A personal statement (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arising out of the reply to his letter published in the September Socialist Standard, Lord Amwell asks us to publish the following statement: —

September 16th, ’48.

The Editor, 

Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I must ask you to correct one misrepresentation in F.F.’s reply to me this month.

It is unwise to trust the capitalist press, even when it suits one in its facilitating a jibe. I did not say in the House of Lords that I went into trances or, as several newspapers put it, that I was a medium. Popular spiritualism is a thing I despise and I am not an obscurantist by any means.

What I did was to speak against a body of fellow citizens being persecuted under medieval statutes rather than common law. To illustrate my point I mentioned that many years ago I looked into certain phenomena and produced, as anyone can, some abnormal results. This without any assumption whatever about a future life or theory of spirit. As matters stood before Mr. Morrison’s order to police authorities, I could have been prosecuted for investigating psychic matters in my own home.

This had nothing to do with trances or spiritualistic claims. The press seeks sensation—don’t you follow suit. I am neither spiritualist nor medium.

I wish I had space to go into the other matters fully, especially F.F.’s complex about tripe and sheeps’ brains.

Yours sincerely,

Amwell.

Letter: Common-Ownership? (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Common-Ownership?

I thank you for the interesting reply you give to my letter. It is the more welcome because it does meet the principle points of difference between us. even if I am right in my submission that it promptly runs away from them again. For example.,"common-ownership" is accepted by both of us, but in whom is it to be vested, and how? The term covers a multitude of possibilities unless closely defined. President Nkrumah of Ghana lists four "sectors" of his country's proposed economy, “state-owned, joint state-private enterprise, co-operatives, and purely private." You would, of course, reject two of these, but what of the other alternatives, or have you one of your own? Again, you postulate "assessment of needs and the means to fulfil them," but who is to assess? I am not arguing, mark, that assessments cannot be made. They obviously can be made about many things. But I want to know about it and I feel that a means-test of any variety should be repugnant to both of us. Of course, you do not mention anything of the kind, but what do you mean?

These are not trivial points for they involve the tremendous issue of administrative tyranny against communal freedom, state-ism against decentralisation; indeed, syndicalism versus the commune. Where do you stand? Arc you for high-powered mass-production run by trades-unions on Fascist lines with Coventry and castor-oil complete for "deviationists," a vast factory system with "scientific" direction of labour in a monstrous mechanism under an ultimately totalitarian though differently labelled state, or for the comely life of production for use in free cooperative groups for the most part, and under only the most resilient form possible of overhead government? Arc you for mass-production of everything despite the fact that, as every good farmer knows, mass farming it bad farming, and the other fact that quality craftsmanship beats factory products in length of life four or five times over. Mass-production is for the masses; who but they would touch it? In food products and manufactures alike it is recognised (by the advertising world) that it costs six limes as much to sell an article at it does to make it. The difference is in transport costs, insurances, marketing charges, multifarious agency profits, wholesale and retail percentages—all arising from remote and competitive marketing, and all to be avoided, as Socialism would avoid them (or largely so), by leaving production and consumption to loosely articulated small units wherever possible.

There are hundred upon hundreds of successful co-operative groups in Britain today producing for use. sharing small machinery socially and employing expert advice. The point I wish to make here is that there is nothing to stop such development except the fact that the workers are in the main indifferent. There are the orthodox co-operative societies, of course, numbering in membership ten millions, a quarter of the population, owning the meant and instruments of production and distribution. They are run as capitalist concerns and the excuse of socially conscious members is that they have to meet capitalist competition! "We have to beat the band!". What rubbish! The business of any genuine co-operative group is not to beat anything or anybody, but to co-operate. Of course, big business can “beat" the workers on its own ground, but how shall it beat the co-operative will? Above all, how beat production for use?

As it stands, however, the co-operative societies, after a-century-and-a-half's dedicated (so it is alleged) membership rise to the giddy height of "save up for summer holidays" but fall lamentably short of any co-operative commonwealth whatever. Why? Not because there is anything at all in the way unless the competitive rat-race is still held sacred. It is because the workers neither understand Socialism nor want it.

The choice before us between freedom and slavery. The one is possible only where control of the means of production is direct and immediate, just as democracy is possible only where the people are in direct and effective touch with public affairs. The other cannot be more than an impersonal power process to be rendered quite ghastly by modern automation and atomic energy.

We who claim to be Socialists used to acclaim freedom. With the present drift towards a totalitarian economy, and in trades-union politics the one-party state, your own utopian belief in a miraculous “dawn ” upon the morrow of an equally miraculous release of pent-up proletarian virtue is as abstract and full of holes as a Henry Moore sculpture.

Amwell.

Belsize Park. N.W.3.

Reply:

Lord Amwell wants to know in whom common ownership is vested, and how?

The definition we gave was that everything that is in and on the earth would be the common possession of all mankind. In our property and privilege ridden society it is not easy to give a helpful illustration of what we mean, but we will try.

Air is the common possession of all mankind. you can breathe as much of it as you like without anyone raising an objection. Similarly you can drink as much water as you like at a public fountain. In both instances each person determines what he or she needs. The same process will operate in the future with food, clothing, shelter and everything else. The people with the intelligence to build up the new society will also have the intelligence not to expect the impossible.

In the Socialist Party of Great Britain different members, and groups of members, are appointed to perform the necessary work in the organisation and propaganda of the Party. For example, the Literature Committee finds out from branches what literature they require—the local branches do the assessing. They make an estimate from experience of what further supplies are required. They then obtain from the printer the total amount they have arrived at and proceed to fulfil the needs of branches and individuals. There is no administrative tyranny in this, it is purely a technical problem. While it is true that the Socialist Party is small, and therefore the problem is not a great one, yet in the future a similar procedure will be adopted in harmony with the size and complexity of society's needs.

Production in each area will be based on what individuals in that area need—they will make their own assessment of what they need. Experience will enable the production assessors to have available sufficient in quantity and variety to fulfil these needs. The articles will be available in suitable places in the area and all that people will have to do is to go there and take what they want. We used the example of a self-service store in the limited sense that people can go there and take what they want of what is available. In that instance, of course, they nave to pay for what they take—in the future they will just take.

While the new society is getting on its feet there may be people who, still affected with the possessive inclinations of the past, may want to load themselves up with more than they need. Well, whal of it? They will soon get tired of their stupid and unnecessary efforts.

In our view each community will Ik as self-supporting as possible Some things, however, will need extra community arrangements: like raw material, travel, correspondence, and so forth. These arrangements are just technical questions which can be dealt with by groups of people at given centres who are interested in this kind of work. In the future society there will be no isolated communities, split off from the rest of the world. They will all be part of a world Socialist system, decentralised but each working in harmony with the rest, without statism or tyranny, to enable everyone to live a useful, interesting and satisfactory life. If there are occupations that are necessary but uninteresting then some method of sharing will be devised.

This brings us to the question of mass production. Whether or how far there will be mass production we cannot say now. A great deal that is mass produced nowadays will be unnecessary in the future—armament production is one example. The mass produced article is as a rule the cheap, the short-lived and the lacking in variety. Whether mass production saves a really appreciable amount of labour in the long run is questionable. But what is not questionable is that it is soul-destroying work. Obviously the aim will be to limit that kind of work as much as possible. The accent will be on craftsmanship. and if mass production still operates it will only be in operation in instances where it is essential for the benefit of tho community. More than this we cannot say.

We agree with Lord Amwell’s description of orthodox co-operative societies as just capitalist concerns in which petty investors have neither control nor influence, though they can make a lot of noise at times.

Finally, we do not believe in any miraculous dawn. We believe in the development of understanding, which will be transferred into action by the mass of the population who suffer the present system. Socialism can only be established when the majority of society understand it, want it, and take action to bring it about. There is no other way, but there are plenty of roads into the morass of confusion and disillusion.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

I'm not 100% sure which previous letter Lord Amwell (Fred Montague) was following up on but it may have been this one from the October 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Spiritualism. (1930)

From the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the September issue we published a letter from a reader, in which he related his experiences at a spiritist meeting, and the deep impression which they made upon him. Our reply in the same issue, while it has not elicited any further letter from the original inquirer, has led to several other readers writing to express their views. It is impossible, owing to their length, to print these letters in full, but we have tried below to deal with the points raised in them.

First, let us deal again with the experience of the reader whose letter we published. He went to a spiritualist meeting, and believes that he was “a perfect stranger” to those present. He was told certain facts about a dead relative of his, and was also told that he was suffering from a complaint which “is not visible to anyone except when nude.”

We replied that the facts related by our reader do not in any way help to establish the belief in the existence of so-called “spirit forces.” As our reply is unconvincing to some correspondents, and has been misunderstood by others, some amplification may be desirable.

