The Socialist Party and Trade Unions. (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

A considerable amount of confusion exists in the minds of certain of our critics regarding our attitude towards Trade Unions. It is said by some that we are opposed to the Trade Unions, and in fact to any action by the workers on the economic field. Others assert that our position on the question is inconsistent with the general position of a Socialist Party. With regard to those who assert that we are opposed to the workers taking action against the master class on the economic field, we need only refer to our manifesto, in which we outline our position on the question, to show that the critics referred to are unacquainted with the facts. On pages 17 and 18 of the manifesto we state :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class with the object of ending the capitalist system and establishing the Socialist Commonwealth. Any efforts on their part to resist the encroachments of the master class deserve our sympathy and support. But whilst encouraging this resistence, we should fail in our duty did we not point out to the resisters the limits of their power.”

Again on page 33, after giving a brief sketch of the rise of Trade Unions, we state :—

   “The basis of the action of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the position of the workers under capitalism, and the class struggle necessarily arising therefrom; in other words they must adopt the Socialist position, if they are going to justify their existence at all. Does this mean that the existing unions are to be smashed? That will depend upon the unions themselves. All action of the unions in support of capitalism, or tending to side-track the workers from the only path that can lead to their emancipation should be strongly opposed, but on the other hand, trade unions being a necessity under capitalism, any action on their part upon sound lines should be heartily supported.”

The position embodied in these quotations has been consistently maintained by us since the formation of our organisation. Whenever the workers have taken action on the economic field, either by way of attempting to increase wages, or resist their reduction, we have not hesitated to support their action. True, we have denounced the Trade Union leaders when they, contrary to the wishes and interests of the workers, have entered into compromises with the master class. True, we have exposed the absurd ideas of many of these leaders concerning the so-called identity of interests between capital and labour. It is also true that we have criticised the great bulk of the Trade Unionists, who, whilst they are prepared to strike against their masters, at every election vote their masters or their representatives into political power. But all this in no way alters the fact that whenever the workers have attempted to resist the encroachments of capital, the position of the Socialist Party has been one of supporting them. Now comes the other kind of critic and declares that all this is inconsistent with the true Socialist position. As to how it is inconsistent is a question which brings forth many answers, which are so varied that it is impossible, within the scope of an article, to deal with all the points raised.

It will be sufficient if we deal with the position in general to show that the alleged inconsistency exists only in the imagination of the critics.

Under capitalism the worker enters what is called the labour market to sell his labour power as an article of merchandise. The capitalist and the worker face each other in the market as buyer and seller. To the capitalist the reason why the worker is in the labour market is of no importance; he only regards the labour market as a branch of the general market in which commodities are bought and sold. In such conditions the worker loses the identity of Smith, Jones, or Robinson; he is to the capitalist so much energy which can be set in motion for a profitable purpose. But the reason why the capitalist is there is likewise of no importance to the worker; his concern is to obtain the wherewithal to live, and since he can only obtain this by the sale of his labour power, he must enter into relations with the capitalist concerning the price he is to receive. It goes without saying that the worker will endeavour to obtain the highest price he can get, whilst the capitalist will endeavour to beat down the price as low as possible.

We have said that the price of labour power is subject to the operation of economic laws, but this does not mean that the price of labour power is determined apart from the struggle between the buyers and sellers. On the contrary it is through the struggle that the price corresponding to the value of labour power is ultimately realised. To realise the value of the commodity labour power necessitates the highest resistance between the buyers and sellers. Of course, the dice are loaded in favour of the capitalist, as he is in possession of the means of living, whilst the worker has nothing but his power to labour. Hence the resistance of the worker can only take the form of withholding the supply of his energy, and as in this form of resistance the individual worker is helpless, some form of combination is necessary. The form of combination which meets this requirement to-day is the Trade Union. A Trade Union is as a rule an organisation composed of a number of workers engaged in the same trade or occupation. For instance, there is the National Union of Clerks, the National Union of Railwaymen, the National Furnishing Trades Association, the names of which indicate the fact that the basis of membership in the Trade Union is one of trade or occupation. Therefore the Trade Union is an economic organisation. It is true that many of the unions dabble in politics, but this is merely a side line, as an examination of their political and their economic activities will show. The amount, of money expended by the unions on activities of a purely economic character is far in excess of the amount expended upon political activities, and there is the further point that when the individual worker is called upon to become a member of the union, the question of his political views does not arise at all. Liberal, Tory, Labour, Socialist, or no political view at all, the worker is enrolled as a member of the Trade Union for reasons which are purely economic. The Trade Union, then, is the form of combination by which the workers carry on their resistance against the capitalist, and however one may regret that the activities of the workers are not directed to the establishment of Socialism, the struggle on the economic field must be carried on. For, bad as the condition of the working class is, only a fool would deny that it could be far worse. Of course it will be said that the tendency of capitalist development is to drive down the position of the working class. But as Marx puts the position—

  “Such being the tendency of things in this system, is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation. I think I have shown that their struggles for the standard of wages are incidents inseparable from the whole wages system, that in 99 cases out of 100 their efforts at raising wages are only efforts at maintaining the given value of labour, and that the necessity of debating their price with the capitalist is inherent to their condition of having to sell themselves as commodities. By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement.”—(“Value, Price, and Profit.”)

Let there be no mistake about it, from the standpoint of the Socialist the struggle on the economic field to obtain and maintain the best terms the workers can get for the sale of their labour power is necessary. Far from there being any inconsistency on our part on this point, it is quite in line with the position of a Socialist Party. Right up to the time when the workers are ready to take over the control of the means of wealth production and distribution, the struggle of the workers over wages, hours, and the general conditions of employment, will have to be made, even as the workers become Socialists in larger and larger numbers. The duty of the Socialist is to make the non-Socialist worker, inside and outside the Trade Union, acquainted with the actual position of the working class in capitalist society. For the workers to continue their struggle on the economic field, whilst in ignorance of the fact that they are slaves to the capitalist class, is to prolong the system by which they are sufferers. The adverse conditions in which the workers find themselves are inseparable from the capitalist system, and can only be removed when the workers awaken to a recognition of the necessity for the removal of the system, and the establishment of the Socialist form of society. Whether wages be called high or low the general position of the workers is one of a struggle against starvation throughout the whole of their lifetime. Trade Unionism will not alter this, nor, in fact, will any form of economic organisation. The abolition of the wages system and the conditions that are engendered in that system, will only become an accomplished fact when a majority of the workers become acquainted with a knowledge of their slave position, and then organising politically and economically for the overthrow of capitalist society and the establishment of Socialism.

