S.P.G.B. Lecture List For October. (1910)

Party News from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar. Some of these names (and details) you have seen before:

• A. Barker. See this previous post.
• H. Cooper was H. J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. I should post the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• C. Ginger: Another member of Tottenham Branch. Charles Ginger was one of those SPGB members who joined the Party more than once. There's a suggestion that C. Ginger could also be Frank Grainger, who had originally left the SPGB to join the Herald League. (See Ken Weller's book). Frank Grainger eventually rejoined the SPGB in the 1930s, and was actually selected as the Party's parliamentary candidate for the East Ham North constituency, which the Party was planning to contest at the probable 1940 General Election. (WW2 intervened.) According to Ken Weller, after he resigned from the SPGB, he later worked for the Economic League.
• J. Halls was John H. Halls, who joined Paddington Branch of the SPGB in June 1907 (a Mrs Eleanor B. Halls joined Paddington Branch in July 1907). A regular writer and translator for the Socialist Standard in the Edwardian period, he eventually resigned his membership when he moved abroad (Paris).
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch of the SPGB. He joined the SPGB in October 1907.
• J. Kelly was a member of the Tottenham branch of the SPGB. There were two 'J. Kellys' in the Tottenham Branch of the SPGB (father and son?), both joining the Party in late August 1909.
• J. Kemble was possibly John Kemble. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in November 1907. There's no details of when he left - or why - but a John Kemble joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in January 1918, lapsing his membership in July 1923.
• F. Leigh was Fred Leigh. See this previous post.
• H. Martin was Harry Martin. He was a founder member of the SPGB, and was a member of its Peckham Branch. He was originally expelled from the SPGB in April 1905 for his activity with the Lambeth Unemployed Association but he rejoined the Party in June 1908. Martin was one of the signatories of the 1911 Provisional Committee Circular (The WB of Upton Park affair), and resigned from the SPGB in 1911. He went on to form the Socialist Propaganda League. His obituary appeared in the May 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• J. E. Roe. Jonathan Roe's obituary appeared in the August 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• F. W. Stearn was a member of the Tottenham Branch. There were actually two 'F. Stearn's in the branch at the time - possibly father and son - so I don't know which one was a listed speaker for this month.

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

Party News from the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar.

• H. Cooper was H. J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. I should post the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• J. Halls was John H. Halls, who joined Paddington Branch of the SPGB in June 1907 (a Mrs Eleanor B. Halls joined Paddington Branch in July 1907). A regular writer and translator for the Socialist Standard in the Edwardian period, he eventually resigned his membership when he moved abroad (Paris).
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch of the SPGB. He joined the SPGB in October 1907.
• J. Kemble was possibly John Kemble. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in November 1907. There's no details of when he left - or why - but a John Kemble joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in January 1918, lapsing his membership in July 1923.
• J. Kennett was a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in May 1905. 
• F. Leigh was Fred Leigh. See this previous post.
• H. Martin was Harry Martin. He was a founder member of the SPGB, and was a member of its Peckham Branch. He was originally expelled from the SPGB in April 1905 for his activity with the Lambeth Unemployed Association but he rejoined the Party in June 1908. Martin was one of the signatories of the 1911 Provisional Committee Circular (The WB of Upton Park affair), and resigned from the SPGB in 1911. He went on to form the Socialist Propaganda League. His obituary appeared in the May 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• F. W. Stearn was a member of the Tottenham Branch. There were actually two 'F. Stearn's in the branch at the time - possibly father and son - so I don't know which one was a listed speaker for this month.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For October. (1911)

Party News from the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar.

• A. Bays is possibly the member listed as W. Bays' in the early Party membership records, who was a member of the Stoke Newington Branch of the SPGB. He joined the SPGB in May 1910. No date is given for when - or why - he left.
• H. Cooper was H.J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. I should post the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• J. Halls was John H. Halls, who joined Paddington Branch of the SPGB in June 1907 (a Mrs Eleanor B. Halls joined Paddington Branch in July 1907). A regular writer and translator for the Socialist Standard in the Edwardian period, he eventually resigned his membership when he moved abroad (Paris).
• A. Hoskyns was Ambrose Hoskyns. He joined the Islington Branch of the SPGB in August 1910. He was an occasional writer for the Socialist Standard in the Pre-War 1914 period. There are no details of when he left the SPGB. A flavour of his writing (and the early history of the SPGB) is contained within his April 1911 article, 'The Attempted Suppression of Free Speech in Islington'.
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch of the SPGB. They joined the SPGB in October 1907.
• C. Parker was a member of West Ham Branch. Joined the SPGB in May 1906, and was lapsed from membership in October 1929.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• F. W. Stearn was a member of the Tottenham Branch. There were actually two 'F. Stearn's in the branch at the time - possibly father and son - so I don't know which one was a listed speaker for this month.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For March. (1911)

Party News from the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

For more information on some of the SPGB speakers listed above, click on these posts for more background.

• December 1910
• December 1912

What We Are After. (1908)

From the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has for its OBJECT:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

Obviously the present social system is not so based. Its characteristics, class division and antagonism, riches and poverty, overwork and idleness, its law, public institutions and mentality, arise from and have their basis in the ownership and control of these means and instruments by a small part of society—the members of the capitalist class. Our wealthy mentors and their Press and platform hirelings admit as much when they tell us that if we abolish the “sacred rights of property” the whole social fabric will totter to the ground, even though, they conclude with the gratuitous assumption that “anarchy and chaos” will follow.

So that there may be no mistake, let us at once state which are the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution that Socialism demands shall be owned in common and controlled democratically. They are those winch are essential to the community’s well-being—those which it is worth the people’s while to acquire, hold and administer ; which, as private property, enable their owners to get rent, profit or interest—those things, in short, which enable their possessors to exploit the workers. Thus the carpenter’s favourite plane, the wife’s knitting needles and a host of other odds and ends that deluded opponents of Socialism love to quibble over are excluded. The means of production and distribution that count, that are indispensible and worth going after, are, broadly speaking, the land, factories, warehouses, machinery, ships and railways.

