Socialism v. Imperialism. (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the Socialist view of the Empire? What attitude would a revolutionary administration assume towards the "subject races"? These questions are prompted by the perusal of a recently issued book by Noel Buxton and Conwil Evans, entitled “Oppressed Peoples and the League of Nations” (J. M. Dent & Sons, 6s.); and the following article is an attempt to answer them.

Imperialism, like a good many other things, charity included, begins at home. The exploitation of the workers of other lands and their political subjugation is the outcome of the system of slavery imposed upon the workers of the Imperialist countries themselves, by the capitalist ownership of the means of life. Empires to-day arise out of the necessity for our rulers to find ever new markets for the commodities produced by associated labour, and also fresh sources from which to draw increased supplies of raw material. The workers of this country forge the weapons and supply the rank and file of the forces by which the coloured races of India and Africa are induced to remain loyal to the British flag; while it is only their political support which places Imperialist parties in control of those forces.

With the development of a working class conscious of its own interest and its consequent assumption of political power, capitalist Empires will follow all other forms of exploitation to the limbo of forgotten things. In their place will arise an association of the workers of the world for the purpose of co-operating to satisfy their common needs and to establish the opportunity for the highest possible development of every human being, irrespective of race or sex.

The realisation of such a system implies, without a doubt, a lengthy process of self-education of the working class the world over. Even with the overthrow of capitalist authority in Europe and America, that process might be far from complete. But such an overthrow would enormously accelerate its pace. The emancipated workers of the West would be able to utilise all the technical and literary resources of their late masters in the task of spreading among the workers of the East the knowledge necessary to achieve the social mastery of the economic forces of the world. They would be driven to do so, not by any imaginary "humanitarian” or "philanthropic” motive, but by the same forces which had impelled them to emancipate themselves, their class interest. For the fullest satisfaction of human wants to-day the world is necessary. Therefore, Socialism cannot be otherwise than international.

The authors of the above-mentioned book are far from taking up the Socialist position. Their attitude may be gauged by statements such as the following: “The immediate application of ideals may not be possible even if a British Government inspired by good-will is placed in power. In all probability it will prove able to lay its plans for an efficient League of Nations, and for a general reform of tropical administration, but it cannot hold its hand until ‘capitalism’ has been abolished at home, much less abroad. The urgencies of the moment will occupy much of its energy” (p. 71). From the context and several other passages in the book, we are left to assume that the Labour Party is to supply the “government inspired by good-will,” while “ the urgencies of the moment ” would appear to consist chiefly of the “emancipation” of the Armenian peasants from the control of the Turks, and of the Koreans from that of the Japanese !

Details concerning the atrocities committed by these two Imperial powers occupy quite a considerable portion of the book, yet one looks in vain for any similarly frank attitude towards the methods adopted by British, American, and the late Russian administrations. Such incidents as that at Amritsar are very briefly referred to, while British policy in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and India generally is whitewashed on the ground of the economic backwardness of the natives’ social order.

The nationalist movements in these various countries are criticised for their alleged extravagance of demands, yet the economic explanation of these movements is left as vague as that of Imperialism. Nowhere do the authors clearly put forward the simple fact that capitalist interests dominate in the political sphere. According to them, it is the “needs of the world” which impose limitations upon the “national right of independence,” while the nation in turn is regarded as a uniform entity, though they admit that the very “conception of nationality” eludes definition (p. 11). The class division in society is ignored.

As a remedy and preventive for the “too obvious evils of Imperialism” on the one hand, and the inconvenient “extremism” of Oriental Nationalists on the other hand, the authors advance the Mandation system of the League of Nations, with such reforms as would give greater direct power to the Council of the League. What appears to be lost sight of is the fact that no capitalist power can be obliged to “accept a mandate.” It will naturally do so only when its interests dictate such a step, and the methods of its administration will conform to those interests according to the conditions obtaining in the mandated territory. A case in point is Tanganyika Territory (late German East Africa), where the system remains practically unchanged except for the fact that British, instead of German, capital reaps its advantages.

The fullest development of the League of Nations, in accordance with the authors’ ideas, could only amount to the collective (and possibly more efficient) exploitation of the coloured workers by the larger capitalist groups. Inasmuch as competition would be restricted, the political power of these groups would be strengthened as against the rising bourgeoisie of the East, with a consequent throttling, to a further extent, of the ever-expanding forces of production. From this policy the workers of Europe and America have nothing to gain and everything to lose. The elimination of-competition among their capitalist masters means increased competition among the workers themselves. Their interests demand co-operation with the object of satisfying social needs rather than the production of luxury in idleness for a few.

If the Labour Party stands for the more efficient organisation of capitalist exploitation, nationally and internationally, that is one more argument in favour of our ceaseless opposition to that body. The above book simply provides additional evidence that this is the case. It is a good illustration of the extent to which “Liberal” capitalist principles are in the ascendant in the intellectual outlook of the up-to-date “Labour Leaders.” From first to last, working class interests are away in the background, effectually obscured by the shibboleths of Gladstonian “democracy.” In the view of the authors, it is the diplomats and not the workers who are the agents of “progress" (pp. 72,73).

To the Socialist the practical problem pressing for solution is not national or racial, but economic and social, cutting across all ethnical and geographical distinctions. The class struggle over the possession of the means of production and the products of labour is to us the supreme issue.

In opposition to all this distracting talk about this, that, or the other local “question,” what better answer can be given than that contained in the manifesto issued by the Socialist Party of this country on the outbreak of the Great War, in the September issue of this paper :—

  “Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow-workers of all lands the expression of our good-will and Socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalist and the triumph of Socialism.”

Eric Boden

Rent and Houses. (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

House and tenement owners in Scotland are squealing because the Government, which represents property owners generally, have not taken steps to save them from the results of their own ignorance and neglect. According to the Rent Act passed by the late Government, house owners should give notice to vacate premises when increasing rent. Many of them did not do so, hence numerous summonses for return of rent illegally charged, and a withholding of rent until the debt is paid off.