Robert Reynolds

Progress and Politics. (1923)

Book Review from the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Progress and Politics. by Ramsay Muir. Methuen & Co., 36, Essex Street, W. C.2. Price 3s. 6d.

The dust cover advertises this book “as an attempt to survey the whole field of politics from the standpoint of a progressive who is deeply dissatisfied with many aspects of the existing order, but who is convinced that the Socialist scheme of reconstruction is no better than a will o’ the wisp.”

After reading the book we can share the author’s conviction concerning what he calls “the Socialist scheme of reconstruction,” for throughout “Socialist” is used to denote the Labour Party, and for the workers the schemes of that party, like the schemes of the Liberal Party, are will o’ the wisps.

We have no space here to quarrel over the meaning of words, but to apply the term Socialist to the Labour Party is unfair both to responsible Socialists and to the Labour Party. The Labour Party is not, and never has been, a Socialist Party. Even its own publicists admit that, as witness Mr. Snowden’s statement that

  “the British Labour Party is certainly not Socialist in the sense in which Socialism is understood upon the Continent. It is not based upon the recognition of the class struggle.”—(Page, 528, “Manchester Guardian” Reconstruction Number, 26th October, 1922)

And so, while Mr. Muir is convinced the futility of Labourism, he says nothing about Socialism, and it is therefore impossible to know whether he has any convictions on this subject.

But more of this anon; for the present the book itself provides ample scope for comment. It can be divided into three sections, dealing with (1) the broad aims of Liberalism, 2) the achievements of Liberalism in the past, and (3) the Liberal solution of immediate problems. 

To take the last first.

It proposes as a solution of modern financial problems, increased death duties (the capital levy is discussed and turned down), the League of Nations as a means to abolish war, and a re-organisation of industry and an improved dole system to solve the present unemployment problem

The capital levy and death duties are no concern of the workers. The incidence of taxes falls on the people who can pay them, not on the propertyless class. Financial problems are therefore problems for master class, who will have to solve them unless the workers do so by ending the system which engenders them.

As for the League of Nations, only a Liberal can imagine that it will prevent wars. They have their basis in the economic structure of society itself, and result from the struggle for markets under competitive production. And although the workers allow themselves to be used as cannon fodder, they are all the time only fighting their masters’ battles while neglecting their own. The futility of expecting to end war under capitalism by peaceful negotiation is shown with naive clearness by our author himself on page 89, where he writes :

  “It was by the use of the Concert of Europe that Sir Edward Grey succeeded in averting the almost annual threats of war by which Europe was disturbed during the years 1906 to 1914, and he could have succeeded in averting the final menace of 1914 by the same means if Germany had only permitted the concert of Europe to come into being.”

Moreover, somebody will be doing things like this again, for Mr. Muir is not going to trust a pacific League of Nations with an army,

  “for the commander of such an army would have in his hands the means of making himself the despot of the world.”

The League of Nations is to be bossed, not boss, you understand !

And then unemployment. As this did not arrive with the war, but was quite a flourishing problem which should have appealed to Liberals of the past prior to 1914, and as “it is a problem of manageable dimensions capable of a reasonable and just solution” (page 133), it is strange that it was not solved by one of the many Liberal Governments the workers have chosen for themselves. But, there, even Liberals cannot do everything at once, and while the House of Lords needed reforming, what time had they to deal with a problem like unemployment, which was soluble and would therefore present no difficulty? The solution is Government relief work, and insurance by industries. Of course,

  “there would remain a large group of industries which could not be directly helped by this method ; the textile trades, for example. In these industries the only way of minimising—for that is all that is possible—the evils of a period of exceptional trade depression would be a system of organised relay work with partial unemployment relief.” —(Page 136.)

As Mr. Ramsey Muir does not know, or at least does not say, how periods of “exceptional trade depression” can be avoided, this is an admission of blank failure and shows that even Liberalism of the pinkest hue will not give the workers that security of which Mr. Muir prates.

So much for the future Liberalism. What of the past?

In his outline of past achievements, our author is continually compelled to confess that Conservatives shared in the so-called reforms of the nineteenth century. Thus we get frequent passages like these :

  “This Act (giving the counties representative councils) of 1888, though it had been drafted by a Liberal statesman, was actually carried by a Conservative Government.”—(Page 94.)

   “A Liberal Act of 1871 saved the unions from this danger (of prosecutions for conspiracy in restraint of trade), though it had to be supplemented by a Conservative Act in 1875.”—(Page 95.)

  “In the early days, a great Tory philanthropist, Lord Shaftesbury, was one of the most persistent advocates of factory legislation, which always had Liberal majorities.”—(Page 100.)

   “Conservative Ministries and Parliaments contributed from time to time to the work.”—(Page 101.)

From this it is seen that if the worker had cause to be grateful for these reforms, if they mitigated the evils of his slave condition, his gratitude must be showered on Liberalism and Conservatism alike. Such reforms have not fundamentally altered the position of the working class, however, and no gratitude is needed. And if Factory Acts and the abolition of slavery are achievements to be referred to with pride, does Mr. Muir forget that the Liberals like Cobden, so energetic in freeing slaves, were equally energetic in opposing Factory Acts? And in spite of capitalist historians, was the emancipation of slaves so disinterested and high-minded as Mr. Muir would have us believe? The Act liberating slaves was passed in 1832. David Hume had already pointed out in 1711 that

  “from the experience of planters, slavery is as little advantageous to the master as to the slave, wherever hired servants can be procured. A man is obliged to clothe and feed his slave and he does no more for his servant. The price of the first purchase, therefore, is so much loss to him, not to mention that the fear of punishment will never draw so much labour from a slave as the dread of being turned off and not getting another service will from a free man.”

And in Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” occurs this passage :

  “Though the wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense of his master, it generally costs him much less than that of a slave.”

