Editorial: The Fruits of "Practical Politics" (1952)

Editorial from the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The advocate of Socialism has varied opponents but on one thing they are almost all unanimous, that Socialism is not practical. They will concede that is is a noble conception and attractive but say that it fails to meet the needs of the world we live in today; it does not offer practical solutions to the urgent problems that must be tackled at once. These critics sweep aside as nonsensical the Socialist answer that there are no solutions to these problems short of changing the foundations of human society the world over. Let us then examine two aspects of the work of the "practical men” in this country, first their handling of the housing problem and second their endeavours to save us from war.

When the first world war began the Government and the chief Opposition parties agreed that the only practical thing to do in order to prevent rents from rising rapidly was to control them by Act of Parliament. The motives of those who supported this development were mixed. Some thought of it as a means of protecting the standard of living of the poor, while the Government had in mind principally the desire to discourage all-round strikes for higher wages, because this would interfere with the prosecution of the war. But they all agreed in telling us that it was a fine thing and should be continued, as indeed it has up to the present day though with loopholes and with permitted increases of rent in various circumstances.

They still claim that it was a fine thing; or at least they did until some of the consequences that they had not foreseen began to demand attention. So now a widespread call has been made, with backing in all three main parties, that something must be done. A “Reform” is needed—for the purpose of undoing the problem created by the first reform. For it has been discovered by investigators that almost as fast as new houses are being built old houses are falling to pieces because the rents allowed to the landlords of many rent-controlled houses do not make it worth their while to keep the houses in repair.

The results of an inquiry made by the News Chronicle ”lead to an estimate " that each year 200,000 houses—roughly the same number being built—become obsolete.” (N.C. 26/8/52.)

The local authorities have power (as the result of other social reforms achieved by the “practical men”) of demanding that repairs be carried out. So a new problem has arisen, of the owners of decrepit property finding ways of unloading their worthless property in order to escape liability. The local authorities take over some such properties, carry out the repairs and seek to levy the cost on the owners but are often unable to get "anything like the total amount” (Manchester Guardian 30-8-52).

The Manchester Guardian writer continues:—

“More adroit and less scrupulous owners succeed in conveying their property to men of straw who, for a consideration, will accept ownership of half a tottering terrace. One such, in Manchester, against whom the local authority, in theory, could make a considerable claim as the owner of a number of houses, is an inmate of a social welfare institution."

The same writer records that many of the houses "unfit for habitation” that continue to be inhabited because the occupants have nowhere else to go ” “are owned by small property owners, often the sons or grandsons of thrifty working men brought up to believe that bricks and mortar were a sound investment.”

But although the practical men have discovered that their original scheme has solved nothing and are calling for a new solution, they do not know what to do.

"Obviously,” says the Manchester Guardian, "the extreme dilapidation of much working-class housing in our industrial centres is not to be remedied by an adjustment of rents, still less by the removal of any restriction, which would merely add rack-renting to the burden of squalor and discomfort” And the writer ends his article with the remark: “To raise them would bring a swelling flood of complaints. How, anyway, can one raise the rents of property on which, since it has been condemned, no rent at all is just?”

We may leave the practical men who sought to solve the housing problem under Capitalism to reflect on the folly of their utopianism. Socialists told them, long before, that the housing problem, like the poverty problem in general, is insoluble within the framework of the capitalist system. In particular we would remind supporters of the Labour Party of their stupidity in thinking that you can improve a social system the driving force of which is the making of profit by cutting out the land and housing capitalists’ prospects of making profit.

How sensible is re-armament?

Let us now look at the problem of war. In a speech at Woodford Mr. Churchill congratulated the trade unions on backing re-armament and hoped "that our policy of keeping our re-armament within the bounds of national solvency will also commend itself to sensible men and women throughout the country.” (Times, 8/9/52.)

Here we have our "practical men” again, this time called " sensible.” Just how sensible is re-armament? To those who live in Britain and America and their allied countries it appears to be a sensible proceeding when the population are crying out for more and better food and clothing, not to mention habitable houses to live in, to devote labour and resources to the manufacture of weapons of destruction. Their justification for this odd view is that it has to be done because the Russian Government likewise is devoting fabulous sums to the manufacture of atom bombs, warplanes and all the other terrifying weapons of war.

But in Russia other “practical men"—as like their British counterparts as peas in a pod—are deluding themselves with the same specious argument.

They all (in both camps) admit that it is folly, but plead that it is necessary folly, caused only by the unreasonableness of the governments on the other side of the Iron Curtain. And all of them excuse themselves by saying that they are at all times ready to discuss at the round table “reasonable” proposals for the nations to co-operate.

Here the socialist intervenes once more with some real practicality in the form of facing the facts of the world we live in. The world is a capitalist jungle in which all the nations—for all are capitalist—struggle and arm and fight to preserve themselves from going under. They can do no other. The idea that nations in the capitalist world can co-operate on a friendly basis is purest utopian self-deception. Nations cannot co-operate for all are driven on by competition for markets, materials, strategic frontiers, etc. The only co-operation they can envisage is that induced by fear, the fear that drives them to huddle together in the rival camp.

Again the socialist insists that the only solution is to end the world jungle of Capitalism, but to achieve that it is necessary for the world’s populations to turn their backs on Capitalism and all its ways.

