Housing reform examined. An illustration from Vienna. (1927)

From the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The housing problem is—for the workers —neither new, nor limited to any one country.

It existed before the War and exists still, despite the much-advertised efforts which have been made by the post-war Governments all over Europe. In essence the problem is simple. The workers cannot afford to pay rents high enough to make the building of houses a profitable undertaking for the capitalist building concerns, and even when the municipalities or the Government step in they are faced with the choice either to let their houses at rents less than sufficient to meet the cost, have them unoccupied, or else overcrowded with two or more families. In the “New Leader” (October 21st) there appeared an article by an Austrian writer, Olga Misar, bestowing high praise upon the Austrian Labour Party for the housing policy which they have carried out on the Municipal Council of Vienna. They have built some 25,000 working-class dwellings and have thereby greatly reduced the pressure on accommodation which immediately after the War was probably worse than in any other European city.

The writer points out that whereas in pre-war days the Viennese worker had to pay away about 25 per cent. of his wages as rent, the present proportion is only about 2 or 3 per cent. A man with £1 per week wages, instead of paying 10s. rent, now pays only about 1s.

If this is true, does not the Austrian Labour Party fully deserve the praise which Olga Misar showers on them?

In fact, however, this is only part of the story. Other information is contained in an Austrian Labour Party pamphlet, “Die Wohnungspolitik der Gemeinde Wien (1926)” (Housing Policy of the Vienna Municipality), which very admirably illustrates the soundness of the Socialist opposition to the advocacy of reforms.

True, rents are proportionally less, but SO ARE WAGES. What has happened is as follows :

Seventy per cent. of the production of the Austrian factories is for export, but as Austria has few sources of raw materials or fuel, she must import them at world prices. Faced with the problem of exporting manufactured goods in competition with big and better equipped German, English and American industries, and lacking the capital to re-equip their factories on modern up-to-date lines, the only solution for the Austrian capitalists was to lower wages, and at the same time, if possible, increase the efficiency of their workers.

By the almost complete elimination of rent from the expenditure of working-class households wages could be and have been reduced without sacrificing the indispensable minimum of food, clothing, etc., necessary to maintain their working powers.

That this is a correct view of the situation is confirmed by a report published by the International Labour Office of the League of Nations. The report says :—

“The item of expenditure on rent in working-class budgets was reduced to practically nothing ; in July, 1923, it was barely 1 per cent. of the total expenditure of a working-class family, whereas before the war it might be estimated at about 20 per cent.

The change, however, directly benefited certain classes of workers only. But this applied only to unskilled wage earners in a few industries. Most of the workers were in the same position as those of Germany; they had practically no liabilities under the heading of rent, but the corresponding amount was not included in their wages. The actual gain was thus nil.

Industry, on the other hand, benefited, as in Germany, by the reduction in the cost of most labour by the full amount which rent represented in wages before the war.” (The Workers’ Standard of Life in countries with depreciated currency. International Labour Office, Geneva, 1925 P. 97.)

The nett result is that the efficiency of the workers has been maintained or increased by the added comfort and contentedness promoted by better and less-crowded housing accommodation than would have been supplied by private capitalist builders. And since this could not be carried through as a financially self-supporting scheme it has been financed at the expense of the Austrian landlords, by means of heavy house and rent taxes levied on landlords money was raised by the Municipality to build and subsidise working-class dwellings.

In short, the landlords have been plundered by the Labour Party in order to subsidise the export trade of the Austrian factory owners. The workers pay less rent, receive wages which are correspondingly less than before, and give better service.

The “successful” Labour housing policy is then just part of the sectional struggle between exporting and landowning capitalists.

Even so, there remains the question of the better housing accommodation. It will be said that this at least is a gain to the workers. True, but did it need a “Labour” majority to secure that incidental gain, and is the securing of it a justification for the policy of fighting for reforms of the capitalist system ?

It was in the interest of the manufacturers to have their employees well housed, contented and efficient. Henry Ford, Bournville, and Port Sunlight are instances of the care taken by more progressive capitalists to ensure that the home conditions of their workers do not militate against their efficiency as wealth producers ; and the activities of almost every government (including the Austrian Central Government) in the direction of restricting rents or of building or subsidising houses, show that they will not neglect their own interests as an employing class. Instead of allowing themselves to be used as the instruments of a section of the capitalist class, the party of the workers should concentrate on the very necessary and at present largely neglected task of demonstrating the impossibility of solving the poverty problem inside the capitalist system.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Money and price. (1927)

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

A Criticism and a Reply.

Sir,

I am of the opinion that A. E. Jacomb, writing under the heading of “Should we Produce More” (S.S., Oct. 1927) makes serious blunders in his economics. He says :

“Let us take the employed workmen in a community as one thousand, let us reduce their varied products to a common form, which we call ‘wares,’ and finally let us suppose that the price of each of those wares is £l, 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.”