Spiritualists claim firstly that certain phenomena cannot be explained by known natural laws. They claim secondly that the existence of “spirit forces” is the explanation.

It is important to observe that these are two quite distinct propositions ; if the first were proved true, it by no means follows that the second is likewise true. The phenomena, if such phenomena exist, might not be explicable by existing known natural laws, but, nevertheless, explicable by hitherto unknown but still natural laws.

Now let us return to our correspondent’s letter. Does he present us with convincing evidence of inexplicable phenomena? The answer is emphatically no ! He suffers from a disease which is “not visible to anyone except when nude”; but every doctor is taught by one or other of the systems of diagnosis to recognise symptoms of disease in the face, the hands, the eyes, etc. Does a doctor have to see a man’s kidneys before he can suspect the existence of a disease of that organ? Our reader does not mention this, and apparently did not even consider it, yet we are asked on the strength of it to believe in “spiritualism ” !

His second point was that he, “a perfect stranger,” was told certain things about his dead aunt. But how does he know that he was “a perfect stranger”? He may not have recognised any of those whom he saw present, but that is no indication that someone there did not know certain facts about him and his dead relative.

In short, this particular incident does not contain any phenomena which require us to inquire into the adequacy or inadequacy of existing natural laws.

Then there is the second point, that even if this incident did contain unquestionable evidence of phenomena which known laws would not explain, it does not follow that “spiritualism” is the explanation. One hypothesis—suggested but not proved—is that of telepathy. Telepathy, if it were proved, would explain what our correspondent (without sufficient evidence) believes took place, but would not prove the claims of the spiritualists.

So much for that incident. Now for the claims of spiritualists in general, and of our other correspondents.

To all of these we would first point out that even Sir Oliver Lodge, although himself a spiritualist, admits that scientific proof of spiritualism is lacking. In an address delivered at the David Thomas Memorial Church, Bristol, on September 7th of this year, he said :—(Times, 8th September) :—

“. . . they held, in fact, the doctrine of individual survival, and adduced plenty of evidence in support of it. Whether that evidence amounted to proof was still a matter of opinion. Scientific proof was a serious thing, not lightly to be testified to ; but the evidence was certainly very strong. ” (Italics ours.)

The fact that Sir Oliver Lodge believes in it without proof does not show that it deserves belief. It merely shows the fallibility of the scientist in matters where a strong emotion is at work.

One reader writes to tell us that “spiritualism is Socialism.” In reply, we cannot do more than emphasise our continued teaching that Socialism is not a visionary’s dream, but a system of society. Its basis will be in material conditions, the common ownership of the means of life. It will be brought about by men and women possessing knowledge of the world we live in, and able at least to glimpse at the boundless possibilites of human development in a world of which the economic structure is rationally ordered. Progress to Socialism will not be promoted by those who give up the substance for the illusory benefits of life on the “other side.” That is why the Socialist is compelled to touch upon questions of religion and spiritualism in order to drive home the lesson which is taught by past developments of man’s powers, the lesson that the only safe rule is to accept no hypothesis as proved until it has been verified in accordance with scientific methods.

Most of the letters we have received on the subject have been to the point. One, from Mr. F. Montague, M.P., Undersecretary for Air in the present Government, was mostly not to the point. In it we are charged with talking “ignorant rubbish,” told not to play with words like “superstitious and supernatural” (we did not mention them), and informed that “to put it all down to cheap and clumsy fraud” puts us out of count as serious critics. If Mr. Montague had not been so angry he would have noticed that these and many other things he says have no bearing on the reply which he writes to criticise.

When he writes that spiritualism “must be proved or disproved of itself,” we agree. But if he means to imply that it has been proved, we disagree. It certainly has not, and it is certainly true that an enormous amount of “cheap and clumsy fraud” has been associated with the activities of the spiritualists.

Mr. Montague says : “I know from my own mediumship of a number of years ago, that explanations of the conjuring and collusion order do not fill the bill.”

Even on this point, notwithstanding Mr. Montague’s personal experiences, we are not prepared to accept his statement, or any other such unsupported testimony as conclusive evidence. What Mr. Montague says he saw or thinks he knows is not proof. It is precisely because of the known credulousness or gullibility of the human mind that science demands proofs from which the possibility of human error is eliminated as far as possible. Such proofs have not been forthcoming from the spiritualists. If we may be permitted to illustrate this gullibility of the human mind by means of a reference to another field of activity, we would point out that Mr. Montague, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, persists in adhering to the view that it is in the interests of the working class to have the Labour Party in office carrying on the capitalist system. Unfortunately, large numbers of workers believe this also.

In conclusion, we would refer interested correspondents to a full discussion on spiritualism which took place in the Socialist Standard of the following months:—October and December, 1926; and March, May, June and August, 1927. These issues are obtainable from this office.

Editorial Committee.

Letters: Power (1960)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Power

I am nineteen years old and I am interested in Socialism as a political train of thought. Two years ago while on holiday in Nottingham I attended an open air meeting organised by your Party. When questions were asked by members of the public each was answered satisfactorily except one. I would therefore be most grateful if you could answer this question for me.

In the planning of a socialist society some individual or individuals are necessary to plan this society, i.e., these people will be in superior position to the common workers, whose job it would be to fulfil the plan laid down for them. How would the society protect the common worker from being oppressed by this intelligentsia, who would certainly use their high position for their own selfish ends, turning a new formed socialist society back to the class ridden capitalist society? The crux of my question being how can man's selfish bid for power be retarded while still giving a man with greater brain power the incentive to work wholeheartedly not only for the good of himself but for the good of the whole society.

I hope you are willing to accept that the “I'm alright Jack’’ attitude is very prevalent throughout the world today, in all types of worker.

I hope you get the meaning of my question which I regard as a most important one. I would also be most grateful if you would send me a copy of your paper, the Socialist Standard.

D. G. G.

Fareham Hants.

Reply:

Our correspondent postulates the existence of Socialism without taking into account the conditions which are necessary to bring it into being. Socialism will be the work of the great majority of mankind, who will consciously establish it because they think it in their interests to do so. It will not be the responsibility of any minority, whether they are planners or somebody else. Because of this, the work of

Socialism's planners will conform to the Socialist desires of the rest of society and will be designed within the framework of the Socialist community.

Those people who under Socialism are responsible for planning production, transport, and so on, will not be in “ a superior position." For in a world where the production and distribution of wealth is a social procedure, every individual depends upon the rest of society for his welfare and existence. This will be the strength behind society's determination to have a privilege-free world. Social pretensions will be powerless against it—and they will have no validity, when everybody has equally free access to the world's wealth.

This, too, will be the incentive to work wholeheartedly in a Socialist society. Capitalism, with its anarchic and acquisitive nature, fosters the narrowly selfish attitude to which our correspondent refers. Free from the necessity to strive for social superiority and from the many other restrictions of capitalism, mankind will be able to give of their best. They will do so in the knowledge—and with the intention—that the wealth of the world belongs to the world's people, without distinction of any kind. When society wants that, nothing can prevent them having it or, when they have it, take it away from them.

Editorial Committee. 

State Capitalism

After coming into contact with the SPGB through the pages of the American Western Socialist, I am left with the following doubt. Does the SPGB wish to see a regime of full scale nationalisation (i.e.. State Capitalism) instituted, or would industries be controlled by workers’ soviets?

As an anarchist, I cannot see that a centralised state bureaucracy can ever give true public control. Industry must be organised and run by elected workers' councils. What is the SPGB's attitude to this?

J. A. D.

Darlington. Co. Durham.

Reply:

Our correspondent correctly points out that full scale nationalisation is capitalism directly organised by the state machine. Socialists are opposed to capitalism in any form, including state capitalism. The method of controlling industries is determined by the type of ownership to which they are subject. Thus, it is of little importance whether privately owned industry is organised by private companies, as in many cases in this country, or by a central bureaucracy through so-called workers’ soviets, as in some cases in the USSR. Both types of organisation administer privately owned industries in the interests of their owning—or capitalist—class.

When Socialism is established, the control of industry will still be in line with its ownership. It is impossible, at the present, to give a detailed picture of the organisation which a Socialist community will use for controlling industry. That will depend upon the conditions prevailing at the time. But, because the means of wealth production will be commonly owned, we can say that they will be democratically controlled in the interests of the whole of mankind.

Editorial Committee.

Seamen and Socialism

It is long since I troubled you with any screed of mine, but 1 feel impelled to break a restraint of several years by making some comment upon your bewildering illogicality, as it seems to me, in certain directions.

