Utopia or Bolshevism? A New Way Out For An Enterprising Government. (1920)

Pamphlet Review from the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Problem of Healthy Towns and a Healthy Industrial System."  By Captain J. W. Petavel, Lecturer on the Poverty Problem, Calcutta University. Reprinted from "The Englishman," Calcutta, for the Calcutta University Poverty Problem Study Fund. 1920.

In this pamphlet Captain Petavel is chiefly concerned with the physical deterioration of the workers as revealed by official documents compiled for recruiting purposes. He says : "As a matter of fact the well recognised causes of this evil are absolutely removable ones ; and though it indeed came to us with our industrial system, and owing to certain conditions that arose with it, these conditions need not have arisen, and could be removed."

What the World Waited For.

But if the Captain's plan is the only solution, the fact that it had to wait for him to discover it disposes of his contention that the evils need never to have been. Obviously the remedy could not be applied until the man was born who discovered it and persuaded those in power to adopt it.

Unfortunately, although referring to the causes as being "well-recognised," the Captain does not explain what they are, and as every party, reformer, and quack has "well-recognised" causes of his own, to fit each particular creed or philosophy, we cannot rectify the omission, and must examine his scheme as he presents it: "a plan to modify our industrial system in order to prevent the appalling physical deterioration for which it is responsible."

The Captain's Muddled Mixture.

This is distinctly unfortunate because the only sensible way to approach any such question is first to trace the evils to their cause and then examine the possibilities of removing the cause.

A further disadvantage is the writer's confusion on the subject of Socialism. First he says that "Socialism, as conceived by its more intelligent advocates, is a plan, not to abolish our industrial system, but to purge it of these evils, " which is what he proposes to do himself by means of his plan. Secondly he points out that "if the propertied class does not promptly deal with the evils they will be giving the workers every excuse to try Bolshevism, Socialism, or whatever plausible plan is suggested to them." But if Socialism is what he previously described it to be why should anybody object? In his mind Bolshevism is evidently something bloody and terrible, and Socialism can be the same—if it is only plausible.

Our reformer's most amusing statements about Socialism, however, are the following.

The Queer Side.

On page 1 he says: "As, however, we are not prepared to accept Socialism, what is wanted is an enlightened public opinion, free from party and class spirit, to demand just what measures are necessary to remove them " (the evils). That again is a repetition of his definition of Socialism together with a statement that we are not prepared to accept it; therefore the only thing left is, to get on with it.

On page 12, after a lengthy explanation of his scheme—which is calculated to achieve what the "more intelligent Socialists" have for their object—the Captain suggests that as there are still likely to be people who are not satisfied with the system and demand Socialism, they should be given the opportunity to establish Socialist communities on a small scale, being provided by the Government with the necessary machinery to carry oat their experiment. But this, he says, "would not really be Socialism, but would be better described as State organised co-operative production." So that what he first describes as Socialism he afterwards denies to be Socialism by providing for Socialism within it, which in its turn is not Socialism but something else !

A Travesty of Socialism. 

Two pages of this work are devoted to "Guild Socialism," which the writer describes as "one of the most picturesque institutions of the past." His description of the way it would work shows the absurdity of this remark. "The Guild undertakes work and divides it among its members, so that all have their share of it and of pay. When there is a great deal of work, all work long hours, when there is less, all work a short time; the more work there is the more money there is coming in, and the guild pays everybody proportionately more."

Nothing is said as to what should determine the numbers to be admitted to each guild ; it being obviously to the interest of every member to keep out new-comers, in order to keep the share-out higher. On a small scale this idea is already in operation in many factories to-day, where the working day is shortened or lengthened in accordance with the state of trade. It is no solution to the working-class "problem." It is not even an improvement, because there is no more to divide than previously. The product of labour is still shared between the capitalists, who do not share in its production, and the workers, who get the meanest and poorest share.

To the latter every plan must be unsatisfactory that includes any provision whatever for a class that rules, yet does not justify its existence.

Capitalists could Ruin—Themselves.

Having seen how confused Captain Petavel is on the subject of Socialism, we shall not be surprised to discover that his ideas on capitalism and capitalists are none too clear, On page 18 he says : "A democratic government has it in its power absolutely to ruin town landlords. It could, on the perfectly sincere plea of public health, acquire large tracts of cheap land away from the towns, and let them out for building at fixed rates, making the railways convey the people to and fro for the smallest coin in circulation."

A democratic government could do these things and many more : but would they ?

Captain Petavel's scheme depends for its finance on a system of heavy taxation of land values ; which he says, by the way, would be no hardship to the landlords, since they could have full compensation.

How this is to be effected and the money still be available to finance the scheme does not appear, unless it is by the same method that the Jersey Corporation adopted when it proposed to build its market hall for nothing. Captain Petavel is enamoured of this scheme, though he tells us why it failed. "The money lenders put the law into operation against it and had it stopped, so that the full advantage was not realised." They evidently saw who would be at a disadvantage, though even now the Captain fails to see that anybody could suffer from a scheme so apparently innocent.

Unconsidered Trifles.

Captain Petavel's scheme is mainly concerned with the material basis of the present industrial system. Social relationships, interests, and class antagonisms are slurred over or altogether ignored. The re-arrangement of towns according to a settled plan, and the improvement of transport are the biggest items on his programme. His idea of town-planning is that the big business houses should occupy the centre of the towns, and that the roads should radiate outwards like the spokes of a wheel. These roads should be wide, with fenced-in tramways and elevated stopping places to bring the cars rapidly to rest and re-start them. Books of tickets should be issued to the workers at rates varying according to the rents they paid, thus ensuring a cheap and rapid service.

These main roads could be occupied by business concerns, stores, etc., while behind them, in the angles formed by the roads converging toward the centre, could be residential dwellings with open spaces, small near the centre, and larger toward the outskirts.

A Bit Late.

Like all town-planning schemes in this country, however, this one is invented after the towns have grown up, and the cost of alterations, together with the serious interference with capitalist interests which it would involve prevents anything being done on a large scale. To meet this difficulty Captain Petavel proposes a tax on land values, every site to be taxed according to the profit made on it, or according to its proximity to the centre of the town. Some would pay the tax and thus provide the cost, while others would take the cheaper sites further out and thus enable the authorities to re-arrange the towns on the new plan.

In towns planned in this way, the space between the roads would, of course, be greater as the distance from the centre was increased. This space could be used for recreation grounds or for agriculture.. The chief advantage, says the Captain, would come to the workers by this arrangement; they could occupy the outlying districts, where vacant land would be plentiful. They could then produce the bulk of their food-stuffs for themselves. Their food would thus be fresh, and it would only be necessary for them to work a very few hours in the factories per day.