Now I have always understood since I became acquainted with Marxian political economy that
 price is the monetary expression of exchange value. That goods exchange for goods and that
 price was merely an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold 
contained in the £1 sterling. Gold does not determine the price any more than a ruler determines the length of the object measured. Like other commodities, gold has value also price, and is subject to the same laws that apply to them. In fact one might as logically say that wheat determines the price of other goods. The reason why gold is adopted as a standard is its portability, the fact that it does not deteriorate in storage, and that on the average it is less subject to market fluctuations. The Labour Power necessary to produce a given quantity of gold is pretty constant from one year to another; Certainly the discovery of fresh deposits and the introduction of the cyanide process and modern crushing plant has reduced the value of gold which coupled with the fact that it no longer functions as coinage brings supply in excess of demand and a consequent fall in price. But to take A. E. Jacomb’s analogy we must accept the notion that inflation of the currency was responsible for the rise in prices during the war period and since.

I will now take Value and Price (Marx). Value is determined by the amount of socially necessary Labour Power embodied. Price equals Exchange Value, i.e., the relative amount of socially necessary labour power embodied plus the factor of supply and demand. Therefore it follows that if I have 2,000 wares the value of which, assuming that fixed capital is halved as well as variable capital in their production, is just that of 1,000 produced under the old conditions. Of a necessity they must ultimately saturate the market and price will fall below value and will actually exchange at an adverse price. Assuming that the process of production is extended to every other commodity the exchange, i.e., Price remains at par.

Foreign exchange will show how A. E. Jacomb falls. For instance, say, the £1 is quoted at 4.86 to the dollar, it has nothing to do with the amount of gold in either, but the amount of goods that each will buy in their own country. Gold is a mere detail compared to other values created. The amount held by the Banks only fractionally covers the paper in circulation, i.e., Treasury and Bank Notes. Commerce operates by Cheque, Bill or Draft—a mere book transaction. It could not be done by a transference of gold, without half of the population being engaged in gold extraction. Bullion transactions are but adjustments. In the short compass of a letter I cannot deal with every detail of A. E. Jacomb’s article, but may do so later, if allowed.—Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.

Reply to Rimington.

I showed that the result of all wares, including gold, being produced at half the labour cost would be that prices remain the same. My critic says I am wrong. Yet he himself states : “Assuming that the process of production is extended to every other commodity, the exchange, i.e., price, remains at par.” Notwithstanding, then, that I am wrong and my critic right, we both say the same thing, and are in entire agreement so far.

However, Mr. Rimington did not know when to stop. He was safe enough while he was repeating the present scribe, but when he let go of his hand he was soon floundering in the mud. “Gold,” he says, “has value, also price,” and later tells us that gold supply is in excess of demand, and there is a “consequent fall in price.”

Gold has price, has it ! Then how is it expressed? “Price,” my friend correctly states, “is the monetary expression of value.” What, then, is the monetary expression of money? To say that the price of 1,000 bricks is £3 is an intelligent statement ; but to say that the price of the gold in £3 is £3 is idiocy. It adds nothing to our knowledge. An ounce of gold is coined into money expressed by the figures £3 17s. 10½d. It does not matter how the value of gold fluctuates, the amount of gold expressed by those figures is always the same—one ounce. If, then, £3 17s. 10½ d. is the price of one ounce of gold, how is the fall in price to which my critic refers expressed? If the figures are not the price, what is?

Price is an endeavour to equate one kind of commodity to a different commodity (gold), not one to its like; and since all prices are in terms of gold, gold is the only commodity which has no price, and can have none. If silver was the standard of price, then gold could have a price.

Mr. Rimington’s statement that commerce could not operate “by a transference of gold, without half of the population being engaged in gold extraction,” is another ridiculous assertion. The idea is, of course, that for every commodity which is not gold the golden equivalent must exist in order to enable it to exchange. If every piece of gold that was exchanged for a commodity dropped out of circulation when the commodity did he might be correct. But what would become, will my critic tell us, of the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread when the latter were consumed? Would the gold be consumed also? Or would it be free to serve as the medium of further exchanges?

It is difficult to get to the back of Mr. Rimington’s mind, but he appears to imply that high general prices since the war are the result of the supply of gold being in excess of demand. Strangely enough, however, when prices were highest, gold was scarcest.

What Mr. Rimington has to tell us regarding foreign exchange is laughable. When “the £1 is quoted, say, at 4.86 to the $” (Gosh! nearly £5 to the dollar! what a come down for the British Lion !) it has nothing to do with the amount of goods each will buy in its own country. It simply means that the balance of payments is against the country whose money is at a premium. International debts (in commerce) are paid by a process of cancellation. The medium is Bills of Exchange. A in England owes B in America £100; C in America owes D in England £100. If A in England pays D in England £100 and C in America pays A in America £100, they are all square. B draws a bill on A for £100; this he sells to C, who, owing D £100, sends him the bill, and the latter presents it to A for payment upon the date of its maturity. All this is done actually through recognised agents, who buy and sell bills of exchange for a small commission. Now when payments due from England to America largely exceed those due from America to England there will not be sufficient bills on America offered to satisfy the requirements of all those requiring them to pay their debts to Americans. Clearly, then, gold will have to be sent to balance. As the cost of transporting gold has to be faced, the price of the bills advance to cover this. Should gold be very scarce in the country where the demand for bills exceeds the supply, then anticipation of difficulty in obtaining gold will send the price of bills up higher still. That, friend Rimington, is what “foreign exchange” amounts to.

