The damn’d grotesques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.D.P. annual Conference laboured mightily and brought forth several gems. I hasten to rescue some of them from an unhonoured and unsung obscurity, and give them the benefit of our rapidly increasing circulation.

o o o

First Mr. Quelch presents his compliments and begs to say there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain. He wishes there was. And yet “Fighting Carmichael,” “Camborne Jones,” and a host of other young bloods out of the camp of the Quelches were largely occupied at Manchester with appealing to their comrades to hold them back in case they (the young bloods) should “go for” certain members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain who insisted upon preaching Socialism as against Danirvinism—the name given to the queerest lot of rant, cant, and fustian extant.

o o o

Quite apart from the reports the young bloods undoubtedly gave him, Mr. Quelch has many excellent reasons for knowing of the existence of the S.P.G.B. So excellent that Mr. Quelch is probably mortally anxious to escape the necessity for dealing with us other than in the dark and devious ways that seem to delight him.

o o o

But if there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain, what have the “old gang” got to say about it? They have “borne the heat and burden of the day,” as Quelch would phrase it, for thirty years, in an endeavour to build up the Socialist Party that Harry Quelch laments does not exist. Harry will not admit us as the S.P.G.B., and yet there is no other ! For he himself has said it. But it’s a most depressing admission—for him and the “old gang.” However, we refuse—it’s most ungracious of us—but we refuse to consider ourselves dead, even to please Mr. Quelch. We ought to have died within a few weeks of our birth, but somehow or other we’ve hung on, increasing our membership and the sales of our literature for four years. And so far as I can see we shall have to keep on going on.

o o o

For example, it took a member of the S.P.G.B. to polish off Lawler Wilson of the Tariff Reform crowd. Wilson had met the champions of several of the parties misrepresenting themselves as Socialists, and as he is a fairly ‘cute chap, and his opponents’ parties had records that will never come out of the wash with credit, Wilson had a gorgeous time. He came to Battersea Town Hall, therefore, rather cock-a-hoop, and—a packed audience saw him die.

o o o

This isn’t bounce, it’s truth. Ever heard of truth, Harry ?

o o o

Apparently Harry is not prepared to recognise any organisation until it is as big as his own. That is an excellent reason for the I.L.P. ignoring the S.D.F., for the “Labour Party” ignoring the I.L.P., and so on. But then Harry would call the I.L.P. names, among which “cowards” would be the mildest, and something with several B’s in it among the stronger !

o o o

Harry is fond of “langwidge” and big things—particularly S.D.P. big things. That’s why Jack Jones finds favour in his sight. Happy Jack!

o o o

And that reminds me. Jack Jones at the Conference gave off this: “Correspondence is the curse of democracy.” A delegate had attacked the S.D.P. Executive for not doing what the Conference had instructed it to do, and had read the letter (“unwisely,” says Justice) the Executive had sent in reply. “Unwisely ” is a good word, but it barely meets the case.

o o o

The purport of that letter has already appeared in this journal. It was to the effect that the S.D.P. opposition to “Lulu” Harcourt in the Rossendale Valley had been withdrawn partly, at any rate, for the reason that Harcourt was a better chap than many of his colleagues ! As if from a Socialist standpoint there were degrees of goodness among capitalist politicians.

o o o

Undoubtedly the letter was read “unwisely.” It isn’t wise to let the rank and file of the Party know that such views are held by their executive officers. They may begin to have doubts. And Happy Jack was right in the circumstances when he said correspondence was a curse—not a curse in itself, of course, but the very devil of a curse when it is read to others for whose ears it is not intended.

o o o

But this method of secret diplomacy is, of course, vide H. M. Hyndman (same Conference), “wholly undemocratic and dangerous, tending to the support of despotism and the maintenance of corruption and intrigue.” But in the conduct of a supposedly far more democratic organisation it is very good and very necessary, while the publication of correspondence is a curse. We are lovely democrats in the S.D.P. !