Given, then, such a fundamental change in the basis of society as will be the social control of industry, in place of the existing private control, and tremendous changes must inevitably follow in the whole social superstructure. The capitalist-landlord class, deprived of its unearned incomes, will either have to come and do its quota of necessary labour like the rest of us, or accept the alternative it offers us workers—starvation. The census of 1901 shows that there were then 663,656 adult men who did not even profess to have any occupation. These “gentlemen” together with their numerous female dependents, and the myriads of domestic servants who pander to their luxury, constitute a potential supply of labour power which, when applied, will help to vastly increase the supply of goods and services available to the community. The thousands of clerks to-day employed in booking profits will, with the abolition of the profits system, be set free for work of social utility. The same applies to the innumarable agents, commercial travellers, advertisers, printers, redundant shopkeepers and assistants.

There being no longer an enslaved class to keep in subjection and no longer any need to forcibly hold markets or protect capitalist investments abroad, the stupendous amount of energy now wasted in the maintenance of arnies and navies will become available for the satisfaction of society’s needs.

Thus at a stroke tho establishment of the Socialist Republic involves an immense increase in the productive powers of the community, and consequently of the possibilities of enjoyment and of leisure ; and further, the abolition of war and vice-breeding, parasitic idleness. The security of well-rewarded, brief labour would spread over the land a happy and bony people.

The condition that necessarily follows from the attainment of the OBJECT of the S.P.G.B. is then, seen to be infinitely preferable to the conditions at present obtaining, at least from the workers’ standpoint.

The product of industry now divided into a small part wages and a large part profits will then remain entirely with and at the disposal of the industrious. Then invention and more economical methods will not, as now, spell unemployment and misery, but greater comfort and leisure, giving opportunities for such, physical and mental development as but few of the working class even hope for to-day.

Many poor, half-fed workers, carefully gulled by the political and journalistic organs of the beneficiaries of the present system, will bring forward this and that (as they think) awkward question and objection ; but if they will reason out logically the consequences that flow from the S.P.G.B. Object applied to each case they have in mind, and compare the results as they affect themselves and those they love, with the results of the present capitalist system, they will realise, indeed, that the workers have nothing to lose but their chains, and a world to win.

By reasoning out for themselves and finding out the correct answer to the often trilling difficulties and objections brought against Socialism, instead of asking someone to think them out for them, our fellow working men and women will the sooner enjoy the novel satisfaction of being less often tricked and misled. Then, indeed, we shall be making headway toward our goal, realising that in Socialism, understood and fought for by a wide-awake and ever vigilant democracy, lies our only hope.

J. H. Halls

Battersea Branch. (1908)

Party News from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

 Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

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

Getting Socialism. (1908)

From the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is much misunderstanding as to the meaning of the phrase “The coming Social Revolution” as used by Socialists. Many inquiring workers, befogged by the teaching of the I.L.P. and of other reforming bodies, complain that they cannot conceive of a comparatively sudden or “catastrophic” change carrying society from Capitalism into Socialism. Hence, it seems, some of the attempted justification of a “palliative” program—a means of sliding into Socialism while the masters are not looking, you know. (Socialism to come upon us “as a thief in the night,” was Mr. Keir Hardie’s felicitous phrase, I believe.)

This misunderstanding would appear to arise largely from an over-consumption of Blatchfordian “rational Socialism,” and of “Looking Backward”-”News from Nowhere” Utopianism —though these, perhaps, are the least noxious of I.L.P. teachings. Certainly, to wake up one morning in Capitalism, do a barricade “turn” and go to sleep that night in Morris’s blissful “Nowhere” is not what the Socialist means by “the coming Social Revolution.”

Say Marx and Engels in the “Communist Manifesto,”

“The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as a ruling class (italics mine); and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

“Of course in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production ; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.”

Also in recent years Kautsky has said in his work “The Social Revolution” :

“It is therefore, the conquest of the powers of State by a hitherto oppressed class—in other words, the political revolution, which is an essential characteristic of the social revolution in its narrower sense, as opposed to social reform.”

Now to “raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class”—”the conquest of the powers of State,” is conceivable.

That by dint of economic pressure and of Socialist propaganda and organisation the workers can vote themselves into “the position of a ruling class,” is conceivable.

That, given an organised, prepared, Socialist proletariat become the ruling class, its delegates can proceed to the enactment of transition measures (necessarily temporary) which in the aggregate will knock from under class-divided society its basis—private ownership and control of the means and instruments of production and distribution, thus causing the disappearance of classes, is, we hold, conceivable.

Given the common ownership and control of the means of production, the consequent disappearance of classes, dominant and subject, and the time necessary to get things working smoothly, and Socialism (Industrial Democracy; the Co-operative Commonwealth) is here: the Revolution is accomplished.

Now how about the other alleged practical and “common-sense” method described by Keir Hardie and Co.? Is it conceivable that the workers’ emancipation can be gained by an accumulation of reforms? Let us see.

Noisily trumpeted, apparently palliative reforms are at present dispensed—old age pensions on the cheap and devil-take-the-weak-and-old workmen’s compensation—and are pointed to as proof of the triumphant policy of our I.L.P., S.D.P., etc., etc. reformers. But we point out that a million such reforms, with a little municipalisation and nationalisation of capital thrown in, will still leave the workers poor, subject to competition and unemployment—still a subject class. The bridge that can alone span the chasm between Capitalism and Socialism remains as ever—the acquisition of the control of industry by the working class.

Now the present controllers of industry are certainly not less aware of this fact than are the Socialists ; and since they find domination sweet, and since history records not an instance of a dominant class voluntarily and of sweet reasonableness abdicating its controlling position, it follows that our capitalist masters will defend their control of the means and instruments of production by every device at their command, from reform dispensing to massacre. Long established privilege is not to be so easily abolished. Certainly, that our masters will kindly vote us, and hand over, one after another, the different industries, thus committing suicide as a class, is not conceivable.