Now let’s see where we stand. After the war prices were much higher than they are now. Also the rate of exchange as between England and America was much more unfavourable to England than it is now. According to Mr. Rimington this means that gold was in greater excess then than now; but according to what I have written above the reverse is indicated. Who is right? It is pretty clear that if gold had been so much in excess of demand in this country as to give us such high prices as prevailed after the war, the master class, instead of putting restrictions on its movement, would have been glad to send some of it to America, thus restoring the balance of exchange on the one hand, and lowering prices to their wage slaves on the other. The first would have meant that they could pay their debts more cheaply, and the second that they could have knocked down wages wholesale.

I have not space to deal with the other dud eggs in my critic’s mare’s nest, but if he is going to have another shot, he should try to be a little more careful.

A. E. Jacomb

Letter: Nationalisation and Socialism. (1927)

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

Below is a letter from a correspondent, together with our reply to his numbered questions.

To the Editor, Socialist Standard.

31/10/27.

Dear Sir, 

One or two questions and remarks about “The Nationalisation Fraud” in November issue of S.S.

(1) Regarding the Post Office, in which I have served. You say the workers “have no control, while the masters own.” Do they not have control through their votes?

(2) Does not any revenue made go to lighten the burden elsewhere? I know it is not Socialism, but it is an attempt in that direction, which is not bad considering it is surrounded by Capitalist conditions.

(3) You contend nationalisation would have a “worsening effect” on workers’ conditions. I do not think telephonists are worse off now than when the telephones were in the hands of the National Telephone Company.

(4) Your quotation of Ramsay MacDonald saying Nationalisation would not “get you out of your present difficulties” seems adroit, but possibly unfair. You neglect to mention to whom he was addressing his remarks. If to any particular body such as teachers, miners, or bakers it seems a perfectly legitimate statement to make. Nationalisation will not solve all difficulties when applied piecemeal, with the rest of society under capitalist methods of administration, but the trouble is that capitalism has put all our civil activities in such a slender balance that any sudden disturbance such as Socialism in a night would probably cause great distress at the outset, which would put back its realisation for a century. I am not in the councils of Labour, but it seems to me that they choose to attempt things gradually.

(5) I know the lower grades in the Civil Service were sore because the millennium did not arrive with the Labour Government, but badly off as they are, there were many other workers in worse parlance, and it was to the condition of the latter that Labour gave prior consideration, viz., O.A.P. Act, 1924, which removed means enquiries. Wheatley Housing Bill. Not Socialism I know, but an effort in that direction.

(6) I imagine much of this will be read with impatience by you, but the fact remains, the electorate are not Socialist yet. The Labour party is a sign that they are turning that way. I say nothing of their leaders, but few things worth having come suddenly. The few successes, the failures and hard lessons learned it is to be hoped will turn the electorate by steps to Socialism.

(7) One more question, and a request. The S.P.G.B. write some very trenchant criticism of all parties in the S.S. This is comparatively easy, and with much of it hosts of people will agree. You publish a “Declaration of Principles,” but assume for a moment The Socialist Party in power with a majority in the Commons will you please indicate what steps it would take to put these principles into practice, and sketch a picture of the state of society after the first twelve months’ administration. There are many snags in putting principles into practice, and some idea of how you would start should prove interesting and instructive to your readers.

Yours faithfully,

G. E. Wright.

Reply:

(1) The workers at present vote Capitalist agents into control of the machinery of Government, thus placing control in the hands of the Capitalist class. We urge them to use their votes to place themselves in control of the machinery of Government.

(2) Yes, the Post Office surplus goes to relieve the Capitalist class of part of their burden of taxation. We fail to see how this is a step towards Socialism. Perhaps our correspondent will enlighten us.

(3) We do not believe, and did not say, that the State pays lower wages than out side industry. As was pointed out in the recent Post Office award of the Civil Service Arbitration Court, Civil Service wages are based on the wages and conditions in industry generally. The “worsening effect” referred to the greater dependency and more restricted position of the State employee who has only one potential employer, as compared with the outside worker who at least has some slight choice. We do not, however, suggest that the difference is great; all are wage-slaves.

(4) If Nationalisation will not solve present difficulties, and since it is not a step towards Socialism, we fail to see why the workers should support it.

(5) To know that there are other workers in a still worse condition may be a slight comfort to “lower grades in the Civil Service,” but it is unfortunately considerably outweighed by the knowledge that there are others, non-workers, who are considerably better off. The Wheatley Housing Bill, according to our correspondent, was “an effort” in the direction of Socialism. Mr. Wheatley, who presumably ought to know, declared in the House of Commons that his Bill was an attempt to “patch up Capitalism.”

