On looking ahead. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is not a cult, a creed or a fad. It is not a new religion. Socialism is the greatest idea the human mind has ever conceived. In the light of its teaching the march of human progress has barely begun. Mankind is still in its swaddling clothes. History, so far, has been the record of its blind gropings after something—it knows not what. Whatever progress has been achieved has been mainly consequential, rather than intentional. It has often been gained in spite of its originators. Few have been the men of vision who could see ten years ahead. And after all, could one reasonably expect it? The necessity of providing for his creature needs has left man little time for looking far ahead. The future was thus early the happy hunting ground of the prophet and seer. One could not expect primitive man, for instance, to have foreseen all the consequences of the discovery of fire. This, perhaps the most momentous of man’s discoveries, at once differentiated him from the brutes and made civilisation possible. Think of the thousands of things, for the production of which we depend upon fire, and you must agree that human society is almost inconceivable without it. And yet there must have been some sort of human society which knew it not: Is it to be wondered at that for centuries fire was an object of worship? That man ascribed his knowledge of it to the direct interposition of the Gods ! Without going into the question of its probable origin, one which must always remain obscure, we can readily agree that primitive man could have had no conception whatever of its consequences.

Similarly, with the other great discoveries of mankind; the domestication of animals; smelting of metals ; steam ; gunpowder ; electricity ; optics ; few or none could see their ultimate effect upon human society. Yet how profound has been each one. Each, doubtless even the earliest, has been met with derision, scoffing and prejudiced opposition. But they have conquered, and the ideas and institutions of mankind have been re-moulded. Many of us remember the hoots and boos that greeted the early riders of the bicycle; the guffaws that welcomed the first pneumatic tyres; the sniggers that assailed the first motor-cars; the sneers and newspaper cartoons that accompanied the first aviators. But they have arrived—they have “made good.”

These have been material things. Things that could be handled, felt, seen, experienced. Why, then, this antipathy to anything new? Why this antagonism to anything out of the ordinary? Precisely for that reason. Because it is out of the ordinary.

Man is a lazy animal, a slave of habit and convention. Anything that shakes his complacency or interferes with his established habits is at first distasteful. He also a curious, inquisitive animal, a trait he shares with his simian cousins. His curiosity often conquers his inertia. Fortunately human society is leavened with a sprinkling of individuals whose curiosity is insatiable, whose thirst for the eternal “why” is unquenchable. Who are not satisfied with the humdrum, the conventional and the superficial? These are they who make their neighbours uncomfortable. Who shake their complacency, and their tendency to take everything for granted, eternal and unalterable. That is why they are at first not popular. One of the results of universal education has been to increase the number of these enquiring souls, and the printing press has developed the means of meeting their needs (one reason why you should push The Socialist Standard). Neither of these results were foreseen by either those who inaugurated universal education, or the inventors of printing. Similarly with the discovery of steam and its application to industry. None could see that its outcome would be the world of to-day. That is what we meant when we said earlier “progress has been consequential, rather than intentional.” Mankind has got on with the job that was nearest and left the future to look after itself. That is why the world is very far from ideal. That is why current history is a groaning, rumbling, creaking progression, punctuated by catastrophies.

Most people’s view of the next ten years is that things will be much the same then as now. “Perhaps the foreman will die, and I shall get his job” sums up the philosophy of a great many, poor simple souls. Death takes “hands” as well as foremen, and what are you going to do with your life. Life is the thing that matters. How are you spending it? Poor? Of course ! Unemployed? No! And still poor? Yes! damned poor. Then what’s wrong? This is where those enquiring, inquisitive people come in. This is where the Socialist gives evidence. Why with all those great powers and discoveries at mankind’s disposal should there be any who are poor and unhappy? Why with all the evidence of stupendous wealth around us, should there be any who suffer want, hunger and privation? Yet there are millions! Surely something is wrong !

Yes! What is wrong is the basis upon which society is built. All the means whereby we all live are in private hands. The rule of society is “everyone for himself, and we’ll take charge of the Army.” The reason they take charge of the Army (and the other Forces, of course) is in case the workers get tired of being hired to make wealth, and desire to enjoy what they alone make. Now Socialism means just that step, that the workers should take possession of all the machinery by means of which wealth is produced and distributed, and use it for the benefit of the whole of society. There is enough and to spare for everyone to lead a full, healthy and happy life. Poverty and all that flows from poverty will be abolished. The good things that workers now produce for others will be their own. The spectacle of useful, industrious citizens starving, or leading cramped, adulterated lives in the midst of plenty will be a thing of the past, a thing unbelievable to future generations.

The effort to bring this about will be met by force. The armed forces we have mentioned will be ruthlessly used against you. But the organised workers hold the master key. By first obtaining control of the political machine they will control the armed forces. With these under control, they can proceed to the re-organisation of society upon a workers’ basis, where to those who need will go the fruits of their industry.

Let us, therefore, look ahead. Let us raise ourselves a moment above the daily round, and realise that life worth living is within our grasp. Let us realise that Socialism is not a vague abstraction, not a dream of some arm-chair philosopher, but a practical, simple re-ordering of human affairs. That is why we said at the commencement of this article that Socialism is the greatest idea that the human mind has ever conceived. That man, after harnessing the great forces of nature, and opening the treasure chest of Mother Earth should now organise himself, organise human society, that is the “dream.” Is it so visionary; is it so impracticable? Help us to realise it. Look ahead.

W. T. Hopley

The relief of Abstinence. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The latest returns of the tea-producing companies illustrate the enormous amount of unpaid labour that is appropriated by the Capitalist.