The towns would thus be healthier, the workers would spend most of their time in healthy occupations, and only a very short time in the poisonous atmosphere and monotonous tasks of the factory.

The grounds on which the Captain pleads for his scheme are the health and efficiency of the workers. Better health and greater efficiency make for greater production, and therefore higher profits for the capitalist class. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the workers would still be wage-slaves, exploited by a class above them, a class that owns the means of wealth production.

Captain Petavel puts his plan forward as an alternative to Socialism. If he succeeds in persuading the capitalist class to adopt it, the evils of the capitalist system will still remain, because they are bred by the system, and the system remains.

Whatever changes or reforms the ruling class may decide to introduce, the duty of the workers is to organise politically for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. They must refuse to be side-tracked by reformers, Bolshevik wild men, or Utopians.

F. Foan

"Check to the Bishop." (1920)

"The Bishop"

From the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bishop Welldon is very amusing: he asks ridiculous questions and raises a laugh—against himself ! As witness the following :

  "What can be more ridiculous amongst the Labour parties than that the very men who clamour for the abolition of international warfare should be the first and foremost to declare industrial warfare by striking again and again for increases of wages.
  "If arbitration is the proper means of settling disputes among nations it must be the proper means among classes too. If the hope of civilisation lies in the League of Nations, is there no hope in, no need of, a league of classes?"

-"Daily News," 25.8.20.

Like most of the men in clerical camps, he suffers from confusion of ideas when he deals with economics and politics.

There is one thing, though, that he has learned, namely, that THERE ARE CLASSES in our present day society.

That is a good basis from which to investigate the composition of the social structure ; it will lead him to understand why there is a class division, and may possibly lead him to understand the principles of Socialism.

The bishop speaks of the Labour parties, by which I take it he means the whole of the various groups supposed to represent the interest of the working class, as though their two mentioned activities were inconsistent and absurd. They are: (1) clamouring for the abolition of international warfare; (2) declaring industrial warfare by striking again and again for increases of wages.

These things are quite understandable, for the first, international warfare, means that it is working class who have to wage war on behalf of the master class, and have to risk physical and mental ruin, and death itself, for the war-making capitalists.

They have to destroy in warfare, the workers of other countries, who are similarly pitted against them.

The workers of all lands are wage slaves. They have the same miserable lot, of whatever race they may be. Also, let Bishop Welldon understand, they have one common foe—the capitalist class the world over.

And bishops, whether well done or only half baked, generally can be relied upon to back up the latter most religiously.

With regard to the workers "declaring industrial warfare by striking again and again for increases of wages," it would be well for the Bishop to grasp the fact that, so long as the wages system continues there will be strife between those who own the means of wealth-production and those who operate those means for wages.

The workers are only allowed access to the instruments of labour in order that they may produce more wealth than they have returned to them in the form of wages, hence they are exploited—robbed. And as a natural consequence they try to lessen the extent of that exploitation by struggling for increases of wages. Even a bishop would do the same.

And the strike—the withholding of our labour-power—to gain a tiny advantage is one of the weapons that labour is self-defensively compelled to use. The employers, on their part, make war on labour—generally with success. They "speed up" production on the one hand, and on the other eliminate wherever possible anything that threatens their chance of extracting surplus-value from the economically forced labour of their slaves.

But bishops, as a rule, don't see that side of the shield. They want the wheels of industry running smoothly so that Rent, Interest, and Profit shall be assured to the class to which they belong. And they supply the oil of admonition in order to keep the workers docile, diligent, and contented in the position in which "Providence" places them.

What we of the Socialist Party have to declare stoutly is that the working class don't go for the root of the matter—only the Socialists do.

We of the S.P.G.B. are out for the abolition of the wages system—the result of the private ownership of the means of life. We want the workers to grip the fact that it is just this— the way in which these means are used against our class by our exploiters—that causes all the misery.

We desire the overthrow of the capitalist system, and in its place the establishment of Socialism. Then production for the use of all will take the place of the pernicious production for the profit of a few, and a new and splendid era will open up for mankind.

Mere clamour against international warfare will not prevent its occurrence. War after war will and must be waged while capitalism lasts. Why? Because under capitalism it is the conflict of capitalist groups that starts the war machinery, and the battle field is the arena where is decided what fails to be decided in the political ring.

The Bishop thinks highly of arbitration. He considers that if it is the proper means among nations it must be the proper means among classes too.

Let it be said right here that we of the S.P.G.B. say the day of arbitration is long past.

We wage war against CAPITALISM, and therefore are out to rid the earth of it. We look on it as the social upas-tree, whose very shade is blighting !

And the world's workers, when they are educated in economics and Socialist principles, and organised for the capture of political power, will soon annihilate it root and branch.

There is no hope for a capitalist-formed "League of Nations": thieves who quarrel over the commercial "swag" once will quarrel over it again !

There is no hope of a "league of classes. " The Bishop, if he thinks, must admit it to be "ridiculous."

We want the abolition of the system causing the class division. We desire the speedy overthrow of the bloody system that is built up out working-class slavery and exploitation.

We are out for SOCIALISM !

Graham May

A Brief Exposition of Socialist Theory. (Continued.) (1920)

From the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 5.

Perhaps it would not be out of place here to refer briefly to two statements made by the advocates of industrial action as arguments against political action.

The first is the statement that Parliamentary leaders always betray the workers and a Socialist delegate would do the same.

In the first place "leaders" almost invariably betray, and those who trust in "leaders" deserve to be betrayed. But, apart from that, is it only Parliamentary "leaders" that have betrayed the workers? Have the latter never been betrayed on the industrial field ? A cursory examination of the multitude of strikes that have taken place during even recent years will provide myriads of examples of betrayal on the part of those "leaders" whom the workers were foolish enough to entrust with power to make settlements (behind closed doors!) in industrial disputes. How often and how regularly are the workers sold in the agreements the trade union leaders make with the employers! The last railway and coal disputes are cases in point, and another illustration will be provided in the fresh coal dispute that, at the time of writing, is looming on the horizon.

When the workers get out of their heads the demoralising idea of leadership there will be less room for the betrayer and less heard of betrayal.

The main point of the matter is that Socialist Parliamentary delegates will have no means of betraying those who appoint them. They will be given their instructions and if the instructions are not carried out their career will be ended, and they will have betrayed none but themselves. Delegates will be selected according to their capacity to carry out the instructions of those who appoint them, and a loud voice or truculent demeanour will carry little weight with a class-conscious electorate.