(6) It is in order to convert the electorate to Socialism that we preach Socialism in stead of preaching the reform of Capitalism.

(7) Our correspondent shows by this last question that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of our aims. He writes as if we of the Socialist Party were offering to solve the problems of the workers if placed in power, and asking for our work to be judged after twelve months. Our reply is, that when the working class want to abolish the private ownership of the means of production and the right of any individual to live by owning, they will instruct their delegates to take whatever steps they (the working class) decide upon in the light of then existing conditions. Not knowing the time or the circumstances or the possibilities of resistance by the Capitalist minority, we obviously cannot say what precisely those steps will be, nor what progress will have been made in re-organising the basis of society in twelve months.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Socialism and “supermen”, (1927)

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

A Criticism and our reply. 

The Editor of the Socialist Standard.

Sir,

When reading socialist literature I do not disagree with its claims that capitalism is based upon exploitation. But surely this does not constitute an exception ? It seems to me that all life is one immensity of desire to exploit and attain power and supremacy. Even in the obedience of the slave there is the ceaseless desire to take advantage of any weakness in the master. There is no equality or desire for equality to be found in alert and healthy organisms. But there is youth and decay, triumph and death. And it is when failing powers, frustration and consequently misery are paramount that the sentient creature begins to doubt the wisdom of the warlike nature of existence. It is in this condition that we get the following conceptions : (1) That robbery and exploitation are abominable ; (2) that equality is desirable ; (3) that one should sacrifice for one’s neighbour ; (4) that the base have been chosen to bring to naught the things that are; (5) that in the order of social evolution the emancipation of the slaves will involve the emancipation of all mankind; (6) that all souls are equal before God. Some of these are to be found in Christianity, others in Socialism. It appears to me that there is not a great deal of difference between either, allowing for phraseology and the periods when written. I contend that they are both emanations arising from revolting and submerged peoples or classes who have found means to present their case as if their conceptions and values of existence were worthy objects for all. Thus the vanquished can teach that the highest goodness is to sacrifice for one’s neighbour. This, if successful, would act powerfully in their favour. Or they could teach that democracy and equality are involved in the order of social evolution, and interpret history to that end. Both are ruses of the vanquished designed to turn the tide in their behalf. And both have met with partial success.

For instance there is that phenomena the Christian capitalist, who is a monster of contradiction and falsehood, whose very existence depends upon a mode of conduct that is anti-Christian as well as anti-Socialist. But he is yet Christian enough to will vast sums to succour the miserable and unfortunate of life, he has a conscience that way ; and English philanthropy is perhaps one of the most amazing spectacles in existence. Further, he is democratic enough to enfranchise vast numbers of slaves, etc. That which separates me from Christian, Socialist and modern ideas is that they are wholly or in part attempts to exercise a paralysing effect upon enterprising and thoughtful men under cover of the lie of equality, and they hold up the ideas emanating from decline, envy, resentment and decay as the goal of human well-being and goodness.

The object of the Socialist Party is in opposition to the natural desires of extraordinary men, for they wish to further their ideas regardless of the indifferent and conforming multitude. But Socialism would have it that they must, before embarking on new ideas and therefore on new actions, consult by democratic means the opinion of the majority who are inhospitable to ideas, suspicious of anyone who is different, and who cling tenaciously to a few simple superstitions, hates, aversions and longings—most of them idiotic, and all of them coarse, blunt, cowish and stupid.

I am convinced that new civilisations proceed from the higher levels of the race. They are the work of men of exceptional energy, powers of thought and audacity. Both Socialism and Christianity are attempts to paralyse the free play of these men by means of the belief that the low, the ordinary and wretched have something sacred or worthy in them. At their best they are useful, and cannot be more than that. Socialism is the unification of the belief in the greatest good of the greatest number, government of the people by the people for the people, and similar products “in the interest of the whole community” emanating from mob and slave ideas. I claim that these ideas are opposed to the development of higher men, and therefore of a higher race, which can only proceed from its exceptional individuals who should be above responsibility to the general mass of ordinary men. And if among Socialists there happen to be working men of profound intellectual perceptions, they are surely jumping out of the frying pan into the fire in elevating the common man by means of revolt from below and equal rights for all.—I am, Yours, etc.,

Robert Hart.

Reply to Mr. Hart.

Mr. Hart’s letter consists almost entirely of baseless assumptions for whch he does not attempt to give the slightest evidence.

For instance, he uses the term “equality” on several occasions without defining it, and then tries to fix his term on us. In view of our published attitude in our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” Mr. Hart’s claim that we differ little with the statement that “all souls are equal before God,” is not merely absurd, it is a direct misrepresentation.. Moreover, we do not say that “the emancipation of the slave will involve the emancipation of all mankind,” but that the emancipation of the working class will involve this. The modern working class is a slave class, but it is only one in an historical series. What distinguishes it from previous slave classes in this connection is the fact that it is the last class in the series and there is no class below it. Hence its emancipation must mean the emancipation of humanity as a whole.