The liberation of slaves was as charitable and disinterested as is the sending of “armies of missionaries whom Britain maintained” into every land, which our author claims to be characteristic of a new policy of Liberalism (vide page 92).

  “The purpose of the Missions is not to develop trade, but trade is inevitably developed by missions. They steadily increase material needs: soaps, oils, cloths, sewing machines, books, tools, follow hard on Mission enterprise. Missions teach thrift, industry and honesty in commercial dealings. It is worthwhile for business men to support Missions if from no other motive than that they create new, larger and better markets for their goods.”—(Record of the Home and Foreign Mission work of the United Free Church of Scotland, December, 1919, page 267.)

These are a few of the past achievements of Liberalism which Mr. Muir rakes up. There are some he has forgotten. What of Mr. Asquith sending soldiers to Featherstone in 1893, when the miners were shot down, and Churchill’s calling out of troops at the time of the Dock Strike in 1911, when, by mistake, of course, Mr. Tillett told the dockers to rush the bakers’ shops? For an author who chides Labour orators with trusting to the ignorance of their hearers (page 86), this is a serious omission. And how does he square this use of force with the statement that the Conservative is distinguished from the Liberal by

  “the use of force rather than persuasion as the easiest weapon for dealing with any sign of revolt against the established order.”—(Page 9.)

The use of force as a protection to the master class is another honour shared equally by these two parties, and with the advent of a Labour Government there will arise a third participator.

Force is the foundation of capitalist domination, and that force is obtained through Parliament; capitalist control there means capitalist control everywhere. The workers therefore have nothing to gain by supporting any party which seeks to maintain that control. Concessions and reliefs may have been granted in the past by both parties, but none of these concessions, none of these vaunted reliefs, such as Old Age Pensions, State Insurance, etc., have altered the general position of the workers in society. They are still slaves, and whilst Liberalism, Conservatism, or Labourism has their attention they will remain slaves. Mr. Muir admits that

  “Liberalism and Conservatism are united in their belief that private enterprise must, in the future as in the past, provide the main driving force in the economic sphere.”—(Page 7.)

And that statement damns Liberalism for the workers, to whom the only problem of vital importance is the problem of ownership and control of the means of life. The ending of private ownership solves the problem of the division of the product of industry, in which Liberalism promises the workers a larger but still a small share. The object of the workers should be to dispossess the master class. They therefore have no use for any party which denies the class struggle. For the achievement of their emancipation the Liberal Party is as useless as the Conservative or Labour Parties. The workers alone can free themselves from the burden of their condition—this they can do when they wish by organising on a class basis.

W. J. R.

Co-operation—A hopeless experiment. (1923)

Editorial from the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

There are many who believe that the Co-operative movement will provide an easy and painless means of transforming present competitive production into production upon a basis of common property. There are others who oppose the Co-operative movement on the ground that it is Socialist. Those who advance these views have not given sufficient consideration to fundamental matters.

The means of production to-day are in the hands of a small but tremendously wealthy class; a class that is powerful because it controls the State machinery. The means of production are operated by a large but poverty-stricken class of wage workers ; a class that is in slavery because it leaves the State machinery in the hands of its oppressors.

Production is on a gigantic scale, based upon sale for profit. The increase in quantity and complexity of the machinery used makes necessary ever less and less workers to turn out the things required by society. The big capitalists undersell the small, and eventually drive increasing numbers of the latter out of business. Only a short time ago the Small Traders’ Association was complaining bitterly that their members were being rapidly wiped out of trade. In fact, the small traders are becoming little more than salesmen for the powerful trusts.

Assuming the continuance of present production for sale, the large capitalists can only be driven out of business by a still larger type. Any organisation that is going to offer serious opposition to the present owners of wealth must have an enormous capital at its disposal. Imagine the size of capital an organisation would require to, compete successfully with, say, the Steel, Oil, or Meat Trusts, or similar gigantic corporations ! Further, such an organisation to live and flourish would have to adopt the same methods as its competitors—exploit its workers.

Over a hundred years ago Robert Owen conceived the idea of organising a new society in the midst of the old. He thought the workers could band themselves together into producing and distributing groups, spread over the whole of society, and eventually freeze the capitalist out. Subsequently he had to modify his ideas somewhat, owing to the strength of the opposition, and tried experiments by establishing co-operative colonies on comparatively virgin soil—but, of course, with people brought up in capitalist surroundings. These experiments all ended in disaster; they ultimately ruined him and demonstrated the futility of attempting to found ideal societies in a capitalist world.

There was an excuse for the dreams of the heroic and good-intentioned Owen. In his time knowledge of the organisation and development of society was comparatively small; and he was one of those by whose disastrous experiments later generations were to acquire a sound understanding. Since his time social investigators have piled up literally mountains of information, showing how one form of society grows out of another, owing to the operation of forces that already exist in the old society; and that a new society is never grafted on to the. old, as it were, from the outside.

In Owen’s day the capital required to start an important industry was but a tiny fraction of what is required to-day; and the power that lies in the hands of those controlling the State was not yet sufficiently realised by the oppressed class or its would-be deliverers. The powerful capitalists have it in their hands to smash to pieces, whenever they wish, any rising productive or distributing organisation that challenges their existence, long before such an organisation could reach any serious proportions. The very fact that they make no serious effort to interfere with the development of the various Co-operative Societies shows that they expect no dangerous opposition from these societies.

In his “History of Co-operation,” the late G. J. Holyoake, one of the best-known advocates of Co-operation, defined it as follows :

  “The equality sought is not the mad equality of equal division of unequal earnings, but that just award of gains which is proportionate to work executed, to capital subscribed, or custom given. . . and there is equality in a co-operative society, when the right of every worker is to a share of the common gain in the proportion to which he contributes to it, in capital, or labour, or trade—by hand or head ; and this is the only equality which is meant, and there is no complete or successful co-operation where this is not conferred, aimed at, and secured.”—(Vol. I., page 4.)

From this it will be seen that he who subscribes most capital will gain most; in other words, those who “have not,” who are the ones that most require aid, will remain as they were before—without. Inequality in the means of living, and hence private property, is at the root of the Co-operative movement—that is, the very opposite to Socialism.