The advocacy of reforms is mischievous because it does not prepare the workers for the tremendous task of beating the master class out of power, but rather teaches them to look to the masters for crumbs and, on Keir Hardie lines, for the piecemeal concession of Socialism.

No ! we cannot reform into Socialism because the capitalist class will not abolish itself, while if we gain the power to take reforms we should indeed be foolish to halt on the road and try patching up capitalism. Our clear duty would be to expropriate the capitalist class and re-organise production and distribution as the common interest dictates. That is to say, establish Socialism.

J. H. Halls

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For July. (London District.) (1911)

 Party News from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

My usual moan when posting the lecture lists from the Pre-WW1 period: Not enough label space on the blog for all the speakers listed, so it becomes an SPGB Sophie's Choice at my end. (Poor taste? Just a tad.) Anyway, here's some brief info about some of the speakers who missed the cut:

• H. Joy: A member of Tooting Branch. Joined the Party in October 1907.
• C. Parker: A member of West Ham Branch. Joined the SPGB in May 1906, and was lapsed from membership in October 1929.
• F. Stearn: A member of Tottenham Branch. Lapsed during the war.
• H. Cooper: A member of Earlsfield Branch. Was a member of the SPGB from 1908 until 1915.
• F. J. Rourke: A member of Tottenham Branch. Was a member of the SPGB from 1909 until 1914.
• C. Ginger: Another member of Tottenham Branch. Charles Ginger was one of those SPGB members who joined the Party more than once. There's a suggestion that C. Ginger could also be Frank Grainger, who had originally left the SPGB to join the Herald League. (See Ken Weller's book). Frank Grainger eventually rejoined the SPGB in the 1930s, and was actually selected as the Party's parliamentary candidate for the East Ham North constituency, which the Party was planning to contest at the probable 1940 General Election. (WW2 intervened.) According to Ken Weller, after he resigned from the SPGB, he later worked for the Economic League.
• J. Nightman: Here's a wee mystery. J. Nightman is listed 6 times in the July 1911 lecture list but there's no record of a 'J. Nightman' in the membership records. As I've mentioned previously on the blog, the membership records are incomplete and it's possible 'J. Nightman' is one of those missing members. Alternatively, it could have been a nom de guerre that a socialist had had to adopt whilst fighting the class war. We'll never know.

Points from the Factory Inspector’s Report. (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The report for 1908 of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops contains some interesting facts illustrating and sufficiently condemning capitalist industry and pretended reform.

Here are a few (we quote from Lloyds News, 30.5.09).

“The passing is noted of the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Act of 1908, the provisions of which will come into force next January, after which date no white phosphorus matches may be made or imported. All the match factories in the United Kingdom, with one notable exception, remained free from any case of necrosis as in the three previous years; ‘but in that one factory a further case occurred in 1908 and two other attacks have been reported in the first quarter of 1909.'”

The above mentioned Act is rather typical of capitalist “palliative” legislation and is characterised by the usual hypocrisy. ‘Tis clear that the evil complained of has, in this country at least, been reduced to a minimum by the progress of the match industry itself. For have not the superiority and cheapness of the non-white-phosphorus matches almost driven the more noxious kind out of the market ? The Liberal party and its Labour supporters are thus able to point to a further important advance in social reform at mighty little cost to themselves—cost in votes and contributions to the party funds. For practically no capitalist interests are touched, since the evil against which the Act is directed (according to the Report) scarcely exists.

* * *

“Lead poisoning shows, on the other hand, a lamentable increase, the number of cases of all kinds being 646 against 578, the greatest increase being in connection with the smelting of metals—from twenty-eight to seventy. The new inspector for the Potteries district expresses his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the special rules are being observed.”

There is, however, no mention of a law against the use of lead in the pottery industry, although its use, according to the Report, is attended by much greater injury. Why ? Because its use is still profitable, and to propose a law against its use would be to attack real, live, capitalist interests.

It is worth while noting, too, that there are great numbers of workers, for example plumbers and painters, whose cases are never reported.

* * *

Lady Inspector Miss Vines describes amongst others, the following pitiful case: it shows “what capitalism has done for the worker” (pace ‘”Anti-Socialist”) and is doing for the mother and the mistress of the “Englishman’s castle.”

“Mrs. B., a celeste paintress, aged thirty-eight, was a colour duster eight years ago, when she had a severe attack of lead poisoning, never properly well since, but has been employed as celeste paintress at the same factory for several years. Was very ill with colic, sickness, wrist and finger drop of both hands. Could not dress herself, could not grip. Had been married fifteen years, had nine dead and one living child, which was ill all its life and never walked dying under three years of age. Her husband was injured in the South African war, and had been an invalid ever since. Both lived with the husband’s old widowed mother, and latterly the wife had partially kept both mother and husband with her earnings. Mrs. B.’s employers refused compensation, and it was not till the case was taken into court that compensation was obtained.”

Incidentally the reward of “Tommy,” one of “Our Empire’s brave defenders,” should not be overlooked.

* * *

But the Report contains other pretty items.

“In certain parts of the Swansea and Cardiff districts houses suitable for the working classes are so scarce that men sleep in three relays of eight hours each in the same bed, and kitchens are being used as sleeping apartments.”

We wonder if there are some Territorial “home” defenders among the said men.

* * *

While this one tersely delineates the condition of the olten anaemic, forewoman cursed, bun and tea starved stitchers who clothe in rich raiment the female parasites of the capitalist class :

“‘Gentility’ and high rents are the curse of the West End dressmaking establishments. The workers must be hidden away in basement workrooms, or at the back and top of high houses, in order that they may not disturb or worry the sensibilities of the client, who cares not under what conditions clothes are made.”

And yet withal, these, the other potential happy home-makers, when they (not all by any means) reach the desired haven or “home,” find in how many cases, that they have but exchanged the frying-pan for the fire. Such is the age.