Neither does the Socialist talk about or advocate “sacrifice for one’s neighbour.” On the contrary, we distinctly point out that it is to the interest of each member of the working class to do his or her share in bringing about Socialism.

Mr. Hart’s ignorance of even elementary history is shown in his statement that “English philanthropy is perhaps one of the most amazing spectacles in existence.” At base English philanthrophy is no different from any other philanthropy, ancient or modern. The sort of philanthropy Mr. Hart mentions has its roots either in a fear of a hereafter, the belief in a heaven or a hell, or else in a desire to achieve notoriety or fame. There is nothing “amazing” about this.

When Mr. Hart says the object of the Socialist Party is in opposition to the natural ( !) desires of extraordinary men, he merely shows his ignorance of Socialism. Unless the men desire to be “extraordinary” thieves and murderers, there is nothing in Socialism to prevent them furthering their ideas unless this furtherance is to the injury of the community. To-day, so beloved by Mr. Hart, these people can only “further their ideas” if such ideas suit the ruling class. If they do not suit this class, the ideas are crushed at birth.

Mr. Hart summarises his views in the last paragraph of his letter when he says “new civilisations proceed from the higher levels of the race.”What are the “higher levels”? He does not say. Further on we are told that higher development “can only proceed from exceptional individuals who should be above responsibility to the general mass of ordinary men.” How charming! But are these “exceptional individuals” also going to “be above” using the services and abilities of this mass? If not—if, as happens to be the fact, they are utterly dependent upon these abilities of the “general mass,” even for their existence, then on what ground does Mr. Hart claim that the “exceptional individuals” should be above responsibility to those on whom they depend?

Apparently Mr. Hart has been reading some defender of Capitalist robbery, like Mr. Mallock, who argued that the Capitalist was entitled to the wealth he stole from the workers, because of his (the Capitalst’s) “exceptional abilities.” If—and when—Mr. Hart cares to give a little time to the study of historical development, he will find that “new civilisations” proceed from the changes in the material conditions of existence. That this development is due, not to the “higher levels of the race,” but to growth and changes in the instruments of production and distribution. When these 
changes reach a stage where they become fettered and hampered by the then system of Society, a struggle ensues between the class interested in the new forms of production, and the class wishing to retain the old system of Society. From the point of view of social status, the class interested in the
new forms is always a “lower” class, but from the wider point of view of social evolution, it is a “higher” class because it is endeavouring to establish a more developed, and therefore a “higher” system of Society. But these terms “higher” and “lower” are the cant and humbug of a ruling class and its dupes, who use them to try and hide the truth from their victims. Socialism is the next stage in the order of social evoluton, and when the growing knowledge of the working class in the truth of our case is extended over a majority of that class, they will take the necessary steps to establish that system despite all the squeals of the “exceptional individual ” who may try to sweep back the ocean with a broom.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

Mr. Hart further replied in the February 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard. 

Letter: Some questions on Socialist policy. (1927)

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

A Correspondent Answered.

We give below a letter from “Student” and our replies to his four questions : —

Oct. 6th, 1927.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

17, Mount Pleasant, 

London, W.C.1.

Dear Comrades,

I am in agreement and have been for a number of years with the Object and Principles of the S.P.G.B., and have been preaching same, yet I must say that I do not agree with actions, statements, and attitude of certain members of the S.P.G.B. which I, like many others, maintain are detrimental to progress to the object of Socialism as stated by the S.P.G.B. I write to ascertain from you your answer to the following questions :—

1. If a person believe there to be a Supreme Being or Living God; or believe in the statements supposed to have been made by the supposed Christ, would such a person be allowed to join or remain a member of the S.P.G.B.?
2. If a person be a member, an active member, of a local unemployed organisation, originated and supported by members of the Tory Party and Fascists, would such person be allowed to join or remain a member of the S.P.G.B.?
3. Is there in your opinion an organisation which does function that is strictly Non-Political: whether it does state so or not?
4. Would you say that nationalisation is, or is not, a step in the right direction toward Socialism?

Thanking you in anticipation for your reply through the ” Standard ” or otherwise.—Yours fraternally,

A Student.

Reply.

(1) Applicants for membership of the Socialist Party are required to demonstrate only that they accept our Declaration of Principles and will adhere to our rules (except, of course, that they must show that they understand what they are signing). But acceptance of Socialism involves acceptance of certain views as to the evolution of society ; there is, therefore, no place in our ranks for those whose “beliefs” prevent them from working confidently for the establishment of Socialism. Belief in a “Supreme Being” possessing and using the power to mould men and things arbitrarily to a “Divine Will ” cuts across our scientific view of the necessity of moulding society ourselves in accordance with our definite views of working-class interests. To show that this is not an exaggerated precaution, we need only consider an amazing document which bears the signature of A. J. Cook, Ben Tillett, George Lansbury, R. Coppock and others. This is the Proclamation of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, issued on April 25th, 1926, for the celebration of ” Industrial Sunday.”