The following table shows the dividends of five companies for 1922 and 1923 :—

From the above it will be seen that the shareholders have received on the average over two-thirds of the money back that they invested, and yet they may still have their original amount invested in the company—and this has been accomplished within two years !

Thirty-two pounds a year (out of every hundred originally invested) for doing nothing—not a bad way of obtaining a living. And yet when the engineers, the coal miners, or the railway men, ask for a paltry shilling or two more a week for 47 hours or so of arduous work under unhealthy conditions, this is the type of people who cannot find epithets strong enough to condemn such action.

The shareholder invests money in a company (or a paid official does it for him) and then he can go to sleep or go to Jericho with the pleasant conviction that at the end of a given period a nice fat sum will come to him, and at the end of further periods further fat sums will be forthcoming. The idea is spread about that these nice fat sums are the reward of “abstinence.” This suggestion would be quite alright if “abstinence” was intended to mean abstaining from useful work. But such is not the intention though it is a fact. We are required to believe that these people abstain from spending the money on pleasures in order to invest it. Yet curiously enough it is at pleasure resorts of various kinds that the wealthy shareholders are found. Who is it occupies the first-class berths on ocean going liners? The abstainer. Who harries the big game in the mighty forests and jungles of Africa and India? The abstainer. Who dodges the harshness of the English, winter by taking the first-class trans-Continental express for the Riviera ? The abstainer. Who puts as many miles as possible between himself and the ugly factory towns in which is his wealth is produced? Why the poor hardly used abstainer, of course.

But everything has an end, even though the end be but the beginning of something else. One day the selfish worker will take pity on the altruistic shareholder and will save the latter from the “miseries” associated with “abstinence.” The workers will take unto themselves the fruits of industry to set off against the toils. That day the shareholder will be relieved of his idleness as well as his abstinence. For that he should bless us, but, alas, I fear he will curse us. Our motives are the best and we wish to make of him a happy, healthy, and useful human being.

Gilmac.

Coal Inquiry admissions. (1924)

Editorial from the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the Coal Inquiry Mr. Evan Williams, chairman of the Mining Association, has made certain admissions that disposes of the miners’ “Big Wages” myth. He stated that 60,000 earn from 45s. to 50s. a week, 56,000 from 60s. to 65s., and about 12,000 from £5 to £5 5s. The Chairman of the Court of Inquiry drew attention to figures showing that in North Wales 72 per cent. of the men working full time earn less than 55s. a week. (Daily News, 30/4/24.)

While we are by no means prepared to accept figures as high as these yet, as they stand, they knock the bottom out of the claim, so often put forward, that miners earn fabulous wages.

Is it a matter for wonder that men who risk their lives daily in a miserable and toilsome occupation for such a beggarly return should now and again become restive and revolt against the conditions of their existence? It would be a matter of wonder if they did not. It would be worse. It would be a matter for despair, for they would have sunk to such a level as to be beyond the hope of salvation.

Mr. Williams made a further admission. We have often heard of the overpowering kindness, thoughtfulness and humanity, that occasionally moves our masters to keep industries going at a loss in order to provide their ungrateful slaves with employment. How often chairmen of companies, in their reports, have weaved romances around this special kind of benevolence. But Mr. Williams presents the matter in a different light which converts the benevolence into a necessary consideration of £ s. d.

  “He declared that it took a great deal of money to close a colliery, and that up to a certain point it was less costly to work at a loss than to shut down. It might even be cheaper to continue working at a loss of as much as 2s. 6d. or 3s. a ton in the hope that there might be revival of prosperity later.

  “He referred in this connection to the owners’ commitments in relation to coal leases, and to other obligations which placed serious financial obstacles in the way of suspending operations. He mentioned specifically the whole district of North Wales, where, he said, the collieries were kept going because the owners could not afford to shut down.”—Daily News, April 30, 1924.

You see the motive changes with the case to be proved. Mr. Williams was endeavouring to prove that the mines do not pay well enough to meet the mine workers’ demands and hence he had to admit that benevolence was not the motive preventing the closing down of concerns that he alleged did not pay.

The coal companies made huge profits during the War and placed huge amounts to reserve. Their capitals were enormously increased by the issue of bonus shares without the payment of a penny piece on the part of the shareholders, and the price of shares went up tremendously. Bearing this in mind, examine the dividend results over a reasonable period, the enhanced prices of shares, the amounts put to reserve; note the constant formation of new companies (Mr. Williams would have us believe that they were floated to work at a loss !) and the gloom will disappear from Mr. Williams’ statements, leaving a much more rosy interpretation than he would have us make.

The State. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The popular view of Socialism is a bundle of misconceptions. One of the most common is that Socialism means nothing more than the control of everything and everybody by the State, swollen to huge dimensions and constituting in effect a distinct official class in opposition to the bulk of the people. Yet nothing is more certain than that the State, throughout its history, has been the weapon of the property-owning class (the means by which it has protected and upheld its property) and with the accomplishment of the social revolution and the disappearance of such a class, the State also will disappear.

What is the State? Those who talk most glibly about it seldom offer evidence of possessing a clear idea of its nature. They usually express themselves in vague idealistic language which serves to hide either their ignorance or their real meaning.

In brief, the State is that central body which by coercion induces the rest of society either to do things which they have no desire to do or to refrain from acts which are dictated by their desires. It is thus the element of organised force operating on a comprehensive scale which forms the essential feature of the State.