The second point we wish to refer to is that claiming that Marx and Engels were not in favour of the workers striving to obtain control of the political machinery. The basis of this contention is a sentence in "The Civil War in France" that has been torn from its context. The sentence is: 

  "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made machinery and wield it for its own purposes."

This statement appears before Marx's summary of the development of the State, and he then goes on to show why the working class cannot wield it for its own purposes. The reason is that the State is a repressive power used against a subject class. As there will be no subject class in the new society there will be no use for a repressive power. In other words, that capitalist State machinery will not be applicable to Socialism, as the place of a repressive power will be taken by administrative machinery. Marx nowhere suggests that the workers should abstain from laying hold of the State machinery. On the contrary, the argument that follows the above quotation makes it clear that the workers must take this power out of the hands of the capitalists, and illustrates how the Communards accomplished this end and then set about constructing administrative machinery to suit the new economic conditions where State power was unnecessary. 

As a matter of fact, Engels, in his introduction to the German edition of Marx's work, places the matter beyond doubt when he says : 

  "From the very outset the Commune had to recognise that the working class, having once attained supremacy in the State, could not work with the old machinery of government."

Engels concludes his introduction with the following pregnant remarks:

  "But in reality the State is nothing else than a machine for the oppression of one class by another class, and that no less so in the democratic republic than under the monarchy. At the very best it is an inheritance of evil, bound to be transmitted to the proletariat when it has become victorious in its struggle for class supremacy, and the worst features of which it will have to lop off at once, as the Communards did, until a new race, grown up under new, free social conditions, will be in a position to shake off from itself this State rubbish in its entirety".—"The Paris Commune," New York Labor News Co., 1919.

After the Hague Congress of September 1872 Marx addressed a meeting in Amsterdam, when he said:

  "A group had arisen in our midst which proclaimed working-class abstinence from political work.
  We deemed it our duty to declare how dangerous and how threatening such opinions may become to our cause.
  The worker must, sometime, get the political power into his own hands, in order to lay the foundation of a new organisation of labour. He must overthrow the old political system that upholds the old institutions, unless he is ready, like the old Christians — to sacrifice the ‘Kingdom of this world.’"—Quoted from "Socialist Documents." Appeal Socialist Classics (America).

Gilmac.

(To be continued.)

The Reason of It. (1920)

From the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

To save the next generation is, according to "Lloyd's News" (8.8.20) the mission of a tearing campaign through London, that is to be inaugurated by a "distinguished body" representing all denominations and young people's organisations, headed by Mr. Lloyd George and the Bishops of Barking and Stepney.

These gentlemen, fresh from the contemplation of the divine spectacle of the butchery of millions of working men, the starvation of millions of working-class women and children, the drowning of thousands of seamen, the murder of miners, the atrocity of Amritsar, recoil with horror from the "paganism" of the rising generation.

Therefore, fellow workers, Lloyd George and Co. would fain lead your little ones away from the "appalling examples of licentiousness all around them." To do this they will not consider such sordid material things as tenement life, child factory labour, insufficient and adulterated food, clothing, etc., in short, the beastly conditions in which the children are reared. No! They will appeal to the heart, because to admit that conditions are responsible would of necessity involve the alteration of those conditions.

David, however, is not concerned about the vices or virtues of the workers, but, as the representative of the capitalist class, he is perturbed at the growing tendency of the workers to question and criticise the institutions of capitalism.

Mr. George knows that in view of the more frequent and more violent manifestations of the class struggle, greater attention must be paid to the dulling of the intellects of the potential wage slaves. Those beautiful dreams; Homes for Heroes; Fields of Waving Corn, have failed to materialise. Instead there are the keener competition of children with their parents, a growing army of unemployed, prostitution, famine, and disease rampant, dark clouds hovering over the industrial field, and the probability of more wars. No wonder that our children will have need of the "corrective of the self discipline of Christianity."

So our far-seeing capitalists see to it that every inducement is made to working-class children, to entice them into the wage-slave organisations—the boy scouts, girl guides, bands of dope and glory, etc. Our children must be taught to believe in the humility of man, the sanctity of poverty, the shame of idleness, the chastening influence of disease— for the workers. Yes ! Because the capitalist class desires "good and faithful servants," cheap, docile, and ignorant wage slaves. And to get them there is no better preparative than religion.

While the worker's head is full of such notions as God, the devil, and the hereafter, to him his slave condition on this planet is a minor affair. He looks upon his revolting conditions as heaven-sent and unchangeable. That his life and destiny should be controlled in just the same way as the machine which he is compelled to tend gives him no food for thought. The ownership by a small section of society of the economic resources of the whole community, "always has been and always will be"—in his mind.

The Socialist, however, has analysed society from top to bottom. He knows and understands the laws of the development of the social organism. Religion he explains as having its origin in ancestor worship, and owing its development to the changing economic conditions, which will also be responsible for its disappearance in the future. The poverty and degradation of the working class to-day he knows is due to the private ownership of the means of life.

Therefore, reader, he suggests to you that instead of thinking about "changing your heart," you should consider the alteration of the basis of society—to establish in place of the present system, one based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.

What is your view?

A. H.

"A World to Win." (1920)

From the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the finest things ever penned is the clarion call of Karl Marx: "Wage Workers of the World Unite ! You have nothing to lose but your chains, you. have a World to win."

Thoughtless scoffers may deride the profound truths embodied in these vital words, but they are built out of facts, and are impregnable against the assaults of anti-Socialists.

What is the extraordinary significance of this phrase to the working class? Consider the world as it is to-day—the wage-workers and their general conditions first of all.

The working class are divorced from the essentials for producing wealth: they own neither the land nor the means and instruments by which the natural resources are, by their class alone, utilised and transformed into wealth. The expenditure of their labour-power creates all economic wealth, but that wealth is appropriated by their exploiters, the capitalist class, who own the means of life. Out of the total value alone produced by our class, we receive but a small portion—wages—to keep us in bare subsistence to enable us to "carry on" from day to day.

The sole function of the worker is to create wealth in order to produce a surplus-value, i.e., a value which is unpaid for, for their masters. Slaves thus, to the class that own all the means of producing wealth and appropriate all the products, they exist to serve the interests of the exploiting class only. Commodities being produced only for profit, a market must be found for them. They are sold in the long run at their value, and realise profit for their sellers. But embodied in a commodity is far more value created by the labour expended in its production than has been received by the workers for producing it. Practically every single commodity in the world, in fact, contains unpaid labour. And they are all produced by wage-slaves. Through the fleecing wages-system the greater part of the value of all commodities represents the robbery of their producers through capitalist exploitation.