The signatories declare that:

“In attaching our names to this manifesto of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, we proclaim our belief in the Gospel of Christ as the final truth concerning the relationship of men one with another. It is our conviction that statesmanship will fail, and political programmes will prove futile as a solvent of social troubles, unless they embody the spirit and practice of Christ.”

There is much more of this kind of stuff, including an appeal “to our fellow-citizens of all classes” to remedy the evils of the modern world.

Now we offer membership to those who accept our solution of the economic problem of the working class; we cannot offer it to those who pin their faith to Christ, or the “Christian spirit,” or the works of a “Supreme Being,” and who by so doing explicitly or implicitly reject all “political programmes,” including our own. Neither we nor they would benefit from the encouragement such a course would give to the confusion of a double and conflicting allegiance.

(2) and (3) We cannot answer such a question without particulars of the organisation referred to. Members are frequently compelled, in order to work at their trade, to join trade unions founded and dominated by liberals, labourites, and other anti-socialists. We can only say in general that members may not belong to other political parties. Whether a particular organisation is political, or whether for other reasons we consider it undesirable for members to join it, must be decided on the merits of each case.

(4) Nationalisation, or State Capitalism, in this country is emphatically not a step in the right direction. In a backward country like Russia, faced with the need to go through Capitalism before Socialism is a practical possibility, State Capitalism may be a step in the right direction, in that it may hasten capitalist development and enable it to proceed without certain of the worst excesses which competitive capitalism exhibited in this country in the early days.

Editorial Committee.

Camberwell Branch. (1927)

Party News from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new Branch of the Party has been formed recently in the London district of Camberwell.

All sympathisers of the party living in the adjoining districts of Peckham and Brixton are invited to took in at the Branch meeting-room any Friday evening after 8 o’clock. The room is situated next to the main entrrance to the Camberwell Public Baths (main entrance Church Street, Camberwell).

The Secretary’s address is : J. Goodfellow, 40, Solon New Road, Clapham, S.W., to whom all enquiries should be addressed.

Branch headquarters are very conveniently-situated and suitable for the discussions (open to the public) which will be a feature of these Friday evenings.

J. G.

SPGB Meetings and Lectures. (1927)

Party News from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The “Economic Causes of War” pamphlet mentioned above was the Canadian pamphlet which had been advertised in the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Who are the capitalists? (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Every Man a Capitalist” is the title of an article written by Sir Sydney Low, and published in the “Sunday Pictorial” (2.10.27). The sub-title is “‘How Wealth is Spreading Amongst the Workers.”

Sir Sydney accuses Socialists of being “dealers in popular unrest,” and states that for years past we have been saying that “the rich are growing richer and the poor becoming poorer.” Also, we have said this so often and so persistently that many earnest persons who are not Socialists are inclined to believe there must be some truth in the indictment. In fact, there is none. So says Sir Sydney.

Of course, we are very pleased to hear that we are making an impression upon “many earnest persons who are not Socialists.”

To show that the rich are getting poorer, Low tells us “they are not spending extravagantly, their lives are simpler and less luxurious than they used to be.” These unfortunate people are parting with “their large, expensive houses, and offering their estates for sale. Many of them protest that they are living upon their capital in order to pay their way.”

This is all very sad, but it is not proof that the rich are getting poorer. They may not be spending extravagantly because they desire to invest more; they may be living less luxurious and more simple lives in the interests of their health. But the really important point, which Sir Sydney overlooks, is that large estates cannot be sold unless there exist purchasers. Unless, therefore, he believes that the large estates are being bought up by unemployed miners and others who have been compelled to relinquish their former occupation, there must still be rich people willing to be extravagant and able to afford it.

Another factor ignored by Sir Sydney Low is that many of these estates have been broken up merely because of the tempting opportunity of netting big gains, owing to the demand for building sites.

Then to show how every worker tends to become a capitalist, Sir Sydney refers to the increase in the number of privately-owned motor cars. He says : “By the end of this year there will be 700,000 self-propelled private vehicles in England. And who owns them ? For the most part people of moderate and even small means.”

Our opponent, evidently thinking this fad not sufficient to convince the sceptical, put forth further evidence to show that some day every worker will be a capitalist. This time it is houses. He tells us that “since 1923 600,000 new houses have been bought by middle class and working class tenants.” These houses have been built with State, or municipal, aid. And then “hundreds of thousands of others already in existence or erected by private builders have been sold to occupiers of the same kind.”

“House owning,” he goes on, “is not the only method whereby the man of limited income is turning himself into a capitalist. He tends more and more to become an investor.” As evidence, Sir Sydney informs us, “National Savings Certificates are now issued to the value of over £642,000,000. It may safely be asserted that almost the whole of that £642,000,000 represents capital belonging to the small investor.” But does it in fact?

In 1922, that is, before the workers’ savings had been drained by five years of trade depression, unemployment, short time and lowered wages, the Montague Committee were only able to express the opinion that “at least half” of the total sold up to the 31st March, 1922, represented the subscriptions of small investors (see Colwyn Committee Report, page 21).