Under the heading “Seamen on Strike” you write “One simple method of safeguarding the community’s welfare, keeping the ships sailing and making everybody happy, is to grant the seamen’s wage demands.” Indeed! But is this recipe for everybody’s happiness not a little naive, encouraging “demands” on the parlour-game principle “Think of a number (or demand) and then double it." Since when has it been good Socialism to accept the view that any good, let alone universal happiness, can come out of a wages system?

On the very same page you say that “ not so long ago " a farthing would buy a pocket-full of sweets. So it would, if not a pocket-full, a fist-full. Sweets— and food—was incredibly cheap before the first great war, and so was labour. You make the point that a worker’s wage today in command of real wealth remains much about the same. This, in spite of the precarious outcome of “full employment” in so-called key industries, overtime, and married women’s labour. Plainly, “demand” for anything less than Socialism is “not enough.” Then why confuse the issue merely to satisfy that class-war feeling? It’s phoney! As for the £40 a month and all found, I can only speak of the stewards you mention, but I have just come off a liner (an exploiting passenger, of course) considerably lighter in pocket. Why should you expect me to fall for that fudge? The workers, like everyone else (and who are they?) want all they can get and I don't blame them—or us—but don't ask me to idealise the ”gi-me" game. I gave all to a cause once, with no personal expectations. So did many pioneers of the SPGB. We didn't moan.

Now, isn't it about time the SPGB told the world what it means by Socialism? Yes, I know all about the statement of Principles, I had it in draft in my own hands some 50 years ago. But what does it mean? I ask modern artist friends of mine what their apparently crude abstract designs mean and they fob me off with jargon and more jargon. I ask you for details of how each takes from the common store without money and without price. Must the answer be the same? Just how, is all I want to know, but don’t misunderstand me. I, too, believe it possible to really socialise the main things of life gradually and I do not rely on any “ dawn ’’ appearing or the “ setting up'' of specialised and centralised bureaucracies for the purpose. I could develop the theme with plenty of early Socialist literature to my aid. Believe me, I do not propose to present every worker with a Jaguar on “ demand ’’—the problem disturbs me, for why not a helicopter apiece? 1 can “ visualise ” some “ store." Treat this as a little pleasantry if you like, but what do you really mean? No jargon, mind!

Lord Amwell.

Belsize Park, N.W.3.

Reply:

In the first chapter of our pamphlet “ Questions of the Day " we have told in some detail what Socialism is. Lord Amwell asks “for details of how each takes from the common store without money and without price.” We are puzzled at his difficulty. In a family, for example, each takes what he needs of what is there without either money or price. Likewise, from what is produced today each could take what he needs of what is available for each without having to pay for anything, providing it was all commonly owned.

As the question comes from Lord Amweli there are certain things we can take for granted. For instance, that we are concerned with a society in which everything that is in and on the earth is the common possession of all mankind. and each stands on an equal footing with regard to what is produced and distributed.

Before such a society can come into being the vast mass of the people must understand what Socialism signifies the kind of society that they are bringing into being. Hence they will know that the greater the quantity and variety they can produce the more in quantity and variety will be available to each.

The same kind of hands and brains that are concerned with production and distribution today will be available in the new society—but with greater freedom and opportunities. Consequently the provision of the necessary productive and storage facilities to meet society's needs in the requisite places will present less difficulties than they do today, where the profit consideration enters into the problem. Thus people will go to the appropriate stores and take what they need of what is there, in accordance with assessments of needs and the means to fulfil them—problems which are within the capacity of human brains that have been able to devise gigantic buildings, faster than sound planes, radar and space rockets. For instance, people go to super stores today, take what they need and pay for what they have taken. Tomorrow they will go similar places, take what they need and walk out.

Those who bring the new society into being will be reasonable enough not to expect more than society is capable of producing. Likewise, they will only want what they need, not what will be the envy of their neighbours. A person can only eat one meal at a time, sleep in one bed, sit in one car. The multiplicity of these things would only be a nuisance and a sign that the accumulator needed the attention of a doctor. Helicopters have been mentioned. It is surely obvious that everyone would not want a helicopter, a motor car, a racing stud, a yacht, a TV set, a private radar, a trip to the moon, a private salmon river, or a house papered with gold leaf and diamonds. People yearn for these things today because they signify security and importance, in the eyes of their fellows. In the new society such an outlook would be meaningless. The members of it would want comfort, happiness, the pursuit of occupations that gave them pleasure, and the harmonious co-operation of their fellows. A helicopter would not be needed as a possession, but as a means to get from place to place in a hurry. Today a man calls a taxi if he wants to get to a friend or the station in comfort and quickly. Would it not be possible to arrange to call a helicopter tomorrow? Members of the new society would not be unreasonable in their demands, harmonious co-operation would assure this, and unlimited human ingenuity would be used to solve any problems that arise.

In the beginning, before society has settled down in the new form, there may be those who, unable to throw off the heritage of the past, may want to satiate themselves with possessions. But what of it? They will gain nothing by it except satiation and will soon get tired of useless accumulation, like the child gets tired of a surfeit of toys.

With reference to the remarks about the seamen's dispute, the sentences quoted have been taken too literally—in a sense that the context shows was not intended. They were just flippant digs at the arguments put forward by the employers and their supporters.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: The Transition Period. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Fred Montague, M.P., replies to our Criticism.

48, Lucerne Road, Highbury Park, N.5.

August 10, 1928.

To the Editorial Board, the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sirs,

As the next issue of The Social Democrat will be almost entirely a Conference number and it will be impossible for me to comment until later, perhaps you will be able to give me space for a few words upon your interesting statement.

(1) It is true that I hold a fundamentally different view, whether false or not. I do believe that Capitalism in its later stages represents a transition period. Slavery and Feudalism did in similar stages. I fail to see in what way this view conflicts with Marx.

The conception of society as an organism in process of modification does not seem to me to be unphilosophical or contrary to fact. To be Socialists, least of all to belong to the working-class, whether Socialist or not, is not to be outside existing society because Capitalism has not yet come to its natural demise. Workers are this society, and will not be able to make another until economic conditions are ready.

(2) How can it be said that the Capitalist class are in control of political machinery and the armed forces except by consent of the working-class? The workers have political power, and who but the workers compose the armed forces. Why use language reminiscent of “Bastille” psychology and characteristic of the slave complex ? It is unreal rubbish.

(3) I agree that when there is a Socialist majority of an effective kind (remembering that bare majorities can have only bare power) the transition will assume a different character. Of course. But I reject the notion that (apart from possible revolutionary upheaval which, in itself, would be merely political, could not create Socialism by magic, and would probably come, if at all, prematurely) there is some inevitable break of continuity, because the workers vote one way instead of another.

(4) Your reply to Mr. Phillips (par. 3) seems to me to give the S.P.G.B. case away. If Capitalists, for the sake of avoiding “industrial and administrative chaos,” will refrain from blocking the way to Socialism whilst the transition period is taking place after the workers elect a Socialist majority to Parliament, why assume that everything done now to avoid industrial and administrative chaos must necessarily block the way?

(5) A period of transformation means a period, short or long, where one form of society exists in diminishing area side by side with another form in ascending area. A Socialist Government would have to admit the dual fact and legislate for economic stability. The fault of your analogy about Krupps and about war administration is that in those cases there was no change of Capitalist economic machinery or control. You will agree.

The only (though important) difference that crosses on ballot papers will make to economic evolution is that, for the first time the workers will take charge of the evolutionary process and direct existing collectivist tendencies into definitely Socialist channels. Well, we all want that. The difference between us is that you regard the advent of a Socialist Government as an entirely new economic departure, whilst I consider that the conscious awakening of the workers will be, like birth, a stage of existence, not origin in vacuo. I do not believe in special creation.

(6) In answer to Mr. Phillips you say the Capitalists are not prepared to pay any price. That is as true now as it will be when Parliament has a majority of Socialists. They are beginning not to pay the price of competition. They will not pay the price of social services that are not “profitable.” They will let the nation “buy” industries that have ceased to “pay.” All very accurate.

But if a national railroad service is necessary and Capitalists cannot and will not deliver the goods, what is there unsocialistic about nationalising the railways? Is it that national taxation will be burdened with interest on the bonds? Since when has it been “Socialistic” to hold that taxation matters to the workers? I am not interested in Nationalisation on the ground that it will “pay,” but on the ground that, since “Rationalisation” is the only alternative I prefer to have economic machinery in the hands of the Parliament you and I want the workers to control.

