Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Owing to the agreement between the L. & N.W. and Midland railway companies, there results a reduction in the wages bill where that agreement is in operation.

* * *

We are often told by the advocates of railway nationalisation that the shorter hours of labour which would result from State ownership would mean an increase of workers employed. The details of the agreement between the above named companies have been issued as a White Paper, and certain statements therein disagree with the pro-nationalisers’ contentions.

* * *

The Midland Company ran to Rugby over a branch line and the L. & N.W. ran to Leicester over a branch line. The L. & N.W. now work the Rugby section and the Midland the Leicester section. The result is a considerable reduction in the number of working hours. The employees now work but 3½ or four days per week. If this is the result of but a sectional inter-working, what would be the result upon employment of a State effort at organising traffic ?

* * *

It must not be forgotten that “nationalisation” presupposes the capitalist State still existent, the dividend mongers still in power, and a proletariat still unable, because of its lack of class-consciousness, to assume control of ALL the industries in the interest of the community. Now, as “nationalisation” of industries is carried out, necessarily, by and in the interest of the exploiting class, it would certainly involve a greater displacement of labour and a smaller wages bill, which in turn would mean decreased purchasing power on the part of the workers in most branches of industry. Of course, if the “nationalisers” can show that the exploiting class will pay a double or treble wages bill to that now paid for the same traffic receipts, then my contention falls to the ground.

* * *

I fear we Socialists will have to admit the truth of our opponents contention that “Socialism will abolish the home.” It were folly to deny that we mean to abolish such homes as are described below.

* * *

“At a Huddersfield inquest yesterday on a baby that was said to have been suffocated, it was stated that the child’s father and mother and three children all slept in one bed in a one-roomed house. Natural causes was the verdict.” Manchester Guardian, 13.7.09.

* * *

Natural causes, indeed ! To say so is to say that the conditions are natural. 0f course; the capitalist-minded jury could return no other verdict. To say that the death was “unnatural” at once lays a charge at someone’s door. The question then arising, followed to the solution, turns the inquest into an inquest on the capitalist system. It is better to resort to the old lie “natural causes.”

JAYBEE.

Blogger's Note:

My educated guess is that 'JAYBEE.' was the pen-name for Manchester Branch's Jim Brough, who had written other Jottings columns under his own name.

The Bye Elections. (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the assistance of ”Labour” the seats at Cleveland and Mid-Derby were “saved” for the capitalist Government, and it would be interesting to know just how that assistance was obtained. While it has often been said that Labour supported the Liberal in one place in exchange for Liberal support in another, on this occasion it would rather seem as if Labour had supported Liberalism in Cleveland in order that Labour might support Liberalism in Mid-Derby—a sort of political heads I win, tails you lose process, and certainly the Liberals have every reason to be pleased with the results. In both instances an independent Labour candidate was threatened, but in neither case was he allowed to come forward while in each place the Liberal nominee was supported. And could the whole history be written of the means employed to secure this end, a further and splendid vindication of our attitude of hostility to the so-called Labour parties would be obtained.

In Cleveland Mr. J. B. Stubbs, who had consented to be the “Labour” candidate for the constituency, was not run (according to the Manchester Guardian, 3.7.09) because “the Election is to be fought on Free Trade and the Budget, two issues upon which the Government and the Labour Party are united” (sic). The way was thus so far cleared for the workers being led to support Mr. Samuel, the Liberal. This gentleman officiated as the chief speaker at the annual demonstration of the Cleveland Miners, and it would appear said nothing to offend either master or man, for says the Morning Leader (6.7.09) “An interesting feature of Mr. Samuel’s nomination paper is the fact that the proposer is Sir Hugh Bell, Lord Lieutenant of the county and chairman of the Mine-Owners Federation, while the seconder is Mr. Joseph Toyn, agent of the Cleveland Miners Association.” (Italics ours.) Thus was Labour insulted and the seal set upon its degradation.

In Mid-Derby, however, instead of a superior, aristocratic intellectual of the Samuel type a “Liberal-Labourer” was returned. Nevertheless from the Socialist working-class point of view, the result is the same : the enemy of the working class has been strengthened by an addition to the ranks of those “doing odd jobs in the Liberal workshop.” The fact that some 4,000 members of the Nottingham Miners Association were on the Parliamentary register for the district was not lost upon the Liberal wire-pullers, and finding in Mr. Hancock (Miners’ Agent) a Liberal after their own heart, they readily adopted him. He appeared before the Liberal Association by invitation and explicitly assured them that “he stood before them as a Liberal, although because the Miners’ Association were affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee he was obliged to stand as a Labour candidate also. That would not, however, alter his principles.” (!) He was a Free Trader, a Temperance advocate, a local preacher, and would love to have the bible read in the schools. (Manchester Guardian, 1.7.09.) He next signed the constitution of the Labour Party, and appearing before the I.L.P. assured them he was a Labour man, after which they decided with unanimity to support him. (Manchester Guardian, 9.7.09.)

As in Cleveland, however, the election was fought on capitalist Free Trade and the capitalist Budget, and although working-class funds and votes were exploited on behalf of Mr. Hancock, the appearance of such a motley crew of supporters, including Asquith, Lloyd George down to “Mr. J. Keir Hardie, who wore the yellow favour of Liberalism,” (Daily News,13.7.09.) amply proves it was but another victory for confusion. .

A.

Shall We Work Harder? (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. H. Lever, M.P., writing in the Anti-Socialist says,

“The more consideration I give to the aims and objects of the Socialists the more I am confirmed in my opinion that Socialism cannot possibly achieve social betterment and increased social happiness.

“Whatever poverty we have to-day is entirely due to the fact that the world is not producing sufficient commodities to satisfy the world’s requirements. Not until we have a greater production of all that goes to make for social well-being shall we have a more even distribution of social well-being and comforts and less poverty.”

Now to see if poverty is due to an insufficiency of wealth to meet the world’s requirements.

Mr. Chiozza Money informs us in his “Riches and Poverty” that the annual aggregate income of the United Kingdom amounts to, roughly, £1,700,000,000 or £40 per head of the population, or, assuming that each family on the average consists of five persons, £200 per family.

But is the annual income so distributed that each family receives £200 per annum, or a proportionate sum according to its number ? The answer is obvious to any member of the working class. About half the wealth produced (and corresponding income), or £830,000,000, is taken by about 1 million persons, each with an income of over £160 or, again assuming that each of these persons is the head of a family of live we get 5 million people, while the other half, or £880,000,000, is taken by 38 million persons, all of whom are in receipt of less than £160 per family yearly. But if we extend our investigation a little further we shall find that 1,250,000 persons enjoy an aggregate annual income of £585,000,000. At one end of the social ladder we have ”one third of our population living on the verge of hunger,” while at the other end we have 250,000 persons, or with their dependents, 1,250,000 persons, enjoying an aggregate income of about £450 per head or £2,250 per family.

Yet Mr. “Millionaire” Lever informs us that he is of the opinion that we must first increase the amount of material wealth before we can “achieve increased social betterment.” 