The actual organisation of the State has varied with the changes in the social order, but that feature has remained unchanged. The first form of private (as distinct from common) property was the chattel form. Domestic animals, women and children, and finally enslaved debtors and captives became chattels in turn and the State developed in the first place in order to preserve the chattel relationship. The ancient empires, centred in the city-states (such as Rome, Athens and Babylon) were gigantic chattel procuring and tribute levying machines. In these States the freemen (i.e., the non-chattels) were alone citizens, privileged to bear arms and control political affairs. They used their control to hold their chattels in subjection and to protect them from others who might covet and struggle for these principal sources of wealth.

The break up of these ancient empires was followed by the rise of feudalism, a system based on serfdom. The serfs were legally bound to the soil. The landholder was also the lord of the serfs and exploited their labour power accordingly. The land-holders as a class formed a hierarchy with the King at its head. Here we find another form of State, which, in turn, gave way to yet another form, as a new property-owning ruling-class rose to power.

The modern parasites, the Capitalist class (developed from the merchants, etc., of the cities), have brought the State to its present form. They acquired concessions from the monarch by means of their peculiar weapon, money, and finally curbed his authority along with the downfall of the feudal aristocrats by forcible revolution. In the place of the feudal State we now find representative bodies controlling affairs such as municipal councils and Parliament. The ruling classes of the ancient and medieval worlds ruled by their own right arms; the modern tyrants introduced the standing army as the mainstay of their sway. The military organisations of their predecessors gave way to the political parties of the Parliamentary arena, while the actual administration of the law was handed over to an ever-increasing professional bureaucracy.

The development of modern industry has brought to the front a new political element, i.e., the proletariat, the propertyless working class. For the first time in history the slaves are enfranchised and are openly recognised by their rulers to be the most important factor in the State. Only gradually, however, are they coming to realise the fact themselves.

The modern State, therefore, is a contradiction. It consists of a repressive machine supported by the very class which is repressed. It exists to protect private property in the means of life against the actual producers of those means. It is the political expression of the antagonism of economic interests in society.

Whence then arises the illusion that Socialism, a system of society involving a community of interests, will develop the State to a still greater extent? Partly, no doubt, from the confusing and ignorant propaganda of the so-called Socialist elements in the Labour Party ; but partly also from the fact that Socialism can only be established by means of the State in the hands of the working class. Where those who are afraid of bureaucracy make their mistake is in forgetting the phrase in italics.

Socialism cannot be established by the Capitalists. It cannot be established by the State as it exists at present. Only when the workers, organised consciously and politically, capture the State and convert it into the agent of emancipation will it be possible to convert the means of life (i.e., the land, factories, railways, etc.) into the common property of the whole people.

This revolution within the State, necessary as it is for the social revolution, so far from extending the bureaucracy will abolish it. The first act of the revolutionary administration will be to take direct control and responsibility from the hands of the officials in every department. The working class must itself become the State. As the revolution proceeds and the Capitalist class are stripped of their economic privileges, so the workers’ organisation will cease to be political and will become economic. It will be concerned, not with government of persons, but with the administration of the social means of production and distribution. Class distinctions having been abolished, class antagonism will disappear and with it the need for a repressive force.

The reader may object, “But what of the law which depends on the State, is that to go, too? How will you preserve order among individuals?” Supporters of Capitalism among the workers seldom realise how much institutions such as “the law” are part of the social system existing at a particular time and are not eternal necessities of nature. “The law” has changed along with the State that made it. The laws of the ancient patricians, the laws of the medieval barons, have followed the customs of prehistoric barbarians; the laws of the last of the exploiting classes will do likewise and there will thus be an end of laws and the beginning of social freedom.

The civil law regulates contracts and implies private property and the production of commodities. When society consciously regulates production and distribution, contracts will become meaningless. The individual will depend for the satisfaction of his economic wants, not upon some other individual or group, but upon society as a whole ; consequently, he will have no motive for entering into bargains or seeking the aid of the law to enforce their terms.

Turning to the criminal law, that also will become meaningless in a society of equals. Time was when, in the interests of Capitalism, the idea was spread that there existed a distinct criminal type with marked physical and psychological characteristics. To-day that idea is discredited even among Capitalist authorities themselves. Crime is the effect of social conditions. Crimes against property such as theft, arson, etc., are directly traceable to economic causes which will disappear along with poverty and the fear of poverty. Crimes against persons are also in the majority of cases bound up with these same economic causes; while even the so-called “crimes of passion” arise largely from the unwholesome conditions, moral as well as physical, which are inevitably engendered by Capitalism.

Socialists do not pretend that violent anti-social acts will entirely cease to occur, but that they will, undoubtedly, dwindle to such proportions as to render the existing legal methods of dealing with offenders obsolete. The concern of society under Socialism will not be repression but the development of a physical environment and mental atmosphere which will allow for the full evolution of the individual and thus secure his voluntary co-operation with his fellows. Comradeship will take the place of coercion and for the first time since the dawn of history the legal State will give way to a moral society.

Eric Boden

Letter: Fascism and other things. (1924)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Editor,

“Socialist Standard.”

Dear Comrade,

Whilst I cannot claim to be a new reader of your periodical, The Socialist Standard, I generally peruse it from the front page to the back page in the hope of gleaning some information or enlightenment on current economic problems. Therefore, I read with some trepidation the article by one styled “Gilmac” in your April issue entitled “To a New Reader.” After giving a short discourse on the present-day position of the worker, and informing him, indisputably, that “wealth is produced by means of privately-owned means of production ” etc., etc., etc., he proceeds, “to emulate the prophets (?) and to indulge in a little idle surmise,” as he so aptly puts it. Having assumed that we have elected the requisite number of delegates to Parliament, we then proceed on three main lines of investigation.