Their labour-power is bought solely for that purpose !

They have to toil far longer than is necessary to create the wealth they require to maintain themselves; and the surplus labour-time produces a surplus-value for the exploiting class.

At present the latter are the masters of the world: they own and control humanity's means of life. Their class interests are upheld in every sphere—industrial, social, political. Press, pulpit, and platform reflect their will and make secure their dominance.

And above all they have and wield the political power. Through that alone the Army, Navy, and Police obey their will, and laws are shaped to protect their interests.

Is, then, the position of the workers hopeless? Emphatically no ! They will inevitably be freed from the chains binding them—but the workers alone can and will make them snap. The development of the capitalist system engenders an ever-increasing strife through the innate opposition of interests, proletarian and capitalistic. The workers are driven by the economic forces ringing them round to increased class-consciousness.

What irony that the world is owned and controlled by the capitalists, and a shackled proletariat run the whole concern for them !

Only the workers can free it from the bonds of a pernicious system. "Wage-workers of the World, Unite! " says Marx. The solidarity of the workers, keenly conscious of their class interests and aims, and educated to see their goal and the way to it, will, with organisation, prepare them for capitalism's overthrow.

Crisis after crisis will occur, ever intensifying, as the present system increases in complexity and becomes unworkable. The more the workers feel the economic pinch the more will .they be ready for our propaganda. And Socialist propaganda will have its effect The proletarians' chains will chafe unbearably.

Then will come the Social Revolution !— brought about as the result of capitalism's inability to solve the problems it has created.

Having captured political power, the workers will control it and its adjuncts, overthrowing the present regime and establishing in its place the Socialist Commonwealth.

They have nought but their chains to lose ! They have EVERYTHING to gain by a Socialist system of society. No other class but their own will emancipate them from wage-slavery. No other means but the seizing of the political power, the capture of the machinery of government through the ballot, will enable them to effect their purpose—it's the key!

The economic resources of the world, then, will be organised for the use and benefit of the Community as a whole, by the only class that counts—the workers.

Production for profit will be superseded by production for social use. Exploitation will be extinguished, class ownership of the means of life having been displaced by social ownership in a society in which the class barriers are swept away.

The wondrous means of large-scale production—prolific beyond even our wildest dreams as soon as the stifling hand of capitalism is removed from it—will enable society to create a superabundance of wealth with a minimum of effort—sufficient for all without toil, so that none need look askance at what another eats or enjoys, no hand may be niggard toward its neighbour, and no back warped and bent with drudgery.

As all who are able will have to contribute their share to the work of producing the social wealth, and there will be no parasitic idlers of any kind to maintain, it follows that the daily social effort will furnish abundance for ALL with an unimagined facility.

Thus man's life will not be as now, one long drudgery of wealth-production to enrich the coffers of an idle and thievish class—but it will be life indeed !—full and free as only the conquest of the forces of nature, and equality in the enjoyment of the economic fruits and advantages of that conquest, can afford.

Also all the evils inseparable from capitalism—its inevitable products, in fact, will disappear. Unemployment, overwork, want, prostitution, and all the preventable evils will cease to exist along with capitalism itself.

Mankind, liberated from wage-slavery, will at last be free ! Society then will be one in which oppression, class-rule, and all the anomalies of the present order will have disappeared. The impetus this will give (through the reorganisation by a revolutionary class on a sane economic basis and the consequent liberation of that class) to the devotion of society to things of real worth will be tremendous. The fullest opportunity to gain and keep health of mind and body ; the development of each individual citizen's finest abilities and innate qualities will be accorded every facility; and culture and all that makes life worth living from youth to old age will, under Socialism alone be the birthright of all.

Isn't such a world worth winning ? Compared with the sordid system of the present day the gain for the workers is indeed immeasurable.

The toilers have even now the means at hand for realising Socialism, for they have the preponderance of the votes. All that is lacking is an understanding of their class slavery and how Socialism will free them from it.

Think it over, fellow workers. Consider its meaning to you and your class. Socialism is inevitable but the sooner you are ready for it the sooner you will be able to establish it.

It rests with you, the workers of the world, to liberate yourselves from your slavery, and rid the world of a blighting system of capitalist exploitation.

Workers of all lands, unite ! you have only your chains to lose: you have a world to win!

Graham May

As it was not in the beginning. A chapter on the relationship of the sexes. (1920)

From the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

A letter appeared in the "Daily News" of August 13th last, by Miss Jane Burr, described as "the young American novelist and poet." It concerned the relationship of the sexes, and evoked considerable interest and a number of replies.

Miss Burr condemns marriage without qualification, and calls for a new relationship of the sexes. "All women are sick to death of marriage. Our mothers are sick of it and their mothers were before them." In an interview on the same subject, the "Daily News" quotes her as saying : "I have no use for marriage. What I want is romance—and marriage just knocks that on the head." Dame Clara Butt in the same correspondence declares: "Marriage is a free institution which has been ruined by the laws being too one-sided." The burden of Miss Burr's other critics is that all marriages are not failures, that none need be, in fact, would young people study the physical implications of marriage, the care of children, and the exercise of mutual tolerance and consideration.

It will be seen that Miss Burr and her critics equally make the mistake of viewing matrimonial relationships as isolated from other social relations, and capable of being treated without reference to them. To those who have adopted the materialist conception of history it is apparent that marriage is a social institution which, like all others—the structure of the law, the established church, social amusements, and so on—reflects material conditions. Every fundamental change in the organisation of the production of wealth revolutionises the institutions of social life, so that they correctly represent the new relationships between members of the community. Marriage relations under modern capitalism are very different to those which existed during the period of chattel slavery, and different again from those of tribal communism.

It is therefore, well that anyone who finds undesirable features in present-day marriage should consider how far they arise from the nature of marriage in general, and therefore would be common to all forms of the family, and how far they are peculiar to the special form which marriage takes at this point of its development. It is self-evident, for example, that in any continued and intimate human intercourse, much tolerance is necessary to secure harmony ; indeed, we may say that happiness in co-operation is in proportion to the common willingness to subordinate individual well-being to that of the group—whether the group be of two or two millions.