o o o

Still, one can understand Happy Jack’s disgust. He is doubtless still painfully aware that Camborne is standing on the map. And I wonder whether it was his experiences in that delectable district that led him to the conclusion that it was desirable to get somebody—”a good cadger” was Hyndman’s felicitous term—”to get down into other people’s pockets without them knowing it.” Nice anti-secret-diplomacy chap, Jack,

o o o

On this matter of the Rossendale Valley contest, it is of some little interest to observe that “there is no folly in striking a blow for Social-Democracy wherever it can be done as effectively as it was at North-West Manchester, with the result of demonstrating to our enemies that there is no position too strong for us to assail.” (Justice, 2/5/08.) Apparently it can’t be done effectively at Rossendale, although they have more branches in that division than they have members in N.W. Manchester !

o o o

It would, in the circumstances, be nice to know what the sapient editor of Justice regards as an effective strike at capitalism. And I wonder what, if any, correspondence, that “curse of democracy,” has passed between the anti-secret-diplomatists at Chandos Hall, and the “good capitalist” party in Rossendale.

o o o

Also I should like to know what F. Davey, of Paddington, and others interested, now think of the reply of the editor of Justice to the statement published by us on the reasons for the withdrawal of the S.D.F. Rossendale candidate.

o o o

This reply characterised our report as misleading and untrue. According to the Justice report of the S.D.P. Conference, however, it was quite true. Oh, the curse of this unwise correspondence !

o o o

And how does this square with the S.D.P. Executive’s statement that “Lulu” Harcourt had improved his position—become more democratic, more sympathetic to Labour, and so on ? “Harcourt had certainly a greater grip on the capitalist parties and would get more Tory votes than before.” (Fred Knee, S.D.P. Executive representative at Conference.)

o o o

That either means that Harcourt is getting more into favour with the capitalist class, or it means nothing. And that’s the way Harcourt is improving his position and finding favour in the S.D.P.’s sight !

o o o

Another matter. I cannot fill the paper with S.D.P. Conference absurdities, lies, and contortions, although it would be the easiest matter in the world. We are for ever being asked why we continually attack the S.D.P., I.L.P., and other parties “who are coming along to the same goal as ourselves.” Our reply is contained in the foregoing—a fair sample of the pitiable, if ludicrous, position the strenuous endeavours of the S.D. and I.L. Parties to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are for ever landing them into.

o o o

These parties are appealing to the working class for support. The working class does not know what it is letting itself in for if it responds to the appeal. Therefore we do what we can to open its eyes ; or at any rate we have taken the precaution of repudiating any responsibility for S.D.-I.L.P. action. When, therefore, the storm breaks and swamps the time-servers in a deluge of the wrath of the once deluded working class, we shall be in the ark with the blessed.

o o o

Ever heard of the Ark, Harry ? No, you’re wrong. It isn’t a public-house.

o o o

Which again reminds me. The S.D.P. are “agin” the Licensing Bill. The l.L.P. are largely for it—most enthusiastically. Another case of unity of idea among the forces of progress.

o o o

What is our view of the Licensing Bill ? It leaves us unmoved. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. It’s part of the great game of political “coddem”—if that’s how the word is spelled.

o o o

I was going to refer to the repudiation by the S.D.P. Conference of Gott, of Bradford, a S.D.P. member suspected of the intention of issuing an agnostic pamphlet about Christ, the enemy of the human race. This might injure Danirvinism in North-East Manchester. Wherefore the S.D.P. solemnly repudiated the pamphlet and worked off its stock cant resolution about religion being a private and personal affair,

o o o

Now perhaps they will repudiate Blatchford and his anti-Christian books. Because Blatchford holds the anti-Christian propaganda of such importance that he would put it in the forefront of the battle.

o o o

Will the S.D.P. repudiate him ? Not much. You see Blatchford is a sort of important person and Gott is not. And the S.D.P. Executive are keen on important persons.

o o o

Sometimes, however, the important person, having been roped in, fails to exhibit becoming respect towards his loving parent organisation. There’s the.unhappy case of H. G. Wells, who burst upon North-West Manchester with two columns of advice to the elector to vote against Danirvinism and S.D.P.-ism.

o o o

Of course Wells is merely an insufferable person whose hat is too small for him, and the present Justice estimate of his Socialist knowledge is fair enough. “Nobody but himself takes Mr. Wells seriously.” A novelist of the Jules Verne school who “thinks he knows something about Socialism” but doesn’t, and so on. But readers of Justice will clearly remember the great chortle with which Justice welcomed the addition to the ranks of the S.D.P. of the great thinker, the literary genius, Wells.

o o o

It's the same Wells. But the S.D.P. view has changed a little—that's all !