The Government is on the horns of a dilemma because relief has been promised to the owners, which shall be made retrospective. To break such a promise would, of course, be beneath the dignity of the "Mother of Parliaments”; while to make the tenants pay up would constitute a precedent and look too much like class legislation.. But a virtue can be made of necessity. The Government could subsidise the owners or tell them to pocket their losses. Whichever course they take, the claim will be made that it was the tenants who were considered, because they were poor workers who could not afford to pay.

Obviously, while the Act is in force, it is up to those who own houses to observe it. If they neglect to do so, with all the advantages on their side of better acquaintance with legal forms, they should submit to the penalty without squealing.

Of course, all sorts of unpleasant results are predicted if the no-rent strike is persisted in. One is that house building will cease because no-one will build unless rents are assured.

High rents and shortage of houses are undoubtedly a real hardship for the workers. Though it is nothing new for them to be herded in jerry-built drums with little or no convenience. Hutches that let in the wind, wet, and fog, but keep out the sunlight. Back-to-back tenements and flats, damp cellars and ramshackle attics are quite commonplace as "Englishmen’s homes.” There is nothing new in the fact that families of eight or ten live in a single room and take in lodgers. Pre-war newspapers often cited such instances. Why the outcry ?

The two things, shortage of houses and high rents, generally coincide. Given the first, the second follows. The capitalists who are interested in the production of any commodity always prefer to see the supply short of the demand, because it enables them to raise prices. The commodity in the present case is the use of a house for a period of weeks or months. The house owner realises his cost of production by drawing rents while the house remains habitable. He sells, and the tenant buys house accommodation or shelter, on the same basis and according to the same laws that govern the buying and selling of other commodities. Supply and demand are responsible for fluctuations in rent, while cost of production is the main level between the two extremes. When rents fluctuate upwards, either the workers must have increased wages to enable them to pay, or they must go short of other necessaries. Removals by night are far less common when there is a real shortage of houses, and private landlords as well as local councils invariably give preference to tenants who have a regular job with well-established firms, where they can be got at if pressure to pay becomes necessary.

The two alternatives before the wage workers are, therefore, to pay the landlord and go short of other necessaries, or struggle for a higher wage. But this is as much the concern of capitalists generally as it is of the workers. If capitalists require a certain standard of efficiency in their wage-slaves, the latter must be fed and clothed up to that standard. The whole question, consequently, resolves itself into a tug-of-war between one section of the capitalist class and all the rest, the workers’ standard of living taking the strain. At the moment the housing interests have the pull.

This explains somewhat the deep concern of writers in the capitalist Press about the shortage of houses and high rents. Until rents are reduced, capitalists generally cannot enforce the wage reductions they so earnestly desire without seriously impairing the efficiency of their wage-slaves. The agitation is on a par with the Free Trade movement of Cobden and Bright. The free importation of foreign corn was immediately followed by wholesale reductions in wages, because the workers could live more cheaply.

The capitalist system never did and never can insure to the bulk of the workers decent and convenient houses in which to live without overcrowding. The "council houses" are no better and no cheaper than those of the jerry-builder. House owners to-day know quite well that overcrowding suits their pockets far better than overbuilding, hence the demand that house building shall be left to private enterprise.

What is wrong is capitalism: private or class ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution for profit. The workers do not live on profits; why, then, should they produce for profits? They should organise politically for control of the State machinery in order to establish a system of society based on production for use. Under such a system, where the people controlled production and distribution through democratic administrations set up by themselves, houses would be built when and where they were needed. The wants of the people would determine the nature and extent of all production instead of, as to-day, the profits of a ruling class.

F. Foan

Letter: Commodities and Quids. (1923)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrade,

Regarding your reply to Mr. Archer, you say definitely that a sovereign is not a commodity, and you give as your reason that it can only act as currency inside the country of issue. Does that mean that a product of labour has to act as currency before it becomes a commodity, and if not, where does it fall short of being a commodity? In other words, could you clearly explain to me how to distinguish a commodity from other things?

W. W.

Answer to W. W.
A commodity is an article, or service, that is produced for the purpose of exchange or sale. Under modern conditions that means produced for the purpose of realising profit through a sale.

A product of labour falls short of being a commodity when it is produced for the producer’s personal use and not for exchange or sale. Whether a product of labour reaches the position of currency or not has no bearing on this question. Of the thousands of commodities produced today, only one acts as currency.

With the changes and developments of society, the currencies in use change their forms, and, often, some of their characteristics. In the early stages a commodity in general use may act as currency, while still remaining an ordinary commodity. Later, when the exchanges have grown far more numerous and complicated, a particular commodity is set aside to act specially as currency and will receive some social stamp or mark, to guarantee its genuineness. When it has reached this position, and only then, it ceases to be a commodity, as it is no longer produced for profit, but as an official instrument set apart for currency purposes.

Jack Fitzgerald

The Ruhr and the Workers. (1923)

Editorial from the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since 1918 those sections of the capitalist class which have dominated the Governments of France and Great Britain have been at grips behind a screen of apparently friendly discussion. While each group thought there was still a possibility of attaining its end through the ordinary diplomatic channels they avoided an open breach. The French Government finally appealed to armed force, the ultimate and deciding weapon of the ruling class everywhere, both in home and foreign matters, and occupied the important German industrial area in the Ruhr Valley. Some attempt is still made to keep up the pretence, and Mr. Ronald McNeill, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, states that “the whole disagreement is simply one as to the best method of obtaining our common end,” and that while

  “Our French friends believe they can make Germany pay at once by seizing control of some of her principal industries . . . we are convinced . . . that such action will produce almost nothing in the shape of immediate payment, and will delay for a long time the prospect of getting money out of Germany, and possibly may destroy it altogether.” (‘‘Observer,” 14th Jan., 1923.)

An assumption is here made which it will be useful to examine. It is that the aims of the French Government are identical with those of the British Government. Also no reference is made to the conflict of interests which exists within the two countries.

Let us deal with the first point.