Common sense dictates, likewise, a clear understanding of those physical functions which lie to some extent within the control of the human will, that of generation among the most important; and the greatest possible efficiency in all work which we desire to do well, the care of children being such work in the eyes of most men and women. Such requirements of married life, therefore, as are insisted on by Miss Burr's critics, are common to all forms of the family in all ages; and their absence mars alike the household of the Australian aborigine and the cultured European.

Miss Burr's charge against the institution of marriage, however, points immediately to a feature not common to all stages of development. Her complaint is that present-day marriage is a bond not to be severed at will— that inability to support herself and the necessity of caring for her children make a wife dependent upon her husband ; and he, similarly, because she is his wife and the mother of his children, is bound to support her. "We've got to quit working the men on that threadbare business of being the mothers of their children. We've got to quit working the men at all. We've got to be trained to jobs, and we've got to learn how to be cast aside."

It is true Miss Burr confuses her argument by exaggerated and ambiguous phrases. That "all women are sick to death of marriage," for instance, is obviously incorrect, and gives most of her opponents an excuse for paying no attention to her main argument.

Again, she says : "If only men will permit us to print the truth about life instead of keeping that knowledge within their sacred circles we women might be able to promise them a square deal in future." But she does not define what she means by "the truth about life." What is this knowledge of which men have the monopoly, and, by implication, do not allow women to print ? And how do they prevent it ?

Miss Burr's condemnation of marriage rests on economic grounds, as we have seen, and of the force of economic pressure both sexes are equally cognizant. Besides, she demands: "Is it safety to push our boys and girls off into something that we know beforehand has made us wretched ?" So, after all, it appears that one sex is not so much better acquainted with "the truth about life" (whatever it may be) than the other.

For all that her main charge, as stated is definite, and obviously it is applicable only to a system where the married woman is dependent on her husband. That is to say, where care of the household and the bearing of children are not a concern of society as a whole, but the private business of the male head of each family. Plainly, too, it is an evil that will only vanish when the vital functions of maternity and housewifery again become a public service —when not the monogamous family, but the individual human being, is the economic unit of society.

The scope of our enquiry, then, must be this: Out of what system of production did the family as we know it arise, and what is its logical future development ?

Let us briefly glance at the origin and growth of the human family, as made known by the research of many scientists. In this direction one name stands pre-eminent—that of Lewis Morgan, Miss Burr's countryman. By a different road he arrived at the same result as Marx —the formulation of the theory that the foremost dynamic factor in history is the reproduction of the material requirements of life. During the 43 years since his main work was published further investigation has but confirmed his principle findings.

According to Morgan, during the period of savagery, when property consisted of the simplest of articles, and none owned accumulations of wealth which they might wish their children to inherit, group marriage existed. This was itself a development from an earlier condition of unrestricted sexual intercourse within the tribe, and constituted every woman within the group the wife of every man, and vice versa. At its earliest appearance the groups were very broad; as one set of relatives after another was excluded from sexual intercourse, they narrowed. Obviously in such groups only female lineage could be traced ; therefore women, as the acknowledged parents of children, were held in high respect. When the continued narrowing of marriage groups resulted in the pairing family within the communal house-hold, the women still ruled there. But with the rearing of herds and keeping of slaves during barbarism, came the accumulation of private property in the tools of production, which, according to the division of labour, and consequently of property, belonged to the man. This ownership gave the husband the superior position in the household, but according to the traditional custom, his wealth was inherited, not by his children (for he was not acknowledged their parent) but by certain of his relatives on his mother's side.

Therefore in widely different nations and times, so soon as the means of production became private property in the hands of men, was the "maternal law" overthrown. The wife became the bearer of her husband's children, the superintendent of his slaves. Nominally either party could still dissolve the marriage at pleasure, but actually, of course, the woman was bound to the man who held the food and instruments for producing food.

In the monogamous family, which next developed, and which among the Greeks attained its severest form, even this nominal freedom of the wife disappeared. The marriage was made permanent, and the wife bound to chastity by severest penalties—even under pain of death. Not so the husband. He had the right to demand the surrender of his females slaves, and intercourse with prostitutes was by no means condemned. "Supremacy of the man in the family, and generation of children that could be his offspring alone and were destined to be the heirs of his wealth—these were openly avowed by the Greeks to be the sole objects of monogamy," (Engels. "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State," p. 79.)

We see, then, that with the passing of tribal communism and the development of private property in the means of life, the monogamous family became the economic unit of society. "In the ancient communistic household, comprising many married couples and their children, the administration entrusted to women was just as much a public function, a socially necessary industry, as the procuring of food by men." (Engels. "Origin of the Family," p. 89.) In the transition to monogamy this social character of women's work disappeared. Hers became a private service within the unit—the monogamous family. It was no longer the business of society, but of the husband, to supply her with the necessaries of life; and this dependence bound her to him more effectually than legal ties, though these, as we well know, speedily came into existence.

Appearing on the threshold of civilisation, and being the form of the family generally corresponding to it, monogamy has endured through feudalism up to capitalism, with legal changes conforming first to feudal, then to capitalist, ideology. And its character of being monogamy only for women, stamped upon it by the practice of "enjoying" young female slaves, persists also to the present day. This by no means signifies that chastity among men is unknown, but simply that it is not necessary to the form, and that sexual irregularities are judged more leniently in a man than in a woman. The nominal denunciation of prostitution by the present-day ruling class is mainly confined to the women who practice it, and seldom touches the men who employ them.

This shows by how much Dame Butt's remark, quoted above, misses the truth. The "one-sided laws" of which she complains are not the cause of the subjection of married women; on the contrary, the economic conditions which involved that degradation created a sex relationship which found its expression in "one-sided laws."

We have pursued our enquiry so far with respect to conditions during married life, and it may perhaps have been assumed that in the actual coming together of young people there has usually been a freedom of choice which was a kind of guarantee of marital happiness. Unfortunately, the facts do not confirm this assumption. In the stage of the pairing family (where separation began for the first time to be difficult of accomplishment), the marriage was arranged by the mothers of the bride and bridegroom, without their consent and often without their knowledge. In the succeeding patriarchal family, the agreement was between the fathers, and with usually quite other aims than the happiness of the betrothed.

So in monogamy, during the middle ages, marriage contracts were arranged in the interest of the house or realm, to which individual preference had to bow. Such submission was regarded as the duty of young people. Feudalism passing away, capitalist ideas required that both contracting parties should be free, and theoretically gave to both women and men the right of choice. Yet it is well known that in practice marriages of choice in the ruling class are the exception. In capitalist countries where a portion of the parental wealth is legally assured to the children, the consent of parents to a marriage must be obtained; and in capitalist countries where consent is not necessary, the children may be disinherited. Individual preference here has little more opportunity to assert itself than under any previous social system; and if, as often happens, the match is an ill-sorted one, and one partner wishes to dissolve it, the dependence of the woman forbids it, and consolation has to be sought, if at all, outside the marriage tie.