Is this practical? It is the only practicality for the human race. Is it immediately possible? Not until the socialist message has been widely accepted. And in this respect all the countries are in the same plight that the populations in the main fear and dislike the consequences of Capitalism but do not reject Capitalism itself. Mr. Churchill was speaking the truth when he claimed of the Tory and Labour parties that “ four-fifths of both parties agreed on four-fifths of what should be done.” They are still living in the world of make believe of thinking that what should be done is to try and reform Capitalism into something beneficial to the human race.

It is the task of the Socialist Party to win over the working class to the conviction that Capitalism should be ended and Socialism instituted in its place.

Slings and Arrows: Empty Boasting (1952)

The Slings and Arrows column from the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Empty Boasting

The remarks of a London Magistrate on the case of a man charged with obtaining Public Assistance by false pretences have focussed some attention on the question of granting aid to workers who have started new jobs and whose wages are withheld until they have worked for two weeks or longer. The Magistrate expressed the opinion that it was a “scandalous state of affairs" and he hoped the authorities would “look into it.” The Manchester Guardian (27-8-52), in a fairly lengthy article on the subject quotes from a 1949 report issued by the National Assistance Board to show that this is not a new problem. The report reveals that the Board is troubled by the growing practice of employers in withholding the first week's wages. It admits that the complexities of modern book-keeping make this practice necessary, but suggests that Public Money should not be spent to support workers who could support themselves if they received in time what they earned. That this is not a small problem is shown by the figures adduced by the Board. In a sample week chosen at random 6,892 payments were made to meet the “urgent needs” of workers not in receipt of their first week's wages. We are not concerned with the fact that the National Assistance Board is, in effect, subsidising some businesses. What, however, does concern us is that it throws a light on the hollow claims of Labour leaders and “left-wing intellectuals" of the “New Statesman" breed that poverty in England has been abolished since 1945. Not all the social services, nor the increases in money wages have removed poverty from the experience of the working-class. One week's wages short and they must apply for National Assistance.

The Manchester Guardian and the Assistance Board suggest a solution. Firms should loan their workers money and take it back out of subsequent earnings. We do not doubt that this might solve the problems of the National Assistance Board, although they themselves are not quite sure that the repayment of the loans would not set up further problems. But these are troubles which leave us unmoved. The worker is still at the mercy of a lost week's wages, and whether he gets an advance from his boss or from the Assistance Board makes no difference to him. The Manchester Guardian does not point out the obvious answer—abolition of the wages system, but then it is not concerned with solving workers’ problems.

“When Mercy seasons Justice"

There are a number of views on the treatment of criminals which vary between the extremes of the iron fist and the kind-hearted sentimental approach. In between these views is the one which holds firmly that the criminal should not only be punished but helped to rehabilitate himself in Society. While Capitalism continues, crime will flourish and criminals will need to be dealt with in some way or another, and so it seems sensible that the criminal should be aided to re-establish himself. It is gratifying therefore, to learn that the Western Powers are taking this view. News is forthcoming of a criminal who was sentenced in 1945 to twelve years penal servitude and released after six years to find his property had been confiscated and that he had no place in Society. After a further six years struggle he has won back his position and has been granted £30,000,000 compensation by a dilatory but repentant Conqueror. Let it not be thought that the Allies are being quixotic or foolhardy. Not a bit of it. Although he is getting this cash he will not be allowed to control the undertakings which bear his name. This will keep him out of bad company and prevent him repeating his former crimes or getting into bad habits.

There are many disgruntled people who will complain at this magnanimity on the part of the allies. We feel sure that there will be many, knowing that the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society give ex-prisoners 5s. and a Railway Voucher, only too ready to draw odious comparisons. But a mere glance at the facts will suffice to show that such comparisons are invidious. Here is a man, Herr Alfred Krupp, owner of huge armament and steel industries who is charged, tried and found guilty of crimes of looting, conscription of slave labour, ill-treatment resulting in the deaths of hundreds of his slaves, and all sorts of plots and conspiracies, released from gaol after six years. In the first place it is obvious that he is not used to prison life. Is it not logical, is it not proper, is it not justice that he should be given enough to keep him on the straight and narrow path ? Should not also, a bonus be added to compensate him for his years in gaol £30,000,000 is hardly enough. It only gives him the greatest bank account in Europe, if not the world. As against this let us examine the common or garden burglar who has served his eighteen months, who was born in poverty and lived in poverty all his life. Of what use would £30,000,000, £30,000, or even £30 be to him ? 5s. and a Railway Voucher are quite enough to restore him to the place to which be is accustomed. That being the case we hope that no one will remind us that many millions of people were led to the slaughter in the belief that they were fighting to break the power of the over-privileged and introduce the “Century of the Common Man,” the Atlantic Charter, and the constitution of the United Nations. To mention this now would be unkind and leave a nasty taste in the mouth of Alfred Krupp.