Why should not Nationalisation benefit the workers under Capitalism? Unless you hold that the “Iron Law” is a cast-iron law, and wages don’t matter, whose is the fault if public servants of the working-class are not better paid and more secure? I know many cases in the municipal form of the principle where the workers are better off. On the other hand, if no workers can be better off they cannot be worse off, for a real iron law must be pretty rigid at both ends. In which case Nationalisation cannot injure the workers.

(7) Nationalisation, you say, will cause unemployment. More efficiency, less work. Three cheers for inefficiency ! Is that Socialist policy? Good God, does the absence of Nationalisation in the coal industry “find work”? If keeping the workers employed in non-efficient Capitalist concerns instead of setting unemployed men to work to produce new wealth for their own consumption and new demand-power in the nation is Socialist, I have been at sea all my life. Can you say that workers could not insist upon the latter being done and might it not be done before your financial secretary or ours gets buried in the subscriptions of the working class? If not, why not?

One point more. I was not a recruiting agent. I did not ask other people to do even what I thought it proper to do myself.

Yours sincerely,

F. Montague.

Our Reply

(1) Mr. Montague says that “Capitalism” in its later stages represents a transition period,” and he writes of Capitalism’s “natural demise.” This view conflicts both with fact and with the Marxian view of social development. Capitalism, administratively and socially, has always been adjusting itself to developments of new productive methods, and the rise of new sections of the Capitalist class, but this is not transition to Socialism. Capitalism, with ever new adjustments, will go on indefinitely unless and until the working-class decide to terminate it. Waiting for Capitalism to “come to its natural demise” and in the meantime assisting the Capitalists to reform Capitalism is not work for Socialists.

(2) Mr. Montague dismisses as “unreal rubbish” the notion “that the Capitalist class are in control …. except by consent of the working-class.”

This is interesting, but has nothing to do with our case.

Mr. Montague knows perfectly well that we have never denied that the workers consent to Capitalist control and vote for Capitalism at each election.

The point of importance (and this Mr. Montague conveniently ignores) is that the Capitalists are in control, and therefore the reforms they introduce are Capitalist remedies for Capitalist problems.

(3) The very definite break of continuity after the workers gain control for Socialism will be that, for the first time, an attack will be made on the private property basis of Capitalism.

Was there not a definite break of continuity in the Southern States of the U.S.A. when slavery was made illegal and replaced by wage-labour?

(4) We have not said that everything done by the Capitalist class “must necessarily block the way” to Socialism. What we have said is that while the Capitalist class are in control they will decide what shall and shall not be done. The pressure of their system, not the pleadings of “Labour” representatives, compels them to actions which sometimes work out to our benefit as well as theirs.

(5) It has already been pointed out that Socialism is international, and the conception of Socialism and Capitalism existing in “areas” “side by side,” is quite foreign to Socialism.

If the change over from the production of munitions to the production of machinery can be carried out by the workers under Capitalism, we still fail to see why similar transformations should present special difficulty after the workers are in control. Mr. Montague fails to enlighten us.

We quite agree that the awakening of the workers is a gradual process, but their conquest of power is equally obviously a definite new departure.

(6) We asked Mr. Montague to defend his support of Nationalisation, which he agreed is “only another form of Capitalism.” Our opposition was stated to be on the ground that “it will not benefit the workers under Capitalism.” Instead of showing that the workers would be better off under Nationalisation, Mr. Montague first says that he prefers to have “economic machinery in the hands of the Parliament you and I want the workers to control”—but the point is that the workers at present do not control Parliament, and the proposition Mr. Montague has to defend is the advocacy of State-ownership by a Parliament in control of Capitalist parties.

He then uses the flimsy argument that he knows some municipal employees who are “better off.” As he gives no particulars, nor any explanation of his basis of comparison, no answer is possible. I would, however, refer him to the explicit statement of the Civil Service Industrial Court which last year arbitrated on Post Office wages, that it accepted the principle of basing wage rates on those paid in outside industry.

Lastly, does Mr. Montague really think that we ought to support any reform the Capitalists choose to advocate, provided it is not positively harmful to the workers? If Nationalisation leaves the workers no better and no worse off than now, that is a sufficient reason not to waste efforts on it; efforts which might be devoted to the achievement of Socialism.

(7) Mr. Montague asks if “inefficiency” is Socialist policy. It is not. Have we ever said it was?

What he persistently fails to recognise is that the economic evils of the working-class are due to their wage-slave position in Capitalist society. Mr. Montague misleads the workers by persuading them to believe that Nationalisation will solve their problems. Our alternative to advocating either private or State Capitalism is to advocate Socialism. Mr. Montague’s alternative to advocating private Capitalism is advocating State Capitalism, coupled with such nonsense as “setting unemployed men to work to produce new wealth for their own consumption,” as if such a thing were possible with the Capitalist class still in control of the means of production.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Transition to Socialism: A Reply to Mr. Fred Montague, M.P. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Montague, Labour M.P. and editor of the “Social-Democrat,” asks us a number of questions in the June issue of that journal. By an oversight our reply was omitted from the July Socialist Standard. We give below in full the paragraphs which explain Mr. Montague’s point of view.

(1) Questions for "the Socialist Standard." 

Discussing the subject of Communist doctrine, “The Socialist Standard” describes the statement that “The workers must destroy the capitalist state and set up their own workers’ state” as dangerous romanticism, leading not to Socialism but to the shambles. We agree. And we agree also with “The Socialist Standard” that it is nonsense to say that Marx and Engels gave support to the advocacy of violence beyond what appears in a purple passage or two to “round off an occasional peroration.” But if the idea of the destroying of the capitalist state and setting up a workers’ state is dangerous romanticism, what is the idea of leaving transitional politics alone ? Of two things one, surely ! Either revolutionary overthrow, which seems to agree with the Communist position, or transformation of such a character that at no point is the stability of society threatened. As a matter of interest and not of mere debate we invite “The Socialist Standard” to examine this point.

(2) The Logic of It. 

Does any Socialist worthy of the appellation “scientific” imagine that capitalism will end one Saturday night and Socialism begin one Monday morning? Members of the S.P.G.B. are strong on logic. Will any responsible member answer the following points? Suppose it is agreed, as we agree, that nationalisation is only another form of capitalism, and that social reform, as we do not altogether agree, is not worth troubling about. Imagine that a satisfactory majority of class-conscious Socialists are one day returned to Parliament. Socialism is declared by the representatives of the working class. What then? Do the workers carry on and, if so, where and how? For instance, will goods be made for export and trade carried on in automatic continuation of the old machinery until Parliament creates an entirely new organisation? Is it seriously contended that no period of transition will be required, and if it is not so contended is it unreasonable to ask what is to guarantee the efficiency of that diminishing area of production still in the hands of none too sympathetic capitalists during that period?

(3) What the change means.

Nationalisation is only another form of capitalism, but transition means the same thing whoever may be in charge of Parliament. It is not a question of whether the change from one system to another is to be slow or rapid. If the machinery of production, distribution, and foreign exchange is to be taken over as a going concern with a view to socialisation an enormous amount of complicated administrative work will have to be done afterwards, involving, for one thing, tremendous displacement of labour in the closing down of parasitical trades. It may seem a small point, but are shopkeepers, small as well as large, to carry on as private capitalists until a Socialist system of co-operative distribution has been created? Or is it proposed to have the plans for socialisation ready beforehand ? Who will have these plans, and how can they be prepared beforehand without participation in and knowledge of pre-Socialist administration? It is not to the point that workers run the capitalist system now. That might be an argument for syndicalists, but it is not one for Socialists. Scientific Socialism means, besides economic and historical theory, Socialism scientifically applied, otherwise we might as well leave the workers to run the capitalist system. And as this tremendous piece of work is being done, are capitalists going to oblige by running things for our convenience whilst awaiting execution?

(4) Wealth of a kind.

One point that came out of the Maxton-Fitzgerald debate is also worth a little extra consideration. “Under Socialism” wealth will be so plentiful that monetary system will be unnecessary and would be absurd, therefore Socialism cannot mean equal remuneration or socialisation of the means of exchange. We have no quarrel with that, but go easy about the plentiful supply. Plentiful supply of what? Iron girders, aluminium pots, baby’s basinettes, or Brummagem idols for Ballabaloo? All these things come into the term “wealth,” and are included in potential production. Have we a likely plentiful supply of food? Do necessary raw materials materialise like the famous Katie King? Are cotton, wool, leather, wood and tobacco available “like water” ? With more countries in the world than ever producing what they want for themselves this repudiation of “exchange“ may acquire a sinister meaning. The fact is, the “plentiful supply” of means of enjoyment is child’s talk unless we are sure of exchanging our goods for the food and raw materials we want. There is plenty in the world, we know, but is non-transitional Socialism possible the world over at the same moment? If not, what allowances and modifications are admissible, and if capitalistic exceptions are to be made in any way, what logical objection is there to nationalisation? “

Our Reply.