Increase the means of wealth production to any extent you like and it can be shown that the workers would be where they are to-day—in poverty. (An instance is recorded in our issue of March last under the heading “A Cutting Cutting” where a surplus of textile products provided a splendid opportunity for a lock-out of the operatives and a little more starvation.) The introduction of new and cheaper methods of production, and therefore, means of producing wealth in greater abundance, to-day only results in the throwing out of employment many of the workers engaged in the particular industry in which the new methods are introduced, an increase in the army of the unemployed, greater poverty and misery for the workers. True, a reduction in the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life means the cheapening of the cost of living ; but a fall in the cost of living results in the cheapening of the production and maintenance of the worker. The continued and enhanced competition of the workers for jobs soon reduces wages to the new cost of subsistence, while a decrease in wages results in the increased exploitation of the worker, a greater amount of surplus-value or profit for the employers, and an even greater disparity between the two classes. So then, while the means of production and distribution remain in the hands of a small section of the community, any new inventions that may arise to lessen the time necessary for the production of wealth only results in increased affluence and luxury for the few while the great bulk of the people remain in a perpetual state of poverty.

Not until the whole of the means and implements of production and distribution are owned and controlled by, and in the interest of, the entire community, will the great mass of the people enjoy the advantages that accrue from an improvement in the means of wealth production. Then, and not until then, will every new invention be hailed as an advantage to all, either to reduce the collective labour of the community or to increase the comforts and opportunities of its members.

If then, it is possible to produce sufficient wealth to satisfy the requirements of the whole community under the present wasteful competitive system, how much more within the bounds of possibility will it be under a system where competition for existence will be entirely eliminated and where industry will be so organised that only that labour which is absolutely necessary for the production of wealth will be expended, where the large army of people now engaged in the advertising trade, as travellers, policemen, soldiers, man-‘o-warsmen, workhouse officials, flunkeys, judges, lawyers, clerks, priests, and a host of others would be employed in useful, productive labour. These trades and professions arise out of and are necessary under a system based upon the private monopoly of the means of life, and will disappear with their transformation from private to social property.

Mr. Lever continues “The natural order of social progress must inevitably be first to produce material comfort, followed by intellectual, moral and social advancement.” It is something for a member of the capitalist class to recognise the necessity for satisfying the material wants and requirements of the community before any improvement in the intellectual and moral status of the people can be effected. When the means of decent living are assured to all, then and only then will the great mass of the people be elevated from the physical, intellectual and moral enslavement in which they are enveloped to-day. The means of life can only be assured to the whole of society by the demolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This can be achieved when the workers get to understand their true class position, see the necessity for the change and determine to emancipate themselves from the slavery in which they exist to-day, brush aside the idea that “Socialism will not come in our time,” and realise the fact that as soon as the workers, who outnumber the other class by about eight to one, understand and determine to have Socialism, they will get it. As the late Lord Salisbury once said, “Nothing can go against the voice of the people.”

So then, join the S.P.G.B. immediately you understand and agree with its principles, and make one more pillar in the foundation of the Socialist Republic.

H. A. Young

The Forum: Our Position Queried. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Harrison (Salford) writes :

I should esteem it a favour if you would explain through your journal the following points. (1) Does the S.P.G.B. control the votes of its members by similar conditions that obtain for the speakers ? (2) Does the Party consider it futile for members to use their votes in support of the other political parties (S.D.P., I.L.P., Liberal, Conservative, etc.) when not represented by their own party ? (3) What is the motive of your Rule 31 (that no member shall take office unless the whole number be elected)? Knowing that several representatives from scattered constituencies should equal the influence of a like number from one constituency, what is the object of the Party in seeking representation ? (4) Assuming the success of all its candidates in a given area, what would be their attitude in the House to such reforms as State Maintenance of School Children, Eight Hours’ Day, States Railways, and Old Age Pensions, and in the Council chambers toward Municipal enterprises (Trams, Gas, Water, etc.) when brought forward by the other parties ? Although refraining from advocating these reforms, does it consider such measures as mentioned no alleviation to the suffering masses? (5) There are pronounced opinions respecting the relations between Socialism and Religion, Christianity, etc. Numerous Church ministers assert that the two doctrines run smoothly together, others assert that they are antagonistic. Notable Socialist (so-called) speakers definitely affirm that the two doctrines may be conscientiously observed. A quotation appears this week in Justice to this effect. When questions are asked in public there is always a lot of uncertainty in the replies, as if afraid of hurting someone’s feelings. Do you affirm that the two are in harmony ? (6) In what sense are we to accept the phrases “Revolutionary Socialism” and “Revolutionary Socialist”? A lucid definition of these points will oblige,

Yours truly, 

H. Harrison.

Reply:

In reply to Mr. Harrison’s first question the only rules giving the Party control over speakers specifically are rules 2 (“A member shall not speak from any other political party platform except in opposition”) and 6 (which requires that before a member is put on the official lecture list he shall give evidence of the possession of the necessary knowledge and ability to expound the principles of Socialism and defend the position of the Party).

The same reason which led to the formulation of the quoted item of rule 2 makes it clear that a like control, at least as far and as effective as the “secret ballot” will allow, over the votes of members is exercised by the Party. That reason is found in the opening sentence of the last clause of our Declaration of Principles, where it is declared that our Party “enters the field of political action determined to wage war upon all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.” This being the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, it follows that no member can use his vote in favour of any other political party without acting contrary to the principles he subscribed to upon becoming a member. The sixth clause of the Declaration contains a syllogism—two premises and a conclusion which necessarily follows from them. The premises are : “All political parties are but the expression of class interests” and “The interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class.” The conclusion arrived at from these two propositions is that “the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party.” The only possible ground of escape from this conclusion is that these two classes are not the only ones in society. Apart from this, if the two premises are correct, then the conclusion must be correct also, and that being so, members of such party must not in any circumstances support by any political activity, whether of voice or pen or at the ballot box, any other political party. Of course, it is open to Mr. Harrison (or anyone else) to suggest that the two classes named are not the only ones in society, or to challenge the truth of one or both of the premises, but until that is done the answer must be regarded as conclusive.

The reply to the first question may be extended to the second, which is “Does the Party consider it futile for its members to use their votes in support of the other political parties (S.D.P., I.L.P., Liberal, Conservative, etc.) when not represented by their own Party ?” It only remains to be said, in referring our inquirer back to the syllogism, that as neither the S.D.P. nor the I.L.P., stand in opposition to the capitalist class (they both support capitalist candidates and otherwise ally themselves with the master class on the political field, see S.P.G.B. Manifesto) they therefore cannot represent interests opposed to the capitalist class. They do not stand opposed to all other political parties, hence they are not in actual fact, and judged by their deeds—not their words, parties seeking working-class emancipation. The political arena being merely the battle-field of class interests, where every tie and obligation is forgotten, every allegiance cast to the wind, every barrier swept away, saving only the barrier of class interests, those who, found upon that battle-field, do not stand with us upon our side of that barrier, are against us. Do we think it futile to support such as these ? Oh, we think it much worse than futile !

The third point concerns our 31st and last rule, which lays it down that the Party shall only contest elections by putting forward a candidate for each vacancy in the particular ward, district or constituency, and that no member, though elected, shall take office unless the whole number for the particular ward, district or constituency be elected.