Mr. W. T. Layton, the Liberal economist and statistician, estimates that small investors hold £455 million out of a total £6,592 million, which makes up the Internal National Debt, the magnificent proportion of 7 per cent. (“Economic Journal,” June, 1927, p. 204.)

However, enough! Is it the private ownership of a motor car, whether a Ford or a Rolls-Royce, that makes a person a capitalist? No. Is a man a capitalist because he owns the house in which he lives? No. Is it the possession of a few Savings Certificates that makes a man a capitalist? No.

What, then, is a capitalist? A capitalist is one who owns enough property in the means of living such as land, factories, railways, steamships, raw materials, etc., to be able to live without needing to work. The income derived from this private ownership frees the capitalist from the necessity of working for his livelihood.

It may be asked, what, then, is a worker?

A worker is one who, not owning any or sufficient property, is forced to sell his labour-power to the capitalist class, in order that he may live.

Sir Sydney speaks of the “lower middle class and the “higher working class.” This is “confusion worse confounded” as there are only two classes in modern capitalism, those who live by working and those who live by owning. And, as shown above, it is the manner in which a person obtains his or her livelihood that places him or her in one of these two classes.

As to wealth spreading out amongst the workers, heaps of evidence could be put forth to show the contrary to be true. First of all the workers are painfully aware of the constant dwindling in their wages, and ever-present unemployment.

In the report of the Ministry of Health, 1926-27, it is stated : “Poor Law Relief has risen nearly 350 per cent. since 1914, but outdoor relief has risen by over 1,000 per cent. The number of persons receiving out-relief were, in 1914, 387,796; 1927, 1,722,084 ” (“Daily News,” 16.9.27).

Then Mr. Harold Cox, who is a defender of capitalism, writing in the “Sunday Times,” 31.7.27., says: “In round figures pauperism in 1914 represented 21 per 1,000 of the population, and in 1927, as stated above, just under 40 per 1.000. It is, therefore, not far from the truth to state that the proportion of paupers to self-dependant citizens has doubled since 1914.”

The above facts show the falsity of Sir Sydney Low’s argument. As capitalism develops, the major portion of the wealth produced ccncentrates still further into fewer and fewer hands. It is, therefore^ obvious that the poverty of the mass must increase relatively to the wealth of the propertied class.

And as bad as the lot of the workers may be at the moment, it will tend to become worse with the further development of capitalism.

The only solution to the poverty problem of the working class is not for individual workers to buy a motor car, a house, or a few Savings Certificates, but to organise in the Socialist Party in order to do away with capitalism, the cause of their poverty, and to bring into existence Socialism, the social system which will free them from poverty.

C.

Doctrines, dogmas and Marx. (1927)

 

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Essay in Clear Thinking.

A Canadian correspondent sends us a cutting from “The Sporting News,” No. 32 (of Winnipeg), and asks us for our opinion on it. As the cutting is undated, we cannot supply our Canadian readers with any further means of identification except that the article appears to be an editorial, and is headed “Capitalism.”

The article has a good deal to say about “doctrines” and “dogmas,” and the workers’ “lack of understanding,” but is itself written in such an ambiguous style that the reader is not assisted in his efforts to get at what the article is intended to make clear—if there is any such intention !

Here is a quotation from the early part of the article :—

“The point to be noted is that, all that passed for knowledge in those days [early, or prehistoric times] has long since been forgotten, but the struggles of mind over matter were passed on, and to-day the man who seeks to read history will not seek to damn Capital or Capitalism, but rather seeks to understand it. How natural for the pioneer of thought to make mistakes ; he but glimpses the truth, and the pain and struggles of the mass often supply just that portion of his idea which he has perforce left ambiguous. This has been so in all the fields of scientific research. Sociology, or the science of life, is difficult to understand. The worker untrained in the process of mind, though exceedingly clever with tools, often becomes a victim of his own misunderstanding and becomes lost twixt the philosophical and the scientific, the theoretical and the practical.”

Now what exactly is the meaning of this nebulous collection of statements? To write that “all that passed for knowledge” in early times “has been forgotten” is to write rubbish. The knowledge, for instance, that it is dangerous to stand under a falling tree, is as true to-day as it was when man first grasped the fact. And what is the precise meaning of “the struggles of mind over matter”? Is this not of the nature of a dogma? After all, the mind seeks to grasp the ways of the world including itself, and if the article is intended as a contribution to clear thinking, it should avoid phrases that are ambiguous, and confuse. An illustration or two would have helped readers to grasp what is meant by the pain and struggles of the masses supplying just that portion of a pioneer’s idea which he is alleged to have perforce left ambiguous !