What is the Transition Period?

(1) Although Mr. Montague asks a number of questions, most of the points of difference between him and us can be traced back to his use of the term “transition period.” What is the transition period? We live now in a capitalist economic system with the capitalist class in control of the political machinery and the armed forces of society. They make laws and enforce them, laws which are always framed within the limits imposed by the nature of capitalism and (so far as these limits permit) always directly in their interests as capitalists. When, and not before, the working-class, organised for Socialism, have gained control of the political machinery, the transition period will begin. The working-class cannot begin the work of abolishing the present private property basis of society until they have obtained political control from the capitalist class.

Mr. Montague holds a fundamentally different, and as we consider, a fundamentally false view. He asks (paragraph 1) : “What is the idea of leaving transitional politics alone?”

Our answer is plain. We shall not leave “transitional politics” alone, but what Mr. Montague has in mind as “transitional politics” are merely the politics of capitalist reform now carried on by him and his party. We are not in the “transition period,” the workers have not obtained political control, and the advocacy of nationalisation and other reforms is not work towards Socialism or towards the capture of political control for Socialism.

(2) Mr. Montague here agrees that “nationalisation is only another form of capitalism.” It is then for him to justify his support of nationalisation. He must be quite familiar with our opposition based on the contention that it will not benefit the working-class under capitalism.

Mr. Montague’s further questions about foreign trade are presumably based on the assumption that Socialism can be established in Great Britain alone. It certainly cannot. Socialism will be international, and cannot be other than international.

(3) Most of the points in this paragraph depend on Mr. Montague’s view of “transitional politics,“ and are answered above in my reply to his first paragraph. We deny his statement that “transition means the same thing whoever may be in charge of Parliament.” Socialists do not deny or underestimate the difficulties of the economic transformation to Socialism, but the difficulties of the period after the conquest of power have no relation to the policy of supporting capitalist reforms before the conquest of power.

(4) Here Mr. Montague deals further with the economic problems which will face the workers after they have obtained political control. They will, for instance, have to cease the production of articles no longer required, and produce instead larger quantities of certain goods the supply of which is at present too small. Similar problems were solved in 1914. Mr. Montague (who actively participated as private, as First Lieutenant and as recruiting agent) will know how the Government withdrew men from industrial production in order to build up a great machine for slaughtering their fellow-workers in other countries. They also solved the problem of turning out munitions and then, in 1919, they reversed the process when the weapons of destruction were no longer needed in such huge quantities.

Krupp did not personally conduct the similar change-over in Germany from howitzers to harvesters in the factories bearing his name; the change-over, like capitalist production and distribution in general, was carried through by workers. We cannot, therefore, see why Mr. Montague should doubt our ability to do for ourselves what we now do for the capitalists.

Mr. Montague’s other difficulties arise again out of his two misconceptions : first, that the transition to Socialism is already going on while the capitalists are still in power, and secondly, that Socialism can be introduced on a national basis, requiring capitalist trade to continue between the national groups. Under Socialism there will be no trade, home or foreign, individual or collective.

Edgar Hardcastle

Population and Social Progress (1942)

From the June 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Fashions in social theory are as changeable as fashions in clothes. During peace-time industrial depressions, when unemployment is rife, the advocates of birth control come into favour with their theory that unemployment is due to an excessive population; but when war is the order of the day the urgent demand for man-power and the fear that other nations are becoming numerically stronger and therefore more formidable as military powers gives a chance to those who preach the need for more children. And just as clothes are fashioned to suit the taste, occupation and purses of different groups of people so also with population theories, as witness the unmarried of both sexes who urge the poor to have large families, the wealthy parasites who brazenly support the argument that large families are the cause of poverty and the Eugenists who want the rich to be fruitful and multiply and the poor to curtail their devastating torrent of children. In 1913 Mr. Allan G. Roper, B.A., in his “Ancient Eugenics,” could write of the “reckless propagation” of the “lower classes,” but now the Government and numerous propaganda bodies are considering family allowances and other devices to encourage a more reckless spirit among working-class husbands and wives in order to stop the threatened decline of the population.

There has been much inquiry into the remedy for the problem and much into the cause of the decline, but most of it is marred by an inability to recognise fully the nature of the capitalist system of society in which we live. The inquiry starts with the fact that since 1870 the birth rate has declined from 34 per 1,000 to 15 per 1,000; only partly offset by a decline of the death-rate per 1,000 from 21 to 13. For many weeks all sorts of learned and other persons have written to the Times offering to explain why this has happened. Among the varied suggestions are the following : The spread of knowledge about birth-control methods, the increased employment of women in factories and offices, the growth of unemployment, the failure to provide adequate housing accommodation at low rents, the decline of religion, the fear of war, and lastly, the new milling processes which in the seventies popularised white bread and consequently robbed the population of the elements in wholemeal flour which made for greater fertility—we are told that this alleged deficiency will be counteracted by the new national loaf.

The reader can examine these claims in the light of his or her own experience and knowledge. One thing, however, that is undeniable, is that many working class men and women looking at their life and prospects under capitalism are reluctant to have as large families as their parents and grandparents. Economic insecurity and war play their part in this attitude and also the recognition that young children stand in the way of activities outside the home, whether recreations and amusements, or taking part in organised activities, including those of political parties. For women of the working class it is difficult if not impossible to have the care of young children and at the same time to take an intelligent interest and share in the work of a political party. Another factor of course is that the parents feel that if they are to give their children “a better chance in the world” than they had it is necessary to limit the number, and it is to this feeling that the advocates of family allowances make their strongest appeal. They argue that wages are inadequate for the maintenance of a family, therefore an additional 5s. a week given in respect of each child would raise the standard of living and encourage larger families. Let us examine a typical statement of the case, that contained in a leaflet, “Family Allowances and the Labour Movement,” issued by the Family Allowances Labour Group.

Their statement is “that wages are in many cases too low to support more than one or two children; that therefore the greatest source of poverty in this country is the possession of young children.” Put in that form it appears plausible enough. Ask a worker if he would be better off if he were relieved of the cost of supporting his children he would naturally reply yes ! Meaning, of course, that he would be better off provided that his wages remained unchanged and he received children’s allowances in addition. But the same argument could be used, and has been used, about other items of working class expenditure. There are those who have maintained for years that the greatest cause of working class poverty is high rents, so they advocated rent restriction or subsidised State housing. What has been the result ? Wages have adjusted themselves to changes in rents. In spite of the rent restriction acts during the past 28 years, working class poverty has not been materially lessened. In Vienna and other cities where rents were much reduced it was established by independent inquiry that wages followed suit. Agricultural labourers have very low rents, 3s. or 4s. a week, but their wages were also the lowest of any industry, and now that their wages have been raised to 60s. at once a movement is on foot to charge “economic” rents.

What about food ? Would not the worker be better off with free food? Mr. Fred Montague, M.P., opposes family allowances and states a case for an alternative proposal, that of spending a like sum of money in providing free milk and bread (Manchester Guardian, May 13th, 1942). Here again the workers’ problem would not be fundamentally different from what it is now. They would still have to struggle to maintain a given level of wages, with the certainty that such a cheapening of the cost of living would encourage a tendency for wages to fall. Are domestic servants, agricultural labourers and others who get board and lodging as part of wages better off than other workers who do not ?

We need not dispute that family allowances, or free food, or low rents, would probably be a gain to some sections of the workers on very small wages. And for a time to all workers with dependent children. But it would still leave the workers in the position of having to struggle unceasingly to maintain their standards, still faced with the permanent insecurity that is their lot under capitalism.

The basic argument of the above mentioned Family Allowance Group is false. The greatest source of poverty is not the possession of young children. Are there not hundreds of thousands of single men and women and childless families in dire poverty ? Are all our surtax payers celibate ? Were agricultural labourers on their pre-war average wage of 34s. only poor through having young children ? Will not the mass of the workers still be poor if they get family allowances and even if they were able to keep up the level of wages as well ? The source of poverty is the capitalist system which simultaneously prevents the maximum production of articles needed by the workers, entails enormous waste, and endows the propertied class with a large part of the wealth produced. The cure for this is Socialism, not family allowances or subsidised food or rents.