1. Ascertain the needs of the population. (A matter of compiling statistics.)
2. The means available to satisfy these needs. (A matter of compiling statistics.)
3. The labour required to do the necessary work. (A matter of compiling statistics.)

In fact, all that we have to do is to “sit tight” and compile statistics, a relatively simple matter, as he states (although he does not say what it is relevant to).

It appears to me that our comrade has, to use an aphorism, started to build the roof of his house before he has laid its foundations.

Firstly, by what means does he propose to get the necessary delegates (Socialist) into Parliament?

Tentatively, I will answer this question by stating, presumably by education on lines laid down by the S.P.G.B.

Then what will happen when this educational policy becomes a serious menace to the Capitalist class : which means its ultimate extinction? Naturally that section of the community will immediately protect itself to its utmost resources, employing the whole forces of the Capitalist State to this end. The Facisti will come out of its lair with an abundance of cans of castor oil and other relics of the Inquisition, and the S.P.G.B. will be driven underground. Far be it from me to cast cold water upon the rosy prospect of endless statistics which our comrade pictures in his endeavour to emulate the prophets, but if I were a new reader I could not derive much inspiration or information from his article.

May I prevail upon you, Comrade Editor, to enlarge upon this fundamental and vital matter of policy, without being referred to the issue of the “Standard” for the year 1849? 

Yours fraternally,

W. R. Saunders.

Reply:

The Editorial Committee has passed your letter on to me for reply.

Really, friend, I must protest. You certainly did not peruse the article in question from the first line to the last with thoroughness. Had you done so you would not have aimed such criticism at it. You will, I am sure, forgive me for pointing out that before the foundations of a house are laid the architect must consider the nature of the roof. I was showing that the roof would be quite alright. I did not pretend to deal with the method of overthrowing capitalism. My object was simply to show that the evils existing were evils of Capitalism, and that once the workers were in a position to establish Socialism the method of procedure would be comparatively simple.

I will not refer you to the “Standard” for the year 1849 (you have doubtless read numerous articles in previous issues dealing fully and completely with “this fundamental and vital matter of policy”) but I will refer you to the article criticised. In it you will notice that I point out how simple it will be to so arrange production and distribution as to satisfy the needs of the population. Now you say this conveys nothing to you. If you are an old reader of the “Standard” then the points mentioned are well known to you and, therefore, perhaps of no immediate interest. But you must not forget that the article was addressed to a new reader, and he, presumably, knows nothing of Socialism. He cannot conceive of production and distribution being carried on without capital, trading, taxation, wages boards and the like. The new viewpoint put before such a reader may lead him to see that there are other ways of producing and distributing wealth than the present way, and may, therefore, convey much to him. After all, the constant argument of the average worker is “You cannot do without the Capitalist.” “Who is to pay our wages”? You see, the average worker is concerned a good deal with the “roof.” I set out to show him that the roof would be quite sound.

And now you will pardon me again for reminding you that whatever methods you consider will have to be adopted to overthrow Capitalism, you will still have to carry out the aforesaid investigations on the morrow of the Revolution, i.e.,

1. Ascertain the needs of the population.
2. The means available to satisfy those needs.
3. The labour required to do the necessary work,

It is no good, you cannot escape the statistics friend. The Russian Bolsheviks learnt to their cost the tremendous importance of statistics in their reorganisation.

It is so simple friend, isn’t it? Yet it is “information” to many people, if not to you.

Now for the questions you ask, neither of which were dealt with in the article as they were outside the particular subject.

You wish to know how we propose getting the necessary Socialist delegates into Parliament ? Briefly, stated, we propose doing so by convincing a majority of the working class electorate of the slave position they occupy to-day ; that their interests and the interests of their masters are opposed and can not be reconciled ; that their only hope of obtaining permanent improvement in their condition is by establishing Socialism ; that in order to establish Socialism they must take the State power out of the hands of the Capitalists, and the only way they can do that is by sending a majority of delegates to the seat of power (Parliament) with instructions to take from the Capitalists this power that they wield ; once having obtained control of the State power it will then be necessary to set about establishing Socialism.

Now for your second point—and, by the way, it is a prophecy! You assert that “the Facisti will come out of its lair.” Would it not have been better to have examined the conditions out of which the Facisti arose, and see if similar conditions were likely to exist in England?

Before dealing with the Facisti, I wilt make a few preliminary remarks.

When the Socialist Party has grown sufficiently to become a serious menace to the Capitalists and inspires the latter with alarm, they will undoubtedly use all available methods to extinguish Socialist propaganda and hinder the development of the Party. But there are certain limitations to the methods that can be employed. Methods that would bring chaos into the system will be avoided, as the Capitalists themselves would go down in the ruin. They dare not make any serious permanent alteration in the method of carrying on the system, with the object of hindering the worker from giving expression to his wishes. The main social functions are not carried out by Capitalists, but by officials elected to various bodies; among which are the Parliamentary, County and Local Bodies. An important interference with the method of appointing officials to such bodies, operating for any considerable length of time, would put the system out of gear and the Capitalists out of their present position. Anarchy will not suit the Capitalists. This fact is forcing Mussolini to modify his methods now he is in power.

Italy is a comparatively young nation and the nationalist spirit is still strong there. After the War, work in the industries that had catered for war fell off and, as in other countries, unemployment suddenly grew to tremendous proportions. The organisation of the large corporations had improved ; waste was cut down to an extent never attained before; machinery and mass production methods had undergone a hot-house development; and these corporations had obtained such a firm control over industry that many of the smaller fry had been ruined and thrown into the ranks of the working class though still retaining a vivid recollection of and hankering after their former privileged position.