Up to 1914, next to cotton in order of importance among British exports, were iron and steel (including machinery), and not far behind was coal. France, on the other hand, lacked coal of a kind suitable for her iron industry, and had to import about one-third of the required supply; but she possessed big deposits of iron ore, much of which was exported. The war has altered that position because France has obtained in Alsace-Lorraine 

  “by far the biggest ore field in Europe, and the second biggest in the world, . . .  according to Eckel (Coal, Iron, and War). In 1913, the Lorraine output had reached the colossal figure of 40,000,000 tons. The whole of that field, along with some of Germany’s most modern and scientifically equipped steelworks, is now entirely in French possession. The addition of so much iron ore alone would have been little help to France, for what she needed above all was coal. That, however, was not overlooked, and the Saar mines, with an output in 1913 of 17½ million tons, were also handed to France; and, in addition, Germany was compelled to send France some 20,000,000 tons per annum for a considerable number of years as part of the reparations." J. P. M. Millar, Plebs., Jan., 1923.)

Saar coal is, however, unsuitable for coking, and therefore “the Lorraine iron and steel industry is being kept alive on the coke coming from the Ruhr under the provision of the Peace Treaty.”

Naturally, the French capitalists want the Ruhr Valley permanently, “especially as it produces not merely coal, but iron, steel, and dye-stuffs and manure.”

This explains the policy of the French Government clearly enough, but where does Great Britain stand? The British capitalists went to war because Germany was rapidly overtaking them in the scramble for markets. Germany was already producing nearly two-thirds as much coal and more than twice the quantity of steel. Did Great Britain go to war to crush one rival only to raise up another just beyond the Channel? Did they (with the assistance of the Labour leaders) murder a million workers for nothing? The “Referee” is quoted by Millar as follows:—

  "If the French plan were adopted, and France allowed to seize and exploit the rich coal and iron fields of Germany . . . she would become the dominant industrial power on the Continent.  . . . We would be up against a powerful aggressive force in the international markets and be closed out of French spheres by high tariffs  . . . but we would oppose a new industrial concentration which would be distinctly hostile and detrimental to our industrial interests.”

No, the interests of the French and English capitalists are not identical.

Now let us return to the second point, the relations between the working class and the capitalist class. The capitalist class consists of those who own the means of wealth production and the workers are those who, owning nothing but their power to labour, must sell this if and when they can find a purchaser. Having done so, that is having obtained employment, they produce commodities, the whole of which belong to their employer, who seeks to sell them and to get the proceeds in a convenient form as money. The workers receive as wages an amount less than the wealth they have produced, and the difference forms the surplus value of the capitalist class. Because of the growing productivity which comes with machine development, and because the workers cannot buy the whole of the wealth produced, and the master class cannot themselves consume the surplus, unemployment exists as a permanent feature of modern society. Because the world is becoming more and more developed on capitalist lines and purchasers for the products of advanced manufacturing countries cannot be found, competition between national groups arises, which is expressed in commercial and military wars for the capture of supplies of raw materials and for the monopoly of the relatively shrinking world markets.

What should the workers do when the capitalist governments go to war? What should be their attitude towards the French invasion of the 'Ruhr?

The Labour Party in an official statement :—

  “repudiates . . . all responsibility for approving the policy now being pursued by the French Government towards Germany. It regards this policy as an invasion of a neighbouring State in time of peace . . . and consequently as an act of war. This invasion constitutes an attack on the self-determination of the German people, as well as an attack on the rights of the working class, who are treated as mere pawns or chattels.” (“Observer,” 14th Jan., 1923.)

This interesting declaration bears striking resemblance to the statements of the Labour Party’s leaders in 1914. Under the guise of the same spurious internationalism they seek again to further the interests of the British capitalist class.

The French workers do not own France nor the German workers Germany, a condition they share with the working class everywhere. What, then, does it matter to them that France invades the Ruhr? They are wage-slaves all, doomed to toil in poverty and insecurity producing profits for their masters so long as capitalism remains. Does it matter to them whether their masters are French or German, Atheists or Protestants, whether their pay is in francs or marks? If the French capitalists plunder their German rivals, by way of reparations or otherwise, that is their business.

But the British Government does not want France to have the Ruhr, and the Labour Party, as usual, follows its masters; even after many Liberals have advocated entire remission of reparation payments the Labour Party still advocates making Germany pay (“Daily Herald” Editorial, 4th Jan., 1923), and fears that this invasion will “diminish her capacity to make reparation payments” (15th Jan.).

They talk of a “time of peace.” The class struggle goes on unceasingly East and West of the Rhine, and where is the Government which can boast that it does not depend for its stability on armed force, and where is the Government (including the Australian “Labour” Government) which does not when need arises use that armed force against the workers? Is this peace?

In 1914 Mr. Arthur Henderson ‘‘appealed to every young man . . .  to come forward and serve his country . . . to avoid coming under that iron heel of Prussian Militarism ” (“Daily Citizen,” 16/9/14), and now because the direction of British Capitalist policy has changed, this Labour Party, of which Arthur Henderson is secretary, wants the Germans who are “under that iron heel, etc.,” to be saved from coming under the “iron heel” of France, our allies in the fight for freedom.

The German workers had no “self-determination” to lose. They were and are wage-slaves, and slaves are not in a position to select their masters, nor would it be worth while if they could. They can but accept the change.

As Mr. Phillips Price has pointed out repeatedly in the “Daily Herald” (e.g., 8th Jan.), the powerful group represented by Stinnes which—and not the German workers —really governed Germany, has long done its utmost to get the French to occupy the Ruhr, and only opposed it at the last moment because a satisfactory agreement was not reached with the negotiating French syndicate. As for treating the workers like “pawns,” does the Labour Party not remember voting for conscription during the war, and has Mr. Henderson forgotten his advice to the Government in 1917 to deport the ringleaders among the Clyde strikers?

As for us, we stand where we did in 1914—for Socialism. We declared at the outbreak of the Great War “that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood. ” It was true then, and it is true now, that the 

  “armed forces . . . will only be set in motion to further the interests of the class who control them—the master class—and as the workers’ interests are not bound up in the struggle for markets wherein their masters may dispose of the wealth they have stolen from them (the workers), but in the struggle to end the system under which they are robbed; they are not concerned with the present European struggle . . .  for it is their masters’ interests which are involved, and not their own.”