These are the results of the subjection of women, to the ruling class of our day. What of the proletarians ?

At first glance they appear happier, in that they have greater freedom of choice—the parents of young workers having nothing to gain by the marriage—and because most industries are now open to women, with the result that they can leave their husbands, and support themselves, if necessary, as do the men, by selling their labour-power to the capitalists.

But immediately on the appearance of children the position is changed. The working-class mother who wishes to tend her own children has no alternative but to remain dependent on her husband.

We have now arrived at the condition against which Miss Burr rebels. She sees only one remedy — the professional mother, who will care for the children of working women in order to leave them free to enter the labour market ; and naturally draws impassioned protest from women who want to ''mother" their children themselves. She sees only one remedy because she assumes the indefinite continuance of the capitalist system, within which, we have seen, a woman cannot be a wife and mother and remain free.

But this system is not immutable. Like those out of which it grew, it will break down so soon as the possibility of a more highly developed form of production has developed within it. The new form will be the collective organisation of production— realised by transforming the privately-owned means of life into common property, which process will abolish the subjection of women to men, as it will abolish the subjection of employed to employer.

With the disappearance of the conditions which made the monogamous family the economic unit —private property and inheritance— it will cease to function as such, and the unit will again be what it was under primitive communism — the individual human being. The freedom and equality of that early society will be restored, but in the stead of the tribe will stand the world-wide community ; the simple social tasks which satisfied the few needs of early mankind will have been replaced by a complex system of industry, competent to provide the manifold necessities and luxuries of modern life. No man holding the power to starve another, no man can then bind his fellows to be his industrial slaves, nor a woman to be his domestic slave.

In the Socialist Commonwealth, where the products of all labour will be the common wealth, the work of a wife and mother will be as highly valued as the work of a ploughman or a goldsmith. The making of a strong and beautiful citizen will be as important as the making of a strong and beautiful ship. Her service will be a social service, rewarded by society.

Thus will the New Relationship which Miss Burr so desires be realised. Only voluntarily will a woman surrender herself; with no thought but of happiness in the union will a man take her. If the union prove unhappy either will be free to dissolve it, for neither is dependent upon, nor responsible for, the other in the material sense. If we are honest we shall frankly grant here, that not all men and women are temperamentally disposed to lifelong constancy. Some love sincerely and ardently for a period only, and when that period has passed, separation is natural and reasonable. Such pain as a separation causes to the partner who may be more constant, though keen, is not worse than would be felt by the other in remaining.

On the other hand, the sordid cases which now embitter the domestic life of the proletarians will be absent, leaving much less room for disillusionment and mutual impatience. True constancy (as distinct from its present-day apology where a union endures under force of necessity) will probably be usual.

Like other social institutions—the law, no longer used to protect exploiters; education, no more directed to the purpose of producing docile and capable wage slaves ; art, dependent never again upon the scant appreciation of poor men with minds blunted by ignorance and toil, and rich men with heads full of rubber, oil, or soap—marriage will reflect the free and comradely relations of economic life.

Love, which in degrading conditions is a weakly thing, will then grow radiant and strong, and marriage no longer fall like a curtain on romance.

A.

A Fugitive Colour. (1920)

From the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

From an account of an interview with a Shoreditch councillor published in the "Hackney and Kingsland Gazette," Sept. 6th, 1920, it would appear to the reader of that paper that a revolution was likely to commence in Shoreditch, to be followed by a "Soviet System of Government." Having been elected to the Council as a "Labour member," this gentleman thinks that although he has "turned Communist" he is still entitled to keep his seat on the Council, and is apparently of the opinion that as he has changed his views, the views of the electors have changed also. He therefore contends that Shoreditch has "gone red."

He tells the representative of our contemporary that he "refused to have anything to do with a local 'Council of Action,'" and denounced all councils, yet he is in favour of still more councils ("Soviets") and a seat on the Council (Shoreditch Borough Soviet) although this Soviet "can do nothing."

This Councillor has yet to learn that it requires something more than "to get elected" to any body, whether it be local council or House of Commons, in order to accomplish anything in the workers' interest.

It requires knowledge on the part of the electors and their continued support.

The local Labour Party was returned at the last election in a large majority, but has not attempted to deal with the huge amount of poverty, the great shortage of houses and other questions that face the workers in Shoreditch as elsewhere. They have fought among themselves for PLACE AND HONOURS, and while the Mayor stated that his Council would refuse to pay the police rate, police are still to be found in that borough, and the bailiffs are not yet in the Town Hall.

These councillors are afraid to move in any serious attempt deal with the working-class questions because they might lose their seats at the next election. Any party could out-reform them at reforming in the same way that they reform—that is by promising. So they merely hold tight, sit and attempt to look wise, with no more idea of which way to turn to set about the task they were elected for than they have of refusing the plums of office that fall from the rich man's table.

Friend Councillor,—The workers do not require "soviet systems of government." They have had and are getting enough government. What they require is Socialism, but they don't know enough about it yet. Socialism does away with government and brings administration. Government implies a class that cannot administer, and so must be governed by another section of society ; it also implies that the present system of production for profit shall continue and the continuance of the present system of private ownership in the means of life.

So before any section of the workers "turn red " they must understand that this system of private ownership in the means of wealth production and distribution is the cause of their poverty and misery, that they are poor because they are robbed as a result of being compelled to sell their labour power to the class that own.

They must learn, further, that the interests of the working class, and of the non-working, employing, and owning class are opposed ; that the struggle which the workers carry on with the masters for better conditions, fewer hours of employment, etc, arises from the propertied and propertyless condition of the two classes, and the attempt of those classes to live out of the wealth produced by the working class, each class struggling to obtain as big a share as possible.

The masters take advantage of all the means at their disposal to compel the workers to, not only increase the total wealth production, but to accept and be content with, the smallest possible part of the total that will suffice to keep the workers alive and able, or fit, to continue wealth production.

Soviets or councils are but part of the governmental machine, and the masters have long since understood that the class that has control of that governmental machine are in the position of governors. So they seek always to capture control through their political parties, and to swing the workers' votes to their assistance to that end. It does not matter what label the party has, if its policy is to continue capitalism ; they can control the machine through all such parties. The reforms that are the planks in the programmes of these parties can be used, not only to content the workers, but to run the system more economically.