Once again Mr. Harrison is referred to the sixth clause of our Declaration of Principles. If the three propositions of the syllogism are true, if in particular the last of them—”The party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party”—is correct, then hostility to all other parties must be one of the basic principles of its political activity. A vote, to be of any value to such a party, must be the vote of a person who is also hostile to every other party, and no such voter could be guilty of the idiocy of voting both ways, or giving one vote for Socialism, as symbolised by the S.P. candidate, and one for capitalism, as expressed by the candidates of all other parties. Neither could the class-conscious worker who has the opportunity of voting for two Socialist candidates, use the vote in one case and wilfully fail in the other. The rule is a safeguard against building up a position upon such votes as these. That such a safefuard is necessary will be at once seen when we consider the position of men who are elected by unsound votes. Whatever their private and individual opinions may be, in their public and official capacity they are neither more nor less than those who put them in office. The real power is not the man, or the seat, but those who control the one because the other is in their gift. It is a remarkable fact that those who so proudly label themselves Social Democrats, in contradistinction to us (who are merely Socialists), are blind to this first axiom of democracy, that power is with the electors, and not with the elected. They are guilty of undemocratic action at very outset, in suggesting, and acting upon, the idea that once in position, under no matter what pretext, they make themselves the masters of those who have placed them there, and who have power to presently cast them out. This is the very essence of demagogy, the central idea of bosses and fakers, the cherished instrument of all working-class cheats and misleaders and men who have taken “the print of the golden age” and want to “get there” for various reasons. Against a majority of men so elected, and upon such a mandate presuming to take action upon the only lines that could seriously touch capitalist interests — revolutionary lines—the master class would find their easiest and simplest remedy in an appeal to the country ! Those who had voted for reform would soon settle the attempt to cheat them into Revolution. Well if that appeal did not take the shape of bloody suppression, aided, connived at, or at least passively disapproved of by those constituents who had sanctioned reform only. This is why the masters are not afraid of the “Labour” Party. They know them at once for dishonest men, who can be bought whenever they have anything to sell—which is usually before they are elected, not after. They know perfectly well that they represent only the ignorance of the working class, and stand, opaque and obfuscating figures, between that ignorance and the light. And so long as they are content to do this the capitalists are willing to allow them, and even to help them into office and invite them to their little feasts, as a sign to the multitude that “Capital and Labour are Brothers.”

What is our object in seeking representation ? Simply the seizure of the political machinery for the purpose of overthrowing capitalism. We do not want the so-called palliatives—for they don’t palliate. Even if they did we should condemn the present system and clamour for a new one, for obviously it is the business of those interested in the continuance of the capitalist system to patch it up to last a little longer. And the louder we shout for its demolition the harder will they try to patch it up. It is our business to show the rottenness within—theirs to present a fair exterior : it is not for us to show them how to perpetuate their domination. We have work enough to see that the reformers do not lull the workers into such apathetic belief in the possibilities of the capitalist system that it shall be left to fall of its own rottenness, and plunge humanity into fatal chaos born of its own ignorance and unpreparedness. Seeking representation therefore, for the purpose named, we desire to build up our position with sound bricks, or sound, revolutionary votes, in order that it may be a true index of our strength and we may be neither led nor driven into the appeal to force until the time is ripe. It is in order to assure, as far as possible, that every vote given us shall be a clear demand for the ending of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism that we have formulated rule 31.

As to our elected representatives’ attitude towards reforms, it is hardly fair to ourselves to answer this question without ample room for supporting it with argument. And further, it is possible that the last word has not been said upon that subject yet. The S.P.G.B. is a scientific party. As such it is open to assimilate each scientific truth as it is unfolded, and to adapt itself to such altered circumstances as might be advisable. This remark has special reference to the possible contingency of the capitalists putting forward a measure to extend the franchise with a view to swamping the Socialist vote with the vote of the slum. But confining ourselves to the class of measures our correspondent enumerates, and pending a special paper on the subject (by editorial grace) the following may be said. We ask for no vote for palliatives or reforms or “municipal enterprises,” but only for Socialism. Just as we by our 31st rule try to avoid annexing “palliative” votes, so if voting against “palliatives” lost us votes they could only be votes we try by all means to get rid of. As we declare before winning seats that “palliatives” are no good to the workers, and as they cannot be one iota more useful after we have won seats, obviously we must go on saying the same thing about them, and pointing out their fraudulent nature. It is plain then that our representatives cannot vote for these things. Shall we oppose them ? Well, why not ? At present there is evidence that before one class-conscious constituency is evolved in this country, and therefore before one S.P.G.B. representative takes his seat upon any elected public body, bitter experience will have sickened a vast portion of our fellow workers of such expedients. The return of our representatives will signify as much, in fact. The demand for reform is not in any sense of the word an attack upon capitalism, but the movement for revolution is. Against the first the capitalists have no need to defend (as history since the Chartist movement shows), but against the last they are compelled to exert their greatest efforts. Therefore the first man returned to Parliament under conditions such as the S.P.G.B. candidates will alone accept office upon, will carry consternation into the enemy’s camp, for it will be an unmistakeable declaration against reform, an undeniable demand for Revolution. As the Revolutionary must necessarily attack, so defense lies with the reactionary. The only defense at that stage will be the pretended reform. The evils of the system will be too patent for denial: they must use the arguments of the quasi-Socialist that the social edifice can be reformed. They must try and patch up the crumbling structure in order that it may last a little longer. Unnecessary to state, the dominant class will do this in their own interests— which are tied up in capitalism. Once more if there is any truth in that clause of our Declaration of Principles which declares that the interests of the master class and the working class are diametrically opposed then the duty of revolutionaries is clear. The reform becomes the reactionaries’ defense, therefore it must be attacked tooth and nail. It will be defended, for it is the last ditch of capitalism, beyond which is nothing but the force of arms on the open battle field. So we shall have to take their reforms as long as we are not strong enough to reject them, and when the master class are too weak to continue to force their reforms upon us, then indeed the day of the Social Revolution is near at hand.

In view of the apace already occupied, Mr. Harrison must be referred to our 43rd issue for the answer to the fifth query. Under the title of “Can a Christian be a Socialist” the matter was ably dealt with. Further, a pamphlet on the subject of Socialism and Religion is in course of preparation.