On page 5 of the same volume the author states :

  “It touches no man’s fortune ; it seeks no plunder ; it causes no disturbance in society ; it gives no trouble to statesmen.”

Here the death knell of Co-operation is sounded, from the point of view of any advantage it offers to the workers. If those who own the means of production are not to have their fortunes touched, from whence are to come the productive powers of tomorrow? If there is to be no disturbance in society, then the slaves are to remain as they are—slaves. If it is to give no trouble to statesmen, then the capitalist can rest content that, so far as the Co-operative movement is concerned, the parasite will be kept for ever.

At present the mass of the people obtain, on the average, barely sufficient to keep themselves and their families from starvation; consequently they have no appreciable sum to invest in Co-operative shares. Their wages are so small that as a general rule they must buy in the cheapest market. The wealthy Trusts have demonstrated again and again that, when necessary, they can undersell and bankrupt their smaller opponents.

The Co-operative concern can only flourish by adopting up-to-date methods, employing as few as possible workers to obtain a given output. If, therefore, we were to assume a growth of the Co-operative concerns to an important size it would mean a parallel growth of unemployment. There would be less who could buy shares and more who wanted bread. The problem facing the workers of obtaining the wherewithal to live would be intensified instead of being abolished.

The soundness of this position is borne out by the history of the Co-operative movement. It has adopted capitalist methods and exhibits capitalist evils. At the moment of writing, 15,000 employees of the Co-operative Wholesale Society are out on strike against a reduction in wages. (“Daily News,” 11/6/23).

Co-operation offers no easy road to emancipation. Those who suport the movement,, such as the Communist Party and the Labour Party, are inviting the workers into that alley where they become temporarily disillusioned and apathetic.

The abolition of wage slavery necessitates recognition of the fact that the workers are robbed of the wealth they produce; that the capitalists are the robbers; that the workers can produce for their own consumption more easily than for an idle class ; that the robbery can only be prevented by the producing class owning the wealth it produces ; that such ownership can only be attained by taking from the capitalists the control of the political machinery and converting private ownership into social ownership.

The new society will therefore grow out of the old and not be imposed upon it. All that is valuable in the old society will be retained, and all that is harmful will be abolished. The central idea of present production—profit, with its basis private property—will give place to production for use on the basis of common property.

Gilmac.

More for a new reader. (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

We presume that you know little of Socialism. Perhaps you have a dim idea that Socialists are terrible people whose deliberate aim in life it is to overturn everything ; destroy your most cherished ideals out of sheer downright devilment. Let us have a little heart-to-heart talk on the subject. We will not hold your attention long, but we may perhaps assist you to see things in a different way from what you usually see them.

There are many parties appealing for your support, some of whom do so on the ground that they are Socialist parties. “How am I to know which is the right one?” you may ask. You are bewildered by the multitude of parties who all claim that their object is to help you.

There is a well-known proverb that contains an element of truth. It runs : “God helps those who help themselves.” Therefore avoid those who make a great fuss about their desire to help you : seek rather for information from those who urge you to help yourself.

Man is spoken of as being a social animal. He associates with other men—forms part of a society. A society is a group of individuals bound together by a common principle. The larger sense in which the word “society” is generally used refers to the common principle of obtaining a living. Whatever is referred to as “social” concerns man in his connection with other men. It is the opposite to individual or private. For example, when we say a thing is privately produced we mean that one man produces it without assistance ; when we say such a thing is socially produced, we mean that different men produce portions of a thing and their combined efforts make up the finished article. Likewise, when we say a thing is privately owned, we mean one man or a small group of men own it; but when we say it is socially owned, then we mean it belongs equally to the whole of those forming the society.

You are living in a society to-day in which the things produced, and the tools by means of which they are produced (in other words, the wealth of society), are privately owned : that is, owned by one individual or by a small group of individuals—either a single capitalist or a small group of shareholders.

The aim of the Socialist is to make these things social property : to convert these privately owned goods and tools into goods and tools commonly owned by the whole of society. He who acts in such a way as to bring this new state of affairs into being is a Socialist : he who acts in a way that hinders progress towards this end is evidently not a Socialist, no matter what he may call himself.

Owing to the private ownership of wealth the majority of the people of this country are unable to obtain the things they need except by working for those that own them; and these wealth owners can employ whom they please and discharge whom they please, so that the mass of the people depend for their existence upon the desires or fancies of a comparatively few masters. The majority of people are therefore slaves of the wealth owners, because unless they act as the latter wish they are liable to be sacked and lose the wages upon which they depend for getting the necessaries of life.

These two types of people, masters and workers, broadly speaking make up society. They form two distinct classes, one of whom depends for a living upon working, and the other upon owning what is produced.

The workers, then, are wage-slaves. The masters are capitalists because they own capital—wealth (tools and so forth) which they advance with the object of getting back more wealth than was originally advanced or laid out. History will tell you that the wealth the capitalist advances was originally obtained by robbing the mass of the people of their land and liberty.

It may perhaps surprise you to hear that a few hundred years ago there was neither a landless man nor a beggar throughout the whole of this country. When you hear that and see that the mass of the people are without land and practically beggared to-day, you may wonder how such a change has come about. If you want further information of this, go to the nearest library and look for a book entitled, “Industrial History of England,” by H. de B. Gibbins. It is a book of only about 250 pages. In it you will find much valuable information of early and recent conditions in this country. You will learn how the land was stolen from the people and passed into the hands of a few individuals; how the people were ruthlessly driven off the land and herded into manufactories ; how finally, after many trials and troubles, the one-time member of a peasant commune, owning his land and tools in common, became the wage-slave of to-day, owning nothing but his power to labour, and compelled for his living to sell this power to the present master class, the descendants of those who robbed his forefathers.

So much for the “original” capital of the masters. The extra wealth they obtain over and above that laid out is due to the fact that you produce a quantity of wealth to-day that suffices to pay your wages, make, good what is necessary for further production, and still leave a substantial amount over on which the master and his family and those that minister to the enjoyment of him and his family, live upon. You thus produce surplus wealth—wealth that keeps an idle class in luxury. You keep parasites.