Alegra.

Blogger's Notes:

By 1908 the Social Democratic Federation were now known as the Social Democratic Party. They had changed their name in 1907. They were to relaunch (with others) to become the British Socialist Party in 1911.

'Danirvinism' is a cheeky play on words. It's a reference to Dan Irving, who was a leading member of the SDF/SDP in Lancashire. Lancashire was one of the few places outside London where the SDF had been able to secure a significant base, and in some parts of Lancashire  - especially Burnley - were on an equal footing with the ILP. Dan Irving would later become a Labour MP after the first world war.

Suffragette Humbug. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not long ago the hoardings of London startled the man in the street with ugly black and white posters asserting that women were poor, that women were sweated, that women walked the streets, and that misery and vice stalked in our midst, all because women had not the vote. Those statements, issued by the Suffragettes, were and are unblushing falsehoods, unsustained and unsustainable by any shred of evidence.

The Socialist is in no quandary as to why the many are poor. It is not because propertied women have not the vote, nor even because women in general are not electors—it is because the many are robbed. And the stopping of this robbery depends not upon a mere all round increase in the number of votes, but upon the intelligence of the workers and the correct use of the vote in their hands.

Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism. And were the workers to understand rightly their position and their policy, the political freedom they now possess would enable them to achieve their emancipation irrespective of sex. 

It is, moreover, not a sex war that  exists in Society but a class war, but the Suffragettes endeavour to blur this class issue by screeching qualifications.

What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers’ movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.

In their cry for “equality” do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.

The Suffragette movement is upon all counts but a bulwark of capitalism. It is directly opposed to the interests of the working class—women as well as men, and the Independent Labour Party shows its capitalistic nature when it supports that movement in strengthening the political power of the propertied against the propertyless.

Both sexes of the workers are exploited and suffer. Both are  victims of those who live by the ownership of the means of life. Therefore the salvation of working class women lies in the emancipation of their class from this wage-slavery. Their interests are identical with those of working men, and the women of the middle class do but attempt to lure them with false phrases to desert their fellows and to aid the propertied enemies of their class.

The duty of working women is to refuse to allow themselves to be used as catspaws of the wealthy, and to join with their fellows in The Socialist Party, the organisation of their class; thus working for the emancipation of the toilers as a whole, irrespective of sex. Sex-equality cannot be the fruit of the Suffragette humbug, it can only come through economic equality—and economic equality is impossible except through Socialism.

F. C. Watts

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued) (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the May 1908 issue.

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

5.—The Taxes.

While the ground landlord cuts to an ever larger extent into the share of the capitalist in the surplus-value—either indirectly or directly— the State is active in a similar direction. The modern State has grown up with and through the capitalist class, and was the most powerful agent in advancing the interests of that class. Each has assisted the other. The capitalist class cannot dispense with the State. They are in need of its protection both at home and abroad.

The more the capitalist mode of production develops the keener becomes the antagonism of interests and the more conspicuous grow the contradictions produced; but the more complicated also becomes the entire system, and the greater, too, grows the dependency of one individual upon another, and the greater also grows the need of an authority standing above and charged with making each fulfil the duties arising from his economic function

.

Far less than the previous methods of production can a system so sensitive as the present bear the prosecution of antagonisms and disputes by the autonomy of those immediately interested in the fray. In the place of self-aid enters “Justice,” which is watched over by the State.

Capitalist exploitation is by no means the product of certain rights ; it is its needs that have brought forth and given domination to the rights prevailing to-day. That “justice” does not cause exploitation, but sees to it that this process, like others in economic life, proceeds as smoothly as possible. While we have before described competition as the motive power of the present mode of production, we may regard “State justice” as the “machine oil,” which has the effect of minimising the friction in the capitalist system. The more this friction grows, the more intense the antagonism becomes between exploiters and exploited, between property owners and propertyless ; the larger, more especially, is the slum proletariat; the more does each single capitalist become dependent upon the prompt co-operation of numerous other capitalists for the undisturbed conduct of his concern. So the desire for “justice” for this purpose grows stronger, and the greater grows the need to requisition its organs—law-courts and police, and a strong State force capable of supporting “justice,” if need be.