Letter: International Exchange. (1923)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

Re answer to Mr. Hart concerning rate of exchange in, I think, the November issue, would you be good enough to make it clear how the total figures are arrived at of the prices of goods exchanged between two countries; also to whom is the gold settlement made, to balance any difference there may be? The principal difficulty to me is the fact that it is individuals who trade and not countries. Also, would your explanation cover the fall of the mark in Germany?

Yours fraternally, 

Enquirer.

Answer to Enquirer.

When using the terms “two countries enter into commercial relations,” we were using the terms in common use. Actually, of course, it is the private merchants, or firms, who enter into these relations and carry through the exchange of goods.

The difference between what is bought and what is sold is shown by the demand for Bills of Exchange in the market of the country under consideration. If the demand in England for Bills on French mediants was greater than the demand in France for Bills on English merchants, this would show, under normal conditions, that more goods had been sold to English merchants, than had been bought from them. From this it is easy to see that the total figures are not of prime importance. It is the difference between the two sets of accounts that matters.

The gold balances are paid, usually, through the Banks holding the Bills mentioned. If the Bills have been bought by the Banks, the gold is placed to their own reserves. If the Bills are 'merely held for customers the amount of the gold is credited to those customers' accounts.

The goods passing into or out of two countries have to pass through the customs departments of those countries. The quantities, weights, and values, of the articles have to be declared on forms drawn up for that purpose. These “returns” give the total figures of the trade between those countries.

All these factors apply to trade under normal conditions. At present Germany is not under such conditions. The fall of the paper mark is due to loss of credit of Germany.

So long as people believe that the paper will be “honoured”—that is, exchanged for gold upon demand, or at a specific date —the paper will circulate at approximately its face value. If this belief begins to decline, the exchange value of the paper will begin to fall at a similar rate. This process may continue until, as in Austria, the paper falls to its value as actual paper, or waste paper. The German mark is nearing the same position, owing to the great uncertainty of the future.

It must, of course, be understood that we have only dealt with the main points of the question. To cover the details of the matter, particularly in the present exceedingly complicated circumstances, would take a huge volume. If, however, Enquirer wishes to raise any other detail question we shall be pleased to deal with it.

Editorial Committee

Letter: The Ostrich Policy. (1923)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gentlemen,

Your issue of December, 1922, contains a vituperative article by J. Fitzgerald, attacking the attitude of "Plebs" on the question of currency inflation. (How it is ever hoped to attain the noble ideal of a Socialist state of society by the use of abuse will to me forever be a mystery. Lack of solidity within the Christian Church has led many people to regard Christianity as false; a smaller number who have pursued the matter further have found that the lack of solidity is in all verity due to the falseness of Christianity. Lack of solidity amongst parties who vouch for the desirability of supplanting a capitalistic state of society by a socialistic one must lead many people to doubt the desirability; only a few take the trouble to probe the matter further and find out for themselves that dissension in this case is due to superficialities only, and not to fundamentals, as in Christianity.)

I write, however, to point out that your contributor has, in the instance I quote above, let his love of abuse over-ride his adherence to facts.

I am not an economic expert ; but my reason declines to accept his contention that the total of prices of commodities governs the amount of currency required at any given time. In page 246 (first column), he states that a sudden increase in prices necessities an increase of currency. Not at all; it is the increase in the quantity of currency, or the prospect of such increase, which causes the increase of prices. That is, the wily capitalist knows that (when war is declared), through an increase in non-productive work, and work on production of articles not for sale to the general public, the quantity of currency available to purchase articles on sale to the public is much greater in proportion than in normal times. He has a natural desire to become possessor of as large a share of this increased currency as possible, hence high prices.

What your contributor contends—that prices sometimes go up before the currency is available—is correct; but the prices only go up because there is every prospect of the currency being available My reason declines to accept the argument that any shopkeeper or vendor of commodities places a price on his goods higher than, so far as he can judge, the quantity or immediately prospective higher quantity of currency available justifies. To keep within this maximum is his sole chance of doing business. If an increase of prices causes an increase of currency, we can safely presume, speaking generally, that the amount of currency in circulation will be gauged so as to just meet the situation. How, then, does your contributor account for people (during the late war) being in possession of currency with which they desired to purchase, say, potatoes, butter, etc., when no such commodities were available, and there was no prospect of their becoming available? In other words, how does his theory account for the increased quantity of currency being there when there was no price to have caused such increase? The logicality of the reverse theory is, I contend, obvious.

Before closing, as a further instance of your contributor’s regrettable lack of adherence to facts, I would point to his quotation from “Plebs” in column 2 of page 246, and his misquotation (from that quotation) lower down the column contained in the sentence, “And where in England, may one ask, can more than 20 shillings be obtained for the  £1 Treasury Note?” (The “Plebs” writer says distinctly “gold £1." Incidentally, I have never handled a copy of the “Plebs.”

Yours sincerely,

J. Hutchinson.

Reply:

Mr. Hutchinson open his letter with an entirely unsupported charge—that the article on “Plebs and Pounds” was vituperative—and follows by ignoring the facts presented in that article, claiming that his “reason” is superior to those facts, and therefore he wall not accept them.

A similar policy was ascribed to the ostrich, but it always ended in failure—for the ostrich.

Mr. Hutchinson’s question as to how the “theory” put forward in the Socialist Standard can “account for the increased quantity of currency being there when there was no price to have caused such increase” contradicts his own contention that an increase of currency is the cause of the rise in prices. Our answer is that we do not pretend to explain non-existences. At no period of the war was the total level of prices below the amount of currency. The rationing of certain articles of food and the fixing of certain prices did not make the slightest difference to this particular point.

When Mr. Hutchinson is prepared to collect and examine the facts before applying what he calls his “reason,” he may reach some glimmering of the truth. While he holds to his present method his quest will be hopeless.

The printer’s error that Mr. Hutchinson calls a "misquotation" (though it was easily seen to be an error by the most casual reader of the article) was overlooked until the issue was printed. The necessary correction was given in the January issue of the Socialist Standard.