* * *

Our next and last shows how hopelessly ineffectual the inspection often is and how employers are able to brow-beat and intimidate those whom the capitalist Press pretend are free citizens. The case cited is a test of truth as between the “free citizen” delusion and the enlightening Socialist axiom that capitalist employment is wage-slavery.

“Another lady inspector, Miss Martindale, gives some startling details as to how the Truck Act is evaded. In one case in Ireland declarations were obtained by her from men who swore that their wages were kept back in payment for their father’s long-standing debts. Proceedings were taken, but the lady inspector’s witnesses went back on their declarations, and swore that they received their wages in coin. The case, of course, was dismissed. Yet Miss Martindale was told immediately afterwards that the employer had paid wages in goods from ‘time immemorial,’ and that everyone in court knew it.”

Did the employee witnesses go “back on their declarations” because they enjoyed bearing false witness, or was it not rather that they feared the “sack” and inability to give their children bread ? Answer, ye anti-Socialist working men and women. Are ye truly “free citizens” or are ye not verily wage-slaves ? If the latter, come where ye belong, in the ranks of the wage-slaves’ party—the S.P.G.B., and battle with us for your emancipation.

John H. Halls

Self-made! (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent signing himself A Listener writes :

“Having participated as a humble listener in many discussions on Socialism, I have frequently heard your speakers say that no man can make his own fortune by himself alone. Would you kindly answer through the columns of your paper, the undermentioned questions?

“Now I know a man (a friend of mine) who went abroad, took a piece of land, his object being to discover gold, and fortunately it proved a success. Now this land was worked up by himself alone. 

“Do you not consider him to be a man that has made his own fortune by himself alone ?”

No, good “Listener,” your friend did not make his fortune “by himself alone.” By a fortune we understand such an accumulation of wealth as, through the control of other men’s labour that it gives, enables its owner to live without labouring himself.

In the first place there is the outstanding fact, that apart from property-founded society, wherein wealth monopoly gives some men control and mastery over the labour of other men, there can exist no fortune. Its main characteristic, the power of dominion that it imparts, is obviously conditional upon the existence of other men (and producers at that). Without these there can be no fortune.

In the second place, your friend had to be carried to the gold-bearing land, and so required the help of the steamship and railway workers and all the craftsmen and labourers who contribute to the construction of the means of transportation. He needed tools to work the land and, not less, the knowledge of where and how to get out the gold.

Thirdly, so soon as your gold-mining fortune-hunter had won a surplus over and above the amount required to purchase his means of subsistence, he doubtless, being wise in his generation, banked or otherwise invested it. That is to say, he put it to such use as entailed the exploitation of the wage workers. In the normal course of commerce, then, his property would grow by the accumulation of rent, interest or dividends, regardless of any exertion upon his part.

And so it stands demonstrated, that even in the exceptional case of your friend, the acquiring of his fortune was assisted and alone made possible, not only by the very existence and labour of countless other men, but by the accumulations of knowledge and implements made by the numberless generations of men who have preceded us. In other words, wealth accumulates to-day as a result of social activity without which the individual is utterly impotent. This is more easily seen than ever in modern industrial society, with which the Socialist is more particularly concerned when he says that no man makes (creates) his own fortune.

John H. Halls

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, October, 1907. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, September, 1907. (1907)

Party News from the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Slavery and History. The Evolution of Subjugated Labour. (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The essential characteristics of slavery are, we find, human subjection to and labour for the profit of masters. When man’s labour produces more than is indispensable for his maintenance, slavery is born. Prisoners of war, instead of being killed and eaten, or simply killed, are kept alive in order that they may work for their captors. Thus slavery is unknown to the more primitive folk of the savage, hunting stage. As defined, however, it is found wide-spread among peoples of a higher development, and passes historically through innumerable modifications. Nevertheless, three leading forms successively mark the course of later social evolution, namely, chattel-slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour; for the latter comes well within the definition.

We are well aware that the popular notions on slavery, and, indeed, those fostered by capitalist journalism, are mostly confined to an acquaintance with “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Herbert Spencer’s view of the matter may, therefore, well be quoted as showing the far wider scope of the institutions. He says, (Vol. 3, p. 456, Prim. Soc.),

“The current assumption is that of necessity a slave is a down-trodden being, subject to unlimited labour and great hardship ; whereas in many cases he is well cared for, not overworked, and leniently treated. Assuming slaves everywhere to have ideas of liberty like our own, we suppose them to be intolerant of despotic control: whereas their subjection is sometimes so little onerous that they jeer at those of their race who have no masters. Assuming that their feelings are such as we should have under the same circumstances, we regard them as unhappy ; whereas they are often more light-hearted than their superiors. Again, when we contrast the slave with the free man, we think of the last as his own master ; whereas very generally, surrounding conditions exercise over him a mastery more severe and unpitying than that exercised over the slave by his owner : nature’s coercion is often worse than man’s coercion.”

Spencer had to make out that the subjection of the wage-workers to the capitalist class is simply “nature’s coercion,” but otherwise his view is quite acceptable.

In offering our fellow workers some information on the condition of their historical forebears, we shall, true to the materialist conception of scientific Socialism, see in the evolution of slavery, not the idealist’s progress of ideas out of ideas, independently of material conditions, from earlier cruelty to later gentleness, but simply a reflex of the movement and progress of productive methods. A remodelling of institutions not according to heaven-sent aspirations, high ideals and “moral” religions of Greek, Mahometan and Christian, but as the further expansion of economic forces required.

The earlier written histories describe the Mediterranean and North European peoples as being, many of them, advanced to the threshold of civilisation, and still organised by kinship in contradistinction to organisation according to the territory inhabited; some living largely by agriculture, and others, like the Semitic tribes of Western Asia and Northern Africa, a pastoral, nomadic life. Private property was accumulating amongst them, even to the land itself in some cases, while domestic animals, cattle, goats, and so forth, were such everywhere. It is above all upon this new factor that depends the subsequent history of civilised peoples, including the evolution of slavery. Military raids were frequent, and provided conquerors with plunder, more fertile lands, and, above all, with prisoners, who were made to tend the cattle, or to do the more laborious work of the fields. At a later stage the ranks of slavery were swelled by poor citizens or tribesmen selling their children, and even themselves, into bondage in payment of debt. The book of Leviticus hands down to us the rules for the treatment of both the “stranger” and Hebrew bondsmen.

