Need they be so large a proportion? ” "While they could number over thirty in the Central Council when Rank and File Councillors only numbered thirteen the situation was appalling, said one Councillor.” It can be seen from this that our statements in the article on co-partnership were perfectly correct and that Mr. Pughs’ phrase “freely elected” amounts to precisely nothing.

Says Mr. Pugh “Legal ownership of the Partnership is vested not in the Board of Directors and the Chairman, but in the Trustees of the Partnership . . ." What we actually said—we were referring to the Councils at the time—was that the Councils have no real power and that this is vested as in all capitalist concerns in the people who have legal ownership represented in this case by the Board of Directors and the Chairman. The Central Board and its Chairman have the real power; the real decisions are taken by the Central Board. Surely we do not have to cite the various decisions taken by the Board which are printed so regularly in the Gazette?

In conclusion Mr. Pugh along with Mr. Lewis apparently thinks “that the Partnership is a possible advance in civilization and perhaps the only alternative to communism" and that the success of this experiment has got "under the skin of the Socialist Standard." To which we would say that co-partnership, like nationalisation both at home and abroad, and in Communist Russia in particular, is just another way of running capitalism. One can certainly not consider co-partnership therefore as a “possible advance in civilization”. That will only come with Socialism.

In the meantime' no amount of word juggling is going to conceal the degrading business of the exploitation of the working class even though it may go under the guise of co-partnership and claim to he an "advance in civilization”. We say again that co-partnership schemes have nothing to offer the working class.

JONQUIL.

Co-partnership: Fact or Fantasy? (1962)

From the March 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

To be a partner, or not to be! Well might Mr. John Spedan Lewis have soliloquised if he had thought at any great length upon the economic and legal implications of the term. Especially, when it is associated with ownership of a Capitalist undertaking, in particular the business known as the John Lewis Partnership which was founded in 1914.

JLP (John Lewis Partnership) employees arc all referred to as "Partners" so it might be as well if we take a look at what exactly a partner is. There are, of course, all sorts of partners. Marriage partners, partners in crime, whist partners, dancing partners. There are partners too such as those defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary: “person(s) associated with others in business of which he shares risks and profits; . . ." That is, people who have definite tangible—legal ownership in Capitalist enterprises and in the surplus value extracted from their employees.

It is fairly obvious that most of the JLP employees do not fit into this last category. If they did, then this would apply to all Capitalist ventures and therefore, all workers would be partners!

Mr. Lewis and the present Chairman, Mr. O. B. E. Miller, would no doubt reply that the employees of the JLP are partners because they share the profits and the risks and have a variety of amenities which they would not get elsewhere. This, however, is so much nonsense; most of the amenities that the JLP has to offer are also offered—and sometimes bettered—by their competitors, who do not call their employees partners. Likewise with profit sharing. The workers in the JLP no more share the profits than do the employees of any of the various concerns who have in recent years taken up the idea known as profit sharing. Workers do not receive profits, unless they have money invested, which generally they haven't. In the few instances where they have, the amounts are so small as to be negligible and certainly would not be large enough to change them into “partners." The point is that workers sell the only thing they have to sell, their ability to work, and the wage or salary they receive is generally speaking roughly what is necessary to maintain them as the particular grade of workers they are; to maintain a family and to produce further potential wage slaves to take their place when they arc too old to work any more.

The so-called profits that the JLP workers receive are no more than part of their wage—a bonus as an incentive for harder work. From an employers view “profit-sharing" is a good gimmick. For if you can convince workers that they are getting a share of the profits, they are more likely to identify their interests with yours.. The worker who thinks in terms of “my business" is less likely to come to work late and go home early; to take a long lunch hour or stretch his coffee and tea breaks; to slack on the job; to scamp his work or to pilfer. He is the sort who is going to switch off unnecessary electric lights or machinery; make sure that stationery and other materials are not wasted; and report to the management the people who do those things. With a bunch of workers like this, any management is likely to see an increase' in its profits. This type of worker would, o! course, never dream of striking, for he would conceive it as being against his interests.

Profit is unearned income—part of surplus value—something for nothing. It is the wealth produced by workers which is unpaid and only goes to those who have money invested in stocks and shares. This hardly applies to the JLP workers. They are taken on in the same manner as other workers. They are hired and fired according to the dictates of Capitalism. If a particular branch of the JLP proves to be unprofitable, it may be sold and the employees fired, with the possible exception of a few higher executives who can be usefully transferred elsewhere. If any of the workers employed by the JLP fail to make the grade as surplus value producers, they get their cards, or as they say “their membership is terminated." When this happens, it is no good pleading that you are a partner, for the JLP is only concerned with economic facts, not fantasies.