Between you and your masters there is a constant struggle going on over the destination of the wealth produced. You struggle to obtain as large a share of the wealth you produce as possible. It is a share you think of, you don’t think of obtaining the whole, because you think of, and argue about, a high or a low wage. Your thoughts are bound up with the wages system. The masters on their side resist your desire for high wages and pay you as low wages as they can. This struggle over the division of the wealth you produce is an expression of what the Socialist calls the class war.

It you have followed the argument so far, it must be obvious to you that the masters will not give up their privileges without a bitter struggle; a struggle that can only end when you have obtained control of the whole of the wealth you produce; in other words, when you have established Socialism.

The masters, in their fight to keep their privileged position, employ any weapon that they think will assist them. The all-powerful weapon is the machinery of Parliament, which gives them control of the Army, Navy, Air, and Police Forces—those forces which they employ against you when particularly bad conditions drive you to go out on strike. This power you give to your master at election time when you vote them into Parliament.

This Parliamentary weapon, however, has one drawback ; it is inclined to be a rather open illustration of the opposition between your interests and those of your masters, and is likely to bring to your notice the fact that the modern State is on the side of privilege and against the oppressed.

There are other weapons the masters employ that are less obvious and frequently very effective. Religious teaching is one of them. You are led to believe that some supernatural power hath ordained it that man shall eat his bread in the sweat of his brow, and you are assured that you are the man to whom this precept refers. You usually forget to ask : “What of the master who works not and yet eats plenty?” You are taught that life on this earth is a purgatory through which you must pass in order to reach the paradise somewhere above. In fact, you are taught to think little of, and not worry about, the trials and tribulations of your short life in this world, as it will be all made up to you in the next. But you will notice that those who subscribe most to religious bodies, and who are most anxious that you should accept the religious outlook, take no chances, but avoid the trials and tribulations of this world, leaving the “hereafter” to take care of itself.

Now you can easily see how useful it is to the master that you accept a view such as that outlined above. Being assured of an endless good time hereafter, providing you work hard and obey those who are over you, you are likely to be content with a slave position here below ; working under bad conditions at low wages without protesting, allowing your masters to enrich themselves to what extent they wish.

Among other methods that suit your masters’ interests are those that keep your mind occupied with petty details ; multitudes of so-called “remedies” for minor evils that waste your time and energy to such an extent that you are prevented from applying the one sweeping solution for all your troubles—the abolition of the cause of your troubles, and that is, as you have seen, the private ownership of wealth.

When the wealth produced, and the tools by means of which it is produced, have been made into the common property of society, no one will want either work or food, because all will give to society of his best and will receive from society the best it can give, regardless of age, sex, or occupation.,

We are members of the working-class, and we want you to join us and help us to carry on the struggle for Socialism. Why are we anxious for your aid? Are we moved by a desire to help you? If you have followed carefully the position outlined above you will see that we are in the same mess as you are, and that we cannot get out of the mess except by the same way as you. We want Socialism because it offers us the only means of leading healthy and happy lives; but we cannot get Socialism until you want it. Therefore we want you to want Socialism and to join with us to fight for it, then we will all have an equal opportunity of enjoying the best that life can offer.

Gilmac.

Oscar Wilde on journalism. (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “In England, Journalism, except in a few well-known instances, not having been carried to such excesses of brutality, is still a great factor, a really remarkable power. The tyranny that it proposes to exercise over people’s private lives seems to me quite extraordinary.

  “The fact is that the public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything except what is worth knowing.

   “Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesmen-like habits, supplies the demands. In centuries before ours, the public nailed the ears of journalists to the pump.

    “That was quite hideous.

    “In this century journalists have nailed their own ears to the keyhole.

   “That is much worse.”

Oscar Wilde

Why Work? (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Tis said the Capitalists are grown miserly. They want to cut down wages still more. Some there are, of wicked intent, who would blame the Capitalist and accuse him of evil designs. But this is surely not true. Have they not pointed out to us again and again that they even employ us at a loss to themselves, so anxious are they that we should not suffer unnecessary want?

But lo! What is this I have before me? Why, the report of the impending ruin of J. Lyons & Co., Ltd.! It is contained in the following record of their business :

   “During the last six years the profits have expanded by 100 per cent., and since the war the aggregate profits have amounted to £3,881,279, while the dividends on the ordinary shares have totalled 370 per cent., allowing for the 100 per cent. share bonus distributed two years ago.”—(“Daily News,” June 7th, 1923.)

You thriftless worker! If you had only saved a paltry £1,000 out of your enormous wages, and invested it in Lyons’ shares six years ago, you need not have lost a bead of sweat working, and yet you would have drawn £3,700 out of the company and still have your £1,000 invested in Lyons’ shares. Marvellous! isn’t it? And you are the dupe who produces the marvel.

Gilmac

Socialism and the "Artistic Temperament." (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

In contemplating the social environments of life as constituted to-day, most people (those people, that is, whose mental horizon is capable of embracing something more than a horse-race or a cinema-show) have been forced, often reluctantly, to arrive at the conclusion that "the times are out of joint"; that the world—at least superficially—is little else than a mad conglomeration of sordid toils and yet more sordid pleasures, of brutal tyrannies and ignoble sufferings, of hypocrisy masquerading in the garb of righteousness, of legalised theft and murder.

Many of these people, mainly of the working class, young, in easier economic circumstances, perhaps, than others of their fellow-workers, have what is called "artistic tastes”; that is, they take a more than cursory interest in literature, or some one or other of the arts, or in science, maybe; they dabble as amateurs in literature, or art, or science, instead of following the example of their relatives and friends who, in most cases, are interested in nothing, or in what is often worst than nothing.

These members of the working class (though, doubtless, the idea would be scorned by the high-born and high-bred "artistic” capitalist circles) have, it would seem, by some almost miraculous process, managed to develop a sense of what is beautiful in nature and art, have desires for a fuller development of their faculties. They feel an urge towards a broader outlook on life, but find, as the years pass and their responsibilities increase, that their economic circumstances, even though easier and more comfortable than those of the majority of their fellow-workers, circumscribe increasingly their views on art and literature, their desires for personal development, their cravings for a fuller existence. At this stage some of them drop out, go with the aimless crowd of mediocre beings; some, disillusioned and without hope, turn, in their bitterness, to the blackest pessimism; a few examine and analyse their economic circumstances, delve into the causes that make such circumstances inevitable, obtain a true conception of their place in nature and in society, and finally seek and discover the only means whereby they can emerge from the thraldom of servitude into the freedom necessary for the full development of their faculties. They, a small but ever-growing number, embrace the Socialist philosophy, and in so doing obtain a serenity of outlook, a power of facing reality, unknown to those others, who stand at present, irresolute, disillusioned, bitterly resentful against fate, outside the Socialist organisation.