Socialism also offers the only cure for the problem of a declining population by removing poverty, economic insecurity, and the fear of war. It will also dispose of the problem which worries the eugenists. When Mr. Roper and others say that their problem is “the diminishing numbers of the upper classes and the rapid multiplication of the lower,” they overlook the fact that that problem too will disappear when there is no longer an upper and a lower class, a capitalist class and a working class. In their minds, of course, is an assumption that there is some innate, inherited, superior quality in the “upper classes,” but the truth is, as has been well said, that there is nothing wrong with the poor except their poverty. Indeed, if the eugenists take to heart one lesson of this war, the way in which things have been bungled by a considerable proportion of our ruling class civil and military notabilities, even they must now wonder whether the “upper class” are superior in anything but their wealth.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Socialism and Materialism. (1926)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labour M.P.’s rejoinder and our reply. 

The Editor, Socialist Standard.

Sir,—I am obliged for your interesting reply to my letter. Perhaps you are able to find room for the following further observations.

You state that the whole of the idealistic school attempts to explain society in terms of ideals. In the absolute sense this is true, and I am convicted of using a careless phrase. But the unconscious dualism of the materialist is revealed clearly in the sentence, “from Plato to Hegel man’s being is explained by his consciousness rather than his consciousness by his being” Except as a doctrine of super­natural implications, I do not understand what can be meant by “consciousness” and “being” considered as separate enti­ties. I certainly do not attempt to explain either by the other, for both are part of the same evolutionary fact.

You ask, “How can the qualities of human beings be more fundamental than the environment to which they are related and in which they are inextricably involved?” Agreed. But when you speak of environment you speak of something bigger than economics and something which is not exclusively external. Strictly speaking, embryological facts are as much environ­mental as any other. I am aware of the ambiguity of the word “fundamental,” and I use the word only in the sense that a larger category of events may include smaller ones. Heredity cannot be ruled out. And you cannot rule out the intel­lectual history of the race in accounting for the culture of a period.

“The only hope of improvement for a wage-slave is in Socialism.” That depends upon the wage-slave. He may have ability, courage and no conscience. He may then become a capitalist jackal, a scab, or a “labour leader,” and would do so in strict, conformity with a philosophy which makes man’s “being” his belly. And it would be, to say the least, foolish to call him names if there is no ethical standard by which to judge conduct and only the stom­ach to explain it. The unfortunate feature of the whole situation is that the process leaves you with the incompetents on your hands.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am putting a case and offering you an explanation of a fact to which you so frequently draw attention—the existence of a whole tribe of working-class misleaders. These, if they are as venal as you say they are, seem to have absorbed non-moralism ex­ceedingly well.

You have not answered my question, “What becomes of ‘class’ if you discount idealism?” Material interests are first of all personal interests; they only become class interests when combination offers a reasonable prospective of collective advantage. The prospect of Socialism is some­ what uncertain—not to put top fine a point on it. I don’t fancy the odds at present, and I am not prepared to invest in the apathy and folly of my class. Any one of us is a hopeless dud if he could not have made his personal circumstances more secure, to say the least, had he never touched Socialism. The Socialist movement as yet calls for considerable sacrifice, and to put it in order you offer a post-dated cheque — or rather, an undated one, on the bank of revolution !

No wonder you say you have no concern with my personal motives, which, in the main, are much like other people’s. If you had concern with motives you would understand the psychology of class better. All that comes out of purely material motives even our way (if it is in any sense your way or mine) is “never mind what, but get it quick—we can’t wait.” Which is perfectly natural, if you “discount idealism.” Why should anyone ignore any old fleshpots that might be knocking about for the sake of “this day, next day, some­ time, never,” in the light of the progress of the S.P.G.B. or even the S.D.F? Come, sir, you must all be high-souled philanthro­pists without knowing it.

In practical fact, “class-consciousness” is only “brotherhood of man,” minus the exploiting classes. There is as much cant about one as the other. As for capitalists exploiting “war-cries,” they would prostitute anything and do nearly everything. All the more reason why we should insist upon the validity of certain “abstractions.”

I am asked to explain the origin and development of monogamy and prostitution if love does not play a part essentially sub­-ordinate to private property. Monogamy is a social custom hardly collateral with capi­talist society or of capitalist origin, and it can be only very doubtfully described as a property reflex. It has nothing to do, in any case, with the subordination or other­wise of love, which is an impulse that ante­ dates primitive communism and is shared by man with all sentient life and perhaps with the mineral kingdom. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, and a social phenomenon that runs through epochs of economic variations cannot, without gross misuse of language, be said to be “subordinate” to anything but its own passion. Strange you should have placed the two things together. Doesn’t prosti­tution cancel out monogamy, any way ?

In conclusion, if my “friends” had to be exclusively those who think exactly as I think, I should have few “friends.” Why should I object to Sir Henry Slesser airing views that are not mine in the paper I edit? And why the unction of “these be your friends”? Do you not share the “eco­nomic man” theory with all the Liberal gradgrinds and Tory buccaneers whatever?

Yours faithfully,

F. Montague.

Our Reply.

It is a trifle difficult to take Mr. Monta­gue seriously. He appears to be bent on the time-honoured pastime of setting up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down again. The original article which he attemp­ted to criticise commenced with a reference to a plea by one of his political colleagues for “a new society based upon Christi­anity.” We sought to show that society is based upon economic development and not upon religious beliefs. Unable to show us wrong in this respect, Mr. Montague accuses us of all manner of philosophical errors which he equally fails to prove.

This time it is “unconscious dualism” of which we are alleged to be guilty because, forsooth, we distinguish, in the abstract, between man’s “consciousness” and his “being.” Does not man’s being include his consciousness, as the greater includes the less, or is his consciousness all-embracing and exhaustive? Do we judge an individual simply by what he thinks of himself? Must we accept every ruling class at its own valuation ? These questions only need to be asked to illustrate the absurdity of the idealist position. But is Mr. Montague an idealist? In his first letter (June issue) he asserted “that certain human qualities are more fundamental than any shaping process, economic or otherwise.” Now he “agrees” that they are not ! No wonder he does “not attempt to explain either by the other !”

This does not prevent him, however, from persisting in regarding the individual and his “personal motives” as the all-important factor in social development. He may pay lip-service to what he calls “economic de­terminism” but he evidently does not under­stand it. For instance, he refers to a whole tribe of working-class misleaders and appears to attribute their position to their “ability,” “courage,” and lack of “con­science,” instead of to the economic pres­sure arising from the conditions of capitalist society.

According to Mr. Montague, the bulk of the working-class are “hopeless duds,” see­ing that, although they have not “touched Socialism,” their “personal circumstances” become increasingly less secure ! “The Socialist movement as yet calls for consider­ able sacrifice !” Capitalism, of course, doesn’t, eh! Mr. Montague?

Our critic imagines that any unscrupulous scoundrel can get the best of modern soci­ety. He appears to be blind to the opera­tion of the economic factors which care as little for personal motives as do the winds and tides.

“Material interests are first of all personal interests,” he says, but fails to ex­plain how any person can exist apart from some class in a class-society.

“Class-consciousness” he regards as a moral term akin to the “brotherhood of man.” He ignores the fact that “minus the exploiting classes,” the term would be meaningless. Class-consciousness implies the conception, not merely of identity, but of antagonism in the economic realm. This antagonism cannot be explained by ethical abstractions, which only serve to confuse the workers’ minds and thus delay the hour of their triumph.

Mr. Montague’s handling of monogamy and prostitution indicates a very shallow knowledge of the subject. Monogamy is more than a social custom. It is a legal institution and, as such, bears the unmistak­able impress of its origin in the private ownership of the means of life. There have been other forms of private property be­ sides that at present obtaining, and we did not suggest that capitalism alone was re­sponsible for the origin and development of this form of sexual relationship. Modern marriage and prostitution in all its forms imply the economic dependence of the woman upon the man. This condition did not exist under the communal arrangements of primitive society, and sexual relations were, as a consequence, of a widely differ­ent character from those which at present prevail. We have not space here to describe them in detail, but Mr. Montague would be well-advised to study Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” and Engel’s “Origin of the Family” before indulging in more random generalisations about “love.” Women sell themselves, in marriage or out of it, because their economic circumstances so determine; and prostitution, so far from “cancelling out” monogamy, supplements it. The capitalist’s legal wife presents him with heirs to his invested wealth. His paramours help him to enjoy that which overflows from the field of investment.

In conclusion, we referred to Sir H. Slesser in order to illustrate our contention that, politically, Mr. Montague keeps strange company for an alleged Socialist, which does not exactly tend to remove our suspicions as to the utility of philosophy. As for the “economic man” theory, we should have credited even a member of the S.D.F. with knowing better!

Editorial Committee

A Labour M.P. criticises our position. (1926)

From the May 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received an article criticising “Socialism and Materialism” (which appeared in the April issue) from Mr. Fred Montague, Labour M.P. for Islington. This will appear in the next issue together with our reply.