Greece.

Some of the Grecian tribes when they conquered a neighbouring people simply bound these to the soil and compelled them to bring to their conquerors a certain fixed part of their produce, leaving their family institutions untouched, and even allowing them to accumulate property. Thus, amongst others, the Spartans held their helots ; and indeed, much of the military organisation of the former was required to keep the helots in subjection, for they long retained the memory of their free condition.

In Attica and Corinth, the distinctly commercial states, however, great numbers of chattel-slaves, largely barbarians, were held and exchanged. “At the time of the greatest prosperity the whole number of free Athenian citizens, women and children included, amounted to about 90,000 ; the slaves of both sexes numbered 305,000 and the aliens foreigners and freed slaves—45,000.” (“Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” by F. Engels.) Slaves furnished all kinds of useful labour. Many were in domestic service, others were cooks, bakers, tailors, miners, labourers on agricultural estates, seamen, oarsmen, etc., while the State had slaves for soldiers, and even policemen. “The free Athenian regarded this police duty as so degrading that he preferred being arrested by an armed slave rather than lending himself to such an ignominous service.” (Engels.) In Greece, although their condition underwent important changes, the slaves were mildly treated, and enjoyed considerable legal protection. Slaves came increasingly to acquire property rights and then, as Spencer has it, “the slave’s condition was much that of a freeman paying heavy taxes.” As to the outcome, Engels says that

“The great number of slaves is explained by the fact that many of them worked together in large factories under supervision. The development of commerce and industry brought about an accumulation and concentration of wealth in a few hands. The mass of the free citizens were impoverished and had to face the choice of either competing with their own labour against slave labour, which was considered ignoble and vile, besides promising little success, or to be ruined. Under the prevailing circumstances they necessarily chose the latter course, and being in the majority, they ruined the whole Attic State. Not democracy caused the downfall of Athens, as the European glorifiers of princes and lickspittle schoolmasters would have us believe, but slavery ostracizing the labour of the free citizen.”

Rome.

In the earlier period of Roman history the head of the family (paterfamilias) had full power of life and death over all the members of his household—wife, child, and chattel-slave—and all were treated in general with great rigour. Slaves when old or otherwise useless were often “exposed” to starve upon an island in the Tiber. Many servile revolts are recorded—some of them of formidable proportions. That under the gladiator Sparticus in 73 B.C. lasted over the course of three years, and was only suppressed by a mighty effort by the Roman State—and this in spite of the fatal lack of cohesion and discipline among the men, who in seeking their freedom could not escape the temptation to linger in Italy for the plunder of the cities.

Later, under the Emperors, multitudes of slaves were employed in the various mechanical arts, while the cruelty of the masters was restrained by law, and property might be acquired. Further, the continual warfare with its consequent strain of military service upon the citizens resulted in the impoverishment of the poorer of these, and their lands passing into the hands of a few great landholders. Agriculture became entirely a slave occupation, carried on upon great estates called latifundae ; a system that led to the depopulation of Italy and the extinction of any class capable of resisting the Imperial tyrants or the barbarian invaders who followed.

The attitude of Christianity towards slavery was, and is, well exhibited in the notion of St. John Chryostom, that the apostle did not insist on the suppression of slavery because it was desirable that men should see how truly the slave could enjoy liberty of soul—the slavery of sin being the only real slavery. Indeed, Christianity is quite innocent of the milder treatment of slaves during the later Roman period, or of the decline of chattel-slavery, for, as Spencer puts it, by the partial failure of the supply of slaves through conquest, “the Romans were obliged to have recourse to the milder but more tedious method of propagation ; and this improved the condition of the slave by rendering his existence and physical health an object of greater value to his master.” Negro slavery in America is fairly well known, and considerations of space prevent us from giving it special treatment here. However, it is well to mention that it arose in consequence of the great demand for agricultural labour there, of a kind suited to hot and damp climates. It received its great impetus from the invention of the cotton gin at the end of the eighteenth century, when cotton became definitely available for clothing in competition with wool and flax. The “peculiar” Southern institution was abolished only when it threatened to prevent the full expansion of normal capitalism based upon wage-labour ; and the clash of material interests there involved an expenditure of blood and treasure rarely matched in history.

Collapse of chattel-slavery.

Now while the Teutonic eruption all over the European portions of the Roman Empire brought with it its own, as yet but little developed, servile institutions, yet it is true that this famous period roughly marks the transition (amongst Western peoples) from personal to territorial slavery—from chattel-slavery to serfdom. The steady degradation of the free population and consequent contraction of markets, resulted in the decay of the large-scale slave-worked agricultural estates ; and since the great numbers of slaves now became a burden upon their owners, these were now largely freed, and small-scale agriculture by “colonists” replaced the older system. These small cultivators paid a fixed sum, or a proportion of the product to landowners, and in other respects were indeed the prototypes of the mediaeval serfs. With regard to the Germanic overrunning of Gaul, Seebohm is quoted by Spencer as inferring that the mediaeval serf was the “compound product of survivals from three separate ancient conditions, gradually, during Roman provincial rule, and under the influence of barbarian conquest, confused and blended into one, viz., those of the slave on the Roman Villa, of the colonus or other semi-servile and mostly barbarian tenants on the Roman Villa or public lands, and of the slave of the German tribesman, who to the eyes of Tacitus was so very much like a Roman colonus”

Feudal Europe.