The workers must learn a lesson from the masters and build up an organisation for themselves ; and as only a change from the system of private, to the common ownership of the means of life, can alter the poverty conditions of the workers (that should be the object of the workers' party and that only) they should control their organisation and its members and seek to capture the governmental forces to aid them in their struggle against the capitalist class.

In so doing they take away the power that the capitalists have and add power unto themselves. The workers should not only elect their members to local and national bodies, but should also control the policy of those elected and see that a change in the opinions and policy of those elected is also followed by a change in the delegate and not a change in the opinions of the electors.

Then and then only can and do the workers "turn Red" and colour-blindness disappear.

TIMS.

Correspondence: Those Misrepresentations of Marx Turn Up Again. (1920)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editors.

Dear Sirs,

I have formed certain conceptions concerning the nature of a proletarian revolution which are somewhat critical to the position you adopt, and my reason for writing is to get you, if possible, to reply to, or to deal with, what I conceive to be the Marxian position concerning same, a position which opposes yours.

From my reading of Marx and Engels I find that on the question of Parliament you antagonise the Marxian position, even though you claim your organisation to be Marxian.

We accept Marx and Engels, of course, only in as far as their position can be accepted upon its merits, and I assume, therefore, that, as you claim to be Marxian, you will find me quite in order if I did a little quoting from Marx and Engels in opposition to your attitude toward this question.

Under the circumstance of your Marxian claim, how do you reconcile the following statements by Marx and Engels with your declarations, as well as those of your speakers, that Parliament is the political machine that will be used for the purpose of emancipating the workers? In the preface to the "Communist Manifesto" Marx and Engels quote from Marx's "Civil War in France" to the effect that "the working class simply cannot lay hold of the ready-made State machinery and wield it for its own purposes." Does this not run counter to your statement (to quote J.F. in last month's issue of the "S.S.") "when they"—(that is the working class previously mentioned by J.F.)— "agree with Socialism, they will send Socialists" to Parliament ? There is no statement that that mode of procedure on the part of the workers would be wrong, but rather does the writer make the terms Parliament and Power synonymous. He indicates as well what would be to him an obvious reply to his question when he asks why the workers "did not vote themselves into power" by voting for Parliament, which serves again to show that, by direct statement and inference you regard Parliament to be the political instrument for working-class emancipation.

From your conception of the political struggle one would conclude that the struggle occurs only at election times, whereas "every class struggle" being "a political struggle" ("Communist Manifesto"), the political struggle is being prosecuted now and at all times. Again, Marx wrote referring to the Paris Commune that "the Commune was to have been not a parliamentary but a working corporation," and in the same passage he derides the Parliamentary corporation by comparing how the "working corporation" operated "instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to 'represent' and repress the people in Parliament." (Quoted by Lenin. "State and Revolution.") Then again in reference to the Commune Marx says : "its true secret was this. It was essentially the government of the working class—it was the political form, at last discovered, under which Labour could work out its own economic emancipation" (ibid). I would, if the question was discussed on its merits, say that if constitutional Parliamentary action will emancipate the workers, then it will be a departure from the historic fact that there can be no such thing as a constitutional social revolution.

In conclusion I will refer you to the proud concluding passage of the "Communist Manifesto," which is quite different to "a-cross-next-to-his-name-and-into the-ballot-box-revolution." "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at the prospects of a Communistic revolution." I contend that as parliamentarians you conceal your views and aims—if you are Communists ; or else you are not Communists, in which case why are you parliamentarians ?

From the Marxian standpoint there is only one conclusion, namely, that Parliament is part of the bourgeois State which stands in the way of working-class emancipation, and it follows, therefore, that during the proletarian revolution the bourgeois State machine will not be utilised but broken, and in its stead another State erected—the dictatorship of the proletariate.

Yours faithfully,

H. Dight.

THE SOCKS.

So far is Mr. Dight from having read Marx and Engels, that, as the above letter shows, he has not read even the work of Marx that he tries to quote from. Nor is his reading of Lenin's pamphlet either full or clear, or he would have seen how flatly Lenin contradicts his (Dight's) attempt at a case.

Our correspondent says that we make the terms "Parliament" and "Power" synonymous. Had he read our Declaration of Principles and articles in the Socialist Standard, he would have seen that we stated that Power is dependent upon the control of the political machinery and that Parliament is the central organ of that machinery. Hence to obtain Power, control of the political machinery is absolutely essential. How Lenin agrees with this fact is shown in the pamphlet Mr. Dight mentions—"The State and Revolution." On page 29 we read:

  The exploited classes need political supremacy in order completely to abolish all exploitation, i.e., in the interests of the enormous majority of the people and against the tiny minority constituted by the slave-owners of modern times—the landlords and the capitalists.

On page 30 Lenin says:

 The proletariat needs the State, the centralised organisation of force and violence, both for the purpose of crushing the resistance of the exploiters and for the purpose of guiding the great mass of the population—the peasantry, the lower middle class, the semi-proletariat — in the work of economic Socialist reconstruction.

On page 33 it is stated that the general lessons of history set out in the "Communist Manifesto" :

  bring us to the necessary conclusion that the proletariat cannot overthrow the capitalist class without, as a preliminary step, winning political power, without obtaining political supremacy.

When Mr. Dight has read Lenin's pamphlet that he quotes from he might compare the above statements with Clauses 6 and 7 of our Declaration of Principles.

Mr. Dight's great point of what he fancies is opposition to our policy is the statement from Marx's "Civil War in France" that the working class cannot "simply lay hold of the ready made machinery of State and wield it for its own purposes."

As Mr. Dight has not read this work he is unaware that the context of that sentence totally contradicts the interpretation he tries to put upon it. The sentence is taken from section III., which opens as follows:

  On the dawn of the i8th of March Paris arose to the thunder burst of "Vive la Commune." What is the Commune, that Sphinx so tantalizing to the the bourgeois mind? 

  "The proletarians of Paris" said the Central Committee in its Manifesto of the 18th March, "amidst the failures and treasons of the ruling classes, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of affairs . . . They have understood that it is their imperious and their absolute right to render themselves masters of their own destinies, by seizing upon the governmental power.'' But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made State machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. 

  The centralised State power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature—organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labour —originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle-class society as a mighty weapon in its struggles against feudalism. Still its development remained clogged by all manner of mediaeval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hindrances to the superstructure of the modern State raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France. During the subsequent regimes the Government, placed under parliamentary control—that is under the direct control of the propertied classes— became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes ; with its irresistible allurements of place and pelf and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling class ; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified, the class antagonism between capital and labour, the State power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labour, of a public force organised for social enslavement, of an engine of class oppression.

I have given this long quotation from the "Civil War in France" to show how Marx has been misrepresented by the use of a phrase torn out of its context, and to show what Marx himself meant when using the phrase. Here, as even a "Communist" might have understood had he read the work, Marx is referring to the workers' position after they have seized this power.

It is when Mr. Dight attempts to quote Marx on the functions of the Commune that he shows conclusively that he has never read Marx's work. Mr. Dight says :

  "Marx wrote referring to the Commune that "the Commune was to have been not a Parliamentary but a working corporation," and in the same passage he derides the Parliamentary corporation by comparing how the "working corporation" operated, "instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to 'represent' and repress the people in parliament."

It is true that the two phrases quoted above are given by Lenin (p. 47), with other matter, in one paragraph between quotation marks, thus misleading the reader not acquainted with the original into believing that Marx put it in that form. Actually the first phrase occurs in the seventh paragraph of section III., while the second one appears in the tenth paragraph of the same section. Moreover, although Lenin gives the full sentence containing the first phrase, Mr. Dight only quotes a part of it. Why? Because the second part, though only consisting of seven words, destroys the interpretation he tries to place upon the phrase he quotes. The full sentence is: "The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time." (Italics mine.)

The words italicised show clearly that the Commune was to perform parliamentary as well as the other duties imposed upon it.

Paragraph ten of section III. details the work of the rural Communes and contains the following important sentence :

  The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and therefore strictly responsible agents.

while further on occurs the phrase Mr. Dight tries to use against our case :

 Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workmen and managers in his business.

How the quotation from the twelfth paragraph, describing the Commune as "the political form, at last discovered," etc., helps Mr. Dight, who is opposed to political action and policy, I fail to see.

His statement that it is "a historic fact that there can be no such thing as a constitutional social revolution" merely exposes his ignorance of even modern history, for Japan carried through "a constitutional social revolution" in 1871 when feudalism was abolished.

The nonsense chattered by the "Communists" against "constitutional" action is flatly contradicted by Lenin's own words and actions. It was only by "constitutional" action that the Bolsheviks obtained control of the Duma and carried through their revolution, while on page 27 of Lenin's pamphlet "The Proletarian Revolution," where he refers to the people who control parliaments he says :

  "This, of course, does not mean that bourgeois parliamentarism ought not to be made use of; the Bolsheviks, for instance, made perhaps more successful use of it than any other party in the world, having in 1912-14 captured the entire Labour representation in the fourth Duma."

Crushing as this statement is against his own followers, it is surpassed by the views of one who Lenin himself would admit was far greater than any Russian Communist:

  "The irony of the world's history places everything upon its head. We, the "revolutionaries," the overturners," we succeed better with the legal means than with illegality and force. The self-named "Party of Order" goes to pieces upon the legal conditions created by itself. They despairingly cry with Odilon Barrot "Legality is our death," while we from this same legality gain strong muscles, ruddy cheeks, and the appearance of eternal life."

These words are from Engels' last work—the introduction to Marx's "The Class Struggle in France"—written in the year in which he died, 1895.

When Mr. Dight reads Marx's and Engels' writings, he may grasp the substance of their teaching. And when he condescends to read our Declaration of Principles and our Party Organ he will see the utter falsity of his statement that we conceal our views and aims.

Jack Fitzgerald

What about it? (1920)

Editorial from the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

A short while ago "Plum" Warner, the old Middlesex cricketer, bid farewell to the public, and seized the opportunity to deliver through the Press, an admonition to the miners under the title ; "Miners, play the game !" (It does not seem to strike him what a vast difference there is between the game he wants the miners to "play"and the game he has been playing the best part of his life.)

On Oct. 3rd appeared in "Lloyd's Sunday News" an article urging the workers to "Work, Produce!" and, again the incongruity of it, the writer was that indefatigable worker and stupendous producer, Lord Moulton.

A day or two ago the "Daily Chronicle" had an article headed "What Every Woman Knows," and drawing moving but obviously true pictures of what is going to be the experience of the women of the working class in the event of a miners' strike maturing, and again it is one of those people of such wide first-hand knowledge of empty cupboards and the sufferings of poverty—a lady of title—who does the writing.

It is meet to ask, at a time when your "betters" are setting you such an example of class-conscious propaganda in the class struggle, what you are doing in the same class struggle: Are you working for the enlightenment of your fellow working men and women ? Are you even studying for your own enlightenment ? Are you talking about Socialism ? Are you pushing Socialist literature ? Every word you read of the right stuff, helps, and every word you speak with knowledge and understanding. So what about it?

We Invade the Potteries. (1920)

Party News from the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

A New Branch At Hanley.
It it our pleasurable task to announce the formation of a newBranch—at Hanley, Staffs. As will be seen from the advertisement in the Branch Directory, the Branch meets at the Working Men's Club, Glass Street, Hanley, on Wednesday evenings. We are unable at the moment to give the time of these meetings, but enquiry of the Secretary, J. Gallagher, 10 Sidney Street, Hanley, will elicit this information. Comrade Gallagher will also be happy to give any other particulars concerning the Branch or the Party to enquirers.

All sympathisers within practical range of Hanley are cordially invited to attend the meetings of the new Branch, and, if they agree with our principles and policy, to join up and get their shoulder to the wheel of old capitalism’s hearse. They may be sure of a comradely welcome and of finding themselves in company with lads who mean business.

Letter: How Shall We "Share Out"? (1920)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the editor.

Dear Sir,—Will you kindly supply me with an answer to the following question ?

In a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the instruments for producing and distributing wealth should the remuneration of each member of society be determined by the social labour time (accepting skilled labour as a multiple of unskilled labour) given in the service of the community, or should the total social product be equally divided among all the members of the community.

Hoping you will find room to reply to this (to me, least) most important question,

I remain, yours, L. Thompson, 

Our Reply.

Under Socialism neither of the methods of "remuneration" given by Mr. Thompson would prevail. The immense powers of production existing to-day would, if socially owned, provide plenty for all.  When Socialism is established those powers will have reached a much higher degree of proficiency, and the best method of distribution will be to allow each as much as he or she desires of the social products. Each would contribute to, the social production according to his capacity, and it would be a waste of time and energy to measure out what each have.  To-day, for illustration, many municipalities supply water to their citizens on a “rate” and find it more economical to let them take what they require for domestic purposes than to charge according to quantity used.—Ed. Com.