But the capitalists are not only concerned with being able to produce, buy, and sell undisturbed within their own country. From the start the commerce outside plays an important part in capitalist production, and the more this method becomes the predominating one, the greater appears to be the need for securing and extending the outside market in the interest of the whole nation. But in the world market the capitalists of one nation meet competitors belonging to other nations. In order to oust these they call in the aid of the State, which is expected to demand, by means of the armed force, respect for their claims, or—what is better still—to crush the foreign competitors altogether. As States and monarchs become evermore dependent upon the capitalist class, so the armies cease to serve merely the personal ends of the monarchs, and are utilised increasingly for purposes of the capitalist class. Wars are less and less dynastic, and more and more commercial and national, which in the last instance can only be traced back to the economic conflicts between the capitalists of the various nations.

The capitalist State, therefore, is not only in need of an extensive army of officials for the purposes of law and police (besides, of course, for the administration of its finances), but it requires also a strong military force. Both armies are ever on the increase in capitalist States, but in recent times the military force grows more rapidly than the army of officials.

So long as the application of science had not begun to play a part in the technicalities of industry, the technical aspect of war changed but slowly. As soon, however, as machinery came to dominate industry and subjected the latter to continuous evolution, war machines ceased to be stationary in development. Every day brings new inventions and discoveries, which, scarcely examined and introduced, at great expense, are already superseded by a new revolutionising improvement or addition. And the war machinery constantly increases in extent, complication and costliness. At the same time the progress in the means of transit makes it possible to concentrate an ever larger number of troops on the battlefield ; hence armies are continually increased.

In these circumstances the State expenditure for purposes of war (in which the greater portion of national debts is included) have with all great European powers grown within the last twenty years to an absolutely maddening extent.

The State grows ever more expensive, and its burdens become always more oppressive. The capitalists and large landowners naturally seek (having everywhere the law in their own hands) to transfer the burdens as much as possible from their own shoulders to those of the other sections of the community. But as time goes on there is ever less to be obtained from those sections, and thus in spite of all the trickery of the exploiters their surplus-value has to be encroached upon for the benefit of the State.

[To be continued]

Letter: I.L.P. Compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,—A copy of the Socialist Standard for April, containing Mr. J. Brough’s second letter, has just been put into my hands. There are one or two points arising out of the same that I would, with your consent, like to discuss. In the first place I wish to draw the attention of your readers to the manner in which Mr. Brough, like all equivocators, seeks to evade the real issue by constantly changing his position. At the open-air meeting I addressed in July, ’07, Mr. Brough charged the I.L.P. with having formed a compact with the Liberal Party. This I denied at the time. In his first letter (Socialist Standard, Feb., ’08), the charge is reduced to one of complicity—the L.R.C. being the guilty body, the I.L.P. merely a party to the act. That he is totally unable to justify either one charge or the other is made perfectly clear by Mr. Brough’s second letter. The “compact” is discreetly dropped. (A tacit acknowledgment, by the way, of the “veracity of my denial.”) Forced to abandon one position, Mr. Brough takes up another. He now tries to patch up his case by pointing out that certain I.L.P.’ers (acting on their own initiative, as they must have done on the evidence cited by Mr. Brough from the Daily News, Jan. 11, ’06), voted Liberal. This I submit is not the point in dispute. I never undertook to answer for the action of individual members of the I.L.P. But I can, and do, truthfully say that neither the I.L.P. nor the L.R.C. did as Mr. Brough asserted in his first letter—that is, entered in “a compact, a mutual agreement, or contract,” with the Liberal Party.

The “compact” is a figment of Mr. Brough’s fancy. And one that he now wisely, and for him conveniently, ignores. He has failed to substantiate his charge. And his climb down is so obvious, so unmistakable, that I would have left the matter to the intelligence of your readers had not Mr. Brough made himself responsible for another gross and deliberate lie.

He says : “I cannot understand Mr. Swan’s dislike to having his party alluded to as compromising with Liberals, as I and others have heard him say ‘It does not matter how they (L.R.C. men) get to Parliament, as long as they get there.'”