The aforementioned mood of bitterness and pessimism, engendered by the results of an evil environment, is one to which all the more sensitive intellects of all countries in all ages have been particularly prone; but an examination of the works and lives of the men and women who have in their utterances given expression to their disgust with and rebellion against their social and political surroundings will show that the scientific and historical sense have, as a rule, been largely lacking in their mental make-up. Highly emotional, their minds a sensitive plate scratched and torn by every ugly and vicious impression received, they shrink from an analysis of the evils they experience and visualise, and can only voice their feelings of antagonism towards something— they hardly know what—that threatens to engulf them in a black wave of bitterness and irritability. In practically all such people, while their reaction to bad and degrading impressions is greater than the average, their power of analysing these impressions and placing them in their correct historical perspective, is almost nil. Artists—whether writers, or painters, or musicians—are more liable than any other body to find whatever sense of proportion and humour they may have possessed swallowed up in the spectacle of what they consider a mad and diseased universe, and thus it is that so many of the greatest and noblest works of art are so often overshadowed and obscured by a sense of gloom and foreboding.

But, leaving out of the question people of artistic genius or talent, to anyone not totally blind to the realities of life, the brutality, sordidness, and suffering engrained in present-day capitalist society must strike home continually with a force similar to that with which the waves of a tempestuous sea buffet the face of an unwary or inexperienced swimmer.

From the Socialist standpoint, the mere perception to and rebellion against the evils of capitalism is not enough. We, too, detest the world-evils surrounding us; we too, have a gnawing sense of insecurity and captivity; have the same feelings of revolt against the insults and sufferings to which we, as workers, as wage-slaves, are subjected. But it is here that we as Socialists part company with those who have not yet acquired a knowledge of the Socialist philosophy. The pessimistic non- Socialist is either afraid or unable to face the facts of life; he cannot or dare not attempt to discover why what are called "social evils" exist; he is unable to understand that such things as the poverty of mind and body, the rapacity, the callousness and viciousness engrained in the human race are the inevitable and irrepressible outcome of a social system which bears within it the seeds of the ills and pains and penalties under which mankind is to-day fated to suffer. He can only visualise society, with all its multitudinous evils, as a thing in itself; he can look neither back to the causes nor foresee the results of those phenomena he hates and deplores; while to the Socialist, to the man who has realised that capitalist society, being an organism, must have been born from the womb of an older form of society, must have its period of growth to maturity, and must finally disintegrate and die (and in dying give birth to a new form of society), to the man the evils which he, also, sees and hates and deplores are seen but as a passing phase in the long-drawn-out history and man and his association with his fellows.

There are good and bad in all things, even in Capitalism. By “good” we mean whatever tends to uplift man, as an individual, as a social unit, as a part of the human race, on to a higher plane of life: by “bad” all that tends to drag him downwards to a level even below the appallingly low one he at present occupies. True it is that under capitalism the "good” is most negligible, whilst the "bad” increases in volume and intensity as the death throes of the present system become more violent. The Socialist, being neither optimist nor pessimist, sees whatever good there may be, and accepts it for what it is worth; sees also the bad, and while obliged to bow before its power, at the same time rebels in word and deed against the necessity for so doing. He is neither greatly elated nor distressed at whatever comes. Always and at all times he keeps in the forefront of his thoughts and actions his endeavour to encompass and prepare for the downfall of the system (capitalism) that engenders the bad, and to hasten the initiation of the coming social order (Socialism) which will spread and enhance the good. Unremitting work, based on knowledge, in the cause of Socialism— herein lies the remedy for the depression and feeling of hopelessness that so often overtakes the non-Socialist who is endeavouring to escape from his capitalistic captivity.

The distance to travel before the consummation of our desires is reached may be short or long. What, then—what, after all, do a few years or a few centuries count in the evolution of mankind? It is the inheritance we hand on to the future that will decide our status in the eyes of those who will follow us, will decide whether we be numbered amongst those weaklings "who have never lived,” or with those who, while continuously struggling onward, have only failed in their high endeavours because the fruits of the new order of life were not yet ripe enough to be plucked and enjoyed.

F. J. Webb

Thomas Henry Huxley (1923)

Quotation from the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

 “Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters
  Who shall count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to harmonise impossibilities— whose life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same strong party.” 

T. H. HUXLEY.

(Darwiniana, Page 52).

Don Quixote! (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate which took place in the House of Commons on March 20th, described by the daily papers as a Socialist debate, was a sheer farce. Those who moved and supported the so-called Socialist resolution never laid down the Socialist position; nor did Sir A. Mond deal with a single Socialist principle.

The resolution moved by Philip Snowden was dealt with in the April issue of the S.S., but some of the points raised in the discussion are worthy of notice, as they go far to prove the falsity of the position taken up by the Labour Party and the inability of Capitalist politicians to meet Socialist arguments.

In his remarks, Philip Snowden used a statement quite common with Labour leaders: "The Capitalist system is passing away.” A Conservative member retorted with the question: "Then why worry?" Obviously if Capitalism is passing away, the policy for the Socialist is to let it pass. In any case the Labour Party is not helping it to pass. Their policy is to beg and demand reforms to patch up the system and prolong it, and incidentally to confuse the workers by leading them to expect material alteration from reforms.

According to the newspaper report, Philip Snowden “disavowed confiscation and revolution." Most Labour leaders do the same, but none of them show how it is possible to pass from a system of society where the means of life are owned by a ruling class to one where they are owned in common, without revolution. Labour leaders everywhere repudiate confiscation and in doing so state their agreement with the present system, where the wealth produced by the working-class is confiscated to the use of the Capitalist class, but must not be "confiscated" back by the workers to their own uses.