Pot and Kettle

Mr. W. H. Chamberlin. American journalist and writer of several books on Russia has written to the Manchester Guardian (12-9-52) taking to task their reviewer of the book by Alan Moorehead “The Traitors.” The reviewer's sin lies, according to Mr. Chamberlin in the fact that he reproved the author for not having mentioned as traitors those Russians who had sold secrets to the Western Powers. According to Mr. Chamberlin those who sell Western secrets to the Russians are vile traitors, while those who sell Russian secrets to “us” are heroes and only doing what’s right. He says that this must be so because the West .stands for a “free and civilized society,” while Russia represents “Totalitarian Barbarism." He further states, that every crime and atrocity associated with nazism can be matched with examples from the record of “Soviet Communism.” This may well be true. But we go further. We assert that the atrocities inflicted by the Germans or Russians on those who stood in their way can equally be matched by the past and present conduct of the Western powers. One has only to read history to realise that ail nations who have to maintain their position in the capitalist world have from time to time been guilty of the vilest crimes. Therefore Mr. Chamberlin's thesis breaks down. We are sure that there must be a Russian Chamberlin who is proving that those who hand secrets to the allies are traitors, but those like Fuchs, Nunn May and Pontecorvo are heroic martyrs. It has always been the habit of the ruling class of each country to applaud the subversive elements existing in the enemy ranks. During World War 1, German Social Democrats who opposed the war were applauded in this country by the very people who were putting anti-war agitators at home, in gaol. Why should we be interested in who sells what secrets to which power ? Whoever does the spying does so in the interests of the ruling class of his respective country.

S. A.

A New Capitalist Revolution? (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the passing of time and the acceleration of the tempo of events over the last few decades, there seems to be growing among the supporters of Capitalism a desire to see their system as young and virile as it was a century or more ago. In Britain this desire has lately found expression in the concept of a New Elizabethan era, with all its supposed opportunities for giving rein to those doubtful virtues of individualism and enterprise.

In America, however, there is no comparable period of history upon which to found such a mythology of a golden era to return. Instead of feeling that they have something approaching senility which can somehow be rejuvenated, propagandists for American Capitalism appear to be very concerned to create the impression that they have something completely new—an American Revolution, unique, progressive, and above all superior to a "Socialist” Britain or “Communist” Russia.

Let us take a closer look at some of the evidence that is brought forward to substantiate this theory of a new capitalist revolution. One of the most consistent media used to expound it in this country is the monthly "Reader's Digest.” In its August issue there appeared an article on “Humanising Industry—A New Revolution” (from “Time” magazine), and in September “The Unsystematic American System” (from “Harper’s Magazine”). Both are fairly representative of the sort of views that Americans are encouraged to hold about their country’s economic system in historical relation to the rest of the world.

Humanizing Industry

One of the chief effects of the Industrial Revolution upon workers as a class was their reduction to the status of appendages to a vast impersonal machine, caused by the development of mass production for a market. Socialists recognise that the nature of Capitalism is such that within it no basic change can be made in this subservient status of the workers. But, according to “Time” magazine:—

“Now a second Industrial Revolution, quieter but more profound, is sweeping through U.S. industry. Its name: Human Relations in Industry. Its purpose: to give the worker a sense of usefulness and importance. Its goal: to make life more fun by making work more meaningful.”

This, one may think at first glance, sounds just what the doctor ordered. But these otherwise admirable sentiments turn out to be only a build-up for a variant of that bugbear of regimented workers, time and motion studies. Pioneered in the 1880’s by Frederick Winslow Taylor, whose system caused managements to think of workers as little more than machines that had to eat, these studies facilitated speed-up on the factory assembly lines up to the point where greater “efficiency” no longer yielded greater output. Then in 1923 a sociologist, Elton Mayo, made the startling discovery that the men were poor producers (i.e., produced less than was felt could be squeezed out of them) because they were unhappy; so he prescribed four daily rest periods and brought in a nurse to whom workers could complain. Result: production for the first time reached the established quotas of efficiency.

The industrial psychologists were called upon to counteract the ill effects on production of the over-application of time and motion studies. But have these refinements in any way altered the workers' status as sellers of labour power? Obviously, the object of introducing welfare measures is to create more efficient workers, and not “to make life more fun.” It is certainly an adroit move on the part of employers to disguise their profit motive by talking about making workers happy, though this is not to suggest that they prefer unhappy ones. The proof, however, that the workers’ feelings are the by-product of the system and not its chief concern is the obstinate reluctance of employers to spread a little happiness by granting wage increases.

While on the subject of humanising industry it is interesting to note that some American observers dispute the view that any real change has taken place. Thus, in “Hollywood—The Dream Factory,” Hortense Powdermaker writes:—

“The technique of business and many other organizations in trying to personalize 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."

There is no reason to suppose that the selling relationship between worker and capitalist has in fact changed, despite the propaganda to the contrary.

New Role of the Unions

In order to gain the fullest advantage from the introduction of expensive plant and machinery, industrialists in America have been obliged to find ways of overcoming the resistance of workers to intensive exploitation. Recognising the labour unions’ right to bargain collectively, the employers have turned what might have been defeat into victory by inviting them to co-operate in the task of exploiting the workers.

“Management began to learn that the once-feared unions themselves held keys to higher production. In Pittsburg the United Steel Workers challenged one management to name its most productive department. Then the union boosted production there by 210 per cent, in a month.

“In one Detroit metal tubing company, every attempt to boost production by special incentives had failed. The company offered the union a novel proposal: set a certain standard for labour costs and let workers and management share all the savings when increased output drove costs below that figure. Not only did production beat all records, but the workers themselves began prodding slackers.”