Jack Fitzgerald

Policies and Puppets. (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

A change in the personnel of the puppet group that moves in accordance with the string-pulling of the Imperialists who direct Government policy, may provide an excuse to introduce certain modifications in Government policy; modifications that have become necessary owing to new circumstances affecting the invests of this Imperialist section; but as such a change is not due to a fundamental alteration in social conditions, it has no important influence upon the general position of the working class, except in so far as better administration, from a capitalist standpoint, tightens the bonds of wage slavery and thereby worsens the workers’ position.

The recent statements of influential capitalist journals bear out this view in so far as it affects the change in governmental personnel from the Lloyd George group to the Bonar Law group.

The governmental change in itself provided a useful opportunity for shifting the responsibility for working class troubles from the capitalist system on to the latest scapegoat, the Lloyd George Coalition Government. The international exchange difficulties, the Eastern muddles, the reparation squabbles, labour troubles are all supposed to have been accentuated and made difficult of solution by the blundering of the late Government.

The fact that these international squabbles, muddles, and labour troubles “we always have with us,” in spite of numerous changes in Government and governmental policy, is conveniently ignored.

The “Observer,” a Sunday paper representing the big capitalists, trumpets the virtues of Bonar Law and the vices of Lloyd George. Of Bonar Law they write, in their editorial (7/1/23), after laying down certain alleged principles that should guide England and France on the question of German reparations:

  “Mr. Bonar Law has been guided by these principles. He has done well, and won the increased respect of all men at home and abroad by transparent sincerity, good sense, good temper, and the quiet moral grit which has brought this deepening muddle to a plain issue at last. No one could have done more.”

And what of Lloyd George? In the same editorial occurs the following:

  “The Entente was envenomed and almost destroyed by pretences of agreement.  . . . The direct and indirect consequences of the final fiasco of coalition policy in Eastern Europe and Asia Minor changed the whole diplomatic situation from one end of Europe to the other.”

Bonar Law’s policy has brought the “muddle’’ to a “plain issue”; Lloyd George’s policy resulted in a “fiasco.” What was the fundamental difference between the two policies? Lloyd George hung on to France as it suited certain interests to do so. Bonar Law broke with France as it no longer suited these interests to continue the alliance in its old form.

The group behind the English Government, having got all they could get by alliance with France, lately found themselves fettered by such alliance in Eastern matters and in their dealings with Germany.

In the first place, the early settlement of the German indemnity is not a matter that seriously affects the interests of the more important English capitalists. At the moment English trade with Germany is improving and would be adversely influenced by pressing for fulfilment of reparations. The following provides one illustration of this fact:

  “Last year we saw a sensational leap in the figures of our coal exports to Germany, which rose to 8,345,606 tons, being nearly equal to the total export in 1913, which was 8,952,328 tons. The rapid rise in our export of coal to Germany in the last three years will be seen from the following table:— 

1920        1921           1922
13,457 tons 817,877 tons 8,345,606 tons  

“Even last year’s figures are expected to be greatly exceeded in the near future, as Herr Stinnes and other German industrialists are stated to be in negotiation with British firms for the supply of large quantities.” (“Observer,” 14/1/23.)

The step taken by France has called forth certain rather significap^: comments. For example:

   “Our hands will be free with regard to all the peace treaties. We shall no longer be bound by any of them. We shall have to pursue a quite decisive policy of separate settlement, both with Russia and Turkey.” (“Observer,” 7/1/23)
   “We at least have recovered our freedom. We are no longer involved in a policy that has brought Europe to beggary. We can at last address ourselves to the task of re-establishing peace in the world. We have tried to carry out that task with France and have failed. We must look elsewhere, and especially westward for aid in an enterprise that cannot be discontinued if the white civilisation is to have a chance of surviving.” (A. G. G. in “Daily News,” 6/1/23.)

Here we see England’s freedom from the Peace Treaty obligations heralded with something akin to joy. But the Government did not wait for the break with France in order to “look westward,” as instance the negotiations that are going on between this country and America.

The replacement of Lloyd George by Bonar Law was the excuse for Britain’s alteration in policy in this as well as in other directions.

As can be gathered from the statement with reference to coal, quoted above, England is striving to obtain a favoured position with reference to Germany; France is also striving for the same object. Apart from the question of reparations, France bas another motive for invading the Ruhr Valley, as the following quotation points out:

  "The real hope of Paris is that Germany, when fairly laid on the rack, will soon scream for mercy after the first cry of defiance, and that under French supremacy, political and financial, there will be brought about a huge economic combination between France and Germany, but chiefly an alliance of French iron and steel with German coal, coke and shipping.” (“Observer,” 7/1/23.)

One of the lines along which English “freedom” will travel is being indicated by the attempt to come to some sort of alliance with America and freeze out France. America is righteously indignant at France’s action, and America wants to take a larger share in the Eastern negotiations (see the "Manchester Guardian Weekly,” 8/12/22, on the Crane-King Report on Palestine), in which so far she has only had a representative with a watching brief. The following remarks on the Anglo-American negotiations are instructive :

  “There are wider opportunities before the Washington negotiators. The funding of the British debt removes one of the inhibitions on American policy in Europe. Responsibility then rests more heavily on the two creditor countries for intervention of a constructive, even if limited, kind in Europe, where the course of affairs, without their help or influence, threatens their interests more and more gravely. Protest against the state of things which is developing will be useless unless accompanied by proposals for its remedy.”

  “England and the United States have a common interest and now a common occasion for action in this sense. It is hardly possible that the conversation at Washington will not broaden out informally into a full survey of the immediate future in Europe. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer is there. Mr. Harvey, fully informed as to European conditions, and fully alive to the dangers now in plain view, is there. The risk, now immediate in Europe, of a decisive plunge into chaos, supplies such an occasion for a departure in policy such as there has not been since America took up Germany's challenge and entered the war.” ("Observer,” 14/1/23.)

Here we see foreshadowed a temporary bloc with America to skim the cream in European and Eastern negotiations. The two nations together make the most powerful financial and political bloc in existence.

The whole matter at the bottom is nothing more than the manipulations of certain powerful groups of capitalists for control of the sources of raw material (with particular reference to oil) and the arteries of distribution.