Immediately after the War, the workers flocked into the trade unions under the influence of the war-time promises of the Capitalists and the peace-time promises of the “men-of-action.” But they were very soon disillusioned of their hopes. The industrial movement that culminated in the occupation of the factories had a disastrous ending, and the “land for the peasants movement” collapsed.

The Fascisti, at first a small and insignificant group, promised the Italian workers a classless state, a state above parties, which would consolidate Italy’s war gains. It further promised a new electoral law, equal suffrage for women, the eight-hour day, progressive income-tax, and demanded an enquiry into war profits. It also organised a trade union with the object of harmonising the interests of employers and employed.

This policy attracted to its support employers, disbanded soldiers still suffering from patriotic fever and lack of employment, ex-officers, disappointed town workers of all kinds, peasants, and ruined small masters who thought they saw in the new movement a chance of re-establishment. The growth of the Fascisti was assisted by the compromising and barren policy of the Italian parties that laid claim to the intellectual leadership of the workers, and by the clandestine assistance of the Government. In the main, the movement represented, as far as the workers were concerned, a clutching at straws. Intimidation of workers, of course, was resorted to, but the support obtained by this means was small compared with that freely given.

There were other important factors in the situation, but space will not permit me going further into the matter.

The Fascisti movement then, was composed of a mixture of opposing elements, and it flourished by Governmental favour. Since success has come to it the internal opposition is becoming more and more insistent in spite of the recent victory at the polls. It is made up mainly of workers and it has been unable to fulfil the promises made to its poorer adherents.

In due course Fascism will break down of its own weight and the class antagonism between master and worker, employer and employed, will become more clearly demonstrated than ever. Even the military force it has organised contains the seeds of collapse, and will soon prove a broken reed in the day of trial. Fascism, therefore, far from stopping the growth of Socialism, is only a momentary halt—like the Communist movement—before a leap forward. Mussolini has been compelled by conditions to modify more and more his dictatorship, and though he may for a time interfere with electoral methods, conditions will force him to allow more opportunity for the carrying out of the wishes of the mass of the population or pay the penalty—involve himself, and the class he represents, in ruin.

Now for your question as to what the Socialist Party would do if the Facisti comes “out of its lair,” etc., etc. The Socialist Party would do the same as it did during the War, assuming its support were comparatively small—put the Socialist position at every reasonable opportunity, and wait for the inevitable receding of the wave. No working-class party could do more.

But be very careful to note the “if.” Conditions in England are not so favourable to the growth of Fascism as they are abroad. And further by the time the Socialist Party had become sufficiently strong to menace the Capitalists’ position and move them to the action you suggest there would be a very strong body of class-conscious workers in this country who would have no reason for disillusionment, and a still larger mass of workers who would be nearing the Socialist position—conditions which were not present in Italy. At such a time then the development of Fascism in England would be very unlikely.

Gilmac.

Engels quote. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “With the seizing of the means of production by Society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in Social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of Nature, because he has now become master of his own Social organisation. . . .  It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.”

Frederick Engels

Marx on Free Trade. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from May “S.S.”)

Do not believe, gentlemen, that it is a matter of indifference to the working man whether he receives only four francs on account of corn being cheaper, when he had been receiving five francs before.

Have not his wages always fallen in comparison with profit ? And is it not clear that his social position has grown worse as compared with that of the capitalist ? Beside which he loses actually. So long as the price of corn was higher and wages were also higher, a small saving in the consumption of bread sufficed to procure him other enjoyments. But as soon as bread is cheap, and wages are therefore low, he can save almost nothing on bread for the purchase of other articles.

The English working men have shown the English Free Traders that they are not the dupes of their illusions or of their lies; and if, in spite of this, the workers have made common cause with the manufacturers against the landlords, it is for the purpose of destroying the last remnant of feudalism, that henceforth they may have only one enemy to deal with. The workers have not miscalculated, for the landlords, in order to revenge themselves upon the manufacturers, have made common cause with the workers to carry the Ten Hours Bill, which the latter had been vainly demanding for thirty years, and which was passed immediately after the repeal of the Corn Laws.

When Dr. Bowring, at the Congress of Economists, drew from his pocket a long list to show how many head of cattle, how much ham, bacon, poultry, etc., is imported into England, to be consumed — as he asserted — by the workers, he forgot to state that at the same time the workers of Manchester and other factory towns were thrown out of work by the beginning of the crisis.

As a matter of principal in political economy, the figures of a single year must never be taken as the basis for formulating general laws. We must always take the average of from six to seven years, a period during which modern industry passes through the successive phases of prosperity, overproduction, crisis, thus completing the inevitable cycle.

Doubtless, if the price of all commodities falls — and this is the necessary consequence of Free Trade — I can buy far more for a franc than before. And the working man’s franc is as good as any other man’s. Therefore Free Trade must be advantageous to the working man. There is only one little difficulty in this, namely that the workman, before he exchanges his franc for other commodities, has first exchanged his labour for the money of the capitalist. If in this exchange he always received the said franc while the price of all other commodities fell, he would always be the gainer by such a bargain. The difficulty does not lie in proving that the price of all commodities falling more commodities can be bought for the same sum of money.