On a level with the above was the comment in the "Daily Chronicle" (21/3/23) that Philip Snowden "has always, since he entered public life, been an evolutionary Socialist; and only the ignorant have ever attributed to him any belief in violence." It is only the ignorant who use such phrases. A man can only be a Socialist when he realises the need for revolution. Evolution only brings nearer the time when revolution is absolutely necessary: It can not effect the change. Socialism can only be established through revolution, consequently, the Socialist has no use for adjectives to qualify his Socialism. Being a Socialist, he works for revolution by educating his fellow-workers in Socialist knowledge. He tells them, among other things, the truth about violence. Under Capitalism the workers are kept in subjection by violence, or the threat of violence, in the last resort; and they cannot hope to throw off the yoke of wage-slavery until they are in a position to use violence successfully against those who enslave them. They can only do this when they control the fighting forces through Parliament. Violence, when necessary, is the method of the capitalist class; if necessary it will have to be the method of the working-class, when they have the power.

The most damaging part of the debate, perhaps, was the controversy as to the true position of the Labour Party. Sir Alfred said that at the last election nothing was resented more by most Labour members than to be accused of being not a Labour but a Socialist Party. The reply from the Labour benches was: "We are the Labour Party. It is the same thing." Sir Alfred replied :

“It is not the same thing. The hon. Member for Colne Valley knows it perfectly well, and so do other hon. Members, or they would not get so excited. I am extremely glad the mask is off at last. It is a clean issue between individualism and Socialism, a clean issue of private ownership against national ownership, a clean issue as to the right of the individual to the reward of his labour and his enterprise."

It is quite clear from this that Sir Alfred, as well as the Labour members, conceive Socialism as national ownership; but even this conception according to him was not publicly proclaimed as an issue by the Labour Party. That although the latter individually subscribed to nationalisation, they kept it in the background when soliciting votes. If this is true, is it because the workers already perceive that nationalisation, whenever it has been applied, has not improved the lot of those who come under it?

The daily papers claimed Sir Alfred’s speech as a victory over Socialism. As a matter of fact, according to the reports that favoured him, his objections told more against Capitalism than against Socialism. According to the "Daily Chronicle," he said: “State Socialism would make machines of everybody.” As State Socialism, or Nationalisation, is only Capitalism organised by the State in the interests of the Capitalist class—as the Post Office, Telephones, etc.—it is clear that Capitalism and not Socialism makes machines of everybody but Capitalists.

"Men work best for themselves,” said Sir Alfred. The workers, however, have no choice in the matter. The means of wealth production are owned by the Capitalist class, and the workers have to sell their labour-power to members of that class, or go without the necessaries of life.

“Taken over the whole population the decrease of, wealth is more detrimental than its division,” said Sir Alfred; but in that ease, what is to be said of the common practice of Capitalists in nearly every industry of restricting production for the purpose of keeping up prices?

"The greatest wealth accumulated by anyone who has created new undertakings is a small percentage of the total wealth he has created for the country,” was another statement described by the “Daily Chronicle,” as one of Sir Alfred’s “pungent aphorisms.” But no proof has ever been advanced that those who put capital into new, or old, undertakings, “create” anything. Capital is neither “created” nor produced by the Capitalist. The factories are built, the machinery made, installed and operated by the workers. Whether the Capitalist gain is a large or small percentage—unless he is a very small capitalist and has to do his own supervising—it is added to his banking account without effort on his part.

So much for Sir Alfred’s pitiful attempt to show that Capitalism is the best of all possible systems. When he taxes his business intellect for the purpose of remedying existing evils he is even more pitiful. On March 12th he outlined a scheme in the "Daily Chronicle” for dealing with unemployment. His suggestion was that money should be taken from the unemployed fund to subsidise employers who took men off the books of the exchanges.

Of course, such a preposterous idea could have no effect whatever on the number of workers employed. Those taken off the exchanges must either replace others discharged, or squeeze out some of those already employed.

It is not shortage of capital that is responsible for unemployment — though shortage of capital may handicap many Capitalists in a small way of business—but the lack of markets. Production is restricted by Capitalists, through agreements, to keep up prices, because unchecked competition in a limited market, with modern means of production, would bring down prices and reduce profits all round.

All the most important organisations in this country calling themselves Communist or Labour Parties have members in the Labour Party of the House of Commons. Not one of these, either in the debate, or at any time in the House of Commons, have ever said anything to make Socialism clear to the workers. Yet they have always claimed that they would be able to use the floor of the House for its propaganda. The so-called extremists, and out and out Communists, if they ever understood the Socialist position, exhibited no evidence of their knowledge when they spoke. These latter claim to be more advanced than the I.L.P. and Trade Union elements, yet they never raised a voice in protest when nationalisation was falsely termed Socialism by all those who took part in the debate.

To call nationalisation Socialism, and to hold up the Post Office, Telephones, Water Supply, etc., as examples of Socialism, is to spread confusion among the workers. When Sir Alfred Mond or Mr. Lloyd George do this they are guilty of lying; but the Labour members are guilty of that, and treachery as well, because they claim to lead and represent the workers. In any case, if they have nothing better than nationalisation to offer they are utterly unworthy of support by the workers.

F. Foan

The Socialist Ideal (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist is accustomed to being accused, alternately, of being an "impractical idealist" and a "gross and sordid materialist," often by the same person in almost the same breath. What truth is there in these contradictory charges? Let us see!

The Socialist proposes a fundamental change in the social order. He desires to realise a state of affairs at present existing only as a general idea in his mind. He denies that Capitalism is the final achievement of the human race. Undoubtedly, then, he possesses an ideal, a hope to strive for. But does this make him an idealist, and an impractical one at that?

When a man, feeling hungry, conceives a desire for his dinner, no one thinks of him as a hero, although men have, from time to time, performed deeds of valour, and even given up life in the quest of that same dinner. Similarly, when a group of men set about building a house, or a battleship, they interfere with "nature," upset the existing state of affairs in the particular sphere in which they are engaged in order to change "the actual," and realise an idea. Yet, time was when houses and battleships were beyond the range of human thought. Are they then miracles? By no means: Men, in the struggle for life, have increased their knowledge of their material environment and, consequently, their capacity to change it.