The policy of England and America scores with the majority of people on account of its apparent peaceful tendency.

Internally the English Government are in a strong position on the indemnity question. On the surface the French have committed what is virtually an act of war by invading the Ruhr Valley. So the English piously throw up their hands and protest their desire to “keep the peace.” In this they have the support of “labour’s opposition party.” 

The National Joint Council of the Trades Union Congress General Council, the Executive Committee of the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party has played directly into the Government’s hands by its protest against the French Government’s policy, winding up by demanding that the British Government "shall refrain from all measures of support or co-operation with the French troops in their present action,” etc., etc. (“Observer,” 14/1/23). Was this manifesto inspired? How the Imperialist group must smile! Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour group, was not behindhand in making a pronouncement on the situation. Speaking at Port Talbot on the 6/1/23, he said :

  “Lastly, in our policy regarding Reparations, we ought not to be ashamed to let the world know quite definitely that we must look after our own national interests, and not sacrifice them merely to keep up the balance of an alliance with France or any other country.” (“Observer,” 7/1/23.)

A very statesmanlike statement, no doubt, but what has it all to do with the working class? Who does "our” and “we,” etc., stand for in the above quotation? Evidently the British Imperialists, as the workers' interests are not national, but international, and at the moment are bound up with such questions as unemployment and labour conditions generally.

The plain and obvious facts of the case can be gleaned from the statements we have already quoted above.

The different nations alter their policies and their spokesmen to suit the interests of the particular capitalist sections that predominate. The section served by imperialist policies predominates at present in all capitalist nations. This section in England replaced Lloyd George by Bonar Law. The position, therefore, from the workers' standpoint, is the same all the world over. That position is that the struggle over trade routes and exploitable territory, with coalitions and breaks among capitalist nations, is a struggle that concerns the capitalists alone. These, struggles will continue to occupy the historical stage until capitalist rule is replaced by Socialist administration. This will come into being when the workers conquer political power and administer the affairs of society in the equal interest of all the members of society.

Gilmac.

Is Lack of Wealth the Trouble? (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this land to-day the vast mass of the population suffer from poverty and the evils that flow from poverty. Overwork, underfeeding, in some cases, endless toil in unhealthy surroundings, in others, the hopeless search for toil. This is the position facing the average worker to-day. Why is the mass of the population doomed to follow this miserable and toilsome path?

Is it because there is a lack of wealth? A few hundred years ago the needs of the population were met by a very primitive method of production. Hand labour with poor tools that could only be operated by one person was the rule. In cottages and villages fabric was spun and woven for clothing; the artisans in small rooms hammered out and shaped the metal for the simple tools, ornaments, and such-like; the cottager tilled his little strip of land to provide food for many; the sailing vessel went on lengthy and perilous voyages to distant lands; the townsman plied his little trade in silks and perfumes from the East. Everything was simple and on a small scale, and yet at that time there wasn’t a landless man in the kingdom. And they didn’t work particularly hard in those days either —over a third of the year was occupied in holidays and feastings.

How different are things to-day! The application to industry of the discoveries of myriads of fertile minds has completely changed the face of affairs. No longer is the hand tool the means of producing wealth; no longer does the sailing vessel lord it over the ocean. If one wishes to see the relics of the older method of wealth production one must visit the museums, where they are kept as objects of curiosity and amusement, and material for the writers, of history. These things have past away, and with them has passed the comparative comfort that existed alongside the spinning' wheel.

The discoveries of new lands and new sea routes; the development of manufacture; the application of steam to industry; the ocean-going liner; and the telegraph—have made possible the prodigious production of wealth as we see around us to-day. How can it be said that there is insufficient wealth when on every side there is evidence of abundance. Machinery has made possible a production of wealth per man many times that which an individual could produce a few hundred years ago. That there is an abundance of wealth can be easily verified. The reports in the papers of the rich man’s feasts; the dinners with choice and rare dishes; the balls attended by people in wonderful and costly dresses; the monkey’s parade at Ascot, and similar places; the stationary and floating palaces; the company reports in the daily papers all bear witness to an abundance of wealth. Whenever companies increase their capitals by fresh issues of shares, these shares are not only fully subscribed in a few days, but they are vastly over-subscribed. There is literally money to burn among a certain section of the community. A glance at the position of the oil companies will show that their expansion has been enormous in the last few years. Their capitals have leaped up from a few thousands to thousands of millions. Standard Oil paid a dividend of over three hundred per cent. recently, in spite of watered capital. The cry of shortage of wealth is obviously nothing more than a figment of the imagination, or a false scent to lead astray the unwary.

How is it that with simple tools and little organisation they could provide for the whole of the population in days gone by, whereas to-day, with complex tools and a mighty organisation, poverty is the lot of the mass of the population?

Investigators, who have lived among savage and barbarian tribes, have stated that starvation was unknown in such little communities, except in the cases of famine or some similar exceptional cause. Yet today, though the shops are overloaded with the things they need and the rich man’s table is groaning under the weight of good things, thousands of men, able and anxious to work, are tramping the streets, starving, in search of the wherewithal to live. Poverty exists to-day in the midst of an abundance unparalled in history. Why?

The food and other necessaries of life, of which we see such a lavish display in the shops, are not there to be distributed to those who require them: They are exhibited for sale to those who can buy them. All goods displayed in the shops to-day are produced for sale in order that profit shall be made, and unless they who need have the wherewithal to buy they may go hungry, though the goods are going rotten for want of a consumer. This is due to the fact that the wealth produced to-day is privately owned.

£1000 Fund (1923)

Party News from the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Our hopes . . ." (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

   "Our hopes for the evolution of man, and our most indispensable guide, are bound up with all that we can learn of man's past and all that we can measure of his present."

— Havelock Ellis,  The New Spirit.

Work or Toil. (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

A cynic has said that “ the height of absurdity is a man running to work, before daylight, laughing.”