The final question concerns the meaning of the terms “Revolutionary Socialism” and “Revolutionary Socialist.” Well, the terms mean simply “Socialism ” and “Socialist.” There is no need to qualify these two plain words, for as Socialism at this stage implies revolution, Socialism must necessarily be revolutionary and every Socialist a revolutionary. Some of us who now know better may have been guilty of thus distinguishing terms that need no such distinction, but as we get older and learn the ropes we realise that speaking of “revolutionary” Socialism may create, does create, the impression that there is a form of Socialism which is not revolutionary, and of Socialists who are not revolutionary—an absurdity, at least until such time as (long after the realisation of the Socialist system) evolution shall have made the upholders of that system reactionaries against the system that is to follow it—if such a time ever comes. But it is probably the term “revolutionary” that is in question. The word “revolution,” from which the adjective is derived, signifies the entire change in the nature of the social structure which distinguishes Socialism from capitalism. It is the very antithesis of reform. Its root, germ or essence is the changing of the very basis of society—the property condition—while the root principle of reform is to preserve the social basis as the essential of perpetuating the social fabric unchanged. It is evident that one cannot be both revolutionary and reformer at the same time. To act in both directions at once, if such a thing is at all possible, is but to negate oneself, to cancel one’s political activity, to reduce oneself to the standing of the passive supporter of the status quo, and therefore of the anti-Socialist. The term “revolutionary,” then, implies the advocate of a change in the basis of society, and a “revolutionary Socialist” is a revolutionary who advocates that in making that change, it shall take the form of substituting social ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth for the present private ownership of these things. But as only thus can Socialism appear, every Socialist must be revolutionary, and is best known as a Socialist only.

A. E. Jacomb

The Forum: Concerning Rates and Taxes. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. John Rhind (Old Trafford) writes:

(1) I have often heard it stated in the Socialist Standard, as well as by members of your Party, that the working classes do not pay rates in the form of rent. I fail to see the truth of that statement in view of the fact that my landlord has raised my rent in consequence of the local rates being increased.

(2) Again, do not the workers pay taxes (national) in the form of additional charges being made on such commodities as beer, spirits and tobacco, when, as recently, the duty on these things has risen ?

(3) If rent is a portion of surplus-value, as you maintain, can it be rightly said that I, for instance, do not pay rent ? My experience is that I receive so much in wages and out of this I pay rent. Do you deny this?—John Rhind

[We have numbered the items for convenience sake.—ed. “S.S.”]

As to No. 1 (first correcting the point of the use of the plural—working classes. Our correspondent does not see this in the “S.S.”) Mr. Rhind also fails to see that landlords do not and cannot charge a rental at will, but only as the state of the house-room market allows. Of course the landlords are always on the look out for opportunities to get increased rentals, and the plea of the burden of higher rents will often serve to catch a “flat.” On the other hand an increased demand for house-room will enable the landlord to demand more, while the rates bogey is paraded as the reason. In some of the suburbs of London, such as Walthamstow, West Ham, and Tottenham, rentals have been lowered although rates have been rising. Mr. Chiozza Money, in his “Riches and Poverty” (p. 79), says, and gives supporting opinions for the contention, that the rates are, finally, a charge upon the landowner.

(2) No, the workers do not pay the taxes (national), that is to say are not, by so much, out of pocket; for if in some cases it can be shown that the imposts have the effect of raising the price of commodities, these latter if consumed by the workers enter into the cost of production of labour-power. As a consequence, and in the long run, such wages have to be paid as will meet this cost.

As to the extra duties imposed by the present budget upon beer, spirits and tobacco, we are of opinion that the last has not been heard, by any means, upon this matter. It were well to note that the price of alcoholic liquors has not risen all over the country, and that the Press reports cases where retailers have defied the orders of the brewers to raise the price; these same retailers, of course, doing a roaring trade in consequence. The tobacco trade is, to-day, very largely monopolised, its controllers being in a position, at least for a time, to raise prices, and they are, of course, only too glad of the opportunity to do so when, as at present, with the excuse of the increased duties they seem justified, and the least outcry is to be expected. Their power to exact higher prices is, however, curbed by the tendency of demand to slacken as prices rise. This point is emphasised in the recent manifesto of the brewers on the new budget duties, wherein they show the intimate connection of an increase in prices with a decrease in sales.

The attention of our correspondent is further directed to the following quotation (from the Star of July 19th), which speaks for itself.

“Notices have been received by the retailers announcing that the price of Messrs. Wills’s ‘Gold Flake’ cigarettes is to revert to the old figure.

When the Budget was announced, the price to the consumer was raised to 3½d., but the result has not justified expectation, for the price is now to go back to 3d.

It is probable that other brands of cigarettes will come into line and revert to the old retail prices.”

(3) Do we deny that our correspondent pays rent ? Not likely ! We are not in possession of the facts. However, taking our questioner as representative, he most certainly pays away part of his wages as “rent,” which in this ease is clearly the price of house-room. Now such rent is not all surplus-value, and we have never stated that it is such. Ground-rent, received by the ground-landlord, is distinctly “a portion of surplus-value.” Mr. Rhind’s difficulty is that he has only a confused notion of our position, and space is lacking for us to dual more fully with the matter here. He will find our position regarding taxation in general more fully explained in the October 1904 number of the Socialist Standard, while the particular question of the rates is dealt with at length in the issue of June, 1905.—Editor “S.S.”

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1909)

 Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

As you can see, my copy of the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard is not exactly in tip-top condition. Interesting to see Harry Martin in amongst the speakers. 

Cold War Inside the Kremlin (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under socialism, when classes and class interests will no longer exist, the reason for the existence of political parties representing contending class interests will have gone. Decisions about the best policy to be followed to promote the well-being of all will be reached democratically by informed discussion. That situation is, however, something yet to be brought about since socialism exists nowhere in the world.

In Britain and many other countries capitalism has evolved a political system through which control of the government is vested in the politicians who are able to secure for their party or groups of parties the support of voters at elections, conducted on the basis of universal adult suffrage. This system works, and provides capitalism with the stability it needs, only because the major political parties and the voters behind them are agreed on the continuance of capitalism and differ only on secondary issues of policy.

In earlier times when the electorate was a very restricted body of property owners, and still earlier, before Parliament had made its hold on the armed forces and the monarchy effective, the struggles between contending economic interests to control the State machine were settled by disorderly public demonstrations, by show of armed force or by costly and ruinous civil war.

In Russia, since the overthrow of the Czarist monarchy in 1917, rule has been in the hands of a group based on the Communist Party, all other political parties being ruthlessly suppressed. In such conditions it was necessary to retain and strengthen the Secret Police, which, with its own powerful armed forces constitutes one of the three pillars of the Russian government, alongside the army and the Communist Party. Under this political system the rulers of Russia have had to face problems of great size and complexity including civil war, invasion in the second world war, the dispossession of the peasants and their forcible combination into collective farms, and the problem of trying to persuade and cajole the workers into accepting their exploitation and the particular hardship involved in building up modern industry in what was a predominantly peasant country. The inevitable tension has been aggravated by the need to impose a large measure of centralisation not only on strongly-autonomous regional interests inside Russia but also on the “satellite” countries in Eastern Europe brought, since 1945, into the Russian sphere of interest. Stalin's death brought the problem to a head, and forced the question, which individual was to gain the succession at the centre and on which of the three pillars of the State, Party, Army and Secret Police, he would lean. In this situation the sudden flare up of revolt in East Berlin and the plain signs of incipient breakaway in the satellite countries were, to those at the centre, alarming reminders of the dangers surrounding them.