Mr. Brough knows as well as I do that he never heard me say anything of the kind. The remarks he distorts and tries to twist were made by me in answer to a question from Mr. Brough re the attitude of the L.R.C. towards Victor Grayson. In the course of my reply I said that it did not matter whether Grayson had got into Parliament with, or without, the aid of the L.R.C., so long as he had got there. In this case, as in so many others, Mr. Brough puts into words something they do not contain. Not that I am surprised at Mr. Brough resorting to tricks of this kind. They are characteristic of the man. Were he to be deprived of this his occupation would be gone

.—Yours, etc.,

Tom Swan.

Reply:

Dear Comrade,—If Mr. Swan replies somewhat rudely, the reason is probably to be sought in that he hopes by his wild and whirling words to hide the poverty of his case.

At the Editor’s request I simply resume the facts.

In the first place the contention re compacts has obviously not been dropped, for indeed none of the evidence has been rebutted by Mr. Swan.

Contributory evidence has been given, not from one source alone, but from many sources ; and the evidence in proof of arrangements with Manchester Liberals to which the I.L.P., being prime movers in the L.R.C. there, were incontestably parties, is overwhelming.

Again I ask, if there was no arrangement with the Liberals, why did the secretary of the Manchester and Salford L.R.C. state in a letter to the Clarion that “The introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidatures in S.W. and N.E. Manchester” ? If the I.L.P. were not parties to this why were they, as they stated in the Clarion, unable to promote any candidate in E. Manchester “on account of their affiliation to the L.R.C.” ? These facts have already been given, and why has not Mr. Swan, if there is any other explanation than that of an understanding with the Liberals, given a reason for them ?

Further, Mr. Swan’s bare denial is totally insufficient to dispose of the evidence from the Manchester Courier of Dec. 16th last, that—

“Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew.”

And did not Mr. Clynes, M.P., himself say upon his victory (Daily News, 15/1/06) that “the victory is due to a combination of forces, which, by their united power, had given a great blow to Chamberlainism” ? This and other evidence has already been given. Is it necessary to give more?

The Daily Chronicle, 1/1/06, in an article on “Triangular Contests” said:—

“A settlement [between Liberals and Labour men] has been arrived at in many of the great centres of population—in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Preston, Wolverhampton, Sunderland Stockport, Leicester, Huddersfield and a number of other towns.”

Again, the Daily News, 15/1/06, said :—

“At Halifax, again, Mr. Whitley’s wise arrangement with Labour has produced an ideal result in his return with Mr. Parker at his side and nearly 4,000 votes in front of the Tory candidate. Here there is an object lesson in the right use of great and in the main harmonious powers. The same moral applies to North-East and South-West Manchester, where it is clear that the Labour candidate had the whole Liberal Party at his back.”

And so we might go on.

With regard to the answer to a question put to Mr. Swan at a meeting, it is again Mr. Swan who is lying. The question was not put by me, but by W. L. Brown, of 39, Buckingham Street, Moss Side, Manchester, of whom I have made enquiries, and he writes : “Mr. Swan had said that ‘the return of V. Grayson for Colne Valley had done more to put the fear of God in the capitalist party than any other event during the last thirty years ! I asked how it was that the return of K. Hardie, P. Snowden, and J. R. MacDonald and others had not filled the capitalist with fear also ; were they not Socialists ? Mr. Swan replied, ‘Damn it, man, you’re only quibbling. Of course they are Socialists ; everybody knows they are Socialists. It does not matter under what banner they get to Parliament as long as they get there.'” It will be seen that this agrees substantially with my version, while it flatly contradicts the assertions of Mr. Swan on that matter.

In his first letter Mr. Swan gratuitously accused the S.P.G.B. of being a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties; up to the present he has not substantiated his statement, nor can he do so. His statement, if I may be pardoned the use of his own lurid language, is “a gross and deliberate lie” ; while evidence has repeatedly been given in these columns, and in the Manifesto of the Party, proving that the I.L.P., which he champions, is in practice a “mere adjunct” of the Liberal Party.

For the rest I am prepared to leave the case upon the evidence already given, which evidence Mr. Swan has yet to meet.