The worker, having by his capitalist schooling and training been taught to believe it his inalienable privilege, his birthright, and heritage, any attempt to dislodge his long-cherished affection for toil, meets with disapproval and a few empty phrases. Tell him that work to-day is mentally, morally, and physically degrading and he will look contemptuously upon you. His mental antidote for such taunts is the one so popular anywhere but at the seat of operations, “ Work, boys, work, and be contented.” Point out the absurdity of a system that "rewards” a life of toil with that capitalist dust-bin, the workhouse, and though in all probability he glimpses the truth, through force of habit he reverts to the generally accepted axiom, “Somebody’s got to do it.” How true! But who’s the "somebody” always? Carlyle’s reference to the percentage of foolish people in this country seems perilously near the truth, when we reflect that it is the wealth producers (the working class) who suffer want and insecurity, whilst the loafers, i.e., the landlords, the shareholders, the profit-takers (the capitalist class) possess the bulk of the wealth and consequent security. What a laugh! what irony! were it not for the resulting tragedy of it all. “Ah ! but,” says our work enthusiast, “the master works with his brain.” We might appropriately reply, so does the forger, the burglar, and the bogus company promoter, but not producing and distributing wealth. Ascot, Goodwood, the Riviera, and such rendezvous keep our masters busy in their turn, and whether the season dictates that they shall stay in town or not, the workers will still be found in the factory, mill, mine, or office.

Neither the absence nor the death of any capitalist hinders the production of wealth. What do the capitalists do toward the designing and building of a ship, or the writing and printing of their own Press? Nay! even the making of the money with which they pay the workers? Nothing. Whatever the tasks or services, they are purchased by the masters to be exercised for their profit in that particular capacity. When a disaster or a shady deal brings the idlers to prominence, they themselves reveal this fact by admitting ignorance of the whole business. Do you think, fellow-worker, that if work were an enviable task, that you would have the complete monopoly of it? Hardly! The nice things, the luxuries, the best in food, raiment, and accommodation, are not for you—yet. For you the offal, the adulterated scraps, the shoddy uncomely clothing, the sunless sombre cities, and often an untimely end. What of your masters? Ah! the rolling sea, the blazing sun-bathed terraces of Monte Carlo, the country house, an endless round of pleasure provided in its entirety by you. Come! awaken from your slumbers, realise your manhood and womanhood, and organise for a life worthy of such. Work, in the truest sense, will then become a pleasure, pursued as a means to an end, the life glorious. Today, because you are separated from the means of life, you are slaves to those that own these things. Work becomes toil, because it is to you an end in itself, instead of being, as we would have you make it, merely a means to our ultimate objective, happiness and plenty for all. Capitalism has solved the problem of wealth production. Socialism will organise life, and by using every means science has placed at our disposal to produce wealth for use, reduce work to the minimum. Man’s requirements are microscopic compared with our powers to dominate the earth and its fulness.

Once you understand our position—and it is quite easy to do so—you will no longer demand toil and maintenance, a worthless objective, but you will organise to take “the World for the Workers.”

Mac.

Evolution (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that the principle of evolution has found recognition in practically every field of scientific thought, one of the consequences is that the word "evolution” has become quite common. But although it is used more frequently, the word is in many instances used quite fallaciously. It seems to be a general rule that, with the popularisation of any given principle or set of ideas, the student needs to exercise greater care over terms. Phrases too often take the place of thoughts, and owing to a superficial acquaintance with their meaning, they are often used to convey inaccurate ideas, and thus cause a great deal of confusion.

To divert from our main theme here, we may take as an example the phrase, "the materialist conception of history," which is often used in such a way as to signify that the economic factor is the only factor in historical development. This, of course, is quite incorrect. Both Marx and Engels in their time found it necessary to reprove those who were guilty of this inaccuracy. In reply to a student who asked the meaning of historical materialism, Engels wrote: "According to the materialistic view of history the factor which is, in last instance, decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this neither Marx nor I ever asserted. But when anyone distorts this so as to read that the economic factor is the sole element, he converts the statement into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase." (Quoted by Austin Lewis in his introduction to Engels’ work on Feuerbach, page 25.)

In like manner, to return to our main theme, what has occurred in reference to the phrase just mentioned also occurs in reference to the term "evolution.” A theologian once described evolution as "God’s way of doing things,” and probably thought he had coined a fitting description of the term. One may see why many of the theologians endeavour to associate the principle of evolution with their antiquated creeds. When evolution was less known, its advocates were assailed by the dignitaries of the Church, as the enemies of mankind. Now that the advance of science is too strong to oppose, they pretend to see nothing contradictory between science and religion. Eminent divines, such as Dean Inge, Canon Barnes, and others, now claim to accept evolution, but explain it in such a way as to indicate that behind the evolutionary process operates "the hand of God,” as though there were some intelligent power unfolding the movements of the universe. There are others who, while nominally having given up the method of utilising the aid of the supernatural to explain natural processes, yet describe evolution in such a way as places them among the religionists. Many pseudo-Socialists are in this respect among the worst offenders; for with them the term is used to convey the meaning that evolution can be identified with an ethical and moral purpose. The truth is that evolution is apart from our ethical valuations. When we speak of biological evolution, we mean a change in the structure of organisms by a process of development from the simple to the more complex forms— from what are called the lower to what are called the higher forms of life. The biologist, it should be noted, does not use the terms "lower” and "higher” in any ethical sense, but only to indicate a particular differentiation of structure; nor does he assert that all living things are constantly developing into something we call "better.” 