The realisation of the Socialist ideal does not demand the operation of any unknown or supernatural force. On the one hand, we have the workers capable of producing all the desirable objects of human existence; on the other, the means whereby they can do so, the land and the machines, the latter the products of labour. The Socialist proposes that these two indispensable factors of social life, the workers and the instruments of labour, shall become united legally, as they are industrially. That is to say, that just as the workers operate the instruments in question, so they shall also own them, in common for the common good.

In this proposal there is no suggestion that material things should be forgotten. On the contrary, they are held to be of supreme importance. The Socialist trusts to no divine illumination, nor miraculous "change of heart." He sees the wants of his fellow-workers, and he sees abundant means for their satisfaction. What is there superhuman about bringing them together?

Let us consider the obstacles. To commence with, the land and the machines are at present the property of a small class of people. By reason of this fact, this class is on a position to enjoy the fruits of social labour without taking part in the process. A natural desire to continue the habits of congenital laziness so fostered is sufficient to induce this class to resist any change in the distribution of property in the means whereby they live. For the purpose of making as effective a resistance as possible,  this class has developed and entrenched itself behind the machine known as the State, which directs and controls certain unanswerable arguments in favour of things as they are in the shape of guns, ammunition, etc., plus the human and mechanical means of using the same. This is the principal active obstacle.

In addition, there exists the passivity of the workers, their failure to grasp the cause, nay, even the fact, of their enslavement. This second obstacle, negative though it may appear, is even more important that the first. Were it not for the acquiescence of the workers the master class would be destitute of slaves to do their bidding in the fields and factories, at the ballot-box, or behind the guns. The initial task of the Socialist, therefore, is to arouse the workers, to inspire them with revolutionary discontent, and to provide them with a clear understanding of the facts of their position. Herein is recognised the real and practical importance of the idea.

The capitalist objector to Socialism sees in this the degradation of the idea. Nothing suits him better than to keep matter and mind, fact and thought, in water-tight compartments. Let the workers keep their minds on a God who is intangible, or on boxers or horses, whom they rarely, if ever see, on anything, in fact, but the "gross and sordid" economic world which matters so much. Let the, fill their heads with notions of brotherly love for their masters, and of hatred for imaginary enemies beyond the seas. Let them put their feet in the clouds and stand on their heads. That is the capitalist idea of "practical idealism!"

The Socialist does not shrink from the charge of materialism; but to him there is no necessity to separate mind from matter. He recognises no metaphysical distinctions and antagonisms between the subjective and objective aspects of reality. He regards mental processes as essentially part of the general process of human life, inextricably bound up with its environment and sharing the same material composition. There is one world only, not two.

The Socialist, therefore, applies his mind to the solution of the material problems around him, viz., want in the midst of plenty, wealth for the idlers, and misery for the toilers. The terms "gross and sordid" apply, not to the man who appreciates and revolts against the existing, but to the system itself. The idealist seeks to give us "beautiful ideas." The ugly facts are left to take care of themselves. The Socialist, however, proclaims the necessity, not merely for thought, but action. The sytem must be changed, and we the workers must change it!

How? By the removal of the obstacles. By removing the capitalist class from control: first, of the political machine, the State; secondly, of the means of wealth production.

And the outcome of the change? Just imagine, fellow-workers, if you can, yourselves in possession of the earth and the giant instruments of labour, which you and the rest of your class have produced! Would you toil till you had exhausted your energy in order that the few might run riot in luxury; while you pinched and scraped and made shift with insufficient food, shoddy clothes, ugly and cramped houses, and no leisure to speak of in which to enjoy the fruits of your toil? Would you rest content in ignorance of the universe around you chock-full as it is of interest and fascination for the human mind? Would you support the lackeys of oppression and superstition, the lawyer-politicians and the parsons? Would you, free men and women, leave it to them to legalise and sanctify your loves, or to punish and condemn you for your hates? Nay! would you not rather rise at last to some approach to human dignity? Would you not lay claim to the heritage to which you now in vain aspire—health, enlightenment and happiness?

Fellow-workers, the road is clear if you would but open your eyes and look! If you would but use the same energy and intelligence in your own interest that you waste in the service of those who abuse, exhaust and poison your bodies, and starve and ridicule your minds. Can you not display the same enthusiasm for your own needs and desires as you do for those of the class which despises and humiliates you?

These masters! these "educated people!" what have they done for you? You, who plough and sow, quarry and mine, build and lay tracks, spin and weave! What have they done, these your "superiors", with the wealth and power which you in your ignorance have placed and left in their hands? The rude vigour of your ancestors is gone; disease, insidious and relentless, stalks unchecked among you. The machine "saves labour" by taking the bread from your mouths.

Is there a family among you that escaped paying some toll in the four years' carnage so readily forgotten and forgiven?

Yet, it only needs good food, fresh air and rational enjoyment to cure disease! It only needs organisation to apportion the world's work equitably, and abolish simultaneously, drudgery and idleness! Mutual understanding on the part of the workers of the world is all that is necessary to banish war and the fear of war!

But the task has been too much for your masters. These "captains of industry," self-styled, have failed to wring life from nature for you. Is it too much, fellow-workers, to do it for yourselves?

Eric Boden 

The Staging of Another Pantomime. (1923)

From the July 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Internationals" are having a great run these days. A new one has recently come into existence at Hamburg, and from the "Daily News" (25/5/23) we learn that:

"The objects are defined with sufficient breadth to enable the parties within a fairly wide range of differences of view to adopt."

These periodical bursts of enthusiasm for internationals would be amusing if their consequences were not so harmful in keeping the workers' minds occupied with other than the position that really concerns them.

This particular International is so broad in its views that it throws overboard one of the fundamental principles of Socialism—the class struggle

"This phrase, 'class war,' appeared in the German and French translations, but the English substituted in its place these words: 'to foster the independent and industrial action of the workers' organisations as a means of realising that object.'
"Other members of the committee finally expressed a preference for this rendering, and this was adopted."

It will be seen, therefore, that they do not propose anything drastic, but something quite respectable as befits those who are expecting soon to be called upon "to govern." They do not intend to prosecute the class struggle, but only to "foster" independent action! Need we add that Ramsay MacDonald, J. H. Thomas, and Arthur Henderson are on the Executive Committee of this body?

Gilmac.