If any of the so-called partners are caught taking some of the wealth they are supposed to own, or even suspected of doing so, they are sacked—just as they would be by any other Capitalist employer. The truth of this was recently rammed home to a few misguided employees of the JLP who apparently took the “partnership" gospel a little too literally, for according to the Guardian (11/9/61): “ During the past six months the John Lewis Partnership prosecuted eight partners for dishonesty, and all of them were convicted . . . In addition, 15 partners lost their membership for similar reasons."

Another aspect that is supposed to set the JLP apart from other Capitalist concerns is its committees and councils. These are supposed to be democratic bodies, but in fact have a large percentage of members nominated by the management, and in any case are nearly always biassed in favour of the management. This is particularly true of the General Council of the firm. However, even if they were democratically based and the JLP workers tried to use them to further their interests, it would not make a lot of difference, for none of these bodies has any real power. This is vested—as in all Capitalist concerns in the people who have the legal ownership; in this case in the Board of Directors and the Chairman. This is the body that makes the real decisions, the financial decisions, and decides whether a business shall be bought or sold, and so on.

It can thus be seen that JLP workers are, if anything, worse off than workers employed elsewhere, for in addition to the economic hazards of Capitalism, they are continually confronted with that diabolical device, the dossier.

However, the workers of the JLP are not “burdened” (if that is the expression) with the risks of the business, any more than any other employees are. If JLP went bust, the workers would obviously seek re-employment elsewhere. The risks of the business belong to the people who invest their money in the JLP as a going Capitalist concern, and who receive interest in return for such investment. This interest does not come out of thin air; it is wrung from the labour of the workers in JLP.

Although it is highly unlikely that such a successful profit-making concern as the JLP will wind up its affairs in the foreseeable future, one can be sure that if this did happen, the ex-workers would really be able to see who actually owned the company. It would be those people who had the necessary legal documents proving their ownership, not workers who happen to be called partners. Imagine applying to the Official Receiver for a share of whatever was realised when the assets were liquidated, on the strength of having been called a partner during the period of your employment!

It would do the workers in the JLP and other co-partnerships a lot of good if they were to think deeply and to ask themselves why their employers refer to them as partners and not employees. It is rather like the fox telling the chickens that they are foxes. The main reason for co-partnership is, of course, to help keep Capitalism running as smoothly as possible. The aim is to reconcile some of the system's class antagonism. For while workers accept Capitalism they will not be looking for an alternative.

JONQUIL.

Blogger's Note:

This article received a critical letter of reply from the Public Relations Department of John Lewis in the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard.

By-Elections: The Government’s reverses (1962)

From the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

That was an interesting flurry of by-elections. Now that the votes have been counted, the shouting has died and the government are left with some nasty wounds to lick, it is time for the summing up. Not, mark you, in the sense that the political correspondent of the Daily This or the Sunday That has summed up. They can tell us efficiently enough why one candidate beat another, and what effect this might have upon the government. There is need, now, for a different perspective to be put on these matters. What are the by-elections worth? Will they change anything?

The government are certainly in difficulties although there is of course nothing unusual in that. Have we ever known a government which has not run into squalls in its attempts to organise capitalism? Even so, at least one of the present problems is in some ways unique. We refer, of course, to the Common Market negotiations, which face the British capitalist class with their most agonising decision for a long time. The gamble they took years ago, that the European Economic Community would not become a viable enough organisation to cast doubt on the value of the Commonwealth Preference system, has not come off. This has left the British ruling class in the humiliating situation of having to bargain away some of their cherished advantages for a chance at the European market—provided they can also break the stony resistance of de Gaulle.

Should they abandon New Zealand to its fate in the world meat and dairy market? Can they persuade the six in Europe to let them keep the protective tariffs for some Commonwealth products and still take advantage of the Common Market? These problems are such that the Empire builders in the palmy days of Victoria never thought to be confronted with. Neither did their modern counterparts in the Conservative Party. That is why the Tories—and the Labour Party, for that matter —are split over the Common Market.

Nor is all well on the home front, where the government are desperately trying to hold a broken line on their wages policy. Keeping wages in check has always been a problem for capitalism's governments, in this country and abroad. For governments are there to run society in the interests of its ruling class, who rule because they own. The ruling class are the people, in one way and another, whom we work for and who pay us our wages. The big problem, for us as well as for them, is that the more we get as wages the less they get as profit. That is why wages are such a persistent cause of dispute to capitalism and why governments have to try to hold them down. Since the war, with employment at a high level, the pressure has been for wages to go up. And since the war, from Cripps' freeze to Lloyd’s pause and guiding light, governments have tried to keep them in check.