What is a Spiv? (1947)

From the October 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

In these days, when everybody is becoming Spiv-conscious, to ask what is a Spiv might seem to border on the fatuous. The purpose of this article will merely be to attempt to show that as a comprehensive definition of idler, drone and parasite the word Spiv leaves much to be desired.

Undoubtedly high-powered publicity has focussed the Spiv in constant if dubious limelight. For some he may yet come to acquire something of the symbolical status his more sinister counterpart, the American gangster, possesses for a generation of film-goers.

Shortages, Rationing, The Black Market, as some of capitalism’s present evils, have provided the conditions and opportunities for making England much more a land fit for Spivs to live in than it ever was: or likely to be it seems. For if the statements of certain Government spokesmen are to be taken at their face value, the Spiv is already on his way out. The Government in their efforts to ease the embarrassing, even if temporary, “labour shortage” for contemporary capitalism, have ear-marked the Spiv as a source of potential labour-power. For this Government of planners the unplanned existence of the Spiv (unplanned that is for the existing requirements of Capitalism) becomes at least a little irksome.

The Spiv thus finds himself the subject of Governmental interest and the object of weighty political pronouncements. The word is officially recognised now and is considered normal to the vocabulary of Cabinet Ministers.

Even in the rarefied atmosphere of The House of Lords the word has made its debut. Lord Pakenham replying to Lord Amwell (formerly Mr Fred Montague, MP) on the direction of idleness, said, “Lord Amwell no doubt referred to the gentlemen known as spivs and drones. He agreed that however wide his definition we had no use for slackers at this time”. (Daily Telegraph, 7/8/47). No doubt an interpretation of slackers in the sense of “a wide definition” might have found room for a broader and perhaps more embarrassing inclusion than that permitted by the more restrictive nature of the word Spiv. Doubtless comprehensive definitions of terms, while admirable in theory, are not necessarily politic in practice.

Mr Attlee in the House of Commons the same day said, “We shall take all action open to us against the Spivs and other drones”. Like Lord Pakenham Mr Attlee did not attempt a definition of terms. To have done so might have held awkward implications for the consideration of the members present. It might conceivably have led to the reading of “The Riot Act” in the “Mother of Parliaments”. A political flash-back, nevertheless, recalls the coupling of drones with “idle rich”, in the classic days of Labour Party propaganda.

Nevertheless, Mr Shinwell speaking on the question of appointments to the Electricity Board, did say “We have no regard for those persons who perform no useful service at all . . . They have been described as parasites, idlers, drones and rentiers”. He added, “I don’t intend to appoint them to any Board for which I am responsible.” (Daily Telegraph, 24/6/47). Whether this constitutes one of Mr Shinwell’s noted lapses into indiscretion or a momentary glimpse of a more fundamental aspect of drones and parasites, we venture no opinion. No threat of work direction for these gentlemen, however, only non-appointment to various Boards.

Mr Isaacs, Minister of Labour, has said, that “Spivs are not so numerous as some people think”. But at the Trade Union Conference he spoke of using full Governmental powers of direction in regard to them (Daily Telegraph, 3/9/47). He also told us that there are people who toil not and depend on the dividends earned by other workers. Had he said a wealthy section live on dividends and profits produced solely by the workers, he would have obtained full marks. Mr Isaacs is, however, not a person inclined to indiscretions.

Mr Tom Williams, MP, also spoke on direction of labour. He suggested if there are Spivs and drones or any one else (italics ours) who refused to accept occupations, Unemployment Benefit should be stopped, adding that starving men and women into work is the highest penalty which ought to be tried in the first six or twelve months. (Evening News, 2/9/47). Coupon clippers, rentiers and other profit-participants are, however, debarred from drawing Unemployment Benefit. Moreover, as their level of incomes have no more relevance to “The Poverty Line” than it has to “The Plimsoll Line”, Mr Williams’ dire threats to people refusing direction of work will doubtless be met by them with calm and studied contempt.

The Spiv assumes then the role of the Labour Government’s whipping boy. In the past the hard-faced business man and the treble-chinned plutocrat could be pilloried in the political stocks for Capitalism’s shortcomings. Called upon to administer capitalism the Labour Party must perforce—vide Morrison—ask for their co-operation and even enthusiasm for “Labour’s” New Social Order. The Spiv will be pleased or perturbed to discover that it is he and not the private ownership of the means of wealth production which now constitutes the basic contradiction of capitalism.

The Spiv, however, is not merely a post-war product or the illegitimate child of a Labour Government. His prototype has for many decades alternatively flourished and decayed in capitalist society. He is generally a big city product. Born mostly in city slums or near slums he early experiences the drab life and sordid surroundings of those who, like himself, dwell there and toil for others. When the opportunity occurs for doing a bit on the side or fiddling, he seizes it as a more lucrative and more colourful occupation than the monotony of the daily grind. He is often, however, compelled to devote more time and energy to his peculiar calling than is customary for him to admit. Neither can the Spiv for the most part wholly emancipate himself from his working class status. “In bad times” he is often reluctantly forced back into workshop or factory. For the Spiv, however, the age-long habit of work engrained in his fellow-toilers has been seriously undermined.

It has been said that the Spiv is at least a rebel. Some people have even sentimentalised him as a kind of revolt against the conditions imposed by the nature of capitalist exploitation. The Spiv’s own anti-Government and anti-authoritarian outlook might seem to lend colour to this view. The Spiv, however, generally lacks the class loyalty and class sentiment that goes to the making of the class-conscious social revolutionary. The zeal and selfless devotion of the socialist, with his illimitable vista of a world based on production for use and the Brotherhood of Man, lights no fires in the mind and imagination of the Spiv. A good time and plenty of fun at the expense of others gravely limits his social horizon. Pleasure and “the easy way” becomes basic to his existence. His mode of life constitutes a form of social parasitism which conflicts with the healthy social instincts of the vast majority of workers.

Also the Spiv evolves a standard of values that make for unconscious subservience to wealth and luxury. He is consequently, however insignificant, a factor making for its perpetuation. At his best he is a politically unreliable element. At his worst he can become the strike-breaking instrument of the employing class or a tool for political reaction. In a socialist society where all able-bodied people will engage in productive activity and where the principle prevails—From each according to his ability, to each according to his need—the Spiv, as such, can have no place.

The social solidarity of a system such as the present one is cleft by its basic class antagonism. With the decay of its own outworn economic functions goes the decay of its outworn ethical creeds. The ideological veneer of its so-called public opinion merely hides the subversion of its traditional moral tenets to private forms of hypocrisy and cynicism. The wealth and luxury of present society then breeds its own type of social parasitism with its individual greed and unscrupulousness and its inevitable anti-social consequences. It is this which sets the individual against society and, as in the case of the Spiv, who attempts to imitate and emulate the ruling section, society against the individual. It is hardly to be wondered that the putrefying effects of such a social cesspool as Capitalism, fail to secure for the population at large a 100 per cent immunity from contamination. Given capitalist society the Spiv must flourish like a green bay tree. Changing circumstances may decimate his ranks, but as an inevitable product of existing social conditions, he can hardly cease to exist.

True that the padded shoulders, the diagonally woven suit, the spear-pointed collar and dazzle tie have given the Spiv a sartorial significance and setting. If, however, for a double-breasted camel coat we substitute a faultlessly cut dress suit, the four bob jive for the dance floors of expensive clubs and exclusive hotels, the cheap billiard hall and garish saloon for Monte Carlo and other fashionable gambling resorts; the significance attached to the word Spiv becomes vague and even blurred.

It may be said that the Spiv, by devious methods of obtaining goods in short supply and selling at extortionate prices, is guilty of anti-social practices. Nevertheless he has the time-honoured methods of “Rings”, “Market Corners” and their inevitable outcome, Trusts and Combines, to set him a precedent. Again, if he plies a doubtful trade, the long existence of nefarious company-promoters and Bucket shop sponsors shows that in the matter of shady transactions the Spiv is no path-breaking pioneer. That the Spiv lives by the dubious exercise of his wits may also be true. Yet while a section of the community live on the unpaid labour of others well might the Spiv-kettle, in the matter of social parasitism, retort “Why call me black, brother pot?”

Nevertheless the word is accepted now. From a slang term of doubtful pedigree it is on its way to an assured place in the English dictionary. Henceforth it will be synonymous with idler, drone and parasite. As a definition it will obscure rather than enlighten. Its emphasis will be on those who live by their wits and doubtful practices and not on those whose social parasitism is the outcome of the exploitation of the vast majority through the medium of class-ownership of the means of wealth production. All of which might suggest that there is a form of intellectual Spivery in addition to a social one. Concluding, may we repeat—What is a Spiv?