Beria’s removal gives colour to the view that the Party and the Army have been able to agree to line up against the Secret Police but that, even if it is a correct interpretation of forces about which so little definite is known, could only be a provisional solution. It does not settle the question of bringing all the forces of the State, including the army, under the control of political heads who would owe their authority to having majority support in a Parliament resting on genuine electoral contests. Where, as in Britain, continuous contact between electors, the government and the opposition is maintained by political parties operating in the open, and seeking both to reflect and to mould political opinion, a stable basis is provided for the administration as well as means to change it at elections. Lacking such a system contending interests in Russia, with their divergent views on the running of capitalism, can only intrigue for power at the centre and seek support in Army, Secret Police, Communist Party, regional autonomous movements, or anywhere else where discontent makes itself manifest.

The removal of Beria and the likely curbing of the power of the Secret Police, have not materially altered the system. In a country where ordinary political organisation and activity is illegal and discontent is therefore driven underground an elaborate secret police organisation is indispensable and it will be observed that Beria’s removal and other changes have all been initiated and carried out arbitrarily from the top, with the masses of the people kept completely in the dark until they are simultaneously informed of what has been done and called upon to hold “spontaneous” demonstrations approving it. As is usual in a Police State the defeated contestants are removed and held guilty without any such formality as waiting for a public trial or allowing their supporters to state their case in the open.

Whichever group wins the present round in the struggle for power the problem of broadening the base of the Russian political system remains to be solved. Whether it will be by compromise among the rivals or by armed struggle remains to be seen.

Edgar Hardcastle

Tooth, Nail and Tiger-Skin (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Britain’s traditional cultural intercourse with Europe has in the past hundred years been supplemented—and possibly, to some extent, supplanted—by a transatlantic inter-traffic. Having no barrier of language to surmount, the exchange between Britain and America has included popular as well as academic culture; aided by radio, talking pictures and, most recently, the long residence of thousands of American servicemen in Britain, the features of everyday life in America have impinged more and more upon British custom.

National culture in America has no long history preceding the mechanization of work and leisure, and so the slick, trashy product is more easily accepted there, while its importation into Britain has frequently caused concern to those who stand as guardians of public taste and morality. The adjective “American,” is often one of disapproval; and never has the disapproval been stronger than for a contemporary art-form which, hard as the moralists try, keeps on growing in popularity—American comics.

American comics are not comic. Their subject- matter is cowboys, crime, horror, adventure, sex and space-travel. Something over fifty million copies are sold every month in the United States, and since the war there has been a growing readership in this country. They are marketed by syndicates which operate on both sides of the Atlantic, and are produced by artists working in assembly-line fashion—one drawing the figures, another doing the lettering, and so on. America calls them “squinkies,” and their stock-in-trade is beatings, bludgeonings and fee faw fums.

The beginnings of strip drawings are ancient Egyptian rock tombs have sets of pictures recording the phases of wrestling bouts and acrobatic feats. The modern comic strip began in the American popular press near the end of the nineteenth century and, until recent years, drew its material almost wholely from workaday and domestic life; the awful child, the henpecked husband and the pert stenographer were its dramatis personae. With humour as the chief intention, the technique and conventions of the strip were perfected.

It was during the great depression that humour gave way to adventure, suspense and muscle-parade; possibly everyday life was too grim to be funny any longer. Tarzan and Superman took over, and the comics turned to worlds where nobody asked: “Brother, can you spare a dime?” The squinkies were born. Their theme was action, and they were uninhibited in portraying it; the war stimulated them to greater extravagances.

The aim of the squinkie artist is to create arresting, vigorous movement and easily recognizable character-types; the limitation of the small squares—and part of them is taken up by the speech “balloons’’—prohibits fastidiousness or subtlety. Technical quality varies considerably, from slick, stylish work to that of talentless amateurs. All characters are clearly labelled. Villains have black hair and thin moustaches, scientists are lean and bespectacled, and heroes have a superabundance of muscle (Ka’anga, Lord of the Jungle, has calf muscles slightly larger than his head). Heroines are wasp-waisted, but otherwise pneumatic.

Musical comedy costume is everyday wear in the squinkie world. Janga, Flower of the Wilds, Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, and Tiger Girl all appear in chic animal-skin swimsuits, while Dara of the Vikings prefers a two-piece, with helmet. The jungle men keep to trunks, of course, and the skymen—Superman, Captain Marvel and the rest—go about in long red underwear. There are rigid conventions of speech, too. In the jungle and other far away places, including outer space, they use archaic English, while all spies talk with strong foreign accents. Girls in danger have to scream “Eeek!” and villains coming to their inevitable sticky ends are obliged to shout “Aarghhh!”

These are the superficial conventions of the American comics. They present, for the most part, fantasy worlds. Into these, however, they project beliefs and customs of the actual world; thus their real content is not in their local colour but in their themes, and carries a much more significant set of conventions.

The simplest, broadest and most obvious of these conventions is that good—which is equated with law and patriotism—must always triumph over its opposite. The squinkies are as determined about this as all other juvenile literature, but infinitely more ruthless; when Captain Thunder or Tiger Girl grapples with evil, the end justifies any means. In the crime strips, the violences of the gangsters and killers are exceeded by those of the police, while the various jungle lords and space conquerors manhandle wrongdoers in ways which make all-in wrestling look soft stuff.

The only circumstances in which good does not always win by a knock-out are those in which unearthly powers are involved. The squinkies have great respect for the supernatural, and make it score freely off the lay population. “The Monster from the Pit," for example, a shaggy, shark-toothed immortal from Transylvania who changes into a New York policeman by day and goes out for blood at night, is last seen taking a large bite at his would-be slayer’s throat after a graveyard fracas. The postscript asks: “How many more lives will be snuffed out by the evil Grakhu . . . before he is once more sent to the pit of evil which spawned him? None can tell.” The moral clearly is that witches, warlocks, boggarts and long-leggity beasties are a different thing altogether.

If supernatural beings are the highest class of villains, foreigners are the lowest. To be foreign in the squinkies is to be a suspicious character. Spies and saboteurs are easy game, while the perversity of murderers, mad doctors and jungle marauders is explained from their lack of fluent English. Easterners are horrific unless they are the faithful servants of jungle princesses, in which case they are simpletons, or unless they are young women, in which case they are exotic but sinister. The credulous reader can hardly avoid being persuaded that the English-speaking nations breed the best types.

Love is virtually taboo in the squinkies, but they have a high sex content The exploits of the heroines lead them into comprehensive displays of their startling universal physique. Senorita Rio, a Government counter-spy, spends much of her working time being up-ended. Most of the jungle nobility have mates, whom they continually rescue and occasionally call "my love.” Much of the paraphernalia of perversion—inter-woman fights, whips and so on—finds places in the comics, and brings to mind that their era of popularity has also been that of the Hadley Chase school of novelists.

Since their introduction to this country, squinkies have been continually under fire. Educationalists, clergy and the press have united to denounce them as a danger to morals, an incentive to mental laziness, and a cause of delinquency. As has been remarked, that has not reduced their circulation and may even have increased it. Obviously, there is something about American comics. What cultural and social significance have they? And are the charges against them true?

In the hands of accomplished or thoughtful writers and artists, the least agreeable subject-matter can be presented to some value. That cannot be said for the comics. Their situations, dialogue and characterization are crude; their drawing is never better, and usually worse, than competent; they are badly printed in gaudy colours on the cheapest paper. On their intrinsic merits, they could be written off as contemptible or laughable, or—more correctly—classified with lavatory-wall graffiti. Their paramount element, however, is one to which the lavatory wall never pretends: they present ideals and patterns of behaviour.