The Tories have presented their wages policy as sober and responsible and have damned anybody who runs counter to it as the blackest of black sheep. Mr. Macmillan told the last Conservative women’s conference:

Some employers, selfishly secure in the knowledge that they can recoup themselves from higher prices at home, may give in too easily to unreasonable demands. Some unions, arrogant with organised power, will try to grab too large a slice of the cake.

This, and the other speeches in the same style, may have impressed the well-hatted Tory women but its effect upon, say, the dockers and the nurses (who, said the Prime Minister, should have a large and immediate increase — “ If we could be guided solely by our hearts ”) and the other workers in the pay queue was probably negligible.

Because workers, whether they are “respectable” civil servants or less “respectable” dockers, and whether they are called selfish and arrogant or any other name, will always struggle to improve their wages. They cannot get away from it; the relationship of worker to employer which pervades capitalist society sees to that. While capitalism lasts, there will always be a class struggle over wages and other conditions of employment.

But if the Common Market and wages are two of the government’s worries, can we say that they had any influence on the by-elections? Do workers weigh up such matters and cast their vote accordingly? If they do, there must be a crushing majority in this country in favour of the Common Market, to judge from the lost deposit of the anti-Common Market candidate in Derbyshire West. And if the workers do weigh up the issues involved in an. election, how thoroughly do they do so? They apparently missed the fact that the post war Labour government, despite its professions to having human interests at heart, started the British hydrogen bomb programme and took this country into the Korean war, which might at one stage have exploded into a world conflict. Whatever the reasons for the Labour Party's defeat in 1951, its zeal for prosecuting capitalism's wars was not amongst them.

Similarly, the Conservative Party is kept in power by the ignorant docility of the working class. The Tories do not see their votes decline as a result of their being the men who gambled with world war in their Suez adventure. They do not lose M.P.'s because they are the government in charge of the British bomb tests, which play their part in poisoning the atmosphere in the search for an all-powerful weapon of destruction. If the Tories do suffer a decline, as they did in 1957 and 1958, it is not for these reasons and they can soon come bouncing back into favour and into an even more secure majority, as they did in 1959.

Why, then, are the votes at present running against the government? The people who profess to know —the newspapers’ political correspondents — have their theories. The Guardian thinks that it can be put down to “impatience” (they are impatient with the government themselves); The Economist has spoken of ineffective public relations; another observer has said the electorate are “bored” with the government. If these reasons have any substance, it would be nice to know why the electoral mood can change so easily. Were the workers bored and impatient in 1958 but patiently interested enough in 1959 to put in an overwhelming Tory vote? And why, basically, are they bored and impatient?

The truth is that workers vote for capitalism, whether it is capitalism organised by a Labour or a Conservative government. These governments can often be made to look foolish and impotent by the caprices of the very social system they are trying to run. The Attlee government did look foolish over the 1947 fuel crisis and over potato rationing. The Tories are impotent to control the opposing pressures of wage claims and the temptation to inflate the currency. It is an easy thing to poke fun at a government which is in such difficulties. Yet simply to vote against a government, to switch support from one capitalist party to another, is just as foolish and futile. And worse; because to do this is to fly in the face of all facts, all the evidence, all history, it is a depressingly ignorant thing that the millions of working class voters do at election time.

Yet we do not need to look very hard at the world around us to realise that there is a desperate need for an end to the political ignorance of the workers. Consider, for example, the letter which The Guardian published on June 1st. last; a tragically moving letter from a mother whose little girl had died from leukaemia. This mother is convinced that her child's death was caused by radiation from bomb tests and perhaps she is right. Some radiation, we know, is natural but we also know that bomb tests can cause leukaemia and other frightful illnesses. And the men who decide on the bomb tests also know this, of course. The mother wrote bitterly of the world’s important statesmen assuring us that the danger from tests is “negligible” and of what the word means. For her, ‘negligible” risk meant a baby obese from the multitude of drugs which were pumped into her, a baby choking on its own blood in the night and crying for help to a helpless mother.

This is capitalism. The bomb tests go on, regardless of the pain and suffering they cause, because they are necessary to capitalism, and that is what the bored and the impatient and the ignorant vote for. That is the perspective in which we must view the by-elections. The dead child's mother pleads for the major political parties to take notice of what the ordinary people of this country want. But in fact she can only get the sort of world she wants when the ordinary people decide that they will not leave their wants to be interpreted by political leaders, major or minor. It is worth thinking over this one, the next time we have to put those crosses on the Ballot papers.

Ivan