Economists always take the price of labour at the moment of its exchange with other commodities, and altogether ignore the moment at which labour accomplishes its own exchange with capital. When it costs less to set in motion the machinery which produces commodities, then the things necessary for the maintenance of this machine, called workman, will also cost less. If all commodities are cheaper, labour, which is a commodity too, will also fall in price, and we shall see later that this commodity, labour, will fall far lower in proportion than all other commodities. If the working man still pins his faith to the arguments of the economists, he will find, one fine morning, that the franc has dwindled in his pocket, and that he has only five sous left.

Thereupon the economists will tell you :–

  “We admit that competition among the workers will certainly not be lessened under Free Trade, and will very soon bring wages into harmony with the low price of commodities. But, on the other hand, the low price of commodities will increase consumption, the larger consumption will increase production, which will in turn necessitate a larger demand for labour, and this larger demand will be followed by a rise in wages.

  

   “The whole line of argument amounts to this : Free Trade increases productive forces. When manufactures keep advancing, when wealth, when the productive forces, when, in a word, productive capital increases, the demand for labour, the price of labour, and consequently the rate of wages, rises also.”

The most favourable condition for the working man is the growth of capital. This must be admitted : when capital remains stationary, commerce and manufacture are not merely stationary but decline, and in this case the workman is the first victim. He goes to the wall before the capitalist. And in the case of the growth of capital, under the circumstances, which, as we have said, are the best for the working man, what will be his lot? He will go to the wall just the same. The growth of capital implies the accumulation and the concentration of capital. This centralization involves a greater division of labour and a greater use of machinery. The greater division of labour destroys the especial skill of the labourer; and by putting in the place of this skilled work labour which any one can perform, it increases competition among the workers.

This competition becomes more fierce as the division of labour enables a single man to do the work of three. Machinery accomplishes the same result on a much larger scale. The accumulation of productive capital forces the industrial capitalist to work with constantly increasing means of production, ruins the small manufacturer, and drives him into the proletariat. Then, the rate of interest falling in proportion as capital accumulates, the people of small means and retired tradespeople, who can no longer live upon their small incomes, are forced to look out for some business again and ultimately to swell the number of proletarians. Finally, the more productive capital grows, the more it is compelled to produce for a market whose requirements it does not know—the more supply tries to force demand, and consequently crises increase in frequency and in intensity. But every crisis in turn hastens the concentration of capital, adds to the proletariat. Thus, as productive capital grows, competition among the workers grows too, and grows in a far greater proportion. The reward of labour is less for all, and the burden of labour is increased for at least some of them.

To be continued

Knowledge. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Brief Sketch of the Materialist Conception of History - Part 2 (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Part 2

In our previous article in the May issue we pointed out that the Materialist conception of history regards the development of the means and methods of wealth production and distribution as the motive force and main cause of the changes in the forms of society. We said that this view of historical development had been subjected to a considerable amount of misrepresentation, and we promised to show that Marx and Engels did not, as is alleged by some of their opponents, fail to realise the importance of other factors in history besides the economic one. However, before proceeding to do this, let us look a little closer at our theory of history. In contrast with the old method of treating history, which emphasised the doings and mis-doings of kings and queens, and those of the so-called great men, as the most important of historical happenings, the more up-to-date method, the scientific method, of treating history, has for its theme not only the activities of mankind in general, but also the conditions under which men have lived at different stages of social development. The application of the principle of evolution is. generally speaking, no longer confined exclusively to what is called the purely natural world, but is likewise applied to human history. ” For,” says Engels, “we live not only in nature, but in human society, and this has its theory of development and its science no less than nature.”

As with natural history, which shows us that the struggle for the food supply is the fundamental principle of organic evolution, so with human history is the quest for food, clothing and shelter, together with the development of the means employed to produce these, the fundamental principle in the historical development of human society. In the quest for food, clothing and shelter, human beings do not live in a state of isolation from each other. They belong to the social animals, and since the conditions of their existence cannot be met in isolation, they are compelled to enter into relations with each other in order to live. In other words, the primary factor which holds human-beings together in society is the need for satisfying their economic requirements. Now how does man satisfy his economic requirements? The means of subsistence do not fall from heaven; they have to be produced from surrounding nature by human effort, and this brings us to the question of the means employed by man to produce the wherewithal to live.

Benjamin Franklin has aptly defined man as a tool-making animal. The fact that man can make tools is one of the main distinctions between himself and the lower animals from which he is descended. Not as a tool user is man to be distinguished from his pre-human ancestors, for many of these use tools such as sticks, as weapons of defence, and stones for cracking nuts. Man alone among those who compose the animal kingdom is capable of making tools at will. Whilst the lower animals have to depend upon their own bodily organs, and such tools as are found ready to hand in nature, they are unable to. rise above the limits set by nature. But with man the position is entirely different, for inasmuch as he produces tools he supplements his bodily organs and by the use of these tools is able to overcome the obstacles, and to a large extent rise above the limits set by his physical or natural surroundings. In other words, whilst the' lower animals adapt themselves to their environment, man as a tool-making animal is able to adapt the environment to himself.