—Yours fraternally,

Jim Brough

American Parties and the Unity Question. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article under this heading appearing in the last issue is simply the expression of the opinion of the writer alone and must not be taken to imply that the S.P.G.B. has in any respect changed its open and avowed hostility to Mr. DeLeon and the American and English S.L.P.

Manchester outdoor meetings. (1908)

Party News from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Boggart Hole Clough was a well known outdoor speaking pitch in Manchester in the late 19th and early 20th century. Check out its wiki page for more details. Alexandra Park was also well known as a meeting point for demonstrations and outdoor rallies.

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

Party News from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued). (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the March 1908 issue.

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

3.—Profit.

Now whence does the capitalist class draw its income ? The owners of merchant’s capital and usurer’s capital derived their profit and interest originally by way of deductions from the property of persons dependent upon their assistance and mediation, and belonging to various sections of the community. The owners of industrial capital, however, obtain their profit by exploiting the propertyless wage-workers. But as the capitalist mode of production develops, so industrial capital gains the ascendancy over other kinds of capital, and subjects these to its service, as we have seen. This, however, is possible only by assigning to merchant’s and usurer’s capitals part of the surplus-value wrung from the wage-workers. Owing to this development the surplus-value produced by the proletarians became to a greater degree the only source from which the entire capitalist class derive their incomes. Just aa handicraft and peasant agriculture lose in economic significance and decreasingly influence the character of present-day Society, so do the old forms of merchant’s and usurer’s capital, which obtained their profit from the exploitation of non-capitalist sections of the community, lose their importance. To day there are already States without handicraft and peasantry—England for example. But none of the modern States is thinkable without the great industries. Anyone desirous of understanding modern forms of capitalism must start from industrial capital. It is in surplus-value, which is produced by capitalist industries, that is to be sought the most important and increasingly prominent sources of all profit.

We have in the previous chapter become acquainted with surplus-value, which is produced by the industrial proletarians and appropriated by the capitalists. We have also observed how the amount of surplus-value produced by each worker is increased by adding to the worker’s labour burden, by the introduction of labour-saving machinery and cheaper labour, etc. At the same time with the development of capitalist industry the number of the exploiters proletarians grows and the amount of surplus-value going to the capitalist class increases by leaps and bounds.

But as, unfortunately, “life’s joys are vouchsafed unmixed to no mortal,” the capitalist class have to divide their surplus-value, although this dividing is most hateful to them ; they must part with portions to the ground landlords and to the State. And the share taken by these two partners grows from year to year.

_________________

4.—Ground-Rent.

When we talk about the sections of the community who are becoming more and more the sole owners and exploiters, the monopolists of the means of production, we must distinguish between capitalists and landowners ; for the land is a means of production of a peculiar kind. It is the most indispensable of all: without it human activity is impossible. Even navigators of the sea or air need a point of departure and landing. But the soil is also a means of production incapable of increase at will. Yet until now it has not happened in a large area that every bit of soil has been cultivated by its inhabitants. Even in China there are still large plots of uncultivated laud.

Under the domination of peasant proprietorship in Europe during the middle ages the peasant owned his farm and agricultural land. Water, woodland, and pasture land were communal property, and uncultivated soil was so plentiful that everybody could be allowed to take possession of and cultivate such land as he had begun to bring into cultivation from the wilderness. Then commenced the development of commodity production with the consequences of which we have already become acquainted. The products of the soil became commodities. That reacted on the soil, which was also made a commodity possessing value. The single peasant communities and associations now endeavoured to restrict the circle of their members, and the latter began to regard the land they owned in common and partly (as in the case of forests and grazing land) also used in common, no longer as common property of the community and therefore inalienable, but as a kind of joint private property belonging only to the existing members and their heirs; property from which all members who subsequently joined the community were excluded. They were desirous of making the land a monopoly. But someone else came to covet the property of the community, namely, the feudal lord, who had been the protector of the common property. If this property in land, that had become so valuable was to be made private property, then he was anxious that it should pass into his possession. In most directions, especially where agriculture on a large scale was developed, the feudal lord succeeded in seizing the peasants’ common property. Peasant-hunting, the driving of some peasants from their homesteads, followed. Nearly all the soil, even that not under cultivation, now passed into private possession: the ownership of land became the privilege of the few. Thus owing to the economic development, particularly to the formation of large property in land, the soil had become a monopoly long before the existing area of cultivation was exhausted, and much before over-population could have been talked about. If, therefore, the land occupies an exceptional position as a means of production because it is incapable of being increased at will, that is not in consequence of all the available soil being already under cultivation, but is due to the fact—at least in civilised countries—that it has already been taken possession of by a minority. There a monopoly of quite a peculiar character arises. While the capitalist class has a monopoly of the means of production, there is within the capitalist class no monopoly of certain means of production by certain members of that class—at least, no permanent monopoly. Whenever a ring of capitalists is formed for monopolising a certain important invention—for instance, a new machine—other capitalists may always come along, who could also purchase this machine, or surpass the same by meariK of a new invention, or imitate it sooner or later. All this is impossible regarding property in land. Landowners have a monopoly not only as far as the non-possessing class is concerned, but also from the standpoint of the capitalist class.