Perhaps the author of the above, in his enthusiasm, has not noticed the irony of using the phrase “a certain standard for labour costs” in an article on humanizing industry. It effectively explodes the myth that American capitalists regard their workers as something more than costs of production. A few extra dollars “profit-shared” seems to be a pretty high price to pay for the spectacle of workers prodding each other instead of the boss and his union-leader lackey.

The working class of America (and elsewhere) has yet to see that if its “share” of the profits becomes more than an insignificant fraction of the total profit, then this enables wages to be reduced, which in turn makes it harder to get a cut out of what the boss saves on labour costs. New production records become new standards, which the worker must exceed before he qualifies for his hand-out There is nothing revolutionary about this ingenious device—the carrot is perhaps a little juicier but is still out of reach of the straining donkey.

The Unsystematic System

According to the article in the September “Reader’s Digest” the word Capitalism no longer fits the present American system because "it stands for the primitive economic system of the 19th century.” Let us grant, for the purpose of argument, that another word may be used to denote the economic system of the 20th century to date. Have there been any fundamental changes to justify the assertion that a revolution has taken place comparable to that transforming Feudalism into Capitalism?

“A combination of patchwork revisions of the system—tax laws, minimum-wage laws, subsidies, guarantees and regulations, plus union pressures and new management attitudes—had brought about a redistribution of income, from the well-to-do to the less well-to-do.

”. . . the business system as a whole seemed to run better if some of the national income was ploughed into improvements in the income and status of the lower-income groups, enabling them to buy more goods and thus to expand the market for everybody. Americans had discovered a new frontier to open up: the purchasing power of the poor.”

The claim to have redistributed income must be treated with considerable scepticism. Every capitalist power describes its reform measures in this way; in this country Lord Beveridge may be credited with having reorganised poverty along similar lines. The most significant part of the argument concerns the purchasing power of the poor. Note that no reference is made to abolishing poverty—the poor are still to remain such, but with improved income and status.

To sum up. Capitalism in America, far from having been revolutionised, is still immensely strong and resourceful. It has succeeded in gaining the acquiescence of the majority in ways that are remarkably similar to those used in Soviet Russia—allegedly new management attitudes, democracy in industry, raised purchasing power of the poor. But, even assuming that all these things have all the advantages claimed for them, the system based upon private property and exploitation has not disappeared. Neither the threat of war nor the poverty and insecurity of the majority has been removed.

To workers seeking a way out of their problems without understanding what causes them, the idea of a capitalist revolution may seem to be a kind of second best to a socialist one. To socialists, the word revolution has a precise meaning—a complete change in the structure of society. All imitations must be refused, since they bring inevitable disappointment and delay the coming of the real thing.

Stan Parker

Who are the "Crackpots?" (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In its editorial, The People (7/9/52) greatly deplores the half million trade unionists who opposed the resolution on wage restraint at the Margate Conference of the T.U.C.

Referring to these workers as “crackpots,” “firebrands,” “flat earthers,” etc., who are “living in the age of the Tolpuddle Martyrs,” “Man o’ the People” tells us that “the workers do not want more money. They want more goods. More pieces of paper in their wage packets on Fridays cannot buy them more goods because they are not available.”

Here The People did not finish the sentence, which it should have concluded with—. . . . to the workers. But being supporters of the capitalist system The People could not be expected to see what must be obvious to every worker who takes his leisurely stroll in Kensington High Street or Oxford Street, etc.

Not available? The shops are crammed with every conceivable kind of food, clothing, furniture, etc.

“If we want more goods we’ve got to make them, or, if the goods we want come from abroad, we’ve got to sell more goods to the foreigner to buy them,” continues The People.

But that is exactly what the workers are doing, constantly making goods, but, with a difference, which seems to have escaped “Man o’ the People,” the workers are producing these goods for the capitalists, for sale and profit on the market.

The capitalist class, having property rights in all the wealth produced by the workers, and having to return only a part thereof for their upkeep, not only wants these things, but can pay for them, and has them.

The workers, on the other hand, lacking what the economists call “effective demand” cannot pay for these goods, and, therefore, do not get them.

They get slums, poor food, shoddy clothing, simply because they cannot buy back what they have produced.

The People, in common with other apologists of the capitalist class is constantly urging us to produce more and more and telling us that one day—it does not say when—we will all be better off.

A recent example of the work-harder campaign is the increasing unemployment amongst the textile workers in Lancashire.

“Under-production” or “over-production,” there has always been a shortage of the necessities of life for the majority of people, and whether the worker “thinks every employer is a wicked Capitalist engaged in a horrible conspiracy to down the working man” (in the words of The People) or whether he thinks they are all kind-hearted gentlemen, this is a fact which stares him in the face every time he looks in a shop window and wonders, “Can I afford it? ”

Whilst the majority of workers do not understand or desire Socialism, they will go on supporting Capitalism, and in doing so will continue to face the conflicts of that system of society. The struggle has not lessened with the “passing of the age of the Tolpuddle Martyrs,” rather has it increased.

The People ends with the hope that “the unions themselves will now set about clearing out these wreckers of the new social order that men died and slaved to build for us.”

We must confess as workers that we are unaware of any new social order having come into existence. Not having any reason to “study the stars” under The People's astrologer “Lyndoe,” it may have escaped our notice.