The sum total of the changes in both animal and human societies are expressed in evolution, but from whatever point of view we may regard these changes, whether we choose to call them "good” or "bad,” evolution continues regardless of our ethical standards. Of course, we do not mean to convey the impression that progress has not resulted from the evolutionary process; our purpose is rather one of guarding against any anthropomorphic conceptions such as those stated above. Those who assert that evolution can be identified with conceptions of “justice," “morality,” and suchlike, either consciously or sub-consciously, imply that there is some “power” behind the cosmic process directing natural forces according to plan and with an end in view, which is, to say the least of it, absurd. To the student of the Marxian school the idea of a “conscious purpose” in natural happenings is a figment of the imagination. The constant development of the technical resources of production in modern society results for the capitalists in the ownership of a sum of wealth unequalled by any ruling class in history. Looking at things from this point of view, one can see quite clearly why the capitalists are prepared to shout about the blessings of progress, but to those who produced the wealth—and this wealth also includes the means of production—there is but poverty and insecurity of existence. So far, it appears that social evolution has not favoured the subject class in modern society. But, fortunately, there is another side to the story. With the evolution of capitalist society the capitalists have been rendered a useless parasitic class, they have long since been removed from the productive processes, the whole of the operations necessary to wealth production and distribution are carried out by the working class. This fact is slowly but surely finding its way into the minds of the workers, and will, when it obtains recognition by the majority, result in the establishment of Socialism. Marx and Engels long ago pointed out that the capitalists were their own grave-diggers, not from choice, of course, but from necessity. The evolution of society has placed within the reach of the wage-slaves the means by which they can secure their freedom from capitalist domination, and with the overthrow of capitalist society accomplished, the workers will have brought to a close the last phase in the evolution of human slavery.

Robert Reynolds

On Leadership (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Experience has shown that no exceptional degree of any other capacity (i.e., fluency, etc.) is necessary to make a successful leader. There need be no specially arduous training, no great weight of knowledge either of affairs or the human heart, no receptiveness, no new ideas, no outlook into reality. Indeed, the mere absence of such seems to be an advantage; for originality is apt to appear to the people as flightiness, scepticism as feebleness, caution as doubt of the great political principles that may happen at the moment to be immutable. The successful shepherd thinks like his sheep, and can lead his flock only if he keeps no more than the shortest distance in advance.

—W. Trotter, "Instinct of the Herd,” page 116.

The Evolution of W. Gallacher (1923)

From the February 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once upon a time the Communists were furious in denunciation of the treachery and reformism of the Labour Party and the I.L.P. No abuse was too violent, and they translated their hostility into deeds by opposing J. R. MacDonald when he fought the Woolwich Bye-election as a Labour Party nominee in 1921.

W. Gallacher wrote in the "Workers' Dreadnought" (Feb., 1920), for the Scottish Workers' Committee, as follows: -

"This Committee is definitely anti-Parliamentarian . . . We represent the revolutionary movement in Scotland . . . For a considerable time time we have been sparring with the official Parliamentarians . . . But this state of affairs cannot continue long. We are winning all along the line. The rank and file of the I.L.P. in Scotland is becoming more and more disgusted with the idea of Parliament, and the Soviets or Workers' Councils are being supported by almost every branch. This is very serious, of course, for the gentlemen who took to politics for a profession, and they are using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into the Parliamentary fold. Revolutionary comrades must not give any support to this gang. Our fight here is going to be a most difficult one. One of the worst features of it will be the treachery of those whose personal ambition is a more compelling force than their regard for the revolution. . . . The official I.L.P. is bitterly opposed to the Third International, the rank and file is for it. Any support of the Parliamentary opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the former."

Later the C.P.G.B. wanted to get into the Labour Party and they began to drop their aggressive tone. Their application was refused, but they persevered with a demand for the "united front." They decided that it was necessary and desirable that the Labour Party should gain a Parliamentary majority as soon as possible. Any person with the least knowledge of the political situation would have realised at once that the greatest service the Communists could do the Labour Party was to declare open war upon it. This would have enabled the Labour Party to repudiate entirely the untrue but damaging charge of coquetting with Socialism and Revolution. As it was, the Communists insisted on supporting Labour men and must have lost them thousands of votes. W. Gallacher (the same W. Gallacher) ran as Communist Parliamentary candidate at Dundee. It was a double-membered  constituency, and the only official Labour man was E. D. Morel, an ex-Liberal strongly critical of the Government's foreign policy, and equally strongly anti-Socialist. Although Morel hotly repudiated Gallacher, Gallacher advised all his supporters to vote for Morel. Morel writes on this in the "Labour Magazine" (Dec., 1922): - 

"Another factor in his (Scrymgeour's) favour was the appearance of Mr. Gallacher, the Communist, who never had the ghost of a chance, but who insisted on every occasion in trying to couple himself up with me, despite my emphatic declaration (and the local Labour Party's official disclaimer) that I was unalterably opposed to Communism. For his own purposes, Mr. Churchill also used the same tactics from the beginning. The result was, that Mr. Gallacher played into Mr. Churchill's hands; that many working women electors, who have no use for Communism, were alarmed, when they got to the booths, to find Mr. Gallacher's representatives coupling my name with his, and "plumped" for Scrymgeour instead of voting  Scrymgeour-Morel; and that lost a number of "silent" voters who, but for the Gallacher-Churchill tactic, would probably have voted for me." 

In spite, however, of the unwelcome Communist "support," Morel got in.

Then only three weeks after he had been telling Dundee workers to vote for Morel, Gallacher expresses the opinion that "It is expected on all sides that there will be a split sooner or later, and that the Morel-Wedgewood crowd would go back to Liberalism" ("The Worker," 9th Dec., 1922). Not only that, but while himself a member of the Party (C.P.G.B.) which has defended its support of reactionary Labourites by the gag about the necessity for "unity," he adds: -

"This is a sort of 'hangman's whip' that will be held over the heads of the Glasgow team (I.L.P men, by the way!). 'Don't split the Party' will be the rallying cry of the moderates, and it will be used to the fullest to keep the others in check."

It is always difficult to understand why some alleged revolutionaries will go to an infinite amount of trouble to avoid recognising an unpalatable truth. Although they cannot wait to  propagate Socialism, they are prepared to go on for ever, alternately denouncing known enemies of the working class and supporting them for "tactical" reasons. They will discard every principle and make themselves personally ridiculous and contemptible by perpetual shuffling, all in order to gain something by manoeuvre which they cannot gain in open fight. They never do get anything worth having, and the working class have to pay the price of failure in the despair of the disappointed followers of these blind leaders. The cause of this lies simply in their refusal to recognise the fact that Socialism cannot be won without Socialists. They shelter behind the excuse that the workers are too ignorant and foolish ever to understand their own interests, but, as Voltaire very shrewdly remarked, "He who dreams that he can lead a great crowd of fools without a great store of knavery is a fool himself."

Edgar Hardcastle