The principal ideals promoted by the comics have already been noted. Summarized, they are that good always wins in the end, the end justifies any means, being good means being strong, foreigners are nearly always bad. the supernatural is to be respected, and women are to be judged in terms of physical desirability. None of these is a new or unconventional proposition, though the loudest cry against the comics is that they are subversive to morality. These are, in fact, the commonly accepted standards of our society at the present time; it is significant that the last war, which established in public consciousness that ends justify' means, also brought forth the squinkies. The ethics of the strip are the ethics of dropping atom-bombs on Japanese cities. It is not a case of saying that the brutalities of the comics are insignificant compared with the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though that is true; the important point is that the morality which accepted the atom-bombs as regrettable but necessary means for a “good” cause to subdue an “evil” one is precisely the same as that of the comic, down to the inclusion of such details as the anthropologists’ explanation that the Japanese are not quite the same as other people—scarcely human, in fact.

The behaviour-pattern of the comics, therefore, is an effect primarily and not a cause of modifications in morality, and—more important still—the modifications themselves are produced by the ever-changing stream of social necessity. Morality is the scheme of behaviour needed to safeguard the institutions of a social group; our society, in which the nation-state is constantly preoccupied with war and its preoccupations, has had to modify its scheme to meet the needs of increased belligerency.

The question of sexual morality is not distinct from that of morality generally. The family, the institution which it protects in our society, has in recent years weakened as a coherent and durable group; the result has been a sharp slackening in the formerly rigid code of sexual morals. The carnality of the comics mirrors rather than promotes this trend; in fact, there are few popular papers and magazines which do not deem it necessary for their circulations' sake to titillate their readers' sexual imaginations. The juxtaposition of venery and violence in the comics has additional significance. Popular fiction and the films show an increasing addiction to this sort of subject-matter; its emergence as a dominant theme in the past has preceded the ends of social epochs—the decline of Rome, the seventeenth century in England, and the years before the revolution in Russia.

The anger against American comics, then, is anger against the changing conventions of our time—in some cases, perhaps, the rage of Caliban at seeing his face in the glass. It remains to consider the other charge against them, that they are encouragements to mental laziness. If this were true, it would apply also to the popular press and most of the agencies for supplying information and entertainment. The publishers of comics, like the press and the entertainment industries, give the public what the public can cope with. The truth is that the education given to a great number of working people provides them with neither the verbal skill nor the critical outlook necessary to serious reading. They are equipped to read comics, tabloid newspapers, simple-phrased stories, and very little else. A great deal is heard about the near-illiteracy of Army recruits (one hears nothing, however, of illiteracy among young women—presumably because they are not conscripted for anything); their lack of simple verbal mechanics being known, it seems hardly consistent to accuse them of mental laziness because they like comics.

The squinkies, then, are part of the cultural pattern of our time, and reflect its consciousness just as the popular domestic novel reflected that of Victorian England. Their simple function is to provide escape, but their illusory or distant worlds form backgrounds against which the modern morality play is acted; that the morality is brutal and prurient is a comment upon our society, not upon the passing phenomena which mirror it. The exclusion of American comics from this country would mean no loss. Neither, however, would it contribute to the re-establishment of moral standards which are no longer compatible with the driving forces of society, or to an improvement in the literacy of Army recruits. The sincere, worried people who want the comics banned have failed to understand the relationship between a popular art-form and its irreversible social environment; if they could do so, there would be less concern with the rash on the face and more with the organic causes of the malaise of our society.

Robert Barltrop

Kenya and Berlin (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Enemy of an Enemy

Cardinal Richelieu was credited with basing his foreign policy on the maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The capitalist groups in the modern world work on the same slogan. In present world conditions Russian capitalism and its allies in the Soviet bloc, is in conflict with the capitalists of the Western world. The latter in their turn are engaged in struggles against the working class in each of the Western countries. Therefore the working class of the Western countries are the potential allies of the Russian rulers. This is the reason why the Russian rulers hold themselves out as the friend of “the toilers of Britain and America" and try to enlist the sympathy of the latter by means of the Communist Parties in those countries. The assiduity with which the Communist Party of Great Britain has built up the legend of “The Jolly George"—in which incident the workers of Britain are supposed to have prevented the British ruling class pursuing the war against the Bolsheviks in the early days of the Russian Revolution—shows, in spite of the fact that the story as related by them is not true, the direction in which their thoughts are moving, For the Russian rulers realise that, however powerful the Anglo-American ruling class might be, it could not, without the active support of the British and American workers, embark successfully on any war against the Soviet Union.

Vast Subversive Network

On the same principle, the ruling class of Britain and America show great sympathy for the oppressed workers in the countries under Soviet regimes, and try to stir up discontent and organise opposition. In the conditions obtaining in the Stalinist countries, this work has to be done underground, in exactly the same way as the Communist Parties have to work secretly in many western countries, among them Spain and Portugal, some of the South American republics, and (to an increasing degree) the United States itself. Thus an article in the “Readers' Digest” of October, 1952, says "West Berlin, an enclave deep in the Soviet Zone, continues to be headquarters for a vast subversive network radiating throughout Red Germany, warning police officials of the punishment in store for them, smuggling refugees to the West, ceaselessly distributing propaganda.”

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

But, one need scarcely add, the sympathy felt by the ruling class of Russia, and of Britain and America, for the struggle of the workers against their masters, stops at their own boundaries. The workers of an enemy country are fit subjects for sympathy; but never the workers of your own. Chapter and verse for these statements can be found in the recent events in Kenya and East Berlin. When in East Berlin and other German cities, on June 16th and 17th, the workers turned on their masters and protested by mass demonstrations against their wages and working conditions, the German Stalinist police, supported by Russian tanks and machine-guns, suppressed the demonstrations by force, killing a number of demonstrators. This was the signal for a barrage of sympathy from the rulers of the Western world. Dr. Adenauer said, “betraying deep emotion,” that “even in a cynical age there were still men prepared to die in the streets for an idea. They did not fear Russian tanks and machine-guns; they had shown to the world that they would not be slaves, and that the age of tyranny was over.” (The Times, 24-6-53; subsequent references are also to The Times, unless otherwise stated.) In Parliament Mr. Maclean, a Conservative, called the Russian action a “barbarous massacre” (25-6-53); and a group of Labour members tabled a motion reading: “That this House notes with intense interest and deep sympathy the struggle of the German workers against the Russian military dictatorship in Eastern Germany and deplores the execution without trial of the leaders thrown up by the workers in the struggle for bread and liberty” (24-6-53). Mr. Dulles, the American Secretary of State, found that the episode "demonstrates that the people do retain their love of God and love of country and their sense of personal dignity. They want to run their own affairs and not be run from Moscow. The unquenchable spirit of the people was dramatised in East Berlin, where unarmed youths tore up paving stones from the streets to hurl in defiance at tanks . . . The people want to be governed by those whom they select as responsive to their needs and desires, rather than to be ruled by those who take their orders from aliens and who give their orders with a view to achieving their own ambitions without regard to the welfare of the people concerned ” (1-7-53).