No, we still have Capitalism with us though we can grant this to The People, that “men did die and slave to build it,” thousands of them! Not only men. but women and children also, slaved 10, 12, 14, 16 hours per day and died of disease and poverty, often at an early age, and though in our present era the slavery may be masked a little, by a “five-day week,” “music while you work,” “National Health Schemes” and all the other “benefits” modern Capitalism has bestowed upon us, the slavery is still there.

Our forbears who struggled with eternal hope would indeed turn in their graves could they see how their successors have deserted the class struggle for the wining and dining, and kowtowing of our present “leaders.”

As trade unionists, we do not (as The People suggests) believe that “ their outlook and their reason are about as out-of-date as the flat earthers.” We regard the struggle for higher wages as a continuous necessity whilst Capitalism lasts, and incidentally, point out that the choice of “flat earthers” is an unwise one. as it was shown then that the ruling class was opposed to the ideas of the “crackpots” of that day.

When the new “social order,” Socialism, is established, access to the goods produced will not be determined by how much we will have in our wage packets, because there will be no wage packets.

The terrific waste of man-power at present directed to the needs of Capitalism, would be ended to ensure an abundance of all the things we need plus the so-called luxuries that people may desire.

A hundred and one different occupations necessary under Capitalism would not be required if goods were produced for use instead of profit.

When such a sane system of society is established only a few “crackpots” would wish to retain the present organised chaos known as Capitalism. They indeed would be the flat earthers!

G. H.

A word of advice to Labour Party supporters (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party is searching for a policy. The nationalisation of the basic industries and the extension of the social services have been brought about and still the position of the working class remains unchanged, the workers must sell their ability to work for a wage that scarcely buys the necessities of life. At the last general election a large number of workers showed their discontent with the Labour Party’s administration by placing the Tories in power. To rally the support of the workers next time, a host of publications have been issued recently by the Labour Party and groups within it. All attempt to find some new solution to the problems of Capitalism, since nationalisation and the welfare state have failed to solve them.

One of these publications, the “New Fabian Essays,” was reviewed in the Economist (May 25th, 1952). The reviewer wrote:—

“Mr. Crosland presents a skilful analysis of the mixed economy, neither Capitalism nor Socialism, that war and six years of Labour rule have created. Mr. Strachey thinks rather well of the result and Mr. Crossman, naturally, dismisses it contemptuously as ‘welfare capitalism.' Neither manages to define the Socialism which he wants to evolve from it. Mr. Crosland himself effectively challenges the stock Left-wing assumption that the mixed economy is naturally transitory and must pass quickly into some sort of Socialism; and he dismisses several of the orthodox lines of advance—more social services, more nationalisation, more controls, more direct taxation—without making the alternatives at all clear . . . 

“. . . . The gross result is certainly not even the beginnings of a new philosophy either of socialist change or of consolidation in the welfare state."

The Glasgow Forward (23rd August, 1952) commented upon another of these publications:—

“The Labour Party's latest policy statement—ironically titled 'Facing the Facts'—has met with all-round criticism. It tries to please everybody in the party and ends of pleasing nobody. At the moment the Labour Party is suffering from too many personalities, too many platitudes—and too few policies."

Another pamphlet published by the Socialist Union, “Socialism—A Restatement of Principles,” is called by the Tribune (11th July, 1952) “ Sunday School Socialism.” According to the Economist (June 28th, 1952), the pamphlet argues that “The Labour movement is not . . . concerned with overthrowing Capitalism and replacing it by something called Socialism . . . All the social and economic changes from the Capitalism of the nineteenth century cannot be seen as part of the transition to some definite socialist system . . .” 

From this the pamphlet goes on to protest against the class war as an instrument of socialist advance: it declares roundly that the programmes and thoughts of socialists “have all grown out of the discontents of the past, and were designed to meet the injustices of a past age it not only objects to the identification of nationalisation with Socialism, but asks whether anyone knows what “socialisation” means. . . .

“All this is, of course, destructive,” wrote the Economist. “Positively, socialist union offers as yet ethical, not political, principles; and the best of ethics can lead men to almost any practical conclusion.”

Over 70 years ago. Frederick Engels had something to say about the relation of ethics to Socialism which was later published as “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Here Engels traced the origin and development of Socialism, its historical conditions and philosophical ideas. He called those who sought to bring about a better society by appealing to ethical principles. Utopians. He wrote:

"The ‘Utopians” mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the nineteenth century. and still governs some of them. Until very recently all French and English socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling was of the same school. To all these Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding. his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive one of the other. Hence from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion, a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of the different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition, a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed, the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

“To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.” (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” Vol. II, pp. 117-8, Marx Engels' Sel. Works, published by Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd.)

As the foregoing comments on the Labour publications show, Engels’ words also describe the Labourites of the 20th century.

Engels pointed to the working class struggles in the early 19th century and argued that these ’’facts more and more strenuously gave the lie to the teachings of bourgeois economy as to the identity of the interests of capital and labour. As to the universal harmony and universal prosperity that would be the consequence of unbridled competition . . .”

"The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history. Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange—in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as the religious, philosophical and other ideas of a given historical period. . . .”

"The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticised the existing capitalist mode of production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. The more strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the exploitation of the working class, inevitable under Capitalism, the less able was it clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted and how it arose. But for this it was necessary—(1) to present the capitalistic mode of production in its historical connection and its inevitableness during a particular historical period, and therefore, also, to present its inevitable downfall; and (2) lo lay bare its essential character, which was still a secret. This was done by the discovery of surplus value. It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labour is the basis of the capitalist mode of production and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it; that even if the capitalist buys the labour power of his labourer at its full value as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for; and that in the ultimate analysis this surplus value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up the constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist production and production of capital were both explained.” (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” Vol. II, M.E.S.W., pp. 123-5.)