The wide-spread prevalence of the type of subject labour known as serfdom characterises above all the Middle Ages with its baronial sway and feudal organisation of society. The barbarian conquest of the ancient world, in spite of an intellectual setback, did, after all, but continue social evolution—reinvigorated, however, by the new blood from the northern forests. During and after the migrations the conquerors settled amongst the older cultivators, taking the major portion of the land and working this themselves, aided by the bondsmen they held. The long period of war and conquest had, however, left its mark upon their social organisation. The chieftains’ families had acquired the privileges of hereditary and military aristocracy and remained at the head of a new social class (itself a result of the new division of labour : cultivators—warriors), the professional soldiers. Continual warfare between the various military chieftains (e.g., the Heptarchy in England) induced most of the agriculturists, organised as these were in village communities, to place themselves under the care of a lordly “protector,” in return for which protection they surrendered the titles to their lands. Monasteries and churches in this way became, during the ninth and tenth centuries, amongst the largest landowners, and their bishops and abbeys powerful nobles. The protecting lord, baron, seigneur and his retainers had to be fed, clothed and sheltered in their massive castles and were able to exact this by commanding the services of the protected vassals for definite periods— corvée. This servile condition existed, however, in different forms : the services to be rendered and the civil rights vary with time and place. The monarch sometimes, especially in later times, sustained by the burgher class seeking its particular interests, ruled in favour of the lighter forms of serfdom.

Decline of serfdom.

In England typical serfdom gradually disappeared toward the close of the Middle Ages, and in most other European countries considerably later. It was abolished in Russia by Imperial edict as late as 1861. Serfdom had its frictions, as witness some robust rebellions- e.g., the villeins’ revolt under Jack Cade and Wat Tyler, likewise the Jacquerie in France and the Peasants’ War in Germany.

But the determining influence in its decline, in the last analysis (as in the case of all other social phenomena with the exception of the earliest experiences of the race, when society was more under the influence of sexual relations) was essentially economic, although a superficial reading of history may provide an idealist and purely political explanation. The progressive division of labour and its application in newer and more efficient methods, together with the resulting growth of cities, has everything to do with the rendering of serfdom obsolete and incompatible with progress. In England the change from the old, large, open field, yet scattered, small-plot system of agriculture, to the enclosed field system, together with the displacing of husbandry in favour of pastures, for sheep raising, in response to the demand for wool, had much to do with decreasing the need for numerous workers fixed to the land. “Owing to the spread of new agricultural methods, their services ceased to be valuable,” says Spencer, quoting Cunningham.

The development of the bourgeoisie in the cities and their need of defenders resulted in many serfs finding refuge and livelihood with them. In Italy the serfs were largely feed in this way, while the wide-spread demand for money on the part of the nobles during the Crusades, and in emulation of the now prosperous city merchants, led the manorial lords to look rather to rent payments than to services ; and finally it was being discovered that “free-labour” was more efficient and profitable than “servile-labour.” Spencer has it that “German observers in Russia, as quoted by Prof. Jones, say that a Middlesex mower will mow as much in a day as three Russian serfs. The Prussian Councillor of State, Jacobi, is considered to have proved that in Russia where everything is cheap, the labour of a serf was double as expensive as that of a labourer in England. In Austria the work of a serf is stated to have been equal to one-third that of a hired man.”

It is of some interest to note that vestiges of serfdom survived in England until quite recent times. Thus colliers and salters were bound for life to the mines in which they worked, and their sons with them, until the end of the eighteenth century, while well into tho nineteenth century a “free” labourer could not choose, so were conditions arranged, to leave his employer without incurring risk of punishment. Finally, as regards the real relations of servile and free labour, and the determining causes thereof, the views of these two, certainly not Socialist, and eminently respectable, thinkers, may not be out of place. Thus, John Adams in the American Congress of 1776, “That as to this matter, it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or slaves. That in some countries the labouring poor men are called freemen ; in others they were called slaves ; but the difference was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers on his farm gives them annually as much as will buy the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at short hand ?” (From “Lost Principles of Sectional Equilibrium,” by “Bararossa,” 1860.) Herbert Spencer concludes in this way. “When slave labour and free labour come into competition, slave labour, other things equal, decreases as being less economical. The relative lack of energy, the entire lack of interest, the unintelligent performance of work, and the greater cost of supervision, make the slave an unprofitable productive agent. Hence with an adequate multiplication of labourers it tends gradually to disappear.”

Reviewing, then, slavery in the only fruitful manner, that is, historically ; considering its origin, manifestations and developments, we find that so-called free-labour—wage-labour—falls into its proper place as a later development, of servile production. Free-labour is seen then, to have its roots in chattel-slavery and serfdom, and its future—but to that, shortly. For while labour has been gradually freed from the shackles of chattel and villein conditions, it yet undeniably partakes of the essential characteristics of slavery, viz., human subjection to and labour for the profit of masters. Its distinction from the older forms is sufficiently indicated in the well established Socialist term—WAGE-SLAVERY.

However, the existing order, capitalism, based upon wage-labour, contains and develops within itself its own negation, as did the earlier social systems. The ancient order, based upon chattel-slavery, could not survive the degradation consequent upon the fullest development of that basis, and gave way to the agricultural and military barbarism, which soon developed the feudal system, leaning mainly upon serf-labour. This in turn prepared within itself its own destroyers,—the merchant and artizan class of the towns, the bourgeoisie, who, overthrowing the nobles, and also the King where he could not be made to serve their turn, have become the dominant class, and have moulded society much in their own sanctimonious image. The historically indicated negation of capitalism is Socialism: and the revolutionary instrument of its achievement is the modern class of wage-workers who, stripped of property, are compelled to seek a livelihood by selling to the bourgeoisie their labour-power, but who, in so doing, at the same time acquire an understanding of the conditions of their own development, become class-conscious, and organise for their emancipation. Thereby “emancipating society at large from all its exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles.”

History dictates the final overthrow of slave-founded society, and the establishment of fraternal society—SOCIALISM.