To the extent that man produces and develops the tools which he uses to obtain the means of subsistence, he develops for himself a new set of conditions to which in turn he adapts himself in order to live. To illustrate what is meant by this, let us take an example from man’s existence during the period of savagery. In the very earliest stage of human existence, when man’s home was in the tropical or sub-tropical forests, the tools used by man to obtain the means of subsistence were not above those used by some of the lower animals. Part of the time of our primitive ancestors of this period was spent in trees, as only in this way could they “escape the attacks of large beasts of prey and survive.” Fruit, nuts and roots were the main means of subsistence, and. in such conditions as prevailed at this stage of human existence we can well say that man was at the mercy of his natural surroundings. But, when, at a later period of human development, man had discovered the use of fire and had acquired the ability to make it at will, an entirely new set of conditions were set up as a consequence. Our primitive ancestors were able, as a consequence of the use of fire, to leave the forests, add fish, which only becomes palatable by means of cooking, to their food supply, and by following the courses of rivers, and the shores of seas and lakes, they spread more generally over the greater part of the earth with less regard for climate and locality. Concerning these migrations of early man through his discovery of the use of fire, Morgan points out:—

  “Of the fact of these migrations there is abundant evidence in the remains of flint and stone implements of the Status of Savagery found upon all the continents. In reliance upon fruits and spontaneous subsistence a removal from the original habitat would have been impossible.” (Ancient Society, page 21.)

At a much later period, when man had invented the bow and arrow we find fresh conditions of existence obtaining largely as a result of this invention. The hunting of big game to serve as means of subsistence, which hitherto had brought forth only scanty results, since man’s only tools or weapons in the hunt were the crude club and spear, was, as a consequence of the use of the bow and arrow, taken up as a normal occupation, and meat was added more regularly to the food supply.

As Morgan says concerning the invention of the bow and arrow :—

   “This remarkable invention, which came in after the spear war club, and gave the first deadly weapon for the hunt, appeared late in savagery. It has been used to mark the commencement of its Upper Status. It must have given a powerful upward influence to ancient society, standing in the same relation to the period of savagery, as the iron sword the period of Barbarism, and the fire-arms to the period of civilisation.”— (Ancient Society, page 22.)

The invention of the bow and arrow, like the discovery of the use of fire led more or less directly to many remarkable changes in the conditions of human existence. But of these changes more will be said later. Here our chief concern is to stress the importance of the development of tools as the propelling force in social change. The word tools, it must be noted, is used by us in the wider sense to include all the means which are used in general by man to produce and distribute wealth. The telegraph, and the telephone, the giant machines of the cotton mill and the vast ocean liner used to carry wealth to all parts of the earth, are, from this point of view, just as much tools to our mode of living to-day, as the club and spear, and the bow and arrow were to the mode of living of our savage ancestors. With the progress of time the tools of wealth production and distribution develop so rapidly and become so varied and complex that we are apt to lose sight of them as being tools. Nevertheless, as said above, all the means of wealth production are tools in the wide sense of the term.

Now it is this development of tools which Marx and Engels saw to be the main cause of social change, but they did not stupidly imagine that this development took place apart from man’s conscious activity. On the contrary, they fully realised that man spurred on by economic necessity, that is, the necessity for gaining a greater economic security, played an active part in the process. But not an active part independently of time and conditions, but as determined by conditions at particular stages of social development. Whilst realising the overwhelming influence of material conditions in shaping human thought and conduct, Marx and Engels also realised the importance of man’s reaction on his environment.

The materialist conception of history as formulated by them cannot logically be said to imply an economic fatalism which would place man at the mercy of economic forces much in the same manner as a billiard ball is at the mercy of rival billiard players.

Now let us turn to the works of Marx and Engels for proof of what has been said.

In his work, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Buonaparte,” Marx, in dealing with a series of events in French history leading to the rise to power of Napoleon„the Third, says: -

  “Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of the whole cloth, he does not make it out of conditions chosen by himself, but out of conditions such as he finds close at hand.”

This passage, rightly interpreted, leaves no room for the charge of fatalism.

In the first volume of Capital, when dealing with “the Labour process,” Marx, stressing the importance of man’s reaction upon his environment, says :—

   “Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and nature participate, and which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and nature. He opposes himself to nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that stage in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We presuppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi. and to which he must subordinate his will.”— (Page 157)

Robert Reynolds. 

(To be continued.)

Link to Part 3.

The Fraud of Reform. (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

In spite of the manifest failure of the "Labour” Government to solve the problems facing the working class the majority of its supporters still seem to cling to the idea that such a government contains their only hope. The failure is excused on the ground that the Labour Party are in office but not in power, and it does not appear to strike those who echo this excuse that it is in itself an admission that the Labour Party is prepared to depend upon the support of sections of the master class in turn and to give the necessary services to that class in return. The execution by the “Labour” Government of various items of policy inherited from.their Tory predecessors is overlooked and we are asked to be grateful for the abolition of the gap, promises of increased pensions and the reduction of indirect taxation.

The Labour Party’s supporters appear to consider these acts as real measures of improvement of working class conditions, and that with a “Labour” majority in the House of Commons more blessings will descend on their patient heads. Let us examine the grounds for such assumption.

Take the abolition of the gap. The present writer recently heard one unemployed leader declare that even if the Government had done nothing else, this act alone entitled them to working class support. Yet, why was the unemployment insurance established in the first place? Was it to make existence easier for the unemployed? If so, then Lloyd George is entitled to support rather than the Labour Party, who have merely modified one of his measures; but the object of National Insurance in all its forms for that matter was no piece of Capitalist philanthropy. The master class have not yet commenced to give us something for nothing.

Shortly before the abolition of the gap, the chairman of the Glasgow Parish Council gave away the key of the situation. In an interview with the Minister of Health, reported in the Daily Herald, he stated that the gap cost his Council £200,000 in outdoor relief. The Minister in the House of Commons announced that the abolition of the gap would cost the Stale an additional £500,000

Thus, it is easy to see that two-fifths of the amount laid out by the State will be saved by the Glasgow property owners alone. Two other cities, saving similar amounts would wipe out the outlay and show a profit for the ‘‘nation” of £100,000. The unemployed are merely transferred for the purpose of relief from the local to the national authorities because such centralisation is cheaper.