After tracing the development of modern social production from small handicraft, Engels wrote:

“The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialised. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to the market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.

“This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonism of to-day.” (M.E.S.W.. Vol. II. pp. 128-9.)

Engels explained in detail the social antagonisms that follow from this fundamental contradiction and pointed out how it would be eliminated ”with the seizing of the means of production by society.” (P. 140.)

By this Engels didn’t mean nationalisation. He claimed that

"the transformation . . . into state ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces . . . the modern State . . . is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as the individual capitalists. The modem State, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers—proletarians.” (P. 136.) 

Members and sympathisers of the Labour Party seeking a policy to which they can give their support should lay hold of ”Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” and read it carefully. They can find it included in “Marx, Engels, Selected Works,” Vol. II. The language may reflect the conditions under which it was written, but as an exposition of the rise and development of capitalist society and the solution to its problems. Socialism, it is right up to date.

We hope that many of them would then realise that the object of their policy should be the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production and that to ” thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.”

J. T.

The Scientist's dilemma (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A spectre is haunting Asia—the spectre of Malthusianism. It so haunted Professor A. V. Hill, this year’s president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science as to virtually turn his address into a 1952 edition of Malthus’ “Essay on Population.”

Stating that the greatest problem to-day was the unrestricted growth of population—he had in view the Asiatic population—he said better medical services, prolongation of the span of life, lowering infant mortality, are accelerating the rate of population. "There is much discussion,” he went on to say, “of human rights, but do they extend to unlimited reproduction? Might not the consequences of such beliefs lead to soil exhaustion, international tensions and disorders which would threaten civilisation itself? ” He then asked “If ethical principles deny our right to do evil are we justified in doing good when the foreseeable consequences are evil? ” That, said the Professor, constitutes the ethical dilemma of science.

Professor Hill thus shares with Malthus and the Neo Malthusians the belief that population is in itself a potential source of evil which can actualise in overpopulation and result in widespread hunger, destitution and disease.

Malthus, a good Whig, but mostly a bad economist, also believed that. Living in what was perhaps the most pitiless period in English history—the Industrial Revolution—he held that the social misery it engendered was due to the fact that there were too many mouths and too little means with which to feed them. He stated that poverty and vice were due to over-population. Professor Hill switches the picture to Asia and arrives at the same conclusion. Just as Malthus declared that the giving of public charity would only aggravate the problem of over-population, so Professor Hill suggests that medical services and other aids to the peoples of Asia might have the same effect.

The growth of population is not of course governed by exclusive “Natural Laws.” In Western Capitalism, where the nature and tempo of production demands certain nutritional standards, these nutritional standards have not led, as predicted by Malthus and his followers, to accelerating the increase in population. In fact for decades now fertility has shown signs of declining. To the bogey of over-population there has been contrasted the bogey of under-population whose effects the “experts” have proclaimed would be almost as catastrophic.

Undoubtedly the higher nutritional levels and greater leisure of the workers of Western Capitalism as contrasted with the workers and peasants of India and China have made sex a less important emotional factor in their lives. Further, the insecurity of the wage worker in Western Capitalism and such things as unemployment, war, the housing situation, etc., are elements in family limitation. The entry of women into industry and the desire on their part to be relieved of the age-long burden of large families, have exercised a powerful influence on family limitation. The laws of population, as Marx pointed out, are not to be found in natural laws, but in a given historical situation. We may add that the world has never lived on the perilous margin between increasing population and food supplies which Malthusian doctrine would indicate.

A superficial survey might lead to the conclusion that the miserable living standards of the peoples of India and China are due to over-population. Professor Hill notes with dismay the five million yearly increase in the population of India where even with present plans for social aid, pre-war standards will hardly be restored. de Castro in “A Geography of Hunger,” puts the rate of increase at 4 million yearly, which amounts to a 1 per cent. increase, a figure, he adds, not very different from the European rate since 1900.

India, like Western Capitalism, is a place of contrast. It is a place of poverty for the many. It is also a place of vast wealth for the few. When the British ruling class added what was known as the Jewel of the Empire to their glittering colonial collection they did little or nothing during their stay there to improve the lot of the Indian people. When Professor Hill speaks of the impulses of decent humanity which insist that suffering should be relieved, history shows that the pukka Sahib was notoriously deficient in these things. It might also be interesting to note how much British rule was responsible for retarding the economic development of India and thus contributing to the distressing state of affairs that obtain there to-day.

In the past the native rulers of India and the British colonisers have evinced no real desire to raise the level of the masses. Thus Indian agriculture has remained in an intolerably primitive condition. It has been estimated that only 43 per cent, of the country is cultivated. One might think that an attempt to utilise for productive purposes the remaining portion by the application of Western resources and scientific techniques would constitute a challenge to those decent impulses of humanity instead of leading to the ethical dilemma in which Professor Hill finds himself.

Where there is poverty and degradation high birth rates and high death rates will inevitably occur. As Ritchie Calder said in the News Chronicle (4/9/52), “Men who live like animals breed like animals,” and we could add, die like them as well.