Ted Wilmott

Letter: Socialism and Materialism. (1926)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labour M.P.’s Criticism and our Answer. 

To the Editor of The Socialist Standard.

I am aware that members of the S.P.G.B. are not likely to give me a great deal of credit for political sincerity, but I am a regular reader of the “Socialist Standard,” and I appreciate the quality, invariably good, of its contents. Perhaps there is more in common with us than might be thought, for I, too, am disgusted when I am not amazed at the puerilities and futilities which pass for Socialist thought inside as well as outside the House of Commons.

You may he interested in some ideas suggested by your article on materialism. You state that your attitude "frankly rejects any attempt to explain society in terms of 'ideals,’ whether Christian or otherwise,” and that the conditions under which livelihood is obtained "determine, in the long run, the form taken by ideals of every kind.” May I ask what school of opinion worthy of account attempts to explain society in terms of ideals or denies that material conditions, even if not always the bare economic, determine the form taken by ideals?

At the risk of being charged with "metaphysical hairsplitting,”—I would say that words like those underlined make all the difference to the argument. Those of us who interpret economic determinism in the inhibitive sense that "getting a livelihood” predominantly determines the channel of expression, rather than the causative, i.e., that it creates its own reflex of art and religion, fully admit all that is really conveyed in the words I have quoted. The real difference of opinion seems to be in this: on the one side it is asserted that ideas (ideals) are produced by economic conditions, on the other that certain human qualities are more fundamental than any shaping process, economic or otherwise, and cannot be ignored in the attempted explanation of human history. For instance, it may be that current fiction in handling the love-motive reflects capitalism in a characteristically tainted and hypocritical way, but who, with any knowledge of world literature, would say that capitalism "produced” love—any kind of love? Here, to put things at their lowest, is a great physical fact that is at the very basis of life, and to say that it plays a part essentially subordinate to private property, or that ideas do not spring out of all that love has ever meant in the world, appears to me a narrow and barren doctrine.

Another point. You say that “quite irrespective of what their opinions may be, men and women are compelled to look after 'number one’; and failure to do this spells annihilation.” Surely, “number one” is here a most unfortunate expression ! Not only does the article I am, so far, criticising emphasise the historical importance of association to avoid “annihilation," but it declares individualism to be a bankrupt creed and affirms “class,” in action and consciousness, as the basis of Socialism. For the life of me I fail to understand why the substitution of "working-class” (three-fourths and more of mankind) for "humanity” lowers or effaces all ethical content in the idea of common good. It is all very well to say that Socialism is, primarily, a question of economic advantage to the working-class and that only the organisation of the working-class can achieve that advantage. All this is true. But, to me or to anyone else, the working-class is an impersonal abstraction.

I am a member of the working-class (or if I am not the man you argue with is, so don’t boggle over my £400 a year, which, after all and counting incidental expenses, isn’t worth the wage of a reasonably-paid mechanic) and would gain by Socialism. All the same, not agreeing with the l.L.P. that we can get “Socialism in our time” by magic, whether the working-class understand it or not, I do not expect to get out of Socialism in a material sense as much as I have put into it—or, shall we say, as much as I have thought I was putting into it. Not being a fool, I never did. Do you rule out of account everyone who does not find in Socialism an appeal, save in what is strictly an emotional though not necessarily unintelligent sense, to “number one”? I put this point in a personal way because I am the “number one” referred to, of course, and in so doing I am putting the case of hundreds of “number ones” who have a habit of preferring brass-tacks to metaphysics, however materialistic. As a matter of practical common-sense, what becomes of ‘‘class” if you discount idealism?

In conclusion, may I put the view that to say unkind things about philosophy does not alter the fact that we all provide ourselves with a philosophy of life, if it is only materialism. There is no need to sneer at what is, after all, formal criticism of these individual philosophies. Personally, I think that in the last quarter of a century science itself has made an extraordinary difference to the philosophy of its own materialism and that you obstinately cling to an obsolete metaphysic and to conceptions and terms which no longer hold water. But that is another question—perhaps for another time.

F. Montague, M.P.

Reply to F. Montague.

The article in question which appeared in the April issue of the Socialist Standard, sought to present in a brief and simple form the practical aspect of the theory of historical materialism as formulated by Marx and Engels. Mr. Montague appears to have a grievance because the choice of words therein used left little loophole for his disagreement. He is so overcome by its relentless logic that he despairingly asks, “What school of opinion worthy of account attempts to explain society in terms of ideals, etc.?” He appears to have forgotten that the whole of the idealistic school of thought makes the attempt, not merely with reference to society, but to the universe at large. From Plato to Hegel man’s being is explained by his consciousness rather than his consciousness by his being.

Mr. Montague next draws a distinction between what he calls the inhibitive and the causative senses of interpreting “economic determinism.” This distinction, however, is only valid if he insists upon using the words “cause” and “create” in a metaphysical or absolute sense. Reversing his own question, what school of opinion worthy of account does this? Certainly not that of Marx and Engels, whose followers in this connection we claim to be. When we say that a given set of economic relations give rise to a particular form of art or religion, etc., we do not thereby imply that art or religion are “created” by conditions out of nothing, as it were. The problem as seen by Marx and Engels was how to account for the various forms taken by human society in all its aspects, and the solution for them lay in economic development, i.e., the constant change and growth in the tools of production and the relations of men in connection therewith. They made no attempt to discover some ultimate element in the human make-up to which everything could be referred. On the contrary, like Darwin in the realm of biology, they sought for an efficient, not a final, cause operating in human history.

Mr. Montague asserts that “certain human qualities are more fundamental than any shaping process, economic or otherwise.” This is probably intended to be taken seriously, yet five seconds' reflection should show its absurdity. Has Mr. Montague any knowledge of human beings existing apart from a shaping process? If not then how can their qualities be more fundamental than the environment to which they are related and in which they are inextricably involved ?

Mr. Montague cites “love” as one of the qualities he refers to. It is no part of our case to show that capitalism has “produced" love; but if Mr. Montague denies that this “great physical fact . . . plays a part essentially subordinate to private property" in history, perhaps he will give us his explanation of the origin and development of monogamy and prostitution. The sexual and domestic relationships of modern society obviously take their form from its economic basis.

Our critic next tears a phrase from its context and treats it as though it had been advanced as a statement of an eternal truth; and endeavours to set it in contradiction to the general tenor of the article. It takes a philosopher to be blind to the obvious. The Socialist, living under capitalism, is under the painful necessity of acquiring, by hook or crook, a certain amount of money in order to exist. In this he does not differ from his fellow slaves; but this in no way alters the fact that his only hope of improvement lies in Socialism, which necessitates association, and herein lies the only rational explanation for his activities as a Socialist. His motives, of course, are not exclusively economic; but it is from a study of conditions, and not from introspection upon his motives, that he derives the conception of Socialism. With Mr. Montague’s personal motives we have no concern.

“What becomes of class," we are asked, “if you discount idealism?” What becomes of idealism, Mr. Montague, if you admit the class struggle as the basis of Socialism and call upon the workers to organise upon that basis? Do not material interests form the bond of unity between the members of a class? Are our notions concerning these interests any clearer because we describe them as the demands of “ impersonal abstractions ” (to use our critic’s phrase) such as “justice ” or “humanity? ” Exploiting classes throughout history have used such war-cries to beguile their slaves and to flatter their own self-esteem; but to the workers, seeking emancipation, illusions are worse than useless.

Mr. Montague concludes with some accusations, proof of which he wisely defers—to another time !

Since writing the above a copy of the May issue of the “Social Democrat" has come to hand. It contains an article by the Editor (Mr. Montague) on “Is philosophy any use? ” presenting similar views to those above dealt with, but this time including the “meat” which is obviously lacking in his “criticism.” In his concluding paragraph he says, “ Religion is a matter for the individual. ”

Here we have the matter in a nutshell. Mr. Montague is, of course, merely reiterating the position taken up long ago by the S.D.F., a position based upon “election expediency” (to quote Mr. Belfort Bax, another Social Democrat) which allows its members to angle for Christian votes.

In the same issue appears an article from Sir Henry Slesser, the democratic gentleman who so kindly assumed office, under the late-lamented Labour Government, without having been elected. He contends that the root of the social problem is the avariciousness of the individual. Well may he describe himself as a “mediaeval Socialist”! The summit of his cheek, however, is probably contained in his statement that his views are “more opposed to the assumptions of modern plutocracy and commercialism than those of the most doctrinaire Marxian.” When Sir Henry was seeking election in 1923 the workers were asked to “Vote for Slesser and Free Trade” ! These be your friends, O Montague !

Editorial Committee.