Kenya

If this is the attitude taken by the Western rulers to the events in East Berlin; why do not they deliver the same kind of stirring speeches about the disturbances in Kenya? Mr. Dulles thinks the East Germans want to run their own affairs; but the East Germans are at least allowed the semblance of free elections (skilfully manipulated though they may be by Herr Ulbricht and his friends) whereas in Kenya the Kikuyu and other Africans are openly barred from the franchise. A defender of the attitude of the Anglo-American ruling class might say that the two cases were different; the Kikuyu, in rebelling, did not stop short at peaceful demonstrations, but actually killed those whom they thought were oppressing them. The answer to this is— so did the East Germans: a number of police and state-officials were reported shot or beaten to death during the riots of June 16th and 17th (1-7-53). And this should cause no surprise; when workers are driven to desperation point, be their skins black or white, they often try to seek escape by using violence against individual members of the oppressing class or their hirelings.

Savagery

But again it might be alleged (by a supporter of the British ruling class) that the behaviour of Mau Mau adherents in Kenya has shown them to be savages at heart, and to be therefore beyond the sympathy of “civilised” men. But this is the last argument .which could be used by members of the British ruling class. If individual acts of barbarity are to blacken for ever the character of the nations to which their perpetrators belong, and place those nations for ever beyond the pale of civilisation and civilised rights, then why this sympathy and support for the Germans? These Germans are exactly the same as those against whom our rulers were lashing us into furious enmity only eight years ago, on the grounds of the savagery, the barbarity, the bestiality they had shown in the treatment of minorities inside Germany and of the populations of the occupied countries. Our rulers cannot now ignore the six years of unending propaganda with which they overwhelmed us in the second world war. The truth is that neither the East Germans nor the Kikuyu are any more brutal by nature than other human beings, though some of them have been driven by oppression and bad conditions into brutality (as were the East Germans on June 16th and 17th, and as the Kikuyu have been from time to time since a year ago).

“Fatherland of the Proletariat”

Just as East Berlin has shown up the hypocrisy of the rulers of the Western world, so it has shown up the hypocrisy of the Stalinist leaders. The Communist Parties of the world claim to be parties of the workers, organised in the interest of the workers; the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and the other Soviet countries are always to the fore with denunciations of “capitalist oppression” whenever the workers of the Western world are suppressed by force. In East Berlin the German and Russian Bolsheviks had the opportunity to show how they themselves deal with similar situations; and the outcome was as one would expect, for no capitalist system, whether its superstructure is of the Stalinist or the Western kind, can tolerate insubordination among its workers. By using the rifle, the machine-gun, and the tank against striking and rioting workers, the Stalinists have once more demonstrated the division between the master class and the working class in the countries under their control. 

Worse Than Useless

The Socialist attitude to these events can be explained in a few words. While we have sympathy with workers who are driven to break out in open violence, whether against Stalinist or a western ruling class, the killing of individual members of a ruling class does nothing at all to alter the economic basis of society; so long as that basis is unchanged, so long will there be a master class and a working class. Acts of violence on the part of the workers merely provoke the ruling class and its armed forces, and give it the excuse for bloody reprisals. In Eastern Germany, scores of workers are reported to have been killed; in Kenya, the “security forces" boasted that in three days last month they had killed a hundred “terrorists,” which is far more than the total number of whites killed by the Mau Mau since the beginning of the troubles (27-6-53). When workers become Socialists, they use their resentment at their conditions to spur them on towards ending the society that causes them, not in sporadic and pointless acts of violence. The Western leaders claim to be opposed to violence and murder as political weapons; but they reveal themselves as double-dealers when they incite the workers in Stalinist countries to use these weapons, although they know that the result can only be a slaughter among those who try to fight their political battles in the streets.

Alwyn Edgar

Human Nature and Socialism: 4—Capitalist Patterns of Behaviour (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the previous issue.

4—Capitalist Patterns of Behaviour

In previous articles we have seen that, although men do, in a very real sense, make history, they are nevertheless also products of conditions and creatures of circumstance. Since we are primarily concerned with the possibilities of change that exist today, we should discover as much as we can about the sort of human behaviour that is produced by Capitalism. Provided that we bear in mind the limitations of the phrase, we may enquire what sort of "human nature” has resulted, so that we may more adequately see the respects in which change is both possible and desirable.

Every society, no matter the form of its social relationships, presupposes that men engage in productive activity. The way in which they come together to produce wealth (the economic aspect) is the key to all the other aspects of society. The basic question to ask, then, is: how does man work under Capitalism?

The outstanding feature of present-day labour is that the bulk of it is undertaken, not primarily to satisfy a human need, but to satisfy something interposed between production and consumption called a market. Everything is dominated by the basis of the system which recognises only motives of material gain. A tailor, for example, can no longer appeal to society’s need of clothing as a justification of his existence. He has to say^that tailoring is one way of “making a living.” He Is considered a “successful” tailor, not because he makes good clothes for people, but only when he achieves an income remarkably large for a tailor. The cash nexus, not need, is the determining factor, since, without money, access to both the means and the fruits of production is denied.

False Separation

There are a number of consequences of this economic set-up that constitute a condemnation of present arrangements and a challenge to make better ones. First, there is the separation of the individual’s interests from those of the community as a whole. The objective of the employee in selling his working abilities is to receive a pay-packet "for himself.” The objective of the employer in buying those abilities is to reap a profit “for himself.” Both may, of course, form temporary alliances with others of their class but, within Capitalism, each worker is a potential (if not an actual) rival to every other worker seeking employment, and each capitalist a rival to every other capitalist seeking profit.

Production under Capitalism is social, not individual, yet the worker does not labour primarily because in doing so he renders a service to the community. Lacking access to the means of production, he is compelled to become "gainfully” employed. He gets back in wages part of the value of what he produces, and the employer gets his profit out of the remainder. The conflict between "capital” and "labour” arising out of the capitalists’ ownership of the means of production and distribution constitutes the class struggle. It is entirely out of place to apportion blame to either capitalist or worker for their "selfish” conduct. Nor is it helpful to suggest a reconciliation between classes while consenting to the continuation of a system that makes the gain of one class the loss of another.

Capitalist division of labour is objectionable because it makes harmful separations in the productive process. Production is separated from consumption, enjoyment from work, mental labour from physical labour. These separations lead to antagonisms, and the function that should be an integrated whole is divided against itself. Thus the producer of wealth who demands more wages is castigated for making the "consumer” suffer higher prices. The worker who takes his ideas from capitalist propagandists is encouraged to vent his frustration as producer on to the consumer, and his frustration as consumer on to the producer—and the underlying, but real cause of the trouble is ignored.