John H. Halls

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

Party News from the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Answers To Correspondents. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

N.B. (Manchester).—Since you hold that "The life and teaching of Christ himself were those of a Socialist," you misunderstand both Socialism and the religion of Christ. The Socialist policy is outlined in our Declaration of Principles, and the contention is that these principles are irreconcilable with the cardinal tenets of Christianity. Can you disprove that ?

J.B. (Hulme).—Thanks. Have made use of material where possible.

J.H.H. (Paris).—Thanks.   Translation held over.

The Law of Value and the Dearness of Commodities. by Paul Lafargue (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Economic materialism, or to be more exact, economic determinism, which allows us to explain human evolution and which provides a scientific basis for history, and the law of value, the key to the secrets of commodity production, dominate the theoretic work of Marx.

The law of value demonstrates that the value of a commodity is constituted by the quantity of human labour therein incorporated. Allow that, says the Belgian economist, Laveleye, and Marx will prove to you, with his iron logic, that capital is unpaid labour, stolen labour.

The law of value, which culminates in such a frightful conclusion, has been the nightmare of the economists; those amongst them who have any scientific pretensions have take the field to overthrow it. All those who have attacked it have proclaimed, with as much exultation as the “socialistic” intellectuals, who for this ten years past announce from time to time “the decomposition of Marxism”, that they have demolished the law of value, although this does not prevent new combatants, judging incomplete and in vain the wrecking work of their forerunners, from going on the warpath to make mincemeat of it.

The law of value, which has victoriously withstood all the assaults of the economists, alone can explain the general rise in the prices of commodities, the cause of  which has been vainly sought. I will try to demonstrate this.

To propagate communism, to organise the workers in a class party and to struggle for the conquest of the public powers — to study the theoretic work of Marx and to use the two powerful intellectual tools, economic determinism and the law of value, that he has put at our disposal for interpreting historical events and economic phenomena, are yet some of the best ways to honour the memory of the militant agitator and communist thinker.

#    #    #    #

The rise in the prices of commodities is general in the commodity producing countries of Europe and America; it is felt as far as China, which is scarcely beginning to enter capitalist civilisation. This rise is the more extraordinary as a general fall in prices would rather be expected, since, one after the other, industries are using more and more perfect machinery, which, in multiplying tenfold and a hundredfold human productivity, lower the prices of their products.

The dearness of necessaries weighs heavily upon the workers, who, if they do not buy iron girders, electric machines, silken stuffs and other industrial products, live upon bread which should be cheaper, since the production of wheat, which forty years ago, was in France from 14 to 15 hectolitres to the hectare, is to-day, thanks to agricultural progress, from 19 to 20 hectolitres.

Newspapers and magazines inquire into the causes of this disconcerting economic phenomenon. The recognised defenders of capital, without bothering their heads very much, have unearthed the true cause; they declare unanimously that the workers’ higher wages and expenditure for luxuries and holidays let loose the tide of rising prices in the capitalist world. This cream tart has not quite satisfied the economists, who attribute its loosing to gold.

Some say that the quantity of gold serving commercial transactions is insufficient, although it increases every year by half-a-million of francs. Gold being relatively rare, its price, according to the law of competition, should rise, that is to say that the same quantity of gold should buy more merchandise; and it is precisely the contrary; one must give more gold for the same quantity of merchandise.

Others pretend that gold abounds, that the mines of Africa and America have thrown so much of it upon the market, that its price, still according to the law of competition, is depreciated every day and that it is to stop this decline that the Transvaal mining companies are trying to form a trust.

However, during these last sixty years, whatever has been the quantity of gold produced, it has always been immediately and completely absorbed by the needs of commercial transactions, of which the volume increases yet more rapidly than the amount of gold thrown upon the market. The American crisis precisely began by an insufficiency in the quantity of gold that the banks of New York and other cities had at their disposal; and in order to curb this financial crisis, which, as always, preceded the crisis of over-production, it was necessary to import from Europe all the gold available.

Nevertheless, it is in the variations of the value of gold that we must seek for the cause of the general rise in the prices of commodities.

#    #    #    #

Gold and silver, because of their special qualities, have been chosen from all the metals to be monetised and to serve for national and international means of exchange. The capitalist nations thought that once for all their values could be established in the proportion of 1 to 15, that is to say that 1gramme of gold was worth 15 grammes of silver; and it is according to this proportion that they have struck their gold and silver money. For example, a 20 franc gold piece weighs 6.6 grammes, while 20 silver franc pieces weigh 100 grammes. But this legal proportion, guaranteed by the governments of the bourgeois nations, is a lying fiction, as are the institutions and the principles of capitalist society.

Melt down 3 one franc pieces and you will get a little mass of silver weighing 15 grammes; take it to a dealer in precious metals and ask him to exchange it for 1 gramme of gold; he will refuse – he will ask of you 36 grammes of silver for 1 gramme of gold; for at the current rate the kilogram of gold is worth 3,427 francs and the kilogram of silver 95 francs, that is, only one-thirty-sixth as much. And if he knows a little of the history of monetised metals, he will tell you that since 1838 the legal proportion between gold and silver has been real but once: in 1861; and he will add that from 1833 to 1864 the variations of the legal proportion were maintained within narrow limits; but that in 1872 began the fall in the value of silver, and that in 1876 an English commission was appointed to inquire into the depreciation of this metal.

Variations in the Value of Gold and Silver from 1833 to 1908

Years      Gold                           Silver

1833        1 gramme is worth    15gr. 41

1840        1                               15gr. 12  

1852        1                               15gr. 09

1859        1                               14gr. 70

1861        1                               15gr. 00

1872        1                               16gr. 13

1876        1                               18gr. 56

1908        1                               36gr. 07

The values of gold and of silver then, are not fixed quantities, since they have continually varied in the course of three-quarters of a century. Why have they varied?

From 1833 to 1852 the value of silver falls, since one must give 15 grammes and a fraction of silver for one gramme of gold. During the period 1852 to 1859 the mines of Australia and of California had thrown their gold upon the market. An economist said that gold was depreciated by its abundance; however, in 1857 there broke out in the United States a financial crisis, because, as in 1907, there was not enough gold, because there was disproportion between the volume of business and the quantity of money capital necessary for the transactions.