To suggest, as many Neo Malthusians do, that birth control is an answer to the problem, ignores the fact that a population could not by the mere act of reducing itself supply the necessary increased muscular energy that would be needed for an increased production of economic resources necessary for higher living standards. It could be held that where productivity is low and the death rate and ill health of people are high, large families are an inevitable and necessary feature of the. situation. It can be shown then, as de Castro emphasises in “ A Geography of Hunger,” that it is not over-population that leads to poverty, but the reverse. No wonder Marx caustically referred to Malthusian doctrines as “a libel on the human race.” We may add also that in a world where the privileged few exploit the unprivileged many, and that includes China and India, there can be no dominant social motive for the betterment of the vast majority by the use of all the economic resources available.

Again the class character of income distribution, inherent in Capitalism, compels it, if profits are threatened, to throw fish back into the sea, burn grain and coffee and generally restrict production no matter how crying the needs of the peoples of the world might be. And if further evidence was needed to show the misdirection of wealth production in Capitalism, a fellow scientist of Professor Hill, Sir Boyd Orr, has told us that soil exhaustion and erosion and the waste of labour and material on armaments threatens the world with famine.

It is perhaps pathetic to witness Professor Hill, a competent scientist in his own field, applying to complex social problems, not the appropriate level of scientific judgment, but a vague and amorphous ethical one.

Because of his lack of understanding of the nature of the world he lives in, the future for him is sinister and uncertain. Like Malthus he propounds a philosophy of social pessimism. We are optimistic enough to believe that economic and social development will falsify his gloomy prognosis as they falsified that of Malthus.

It would seem that fear and uncertainty of the future lead Professor Hill to sec in the “over-populated" a threat to Western ideas and the ordered existence of one’s life. Thus for him the withholding of economic resources from undeveloped countries might be one way of ensuring Western supremacy. The world will then still be the White Man’s World. From that assumption it is only a short step to a belief in a Master Race. Such assumptions, if widely held, help to prepare the ground for its realisation.

Perhaps that is why Professor Hill relegated the atomic bomb to a second place in world problems. It would seem, however, that Professor Hill does not like the idea of killing. He thus raises a dilemma unnoticed by himself. While he is opposed on moral grounds to killing, dying by hunger might be a necessary evil. Apparently, like Pope, he holds—"Thou shall’st not kill but need’st not strive, officiously, to keep alive.”

One might say in conclusion, looking at the ethically minded and their inhuman suggestions for the salvation of man, one sighs for the humanity of the anthropoid ape.

Ted Wilmott

History Through Tinted Spectacles (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is evident to anyone who is a student of history, however humble, and who is at the same time interested in trends in modem society, that much effort is being expended in bringing the minds of the public to bear on the so-called glories of the Mediaeval Age.

One can think of a number of reasons for this; first, there is the short-term policy—that of “cashing in" in a box-office sense, on the public’s natural curiosity for things of the past, as is evidenced by the spate of so-called “historical’’ films now being shown throughout the country.

The second and more serious reason for this revival in Mediaevalism and obscurantism is to provide an opiate for a society which is beginning to be restive, and in some cases, resistive to the present conditions of graft and gloom that its “leaders” are continually creating for it. These “leaders” are becoming increasingly aware that society is desperately ill and is heading for another major breakdown. Blame is continually laid at the "other fellow’s” door; it is either the poison of Russian "Communism,” which persists in corrupting the Capitalist Democracies or the poison of Capitalist germ bombs which continue to pour down on the heads of "Communist” countries.

The "free world,” i.e., the countries outside Russian Imperialism but subjected to other brands of the same disorder, are on the one hand building up economic barriers to protect themselves from one another (Britain, Australia, U.S.A. are all devoted to the cause of export whilst frowning on imports), while on the other hand they claim they are forced by the threat of Soviet Imperialism to form military alliances for their mutual protection.

It is plain to see that the world is rapidly dividing into two camps, the one representing the well-known company of actors who have for many years treated the general public with drama after drama—usually tragedy from the audience’s point of view—the other a somewhat newer company, branded as upstarts by the more respected company of stock-brokers, bishops and bankers but nevertheless feared for its lustiness and cleverness born of a study of the weaknesses in the make-up of its adversary. No amount of assurances from either side that both companies can continue to do business without coming to blows should convince us when we realise that it is in the nature of both to expand at the other’s expense. In the meantime the audience is being suitably conditioned by both sides whether it be the hypnotic influence of the Russian political ballet or the sanctified self-righteousness of the Western Capitalist knight errants both striving valiantly in the lists at U.N.O.

Which brings us back to Mediaevalism. It is one of the weapons in the armoury of Capitalist, the idea being to feed the workers on past glories in order to forget present-day problems. It is believed by some that a return to Mediaeval faith and philosophy, to the Mediaeval spirit of adventure and chivalry, will give this wobbling society of ours some "spiritual stability” whatever that may mean.

The lusty infant, Soviet Capitalism, utilises history too. It is more than ever tending to portray Russian history as a means of propaganda to its own and other audiences. It has made its peace with the Church on conditions mutually beneficial to Church and State.