The peculiar character of property in land is developed most acutely in England, where a small number of families bave possession o£ all the land, to which they hold on firmly and do not sell. Who ever requires land obtains the same on lease for a certain rent called ground-rent. (Strictly speaking, “rent” ard “ground-rent” are not synonymous. “Rent” generally includes a portion of interest on capital. For our purpose here, however, “rent” and “‘ground-rent” may be used as identical terms.) A capitalist desirous of having a factory or dwelling-house built, or of establishing a mine or a farm in England, cannot as a rule, purchase the land, but may only rent the same on lease.

In Germany the capitalist is mostly also the ground landlord ; the manufacturer owns the land upon which his factory stands ; the mine proprietor is also the owner of the land in which the pits are sunk ; while the owner of large tracts of agricultural land on the continent of Europe cultivates the same mostly on his own account instead of letting it to a farmer. When the capitalist carries on agriculture on his own soil, when he himself is ground landlord, he need naturally not share his surplus-value with another, But that does not materially alter the case; for he has, generally, only become ground landlord by paying to the previous owner of the farm a capital, the interest on which corresponds to the amount of ground-rent. Hence he pays the ground-rent anyhow, and in the one form as in the other it diminishes his profit.

But the monopoly character of landed property becomes more acute, the stronger the demand for land grows. As population increases, so the capitalist class become more in need of property in land. To the same extent ground-rent grows, that is to say, the total amount of ground rent paid in capitalist Society. The ground-rent of every farm need not increase. A farm yields under otherwise equal conditions the more ground rent the more fertile and the more favourably situated (lor instance, nearer to the market) it happens to be.

Into the laws of ground-rent we can, of course, not enter here. The opening up of new and fertile land can therefore cause the ground-rent of exhausted soil to go down ; the ground-rent of newly opened-up land will, however, only grow so much the more. Thus improvements in the means of transit may depress the ground-rent of a nearly situated area in favour of a more distant one. Both cases have happened during the last two decades. American ground-rents have risen, and indeed (in so far as agricultural protective tariffs have not acted in an opposite direction) at the expense of West European ground-rents. This, how ever, only applies to land used for agricultural purposes. In the towns ground-rent is everywhere rising most rapidly ; for the capitalist mode of production drives the great mass of the population more and more into the towns. Unfortunately, by this aggregation the profit of the industrial capitalists suffers nothing compared with the growing physical and mental degeneration of the toiling masses. And here we encounter the housing of the workers as a new source of their sufferings; but this is not the place to enter into that.

(To be continued)

Notes and Clippings. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fred. Jowett, M.P.,—who signalised his career as a public man by bargaining with the Liberals for the exchange of support—has been giving what the Clarion is pleased to call “a Lesson in Political Tactics.” The lesson does not consist, as one conversant with his actions would suppose, in an exposition of the gentle, if somewhat dirty, art of collecting “fly-paper” votes. On the contrary, the member for West Bradford lectures the Scotch representatives on their “docility,” pointing out that Irishmen have.obtained concessions by reason of their militant attitude.