But two years later gold goes up again and one must give 15 grammes of silver for 1 gramme of gold. And from 1872 down to our day the value of silver decreases constantly. During the period from 1872 to 1908, gold and silver have been produced in great quantity: it is then not their scarcity in the market that can have caused their variations in value.

The reasons given by the economists, therefore, cannot explain these variations in value of gold and of silver, which are explainable only by the Marxian law of value.

From 1833 to 1852 only the old gold and silver mines are worked and the methods of extraction remain the same, that is why the values of gold and of silver are about constant. But from 1852 begins the working of the Australian and Californian gold mines, which being very rich, exact less human labour for the extraction of the metal; gold consequently loses value, while silver, which continues to be extracted with the same quantity of human labour, keeps its value. When the Australian and Californian mines become worked out, the extraction of the metal exacts more human labour, the value of gold goes up again and in 1861 gold and silver are at par, that is to say, their values correspond with the legal proportion.

From 1864 on, silver mines of extraordinary richness are worked in the United States and in Mexico and for the same reasons the value of silver falls, while gold keeps its value.

During the course of the last 75 years gold and silver have alternatively lost value, because the metal extracted contained less human labour, as according to Marx’s law, the value of all commodities of capitalist society (wheat, precious metals, boots, cotton stuffs, etc.), is measured by the quantity of human labour that it was necessary to expend in order to produce them.

When in an industry the introduction of a machine reduces the required labour, not only the commodities produced with this machine lose value, but also, the commodities of the same industry that are produced without its aid: for the same reason the quantities of gold extracted in California and in Australia from 1852 to 1859 and the quantities of silver extracted in the United States and in Mexico from 1872 to 1908 have, not alone fallen in value, but have lowered the value of all gold and of all silver circulating in the capitalist world.

The exhaustion of the Australian and Californian gold mines, in rendering mining as costly in human labour as before, caused the value of gold to rise again; the working of the rich gold mines of the Transvaal with the aid of new mechanical and chemical processes, which reduce the necessary labour, together with the employment of Negroes, of Chinese and Hindoos, but very poorly paid, lowers once again the value of gold.

Silver money, which has lost 52.5 per cent. of  its value, since a 1 franc piece is worth but fr 0.475, is no longer employed in international exchange; it is current but in its own country because, like the bank note, it is legal tender and can be exchanged for the gold money, which alone can be employed in international exchange, because gold is the monetary standard of capitalist nations.

But gold also has lost some of its value. The metallurgy of gold has been revolutionised in the Transvaal; it there combines in such a superior manner the resources of mechanics and chemistry that it is profitable even when quartz is treated which contains but a few grammes of gold to the ton. Le Génie Civil (December 28, 1907), describes the great establishment for the working of auriferous quartz in New Kleinfontein which treats 280 tons of quartz per hour, of any grade, with a very reduced staff of “hands”. Steam engines work three dynamos of 500 horse-power, two air-compressors for 75 perforating machines and the extracting machine. The quartz is brought upon an endless transporting band into the “mill-hoppers” of the crushing mill, where 200 stamps weighing each from 620 to 650 kilos crush it at the rate of 5 tons in 24 hours. The mud obtained goes through sieves which contain 400 meshes to the square centimetre; then it is conducted – still mechanically – on to the amalgamating tables. The residue of these tables – again crushed – and the auriferous mercury, are refined. The muddy water in which these mechanical and chemical operations have been conducted, are treated with lime and sodio-potassium cyanide, then filtered upon zinc filings which precipitate the gold. Water plays a preponderating rôle in the new cryosurgical (gold working) industry, which extracts even the largest particles of gold from the quartz that it treats with an extremely reduced staff of hands.

One must, in consequence, give a greater quantity of gold than formerly for the same quantity of other commodities. It is, therefore, not goods that have increased in value, but gold that has fallen in value, because its extraction exacts a less expenditure of human labour.

Translated from Le Socialiste by John H. Halls

Capital and Labour in Paris. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Tis a drizzly Sunday afternoon, and the great Place de la Republic looks at first glance much as usual. But a closer survey reveals the presence of a large number of policemen, some, indeed, standing in ranks under the wall of the Château d’Eau barracks, while opposite, an officer in glittering helmet talks with some persons who, in spite of their “bourgeois” clothing, betray the state functionary. What’s in the wind ? We pass out of the “Place” and see that the Bourse du Travail or Labour Exchange a few steps further on is honoured by the presence of a number of perambulating policemen. The mystery begins to clear: working men in republican Paris are holding a meeting. And why? To discuss what steps can be taken to alleviate or remove the workers’ ever-present curse —UNEMPLOYMENT.

The numerous speakers vigorously, aye, often eloquently, call upon the suffering toilers to get together and do things, but no efficacious scheme for the alleviation of unemployment shows itself.

All seem agreed that the overthrow of the master class and the control of industry by the workers, that is to say, the Social Revolution, is indispensable to the workers’ well-being. We note meanwhile that our Parisian comrades hope yet much from their traditional street demonstration, from “direct action,” a euphemism for various acts of violence.

At least they have outgrown the particular idiocy which consists in petitioning ministers, asking these to abolish capital’s reserve army— the unemployed.

As we leave the hall and go out into the street, the policemen by twos quickly mix with the crowd and we hear their “avancez!” “circulez!”—equivalents of the “move on!” with which English workers are familiar. Meanwhile across the boulevard opposite stand a long double line of Republican Guards, rifle by knee.

And we are told “there is no class struggle,” or if there is it does not matter.

And what a commentary are these typical Parisian scenes upon the worth of neo-Malthusianism, protection, and “democratic institutions" which reach their apotheosis in France!

John H. Halls

S.P.G.B. Lecture List and Meetings For March. (1909)

Party News from the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard