The Irish elections. More Communist trickery. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Exit China, enter Ireland ! With the complete failure of all their anti-working class policies in China, and the consequent passing of enthusiasm about Chinese troubles, the Communist Party of Great Britain now turns its attention to Ireland. It has been offering the Irish workers advice in order that the latter may know how to manage affairs in the very successful way that the Communists have managed their own affairs over here, and Chinese affairs in China.

In the recent Irish elections there have been numerous parties soliciting the support of the electorate, and a working-class organisation taking upon itself to offer advice would naturally make it its duty to point out clearly which party, if any, had a policy which is deserving of working-class support. Given the existing political confusion, clearness is above all to be aimed at by those who would teach the workers how to emancipate themselves. How, then, did the Communists perform this elementary duty?

Opposition Parties.

There were several opposition parties :—

1. The Republicans (De Valera);
2. The National League (Redmond);
3. The Labour Party (Johnson);
4. The Irish Worker League (Larkin);
5. The Workers’ Party of Ireland (Communist Party).

Of these, the first two, like the Government Party (Cosgrave), are frankly Capitalist, while the remaining three make special appeal to the workers.

In the Sunday Worker (September 11th) edited by the Communist W. Paul, is an article by another Communist, Jack Carney, weighing up the two largest parties led by Cosgrave and De Valera respectively. He dismisses them as the representatives of two Capitalist groups, and says “Behind De Valera stands the American banker, and behind Cosgrave the British financier.”

They differ, like our Liberal and Tory parties, over the question of tariffs. The Capitalists behind De Valera use the catch cries of Republicanism to further their own interests by means of “high protection,” De Valera admitting in an interview (Manchester Guardian, June 27th) that this would, in his opinion, mean a “less costly standard of living” for the workers. He boggled at the words “lower standard of living,” but a careful and repeated reading of his subtle attempt to differentiate fails to disclose any difference whatever between the two descriptions of his party’s aim.

The Labour Party’s policy, as outlined by its leader Johnson, in The Irishman (May 14th, 1927), has no more to offer the workers than has De Valera’s. They, like the Republicans, advocate protection and lower taxes on capital invested in Ireland, and while asking for numerous trivial demands which are on the programmes of all parties, such as “the provision of employment” for the unemployed, they even go out of their way to repudiate expressly the nationalisation of the land, factories, etc. As the Worker’s Life (Communist Party of Great Britain) correctly points out, “The (Irish) Labour Party has degenerated into a Liberal Party pure and simple” (September 9th).

It is interesting to recall also that immediately after the last election in June of this year, the Labour Party first offered to support the Government Party, and their offer being refused, then secured the support of the Republicans and the National League in a tricky manoeuvre which was to have elevated them to office. This shows how little in principle separates them from these other three avowedly Capitalist parties.

Similarly, just before the last election, De Valera’s Republicans and Cosgrave’s party demonstrated their fundamental agreement on the maintenance of Capitalism by mutual gestures of reconciliation. Thus, in reply to Mr. Cosgrave’s “I am prepared to forgive and forget,” Mr. Sean Lemass, for the Republicans, said, “We are prepared to forgive …. If he wants a political truce with Fianna Fail he can have it to-morrow.” (The Republic, September 17th). A step further towards reconciliation took the form of a joint meeting of party leaders immediately following the election.

The Workers’ Party of Ireland (Communist) has aims exactly like those of the English Communists. The Irish Workers’ League was formed by Larkin immediately before the election, and has a policy indistinguishable from that of the Workers’ Party of Ireland.

Telling them how to vote.

We have already mentioned that in the eyes of the Communists the Irish Labour Party is “Liberal, pure and simple.” Yet in face of this the Worker’s Life (September 9th), and the Workers’ Party of Ireland (Official Statement “How to Vote”) tell the Irish Workers to vote for Labour candidates. They do not explain why workers should support a “Liberal Party” which calls itself “Labour” and not support a “Liberal Party” which calls itself “Liberal.”

Gallacher, Stewart and Saklatvala, members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, were over in Ireland officially supporting Larkin’s “Irish Worker League” (Irish Independent, September 13th), which was also supported by De Valera’s Republicans. (See Sunday Worker September 11th). Thus we had the Communists and the Republicans associated in support of Larkin despite the fact that the Communists themselves admit that “Behind De Valera stands the American banker” (Sunday Worker, September 11th). Thus Mr. E. Cooney (Republican candidate) told his supporters, “I hope, after voting Fianna Fail that you will give your next preference to Jim Larkin, for he stands for militant Irish Nationalism just as much as Fianna Fail.” (Irish Independent, September 13th.) In return, Larkin declared, “We are appealing to the workers to vote for Fianna Fail ….” (Sunday Worker, September 11th).

But although Larkin’s Communist supporters were telling the workers to vote for the Labour candidates, Larkin himself admitted that his object was primarily to down the Labour Party, and particularly its leaders. It was known in advance that he was almost certainly debarred from taking his seat.

He said :—

“We have got them on the run. … 1 can promise you that next Thursday night Johnson’s political career is closed in Ireland. . . . We are out fishing in dirty waters. We may not catch much salmon, but . . . we are going to drown three political worms, maybe more.—(“Sunday Worker,” 11/9/27.)

To make confusion worse confounded, the Workers’ Party of Ireland (Communist) which supported Larkin and ran no candidates of its own, not only told the workers to support Labour candidates, but also told them to vote for Republicans and National League candidates. Thus, in Dublin City (North), it supported a list of 4 Republicans, 2 Labour candidates, 1 Larkinite, and 1 Redmondite, and in Dublin South it supported 4 Republicans, 1 Labour candidate, and 1 Larkinite (“How to Vote.”). This same leaflet “How to Vote,” while supporting the Republicans, says, “The Republican Party is equally as capitalistic in its outlook, representing the smaller Capitalist elements.”

Last of all, it actually declares in the first and last lines respectively of the same paragraph, “Therefore vote against the Free State candidates,” and “only give your last votes to the Free State candidates.”

An Unholy Mess.

If, therefore, any unfortunate Irish worker listened to his Communist advisers, he would have been told (1) by Larkin, to vote for him and for the Capitalist Republicans (De Valera), and to help smash Johnson;: (2) by the Irish Worker Party to vote for Larkin, for Johnson, for the National League, for De Valera, and lastly for the Cosgrave (Government) Party; (3) by Saklatvala and company, to vote for Larkin and the Labour candidates, although Larkin’s party and the Labour Party are alleged by Larkin to be irreconcilable enemies, and although they themselves know the Irish Labour Party to be “Liberal pure and simple.”

This is what they call practical politics !

Capitalism triumphant.

One did not need to be a prophet to know that the election results would show Irish Capitalism triumphant, and since no Socialist candidate was in the field it was equally easy to foretell that none would be elected. Much preparatory work has yet to be done before such an event can be considered within the bounds of possibility.

In conclusion, a little comic relief is provided by contemplating Larkin. Although his chequered past shows him to be one of the most audacious charlatans who have ever preyed on the Labour Movement in any country, there is one person at least who has a good opinion of him, that is Larkin. In his election address he writes modestly about himself :—

“In one year alone …. James Larkin (Jim Larkin) forced the employers to increase wages to the extent of £127,000 in one year.”

During the election, much use was made by Larkin of the name of Connolly. It is therefore to the point to recall Connolly’s considered judgment of Larkin. In a letter to William O’Brien, dated May 24th, 1911, Connolly wrote :—

“Do not pay any attention to what Larkin says …. the man is utterly unreliable—and dangerous because unreliable.”—(see p. 162 of “Report of Actions in the Law Courts,” published by Irish Transport and General Workers Union, 1924.)

Larkin is no less dangerous now than then, a fit companion for the muddle-headed British Communists who support him and his Capitalist Republican allies.

Edgar Hardcastle

The wealthy workers ! (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The concentration of vast capital into the hands of a continually decreasing number of Capitalists, accompanied by more efficient methods of production, swells to an enormous extent the wealth of this class. While, on the other hand, this development brings with it a more intense form of exploitation, greater insecurity, unemployment, and poverty of the wealth producers. The result is that, as Capitalist society develops, the distinction between the two classes becomes wider and clearer; and the opposition of interest more intense.

These facts are having a powerful influence on the minds of the workers, and are slowly but surely preparing them to accept the principles of Socialism.

Having progressed so far towards an understanding of their class position, they become less easy to deceive. Consequently the older political parties, who openly defend the present system of society, and claim that there is no alternative, can no longer command the support of an overwhelming majority of the workers as they did in the past. Hence the need, to the Capitalist class, of a political party that can secure the support of this discontented section, by criticising the system, and when necessary expressing sympathy towards Socialism, and that can, at the same time, be relied upon to maintain Capitalist society.

This is the cause of the rapid growth of the Labour Party. Experience and Socialist propaganda, however, will complete the lesson the workers have commenced to learn. They will then realise the futility of fighting for anything but Socialism, and will join the Socialist Party, that has Socialism, and that alone, for its object.

The awakening of the workers to their class position is, to the Capitalist, a serious affair, and it is the endeavour to delay that understanding which prompts them to publish articles, such as this from which we quote :—

“According to most Socialist, and all Communist, writers and speakers this country is divided between the “capitalists” and the “workers,” that is to say, the Haves and the Have-Nots. They try to delude people into believing that practically all the capital is in the hands of a relatively small minority ; the rest of the community consisting of the toiling but unpropertied masses. Nothing could be a more ridiculous travesty of the facts. The truth is that a very large proportion of the people of this country, including the workers with hand or brain, are owners of capital. “—(The “Daily Mail,” 11/6/27.)

It will be most gratifying to the workers to realise that, after all, their poverty is only a delusion. But what a pity the million miners did not know that they had such resources to draw from when they were locked out. And why did King Fuad of Egypt feel it incumbent on him to donate £1,000 to the London poor during his recent visit?

Another point that is often raised is the increase in the number of small investors. This appears at first sight to contradict the assertion that capital is concentrating into fewer hands. But upon closer examination it will be seen that the contrary is the case, and the increase in small investments is actually an effect of that concentration.

In the first place, this increase only applies to money invested in savings banks or public companies, and takes no account of capital held by people who use it as private traders. Consequently, if they are compelled to sell their business and invest the money in one or another of the concerns mentioned, that would be registered as an increase in the amount of capital held by an investor of moderate means. But all that has happened has been a change in the form of their property. Take, for example, a man with a capital of £3,000, and using it to run a private business. He finds his business failing on account of competition from a more powerful competitor. Now, according to the way he acts, we get the following results :—

(1) He may see the danger before much harm is done, and be successful in selling his business without any great loss, and transfer the money to one of the concerns mentioned. With the result as above, the transfer of capital would be reckoned as an increase, when no increase had taken place.

(2) Assume that, before he is able to sell his business, he shows a considerable loss, and is compelled to accept for it half its former value, viz., £1,500, which he invested in the same way as in example No. 1. Here the result is that there is registered an increase of £1,500 in capital held by people of moderate means, but in actual fact there is a decrease of £1,500 owned by this group.

(3) Or again, he may hang on to his business until he is forced out, as a bankrupt. In which case there is a loss of £3,000, but it is not registered as a decrease by these one-eyed statisticians, because a view of this side of the question would be fatal to their case.

If we take the period 1906 to 1926, and consider the rate at which small businesses have either been crushed out or absorbed by larger ones, and they in turn swallowed up by more powerful combines, it is easy to account for this increase in the amount credited to depositors of small means, running parallel with the concentration of capital. The greater the concentration, and the more general large-scale production becomes, the greater becomes the amount of capital that is forced out of the channels of private trade into those of investment. And the fact that a few of the small fry are able to rescue a part of their capital from the share-shark infested waters, and place it in the safest position they know, accounts for this supposed prosperity of the working-class. A delusion which arises, as we have seen, through the competition between Capitalists—the weaker being pushed, at an ever-increasing pace, into the ranks of the “Have-nots.”

In face of the trials the workers experience in their struggle to live, such attempts to mislead them must fail. And as the system develops, the need for a change in the basis of society from the private ownership in the means of life to common ownership becomes more evident. When the majority of our class realise this simple fact, they will join with us in the fight to secure control of the political machinery and armed forces for the purpose of establishing what must be the one and only object of a working-class political party—Socialism.

Ted Lake

Should we produce more? An economic fallacy exposed. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

“As an example of an error which is very widespread, let us take a resolution just passed by a conference of the International Federation of Boot and Shoe Operatives. After urging the different Governments to ratify the Eight Hours’ Day Convention, it declared that “in view of the widespread unemployment in the shoe and leather trades, the constant improvement in manufacture leading to increased output, and the decreased purchasing power of the working classes, a further shortening of hours to 44 per week is necessary.” This was moved by a French delegate, approved by the British delegation, and agreed.

Now, in principle, of course, we support the Eight Hours’ Day. And we should welcome a reduction of the working week to 44 hours or any lower figure, provided it was consistent with maintaining production. But that proviso is vital; for less production means less wealth—in other words, more poverty; and we want no increase of poverty to-day. What the world suffers from, is not that it has too many commodities, but too few. There are not enough good things to go round ; and in proportion as production is diminished, there will be still fewer.

The right remedy for a congested market is to lower prices and so bring in more purchasers.”

The above is from the leading article in the Daily Chronicle of August 20th last. The Daily Chronicle and other newspapers, concerned at the growing tendency of the workers to attempt to mitigate the evil of unemployment by restricting the output of those who are producing, iterates, and re-iterates the statement that such a policy is an “error.” Undoubtedly many workers believe their tale ; for it certainly is a very plausible yarn that cheaper goods mean greater consumption, greater demand, less unemployment and higher wages. Plausible as the argument is, its shallowness is revealed by a little thoughtful examination; and invariably the hirelings of the Press undermine their case by the very clumsiness of their attempts to bolster it up.

Take, for instance, the statement that “less production means less wealth—in other words, more poverty” : less wealth does not necessarily mean more poverty—that depends more upon the distribution of the wealth than its amount. Again, note the assertion that “there is not enough good things to go round,” and the contradictory implication contained in the claim that “The right remedy for a congested market is to lower prices.” Not enough good things to go round, but enough to congest the market ! What absurdity !

However, the purpose of this article is not to deal with the quality of the arguments which are thought good enough (and often are good enough) for working-class beguiling, but to expose the fallacy of the statement that the solution to the poverty “problem” is greater output by the workers, resulting in cheaper commodities, increased consumption, less unemployment, and finally higher wages. All these have been dealt with time and time again in the Socialist Standard during the last twenty-three years by scientific argument; the writer now proposes to try the effect of a little simple arithmetic.

Let us take the employed workers in a community as one thousand ; let us reduce their varied products to a common form, which we will call “Wares,” and finally let us suppose that the price of each of those wares is £1, and it is the product of one man’s labour for a day. We have the following condition of affairs as the result of the day’s effort :—

Workers: 1,000; Wares: 1,000; Price: £1,000.

Now suppose that from some cause each worker doubles his day’s output, the figures then would be :—

Workers: 1,000; Wares: 2,000; Price: £2,000.

The number of the wares had doubled, and the price of the total output has doubled; but the price of each commodity remains the same ! Some puzzle? No. The simple explanation is that gold is included in the products of labour, and being in common with other commodities, produced in half the time formerly necessary, the old ratio is maintained; that is to say, prices are unchanged. The more intense production has not made things cheaper ; the pound wages will not buy more; therefore, there is no increased demand, no greater employment, and no higher wages. So far, the theory of greater production fails at every point. In order to make wares cheaper, our missionaries of harder work for other people must make an exception of those workers engaged in producing gold. The ca’canny, the limitation of output, the antiquated methods, which are crimes in every other field of industry, must become virtues in the goldfields ! What economists !

But assuming, like the obliging people we are, that the speeding-up applied to all wares except gold, then the figures would run :—

Workers: 1,000; Wares: 2,000; Price: £1,000.

So, by juggling gold out we, succeed in halving prices for our Capitalist apologists. Now let us see how this affects the “congested market.”

If, previously, each worker received 10s. for his day’s work, that would be £500 for all the workers. We have, then :—

Wares Produced : 1,000; Wares bought by Wages : 500; Wares left : 500.

Five hundred wares left over to congest the market.

Those who know the pleasures of getting drunk, and the miseries of getting sober again, swear by the old, old remedy, “a hair of the tail of the dog that bit me.” The argument holds good in economics it seems, so the remedy for a congested market is more commodities, in other words, more congestion. Well, let us chuck in the other commodities, and halve their price. Figures follow :—

Wares produced : 2,000; Wares bought by Wages: 1,000; Wares left: 1,000.

The result of doubling production and giving the workers twice as many commodities is that the wares left in excess are also doubled, in other words, there is congestion now in both lungs instead of only in one.

Actually, however, this is giving a too favourable report of the patients’ progress. The workers’ wages as a whole have never had any relation to the amount of wealth they produced. Instead, they have beer, pretty closely ruled by the cost of living. Even Capitalist henchmen now can hardly deny this, in face of the trouble the Government is at to issue a periodical return of the cost of living, in order that so many employers may regulate the wages of their workers accordingly, if it were true that, as the Capitalist Press claims, lower prices meant higher wages, then every time the returns of lower living costs were published there would be a rise of wages, not a fall. But we know that as the cost of living falls wages fall also. Competition for jobs brings that result about, and with twice the amount of excess wares congesting the market, competition for jobs would not be less keen. So our sum must now be set out thus:—

Wares produced: 2,000; Wares bought by workers: 500; Wares left: 1,500.

You see, the fact that the workers have produced more wares does not mean that they require more of them to enable them to live. As 500 wares sufficed to enable them to reproduce their labour-power when they only produced 1,000 wares, no more would be needed now that they produce 2,000, and they would get no more. Evidence? Every day’s history since the industrial revolution is evidence. The fertility of labour-power has increased hundreds-fold—possibly a thousand-fold; but do the workers get more than enough to live on now?

So the result of the workers doubling their output has been that there are three times the number of wares left over on the market. If the way to remedy congestion on the market is by means of further congestion, then we must suppose that the cure is complete.

Of course, we know that a certain amount of the wealth the workers do not consume is consumed by the Capitalist class, but this does not make the matter any better for their theory, as we shall proceed to show.

How many of the 500 wares left over in our first example shall we assume the Capitalist class will consume? If we say 100, then there are 400 left on the market. Now with prices halved, one could hardly look for them to buy more than twice the number of wares, that is, instead of 100 out of 500, they could at most be expected to consume 200 out of 1,500. So instead of 400 excess wares, there would now be 1,300, an increase of 3¼ times. The more we assume that the Capitalists consume the worse the case appears. If they consume 400 out of the 500 in the first case, then 100 only are left on the market. With prices down to half, they might use 800, leaving 700, which shows an increase of 7 times. So the matter gets worse and worse.

Well, it’s no use prolonging the agony. The workers will find no cure for their poverty in increased production, or, for that matter, in restriction. Their troubles arise from the difference between what they produce and what they are able to consume. Increased production only makes still greater that difference, and hence can only add to their troubles. When the workers are producing for themselves, that is, when they are producing under Socialism, then the greater fertility of labour-power will be an unmixed blessing.

A. E. Jacomb

Editorial: Capitalism in Queensland. Ferocious Labour Government. (1927)

Editorial from the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

For years we have warned the workers against the danger of Labour Governments. Capitalism can be administered, as regards essentials, only in one way—the Capitalist way. Whether the administration calls itself Liberal or Tory, Communist or Labour, matters nothing to the working class. In our issues for December, 1923, and February, 1924, the position and activities of Labour Governments in different Australian States were fully dealt with. A recent incident should serve to drive home our lesson that Socialism is the only remedy, and a “Labour” Government is an enemy to be fought, not an ally to be supported by those who desire to establish Socialism. The Queensland railwaymen tried to help some workers who were on strike in the sugar industry. The “Labour” Government met this sympathetic action by dismissing the 11,000 railway employees, and was able to force them to desert the strikers and go back to work. Thus Queensland is vindicated as a territory which is still safe for Capitalism.

Three points are worth notice in this little incident. The first is that we see here Labour Government forbidding sympathetic strikes, yet how our own Labour Party has howled because the Conservatives have threatened to limit sympathetic strikes.

The second point is that the I.L.P. in this country has for years supported a useless, programme of nationalisation and other reforms of Capitalism similar to that put in operation in Queensland. In particular, it has sold since about 1917, and is still selling, two pamphlets with the lying titles “Socialism in Practice” and “Socialism in Queensland.” In fact, not the slightest attempt has yet been made by the Queensland or any other “Labour” Government to establish Socialism. How does the I.L.P. justify this Capitalist propaganda. Do they favour the prohibition of the legal right to strike?

Thirdly, for those who imagine that the existence and powers of a House of Lords are questions of first-class importance, it is useful to remember that Queensland long ago abolished its Upper House. When it is necessary to crush revolt among the workers, a single chamber in the hands of a “Labour” Government in Queensland can be as drastic and as brutal as anything England or the U.S.A. can show, and what is of more importance from a Capitalist standpoint, it can act so much more promptly than can a cumbersome two-chamber system.

Capitalism in the Post Office. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Industrial Court has issued its long-awaited award on the wages of post office workers. The Unions asked for considerable increases, and the Postmaster-General opposed this claim with a demand for a general decrease for new entrants. The award of the Court gives certain small increases at the maxima of the scales applicable to certain grades, introduces decreases in several grades at ages about 18 and 19, and leaves other grades unchanged. As the increases awarded are at the maxima, most of the staff will not be affected immediately. In some grades, telephonists, for instance, most of the women will have left the service before they reach the age at which the raised maximum becomes applicable. The nett addition to the wages bill of the Post Office will be probably between £400,000 and £500,000 (including cost of living bonus), in a “full year” (i.e., when the new maximum rates are being paid to the normal proportion of the staff).

Spread over some 150,000 men and women, this amounts to an average of something under 2s. a week. What is of particular interest to us, as opponents of nationalisation, is the frank admission of the Court that wages in State services are based on conditions in outside industry.

“. . the broad principle which should be followed in determining the rates of wages of Post Office Servants, is that of the maintenance of a fair relativity as between their wages and those in outside industries as a whole.”—(Decision of Industrial Court No. 1325, July, 1927, p. 11.)

Here we have the kernel of the case against nationalisation from the workers’ point of view. The wages and conditions of State employees are governed by the conditions of the labour market in general. They, like other workers, live by the sale of their labour power. They are paid, not the value of their work, but the cost of maintaining them and their families as efficient wealth producers. They are exploited just as other wage earners are. During the past 14 years the Post Office has made a profit of nearly £52,000,000, a direct contribution to the employing class in that the taxation burden which they alone ultimately bear has been reduced by this amount over the period. To nationalise all services would merely reduce all workers to the condition of being still further limited in their power to struggle for better conditions, and would not affect the amount of the income received by the employing class. As the workers find, to their cost, it is harder to fight the State than it is to fight private employers. So hard is it that no civil service union even dare contemplate strikes as part of its programme.

Nationalisation is merely the strengthening and concentration of Capitalism. The interests of all workers, civil servants and non-civil servants, will be served by unqualified opposition to nationalisation as to other forms of Capitalism. Socialism alone is the remedy for our class.

Postman.

Letter: What capitalism means. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir,—-I am taking keen interest in economics and would like to know the exact relation of things and definition concerning what capital means.

I listen to all parties and read all literature of all parties.

G. Peace, a speaker for the “Commonwealth [Land] Party,” speaking in Hanley, said that last year he visited the outcrops in Hanley and saw men working using their own capital, which proved the worker will do without bosses when all the workers followed the example of the men out-cropping.

Now I wish to know if the tools such as unscientific things as old wheels of bicycles, etc., ropes and buckets to draw the coal up from the outcrop comes under the true definition of capital. Seeing that your definition of capital is the means of exploitation or legalised robbery of the workers.

There is another point perhaps you will be good enough to correct me on. Mr. G. Peace also said during his discourse on the outcroppers that he was amazed to learn the outcroppers were charged five shillings for every ton of coal carted away by the owners of the land.

To me, the economic renters, like Mr. G. Peace, under their single tax or economic scheme, would be somewhat similar, but the only difference would be the State officials, would collect the economic rent instead of private or group Capitalist officials; just assuming that we would gain access to the land in the manner the outcroppers did, this would not bring economic security to all, for there would be disorder instead of proper organisation. Plenty of outcroppers would not find a market for their coal and would be forced to leave their outcrops. So it appears to me competition for markets will be in existence under Capitalism, under economic rent, nationalisation, etc.

Of course, I ask for correction on the points raised.

Thanking your in anticipation, 

Yours sincerely.

—Inquirer.

Answer to Inquirer.

Capital is wealth used for the purpose of obtaining a profit. The owner of this wealth —the Capitalist—purchases buildings, plant, machinery, raw materials, etc. Then he purchases labour-power to use the plant and machinery on the raw materials for the purpose of producing commodities, or article for sale. The value of the raw materials and of the portion of the plant and machinery, used up in a given time, form part of the value of the commodities, and pass over unchanged into the latter value.

The value of the labour-power can be represented at any given period by a particular number of hours’ work. If the labourer only worked this particular number of hours each day there would be no surplus produced as the value of the commodities would be equal to the sum of the values of (1) the raw materials used; (2) the portion of plant and machinery worn out; and (3) the labour-power expended. But, by using the whip of hunger, the Capitalist compels the labourer to work for a longer number of hours than is necessary to replace the value of his labour-power. In these extra hours of work is produced the surplus-value which is afterwards split up into various parts. One part may be used to extend the business. Another part may be absorbed in advertising the goods for sale. Still another part may go to pay rates and taxes. The part remaining to the Capitalist after these distributions forms his profit. Surplus-value is thus seen to consist of the products taken by the Capitalist that the labourer has produced in the time during which he works, but for which he has not been paid. In other words, surplus value is based upon the robbery of the worker. Profit is a part of the results of this robbery.

This explanation makes it quite clear that an individual only obtains profit when he robs some worker, or workers. Whatever tools or plant a man employs in working for himself obviously cannot be capital, as he does not obtain a profit because he does not rob anyone. Only when he uses these tools and plant to rob some worker or workers of the values they have produced, do they become capital and he a Capitalist. The fact that the appliances may be out of date or unscientific, does not prevent them becoming capital in the above circumstances —though it certainly places the Capitalist using them at a disadvantage in competition with other Capitalists who are better equipped.

Mr. Peace’s statements are therefore quite inaccurate. The “outcroppers” were not using capital at all. Their few crude appliances were not used to rob anyone, and therefore, in those conditions, could not be capital. Moreover, if the “outcroppers” had to pay five shillings a ton for the coal obtained the landowners were certainly “bosses” of the situation, and so contradicted Mr. Pearce’s other statement that “the outcroppers were doing without in bosses.”

“Inquirer” is quite correct when he says that under the single tax theory the economic rent would go into the Government coffers instead of into those of private or group Capitalists. This would leave the workers just as they are to-day, slaves to the master class, and robbed of the larger portion of the wealth they produce. Only Socialism can end this slavery.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: The Franchise. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Rimington writes again criticising the reply to an earlier letter printed in our July issue.

To the Ed. Com.

It is not that I have any fresh evidence to bear upon the subject above, as your wilful misinterpretation of that already submitted, that I write again.

You quote a string of figures from official sources, and because I do not enter into numerals, you imagine that I have discovered a “mare’s nest.”

Whatever may be said of the Capitalist Class as a Class, they are pretty astute, otherwise they would cease to be Capitalists, and I think that your assumption that they are a lot of “duds,” sheer self-complacency.

It may appear to be clever to say, as you do, “If those anomalies were abolished to-morrow, the great mass of the working class would still vote Capitalist candidates into Parliament.” Fortunately, you limit your prognostication to the next twelve hours; but it is a nasty get-out. By abusing the working class you shirk your responsibilities to safeguard and extend their powers of political expression. Because I do not give the name and address, etc., of my informant re the flaw in the Act, you refer to it as nebulous stuff. Why not investigate for yourselves and prove your statement?

You say that “the reference to the Proxy vote and the dead you do not understand,” and I would refer you to your reply, May, 1927, where you state that only those persons may vote by proxy who (a) are already on the absent voters’ list. Now persons who are already on the absent voters’ list are not exactly imperishable, and it follows that, unless they are replaced by others, ultimately there ceases to be anyone on the absent voters’ list. You may say that this is a quibble; nevertheless, without this explanation, it is obvious that absent voters must be a diminishing quantity. Of course, if the desire to strengthen the arm of working class political representation is opposed to your ideas of Socialist propaganda, it would be a pity to suspend it. Taking your own figures, which do not include the wives and families of the men registered for business qualification, I submit that, as a whole, they constitute sufficient in many cases to turn the scale at an election, for many candidates are returned by a few hundred or less. I wish particularly to draw your attention to the working of the Redistribution Act of 1918, taking Leicester as an example. Prior to this Act, Leicester was one Parliamentary area returning two members. It was then divided into three separate divisions, returning one member each. In most cases the owners of business premises live in another part of the town, so automatically they qualified for extra votes. That the issue is not so negligible as you imagine is, I contend, worthy of searching investigation, and in these days when the democratic principle is being attacked so frequently in the Press and on the platform, it is up to us to contest every plutocratic privilege. I enclose cutting from to-day’s Observer, which shews that the Divines are at it too, but these are quite mild to articles I have read by Gilbert Frankau and others.

In the words of Joseph Dietzgen, “Take care of the principles and the details will take care of themselves.”

Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.

Reply.

Mr. Rimington admits that he has no “fresh evidence.” I propose, therefore, not to follow him again into numerous side-issues, but would refer him to the reply to his first letter. He still does not attempt to disprove the figures which showed that the plural voting anomaly is of negligible extent. While there is a single person with a plural vote an anomaly can be said to exist, but we decline to interest ourselves in anomalies which are unimportant and do not debar the working class from achieving Socialism. Let us repeat the main point, in 1925 there were in England and Wales 19,167,275 persons registered as voters (Statistical Review, 1925, p. 81. H.M.S.O.). Of these 51,357 had University votes and 217,509 had business premises votes. Thus out of every 200 voters three persons had two votes which they could use at a general election. Of the 200 voters 170 (85 per cent.) were members of the working class (see May ”S.S.”). Thus the distribution of votes as between workers and Capitalists in about 170 to 43. Mr. Rimington asks us to get into a sweat about those three votes, and we reply that it is much more important to convert the 170 workers to Socialism. Incidentally, if Mr. Rimington is so anxious to break a lance, why not advocate the disfranchisement of all Capitalists? It would not be very much more difficult to achieve, and when it was done he would still have the great majority of the 170 working class voters supporting capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Donations to New Publications Fund. (1927)

Party News from the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Pamphlets for sale. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been fortunate in securing quantities of seven pamphlets published by the Socialist Party of Canada, and are offering them for sale at the rates set out below. There is, of course, no need to make special mention of the standard works of Marx and Engels. The pamphlet on the causes of modern war contains much useful information with copious references, and consists of articles which appeared serially in the Western Clarion (now defunct). “Slave of the Farm” describes and explains the hard and losing fight waged by the Canadian farmer against the organised financial and industrial Capitalists. It is a corrective to the fanciful tales of the Empire boosters and emigration touts.

“Causes of Belief in God,” by Lafargue, has not been published in this country in pamphlet form, and will be new to most English readers. It is written with Lafargue’s accustomed brilliance.

The Socialist Party of Canada has now ceased to exist, and the pamphlets will not be reprinted in the present editions.

Those we have obtained represent the bulk of the remaining supply. They are excellently produced, of convenient size, and well worth the price asked. All but two (“Slave of the Farm” and “Economic Causes of War”) are in the uniform and attractive series known as the “Whitehead Library.” As the stock will soon be exhausted, you are urged to make early application.

“Wage-Labour and Capital” (Marx), – pages, 4d.

“Communist Manifesto” (Marx and Engels), 59 pages, 4d.

“Slave of the Farm” (A. Budden), 63 pages, 6d.

“Economic Causes of War” (P. T. Leckie), 132 pages, 6d.

“Causes of Belief in God” (Lafargue), 48 pages, 6d.

“Socialism—Utopian and Scientific” (Engels), 95 pages, 6d.

“Value, Price and Profit” (Marx), 78 pages, 6d.

Note.—Postage extra : ½d. per copy.

Blogger's Note:

The Socialist Party of Canada referred to in the notice was the Party which dissolved in 1925. The Socialist Party of Canada, which is affiliated to the World Socialist Movement, was founded in 1931. There is an overlap between the two organisations because the original Socialist Party of Canada had a significant impossibilist membership within it, and there was an overlap of members between both organisations.

The view of a great painter. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Poverty may induce industry, but it does not produce the fine flower of painting. The test is not poverty, it’s money. Give a painter money, and see what he will do : if he does not paint, his work is well lost to the world.” —Whistler.

Socialism and Science. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Concerning the beginnings of the cosmic system, we are without knowledge. Science is concerned with the universe as we find it, and speculations as to beginning or finality would both be futile. The indestructibility of matter seems fairly established, and we therefore, only look for efficient causes to effect the changes that would bring about the forms we know to-day. There is evidence of a continuity of processes, the totality of which we term evolution. From astrology to astronomy, from alchemy to chemistry, supernatural creation to naturally selected species, such has been the unfolding in the branches of knowledge that has given us the concept of the universe as a totality of its relations : Before we can formulate a science upon any particular subject, we proceed by a certain method. That method is similar whether the subject matter be the Solar System or the Social System. First induction or the gathering of the facts by experiment and observation; second, the classification and generalisation of such facts into sequences or series, and finally the deduction from such sequences of a theory or scientific law which allows of no other interpretation of the facts than the one consistently derived. By such methods came the Atomic Theory in chemistry, the Law of Gravitation in Physics, the Germ Theory in Pathology, and the Labour Theory of Value in Economics. By such methods we are enabled to understand and explain the facts of experience, and also to supply the antidote to the numbing effects of Capitalist mal-education. Laplace, seeking material for his Nebulae Hypothesis found that he had no need for the God Idea. All science dispenses with such products of man’s ignorant fear. It assigns him his place in nature, and lays to rest for ever the belief in the supernatural. True, there are gaps that require filling in, but they are gaps in our knowledge, not in nature. Aided by abstract thought and the service rendered to one science by another, the gaps are filling. Worlds are not born except of pre-existing matter, and the astronomer has but to turn his powerful telescope toward the heavens, and, with the aid of the spectroscope, analyse, review and reconstruct the birth, growth and decay of solar systems like our own. Piecing together what was previously “explained” by childish theology (He made the stars) we learn that this earth was once a whirling gaseous mass thrown off the sun. Allowing for immense periods of time, cooling would take place, and condensation would bring with it a covering of water and ultimately the formation of oceans. From various sources, we know that primitive life must have begun in these oceans, and through the over-laid strata of the earth disturbed and altered though it has been, we piece together the history of plant and animal life from the geological order in which their fossils are embedded. We find the many extinct forms that were modified and evolved toward those that began life in a world like the one we know to-day.

It was upon this background that Darwin projected the results of his observations. It provided him with the eras of time in which to account for the differentiation of animals and plants from earlier times. It also enabled him to show that continual changing of the earth’s surface would beget conditions which, with the prolific nature in all species, would involve intense struggle for the limited available subsistence. Those species that acquired any advantage from one generation to another in the quest for food, and in the struggle against natural obstacles, would be the species that nature’s sifting process considered fittest to survive.

Those unable to adapt themselves as species would become extinct. Instead of plan and design, as talked of by the Christian, nature has been found to be one huge slaughterhouse of those for whom no place has been found. Darwin knew, of course, from his researches, that man must be included in his evolutionary process. He did not say, as so many falsely assert, that “man came from monkeys” : Man comes from his parents, they from ancestors, and they in turn from more primitive ancestors.

The evidence upon which Darwin relied to establish man’s development from lower forms was the close resemblance of primitive man in structure to the apes known as anthropoid. The resemblance is a much closer one than that between some living races of men. This structural likeness with many other similarities, is too close to be explained in any other way than by common ancestry at some earlier period. Man’s body, too, contains rudimentary parts which point with certainty to his lowly origin. Life begets life, and all biological forms evolve in a similar manner. From the simple cell stage to the most complex organism, plant, animal and man all develop alike, the cell is the unit. The human embryo commences with the union of the male and female cell, and the main history of the species is retold during its development, the last form it passes through before birth being that of the anthropoid ape. Man’s journey commences where he develops language and the ability to construct tools. With a mean power over nature’s materials, he was for thousands of years cradled in the crude communism of the tribe. With a subsistence so mean that it permitted of no idlers, it seems paradoxical that it was the very increase in productivity that made slavery possible. Slavery and class society arrive together. Says Karl Marx, the founder of the science of Socialism : “All history is the history of class struggles.” True to the scientific method, Marx assembled his facts, and answered his critics, with a patience and a thoroughness equalled only by his contemporary Darwin. He bequeathed to the workers an analysis of Capitalist society that has withstood the onslaughts of the paid Professors of the Universities for over half-a-century. In the monumental work Capital, the cause of working-class poverty, is made obvious and clear, and there is shown, that to understand the cause, is to understand the remedy. To remove poverty the workers must by class conscious activity take from the Master Class their means of life. They must commonly own these means which to-day are the Private Property of the Capitalist few. To enjoy the leisurely life, the modern powers of wealth-production make possible, Social revolution is necessary. In order to change the basis of society from a production for profit to a production for use one, the workers themselves must first have the revolutionary outlook. No amount of Capitalist evolution can bring the change to Socialism that is necessary to free the workers. Capitalism has the seeds of its own destruction, but the workers must be the seeds. Lewis H. Morgan, in his “Ancient Society,” after a life study of the development of human society, came to conclusions similar to Marx in quite an independent manner. He says (p. 562) :

“The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival in a higher form of the liberty, equality and fraternity, of the ancient gentes.”

Such conclusions the Socialist can endorse. From our own platform, and through our literature, can be obtained all the knowledge required by the workers for the establishment of that higher form of society. Time and truth will tell without empty slogans, or vote-catching reforms, but with the beacon-light of science we illuminate the road to Socialism.

W. E. MacHaffie

A word in season. (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The London society season is in full swing. It is an event of importance to the ladies and gentlemen of the class we work for—when permitted. It is an event by which we can measure their prosperity and our poverty. In that respect it is of importance to you : as working men and women you have been taught to believe from childhood that they are so very clever, and brainy, working with their brains sort of thing (sic). There is, therefore, reason to believe that in your simplicity the following will appear to you evidence of their ability. The event, it says :—

“Is one which promises to be the most brilliant, and crowded, and interesting of any since prewar days. . . 300,000 people are coming to London. . . . They will be doing Henley, which is so very gay, and Ascot, which is so very smart, The Derby, the Horse Show, the Royal Tournament, all the fetes and functions, until they run off to Goodwood in tailor-mades and leave those green woods and scented Downs for Cowes and the “white wings” on the Solent” (“Sunday News,” May 8, 1927).

And very nice, too ! And what of you fellow workers? You will be doing the same old round of toil which makes such luxury possible. When, with the passing of the summer months, your masters and their ladies depart for the moors, the country house, or the Riviera, you will remain the occupants of the murky, mud-plastered cities of industry. Still, you will argue, who are we, anyway? They’ve got the brains. What is the real contrast? Indolence and parasitism—revelling in splendour. Usefulness and skill exercised in every department of wealth production rewarded with penury, insecurity, and often premature death. Chasing the seasons around the earth in a mad whirl of never-satisfying pleasure may exercise these people in many directions ; it is obvious that, miles from the seat of operations, they can play no part in wealth-producing processes. That part is the workers’ part, including the real directing, the organising, and even the collecting of the profits which flow on during their absence. Still, some sort of excuses have to be made as these contrasts become more pronounced. The contempt that the master class have for your political intelligence is shown from the following clap trap which appeared in a leading article (Westminster Gazette, June 13th, 1927) in the very midst of this welter of wealth. They say :—

“The fact is that no policy other than strict economy is possible for a country such as ours.”

One wouldn’t have thought it, would they ? Some may think that we overdraw the picture: that though there may be a greater flaunting of wealth, the worst forms of squalor have been removed from the workers’ life. Have they? Not a stone’s throw from London’s fashionable and wealthy centre are conditions that would disgrace savages. Seven Westminster citizens, headed by a gentleman who preaches the blessedness of poverty, visited 490 houses in the Victoria Ward (Rev. Francis Boyd, report Evening News, June 6th, 1927). Here are a few of the things that they saw in this rich residential area :—

“In Aylesford Street a woman, her son, his wife, and their boy of 14 were found all living in one room. In another house where four families shared eight rooms there were 14 adults and 10 children. In a court in Wilton Road a husband, wife, five daughters aged 20, 16, 15, 13 and 5 and a son aged 18, had only two rooms in which to live and sleep. Yet another instance in Gray’s Inn Court is given where, in two rooms were a grandmother, man and wife, girls aged 14, 13 and 7 and boys aged 10, 3 and 1.”

“The list could be extended indefinitely,” says the report. “Particularly numerous are the families of six, seven, and more members living in two rooms in tenement houses.”

Of an address in Alderney Street it says :—

“There are sewer rats so numerous that within 24 hours of the laying of a new board it was eaten through. The children are terrified of the rats and refuse to go to bed. One boy was sent to Westminster Hospital suffering from nervous exhaustion.”

And this after one hundred years of reform, within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament. Every London district and every large town could show similar plague spots. The workers being content with the scraps and the offal, the gloomy hovels, and excluded from life’s real pleasures, have allowed their masters to take full advantage of their contentment. Blame or sympathy in either case is waste of time : nothing but the recognition that the removal of all social evils is their mission, and theirs alone, can rid society of such glaring contrasts in wealth and squalor. Experience is a hard and often a slow teacher, but there are signs that it has slowly but surely been doing its work. Awaken, workers, to the possibilities of Socialism, so that you may join with us for the Social Revolution.

W. E. MacHaffie

Labourism: A Confession of Failure (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. A. M. Thompson of the Clarion, was one of the founders of the Labour Party. He has, throughout a long career, consistently opposed the formation of a definitely socialist organisation striving for Socialism, on the specious plea that the workers could not afford to sacrifice possible present gains for the sake of a solution of the whole problem of their poverty through a Socialism which could not be obtained immediately.

"Half a loaf is better than no bread ”— so declared Thompson and his fellow Labourites. We opposed that view then, as we do now, on the plain ground that people get what they fight for. If they fight for reforms, they get reforms but not Socialism. Whether reforms are worth struggling for is another point. Experience always testifies that they are not.

The miners have suffered as many reforms as any body of workers, and are still asking for more. Yet Mr. Herbert Smith, their president, says this : "Bad as is the miners’ position, the worst is not yet . .  . . Not since 1885 has there been anything to equal it.” (Daily Herald, June 6th.)

And Mr. Thompson is reduced to the following abject confession of the failure of his and the Labour Party’s policy : 'But the way to realisation is still to seek, and after nearly forty years of sowing, I begin to wish for delivery of at least a part of the 'goods’.” (Manchester Guardian, June 22nd, 1927). But even if Mr. Thompson is now convinced that his policy has not justified itself, he is not without hope. Since not. even "part of the goods” have been delivered, and since he does not think that "we shall achieve these results by perpetuating the Government of Britain by men like Lord Birkenhead, Earl Winterton, Sir Douglas Hogg, Sir W. Joynson-Hicks, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain.” his very original remedy, after 40 years’ experience, is a Liberal-Labour election "deal” ! Truly, half a loaf is better than no bread, but if the energy devoted in 40 years to the scramble for the half-loaf had been differently directed, we would by now have had the whole loaf—Socialism; as it is, we have nothing. In view of the weird stuff which the Clarion palmed off as "Socialism,” it is not surprising to be told that "when we started the Clarion, none of us had ever read Karl Marx.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Why We Want Socialism (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Old people tell us how lucky we are living in an age when the aeroplane and the steamer and the express train bring America as near to London as Edinburgh used to be. We see moving pictures of tigers in the jungle and natives living in uncivilised ways. We read every day in the papers of fresh marvels in the way of machinery—and yet we have to work hard, or look for work, and keep a watchful eye on a doubtful future—just as our forefathers did before the age of steam, gas and electricity.

In spite of all the marvels man has contrived, we still live near enough as of old, a life of struggle and poverty, with a little joy thrown in.

The reason for this is the same as it used to be. As of old the people who work do not own the things that they make, nor the tools that they work with, nor the land that they live on. The things that are made and the tools and the land are owned mainly by a group apart, the rich people who do not work, but live on the money they get from the shares they hold in companies. To buy enough shares in a company to be of any real use, requires a great deal of money, and as working people generally only earn enough to provide themselves with the most urgent of the things they need, the chance of a worker passing into the rich class of owners is remote.

The things that are made to-day, clothes, houses, food and so on, are not made simply because they are useful, though, of course, if they were not needed they would not be made at all. The real reason why such things are made is because they can be sold, and the company selling them make a profit. That is why we read in the papers of this or that company making good or bad profits. And that is why we read of houses falling down, accidents happening, bad food, and bad clothes being made, because the owners of the companies do not care what they make so long as they make good profit.

Now, if the only way of making things was by a rich class of people setting poor people to work, then there would be nothing to grumble about. But who gave the rich their power and their wealth? There is no law of some supernatural power that lays it down that one man shall be born rich and another poor. As the music-hall song used to run, "We all came into the world with nothing, and we can't take anything out."

The pictures we see at picture shows often give us views of natives who know not master and man. People who club together to make the things that are needed, and then distribute what they make to those who need. Why, then, can't we do the same on a much larger scale? Masters are only needed where despots must be served, where there is an oppressed class to be kept in subjection. Just as an allotment holder cultivates his little plot without a master to push him or a shareholder to draw a dividend, so the whole of the people of the world can cultivate the earth in harmonious societies, and reap its fullness in community when once they make up their minds to do so.

Gilmac.