The aim of the employer is to make the human labour power that he has bought as productive as possible. All kinds of aids to intensified exploitation are introduced, so that the maximum amount of profit is achieved in the shortest possible time. It is a matter of little concern that the conditions of work are such that all joy is taken from it, and the worker comes to look upon it as an evil necessity. The remedy applied, under Capitalism, for this deplorable state of affairs is not, as one might reasonably hope, the adjustment of the work to the needs of the worker as a human being, though industrial psychology whitewashes its economic motives by pretending to do this. Instead a substitute —leisure—is found for the satisfaction that is lacking in capitalist employment. Tied to unpleasant, boring and socially useless jobs, people are encouraged to make their non-working hours the centre of their lives, the part that they "look forward to.” But you cannot switch on a human being as you can a machine, and so the way in which the hours of employment are spent inevitably has its effects on the ways of spending leisure. Regimented and controlled at the factory or office, the worker tends to lose the desire to participate actively in his own amusement, and all to often relies on mass-produced entertainment to be sold to him. 

Impersonality and Excessive Specialisation

As a consequence of the commodity function placed upon human labour power, personal worth is reduced to exchange value. Everyone has his price, not only for what he does but for what he is. Human relationships are regarded as the subject of calculated business transactions ("what does he want in return?”) and are lacking in all dignity. The situation is well described by Hortense Powdermaker in "Hollywood— The Dream Factory”:—

“Man has become increasingly lonely. Although people live in close physical contact, their relationships have become more and more depersonalised. We have a sense of being with people, and yet do not feel in any way related to them. The technique of business and many other organisations in trying to personalise their selling relationships, such as by announcing the name of employees to customers, really fools no one. The fact that the name of the post office clerk, the bank teller or the person who handles complaints in the department store, is posted does not really influence their relationship with customers. The market place is still basically impersonal."

Perhaps the greatest denial of human characteristics is the excessive specialisation of function that Capitalism has developed. In earlier societies man was able to combine in one person many different functions and, in relation to his society, his development was many-sided. The craftsman in feudal times had the satisfaction of making whole articles, and his work held interest and pleasure for him because he could clearly appreciate the social value of what he produced. Today the worker rarely makes a whole article or gives a service that is wanted, not for business, but for its own sake. He is part of a machine for producing wealth and, like all machines, he must be made to function as "efficiently” as possible. Thus the multifarious operations required in the production of a motor-car for competitive sale must, as Ford has shown, be broken down into their simplest component parts; so that the ultimate aim is that the worker shall make only one movement as frequently as possible.

Throughout the whole range of capitalist employments the accent lies on paying attention almost exclusively to a small section of the whole economic process, which involves a failure to comprehend that it forms a segment of a much wider field. Few men have first-hand experience of any productive activity outside their own jobs—they come to rely more and more on the services of “ specialists.”

Symptoms of Maladjustment

What sort of cultural “superstructure” arises from this falsely separated, depersonalised and excessively specialised mode of production? In the short space of this article we can only touch upon a few aspects of present society, and show that they are given their character by the capitalist system. We read, for example, in Margaret Mead’s ‘“Male and Female,” of 

“ . . . the cultural meaning of prostitution and promiscuous homosexuality, venereal disease, acute alcoholism, and sex crimes. These all occur, and their form and frequency are indices of the maladjustment that exists in the United States, as in every modern society. They are symptoms of the state of society, just as the phobias and compulsions of the patient are symptoms.

“They are systematically related to the culture.” 

When we compare this approach to the one that seeks to lay blame for society’s ills on the individual’s wickedness, we can see how much more rational the former is. The solution, we perceive, is not to complain that there are “problem” people in the world who must be reformed, but to tackle the cause of the problem in the world itself. The dualism that characterises everything under Capitalism—buyer and seller, employee and employer, competition and monopoly, work and leisure—is perhaps most apparent in the gulf between the theory of what should be and the practice of what is. This is aptly illustrated by Bergen Evans in “The Natural History of Nonsense”:—

“We are brought up to expect rewards for certain kinds of behaviour and then thrown into a world in which none of the signals works. We are taught as children to be kind, self-sacrificing, and helpful, never to to be greedy or aggressive. Then we must five in a ruthlessly competitive economy. We are taught to be honest, in preparation for a world in which honesty is often penalized, and dishonesty, in a thousand forms, is often rewarded. Our ambition is stimulated and we are assured of success if we will onty ‘apply ourselves,' when actually, by the very nature of things, nine out of ten must be disappointed, and chance carries as much weight as merit.

“ The result is mass frustration and despair.”

#    #    #    #

Such is the capitalist environment into which we are born. Yet, in spite of it all, people do, on the whole, manage to be kind, unselfish, helpful and honest, and their greed and aggressiveness is mostly the reaction to unfortunate circumstances. It is certain that if such a disunited, contradictory, and anarchical system as Capitalism can hold people together in society, then one which is designed to harmonise with their needs will not fail because of the frailty of human nature.

Stan Parker

(Next Article: We Learn From Social Scientists.)

What is religion? (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most people think they know what religion is, but nearly everybody has different ideas, even more so than with economic terms like Socialism, Capitalism, etc.

The pamphlet “Socialism and Religion” published by the party in 1911, and reprinted in 1925, and since then out of print, states that the fundamental idea of religion is a belief in the persistence of life after death. It goes on to say “ Originally, and in essence throughout, religion is a belief in the existence of supernatural beings, and the observance of rites and ceremonies in order to avert their anger or gain their good-will. ‘Corpse-worship’ as it has been tersely called, is the protoplasm of religion.” This is more a description of the salient points of religion than a definition.

In the chapter on religion in the pamphlet “Questions of the Day” the following statement on religion occurs at its commencement “Religion is woven like a thread into the texture of human society from early times to the present day. It is based upon man’s ignorance of natural forces and has been propped up by rulers as a means of keeping slaves in subjection.” This again is scarcely a definition, but explains (quite correctly) what religion does.

Marx’s well-known statement that “Religion is the opiate of the people ” (or a more correct translation “opium for the people”) which occurs in his letters to Kugelmann and his essay on Hegel, is scarcely a definition, but rather a statement on an aspect of religion.

Thousands of divines have had a shot at giving a definition of religion, but most of them define religion as “appreciating God’s love to mankind” or “accepting Jesus as our Savour,” etc. All such ideas could never be accepted as a basis of discussion if we wished to examine religion and its influence.

Matthew Arnold defined religion as “Morality touched with emotion.” But Matthew Arnold was himself touched with religion, and therefore somewhat unreliable.

One thing is very certain, and that is that all ideas of religion are bound up with belief in God or gods. God of some kind is essential to religion, and next to a God or gods, something which God does, i.e., performs miracles, gives us or promises after fife, writes or inspires men to write religious literature, and accepts prayers from those he has made or created. Religion, then can be said to consist of five things:—

1. Belief in God or gods.
2. Belief in Miracles.
3. Belief in Life after Death.
4. Belief in the Efficacy of Prayer.
5. Belief in Holy or Inspired Books.

It is true that not all religions have all these five characteristics. Buddhism for instance does not have a personal God or Deity as does the Christian religion and in that sense can be claimed as somewhat Agnostic although not Atheistic. But most religions have these characteristics, while Christianity—that cemetery of dead religions—is endowed with them all.

We do not place these in order of their importance, although everything emanates from the Belief in God or gods.

Horace Jarvis

(To be continued.)