In Britain, where an official State religion helps the Capitalist class in its legislation, abetted by numerous other Christian sects, many faithful Protestants banded in the Protestant League are much perturbed at the swing back to Catholicism on the one hand and to the rash of spiritualist churches on the other. While the latter disease is perhaps the misguided groping of befuddled and dispirited workers for a way out of their daily cares, the former appears to be a deliberate plan to bring the minds of people back to the Mediaeval philosophy of poverty.

The attempt to give the bloody wars in Malaya and Korea a semblance of a new kind of “Knight Errantry” is clearly seen from the public utterances of the leaders of Church and State to whom these wars appear as a holy crusade against “Communist” atheism by the one, as an economic necessity by the other, and as salvation to both from the horrors that may come when the exploited classes of all countries break their fetters.

It is when we really study the Mediaeval scene in its true light that we begin to see how utterly funny the present attempts at re-creation are, funny if they were not so terribly serious, if is time that the exploited masses realised the truth about the so-called glories of the Middle Ages; that it was a time of pestilence, famine and rigid class distinction when no man could get outside the pattern of lighters, prayers and peasants with the latter class supporting the whole Feudal structure on its broad back. The prayers and fighters often allied themselves with one another, as for example during the Fourth Crusade in Palestine. Villehardouin, one of six ambassadors to the Doge of Venice, asked for aid in transporting the Crusaders. He tells of an agreement made in March of the year 1201 —“ Sire, we have come to you on behalf of the noble barons of France who have taken the cross.... they pray for you for God's sake .... to furnish them transports and ships of war." The Doge then tells the ambassadors what aid he is prepared to give and continues, “ . . . and we will do more, we will add fifty galleys for the love of God on condition that of every conquest by sea or land, we shall have one half and you the other ....” While therefore the Venetians were willing to help the Crusade along “for the love of God ” they did not let that great love blind them to a fat share in the booty. The Church was of course extremely interested in the Crusade; the “private" of those days, like some of his counterparts to-day, was only interested in his orders and in the belief that dying in the war for Mother Church was a sure passport to heaven.

So great was the oppression of the serfs by the Chapter of Notre Dame de Paris in the reign of Louis, that Queen Blanche did what many modern philanthropists would do—remonstrated “in all humility" whereto the monks replied that “ they might starve their serfs as they pleased.”

The glorious works of art and architecture, the magnificent cathedrals and palaces, were built not only by the veneration of Christian craftsmen, but out of the sweat of the ignorant and oppressed masses and the blood of the conscript peasant who died fighting holy wars for Christian lords against other Christian lords and even if he did manage to survive the battles alive, lived to supply the wealth with which the members of the late lord's family bribed the Church in order that the period of confinement in purgatory would be lessened.

The progressive thinkers often thought at the peril of their lives if their views were a danger to the existing order. Galileo, who professed the theory of Copernicus that the earth moved round the sun, was forced to recant his scientific belief although earlier, Copernicus had dedicated the same treatise to the Pope. (The Mediaeval Church attracted to herself thinkers and men of learning in order that she might remain the dominating factor, though when she failed at any time she came down with a heavy hand on the blasphemer).

The seamen and explorers of the “Age of Discoveries” were inspired much more by the spur of loot than they were by the spirit of adventure.

It is indeed a fitting comment on the crisis in modern Capitalist society that it must once more revert to a past which it itself burst asunder as being incompatible with the new forms of exploitation and profit-making; that it once again invokes the Medieval spirit on the one hand and piles up super modern weapons on the other.

The writing is on the wall. Capitalism is like the villain in a crime magazine, waiting with bated breath for the stroke of midnight it has nowhere to turn. The world has been grabbed long ago (or almost all of it though various re-distributions go on from time to time, conducted by force or the threat of force as we see in Europe and Asia at the present time). We might remember in this connection the words of Cecil Rhodes, an arch Imperialist to whom the annexation of territories was part of his life blood, “ the world is nearly all parcelled out and what is left of it is bring divided up, conquered and colonised. To think of the stars overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could . . ."

The Christian fighting barons had a faith; the rising Capitalist class had a faith; Cecil Rhodes cleariy had one and we know for a certainty that the Church never lacked a faith. The workers should realise that these faiths, common to them all had to have for practical purposes, a vast army of unthinking automatons to keep them going—first peasants, now wage-workers.

The issue facing the perplexed workers is what to believe in and what to do. They can of course swallow the distortions of the glorious past and live in the Cinema dream world; they can stupify themselves with the various brands of opium turned out by the purveyors of the many religious sects from the State Established to those of humbler but perhaps more exciting causes. They can stop thinking altogether and “concentrate” on placing 14 correct symbols in their proper places on a football coupon, thereby hoping to win a fortune. One thing is plain they cannot go back. They are creatures of the present and must .take the consequences of the present.

Alternatively they can learn to understand Socialism. This will not come as a gift from heaven, neither is it mysteriously inspired nor does it come from “ leaders.” It can only grow from knowledge—a knowledge of the nature of Capitalism and the laws which govern Capitalist society. The only emancipators of the world's toilers will be the toilers themselves. They will then build edifices that will be monuments to those that follow—monuments to men who overcame the last barrier, who understood what freedom meant and having understood, became free.

W.T.B.

SPGB Meetings (1952)

Party News from the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Just a wee reminder that in the 40s and 50s Robert Barltrop wrote and spoke under the party name of 'R. Coster'. Those meetings he did for Leyton Branch on literary figures such as Orwell, Lawrence and Tressell look interesting.