The same remarks apply to pensions. When Lloyd George introduced old age pensions, he pointed out that it cost more to maintain old slaves in workhouses than to give them a State pension. The State simply relieved the local authorities of part of the increasing financial burden caused by the increase of poverty among the workers. The Labour Party propose to carry the process a step further. They propose that a still greater share of the burden shall fall on the National Exchequer knowing full well that this will result in a reduction of the amount paid out by the master class as a whole in proportion to the number of slaves pensioned.

What working man can seriously consider that the miserable pittances suggested really relieve poverty. If the intention is to make the pensioned ones comfortable and free from care, how are we to explain the scantiness of the means? Remember, fellow slaves, the millions squandered to make your masters’ property safe by means of four years of carnage before you repeat the silly lie that there is not enough wealth to do it.

What applies to old age pensions, of course applies equally to mothers’ pensions and so on. Mr.. Arthur Henderson, during the Burnley bye-election, stated that the Government’s object was to prevent needy mothers applying to the Poor Law authorities.

Generally we find the same dodge on the part of our masters. They pretend to give with one hand something but it is less than they take away with the other.

The anxiety of the Labour Government and its supporters to justify their existence in the eyes of the property owners was well exemplified in the debate on the administration of the Poplar area. The Minister of Health showed that the inability of his predecessors to enforce the Mond order proved that the Poplar Guardians had (in spite of accusations to the contrary) kept relief down to the minimum possible in view of the extreme destitution in the area concerned. George Lansbury proudly claimed that they had kept the peace in the East End for years. Who for? There is only one answer. The masters see in the rising tide of destitution a standing menace to the security of their property. The more starving men and women there are, the more danger there is of theft and other such crimes being committed. The choice is between increased protection in the shape of an additional police force and so-called "relief.” It is cheaper to dole out a few "bob” per head to the hungry than to feed, clothe, house and equip a large staff of extra police, and so we find that as the years go on and the army of the unemployed mounts from hundreds of thousands to millions and the general scope of destitution grows larger, the dole has to be enlarged and the need for economy in its administration becomes more keenly felt by the masters, from whose coffers it must come.

Hence we find centralisation schemes being adopted, extended and revised as experience and growing pressure dictates to our rulers. There is no "new spirit” embodied in the Labour Party’s policy in this matter. All the pious bosh of Ramsay Macdonald and his gang merely accentuates their disgusting meanness and contempt for the interests of the class in whose name they profess to act. Their "Socialism” is merely the bourgeois variety mentioned by Marx and Engels in the "Communist Manifesto” which professes with its lips to serve the workers but in its actual practice simplifies and economises Capitalist government.

The reduction of taxation in any shape or form cannot benefit the workers as a class for the simple reason that their energy is a commodity, the price of which is based on the cost of living. Even if we grant for sake of argument that taxes affect prices in the long run, the reduction in the cost of living involves no improvement in the general condition of the workers. It only provides the masters with an opportunity and excuse for reducing wages. In fact, the greater part of the existence of the workers on the economic field may be summed up thus :—Fighting for a rise when prices go up and fighting against a reduction when prices fall.

Yet, in spite of these perfectly obvious facts, we have sentimental humbugs proclaiming themselves the workers’ saviours because they have taken fourpence off tea. We are not impressed. They are merely imitators. Their Liberal precursors have given us our stomach-full long enough ago.

Fellow workers, so long as a small class possess the means of life, you will toil in poverty for them; and reforms will do nothing to lift the burden. Socialism alone will do that. Organise for the common ownership of the earth and all that the workers’ hands have wrought.

Eric Boden

Reading . . . (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man and writing- an exact man; and, therefore, if a man write little, he had ' need have a great memory; if he confer little, he had need have present wit; and if he read little, he had need have much cunning to seem to know what he doth not.”

Francis Bacon

We Mean No ill! (1924)

From the June 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is the name given to a future state of society in which all the people physically and mentally fit will take a part in doing whatever is necessary, according to their capacities, and in return will receive whatever they require that is within the power of Society to provide, with due regard to the needs of each. The more important of such things are food, clothing and shelter.

We only require the best food and in sufficient quantity to keep us satisfied and healthy; it is not essential that we should have an endless gorge. We only require the best of clothing and in sufficient quantity for comfort and adornment; it is not essential that we should make ourselves into clothes horses. We only require sufficient housing accommodation to enable us to live comfortably and free from foul smells and unsightliness; we do not require an endless number of rooms to get lost in.

There are people so satiated with food that eating has become a bore; we would relieve them of their boredom. There are others who are in an eternal sweat changing from one suit of clothes to another; we would ease their toil. There are others again doomed to occupy vast mansions of numberless rooms; we would relieve them of their solitude.

There are people again, and these are the great majority, who know not the meaning of a stomach regularly filled with the best of food, clothing in sufficiency and patchless, houses comfortable and sanitary; we would see them lifted out of their misery and placed in the midst of comfort and security.

We would convert the lives of one class from the endless hurry after pleasures that do not satisfy to the leisurely pursuit of useful work that elevates and is a pleasure in itself. We would convert the lives of the other class from toilsome work in occupations they detest, that does not always guarantee them even a bare existence, into work the performance of which will fill them with joy and leave them to end their days in tranquility.

Why then does the one class view our friendly offers with hatred whilst the other views them with suspicion and apathy? Heigho! This is a funny old world!

Gilmac