* * *

And how does this Political Bottom comport himself when confronted by the assembly which he so valiantly belabours on paper? Call a witness—Lloyd George : “There were only five or six Socialists in the House of Commons. Though some of them might make wild speeches outside, in the House of Commons they were thoroughly tame. They were there, tinkering up bills, and doing odd jobs of that kind in the Liberal workshop.” Verily, the master class, relieved and amused at the nightingale “roaring” of the bogus lions, may well say “Let ’em roar again, let ’em roar again.”

* * *

A paid organiser of the Independent Labour Party, speaking in opposition to a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, on the 12th of April, in Finsbury Park, said that he had had it on the best authority that Ramsay MacDonald had been offered a post in the government by Asquith, and his manly bosom “visibly swelled” when he informed his hearers that the man whom Quelch says is out for the making of his own career, refused.

* * *

Query: Did the organiser expect him to accept ? Had he done so, what would have been the position of the Independent Labour Party ?

* * *

We pause for a reply—which we do not expect from officials or organisers of the I.L.P. An expression of opinion from any of the rank and file of that organisation would be warmly welcomed—and recorded—by the Socialist Standard. Personal contact with members of the I.L.P. has given more than one of us high hopes of the rank and file. Not a few who had been merely lacking in information as to the methods of their organisation, when enlightened by the mouth or pen of a genuine Socialist, have expressed deep dissatisfaction, which must lead to the inevitable discovery that false methods are the inevitable outcome of a false theory.

* * *

Anything short of the recognition that the emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the working-class itself, will inevitably breed the particularly noxious species of parasite that lives upon its own kind, the sentimentalist whose attitude is an eternal compromise between broken-bottle-anarchy and we-are-all-brothers fatuousness, disappointment, disgust, and apathy.

* * *

The National Federation of Assistant Teachers—one of the six unions to which some fortunate pedagogues may belong!—is of opinion that “there is immediate necessity for an alteration in the salaries of assistant teachers.” But alack and alas! the organ of the N.F.A.T. has discovered that “the earnest devotee of the scholastic art is as much a victim of the iron law of supply and demand, as any luckless wight of a miner, joiner, or bricksetter ever was.”

* * *

The remedy proposed, of course, is the old, old Trade Union fake. Strive to create a corner in labour. Lesson the supply. In view of the fact that the “powerful” London Teachers’ Association, represented on the London County Council by the late rejected of Peckham has failed to perceptibly influence the Council with regard to its policy of flooding the market with “scholarship” lads and lasses, bearing in mind that the parents who are only just able to send their children to “secondary” schools, feeling the “economic pressure” which is steadily squeezing them down, down to ever lower levels, are eagerly availing themselves of the opportunity to “place” their children, is it likely that the mop of Unionism can stem the advancing flood ?

* * *

No hope, no light for the teacher until he recognises the fact that the “iron law” which binds him and the miner is but an expression of the fact that he and the miner, having nothing to sell but their labour-power, are wage-slaves, and that the united efforts of teacher and miner, joiner and bricksetter, are required to abolish wage-slavedom. This is only possible by an organisation which shall embrace the whole working class. In a word, the basis of the workers’ organisation must be class solidarity and class interests. Its tactics must be aggressive, and its aim revolutionary. Such an organisation (the S.P.G.B.) exists.

* * *

Mem. for “devotees of the scholastic art” :

Socialist Standard, June, ’06 : “The declared reason for the existence of the National Union of Teachers is the furtherance of the interests of the child. Is there not a danger that it may become the happy hunting-ground of the eloquent Party-man in a hurry to round his own life into a success?”

Daily Chronicle, April, ’08: “Everyone rejoices in the deserved promotion that has come to Dr. Macnamara, who has worked with unstinted devotion for the cause of Liberalism.”

* * *

Salary, £2,000.

* * *

Another mem. “N.F.A.T. Handbook,” p. 57 : “The following standard of salaries has been adopted by the National Federation of Assistant Teachers and the National Union of Teachers as a just and reasonable remuneration for Class Teachers:—

Metropolitan Men, Maximum, £220.

Women, Maximum,                  £165.”

* * *

Really, the humility of the average “class teacher,” if the above may be taken as a true reflection of his opinion, “passeth all understanding.” He deliberately rates his services at a tenth of that of his astute former colleague. How is this estimate arrived at ? Will some of the younger members of “the profession” enquire? Why are a woman’s services rated lower than those of a man ?

A. Reginald.