Again, is sociology the science of life? Is it not rather the science which investigates the means and methods of human association? Surely Biology is the science of life ! The writer, or writers, having enlightened the readers with the above ambiguities and false phrases, then warms to the business in hand, and give to the world the following pearls of wisdom :—

“He formulated the three doctrines, viz., the materialist conception of history, the class struggle and the theory of surplus value. His work is the exposition of these doctrines. Does the world grasp them as doctrines to be used to influence understanding, “They do not” ; it is much easier to give them a dogmatic interpretation than to read and understand them. “Did Marx say the last thing in economic law?” He did not, in fact; history will ultimately show that he really said the first rather than the last. His three doctrines included all the knowledge known and all that was to be known, because the doctrines comprise the whole of existence. The workers have been left to understand Marx as best they may, and they seem to be making a sorry mess of the job. When dogma takes the place of doctrine, then imagination runs riot and reason is dethroned for the time being.”

We are told that Marx did not say the last thing in economic law, in fact, he said rather the first. Yet “his three doctrines included all the knowledge known [what is knowledge that is unknown?] and all that was to be known, because the doctrines comprise the whole of existence” ! Reason certainly seems to be a little bit off the throne here ! If Marx said the first thing in economic law, then what about Aristotle, Franklin, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and the rest?

May we suggest that it would have been a concession on the part of whoever is responsible for the article if they had hinted at the meanings of “dogmas” and “doctrines” so that readers would have had some small opportunity of piercing the veil of mystery surrounding the “points” in the article. A dogma is an opinion or doctrine accepted on trust or authority; a doctrine is a principle, view, or set of opinions taught. The principles put forward by Marx were arrived at after a lifetime’s examination of a veritable storehouse of facts; and the principles together with facts upon which they were based were set down for all to examine and criticise. The workers, where they have had the opportunity, and in spite of the intentionally pernicious effect of capitalist education, have succeeded in grasping the essence of Marx’s teaching, and this without the aid of a “higher education.”

To say that the workers are “making a sorry mess of the job” is either the empty words of an enemy or the cheap sneer of a cocksure blunderer.

“Leaving the materialist conception, and surplus value to one side for brevity, in this article, what interpretation do many of the workers put on the class struggle ? In the ordinary language of the day, it is “get ready for a fight, organize for a revolution,” and this dogma of the class struggle has sure brought much havoc among the workers. It was this dogma that organized the German Proletariat and got them ready to obey the Imperialism of Germany. It is the same “bunk” which inflamed Russia, who intend to inflame the rest of the world if they are allowed to have their way. The point in this connection between doctrine and dogma is that the three doctrines are a threefold conception, a theoretical conception from which lessons of understanding may be learnt. Where the three are understood, each in relation to the other, it presupposes an understanding which leads to the evolutionary rather than the revolutionary. If the revolution takes place in mind, it no longer is sought for in the national rough house tactics. It cannot lead to the destruction of wealth, war, and all it entails. It must lead to conservation of national life and the workers must needs fit themselves with understanding, so that those who direct the struggle shall be subdued by it. The class struggle is a doctrine, is theoretical, and will change with the process of changing industry, but as a dogma it, like many superstitious dogmas, will always remain the same till society outlives it. The worker may continue to damn capitalism, but it cannot be denied that it is the school-master of the iron and steel age, and materially shortens the distance towards emancipation in proportion as doctrine understood supersedes—Dogmas—the misunderctood too !”

The above is the last paragraph in the precious article. It may be noted in passing that the materialist conception and surplus value are put aside, at the beginning, for the sake of brevity, but brought in again a few lines later as inseparable from the class struggle theory. It may also be noted that nowhere is there an attempt to define any of them, beyond assuring us that they are “doctrine” ! It is asserted that many workers interpret the class struggle as a call to “get ready for a fight, organise for the revolution,” and then the assertion is made that this dogma was the cause of the downfall of the German Proletariat. This is a false interpretation of the situation, and is used for the purpose of bolstering up the ”Evolutionary” as opposed to the revolutionary view of social change. But first of all a word on the downfall of the German Social Democracy. This was the outcome of a long period of propaganda that had as its basis the view, still common among so-called leaders of democracy, that the main thing was to get a large body of workers organised, without bothering much whether they understood clearly for what they were organising. This had nothing at all to do with the class struggle theory.

“Evolutionary,” scientifically understood, signifies an unfolding, a movement from a relatively lower to a relatively higher state, and this, as applied to society, includes in the movement “revolution” as the expression of a complete change of basis. The people, however, who urge “evolutionary” as opposed to “revolutionary” views of social change interpret “evolution” to mean a gradual change of the social basis from private ownership of the means of production to common ownership, taking place step by step, a little at a time, on the quiet without anybody being the wiser until, hey presto ! the deed is done. Socialism is here, whoever would have thought it? And this is apparently the culminating idea in the article with which we are dealing. Lo, the mountain bringeth forth not even a mouse, but only the hair off the leg of a gnat !

Gilmac.

The nationalisation fraud. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

While the workers are separated from their means of life, dependant upon the masters for work in order to live, all economies in doing that work mean fewer required. Nationalisation is one of those capitalist economies, and wherever it operates, as on certain railways, or over whole industries as in Australia, its effects have been detrimental to the workers. The capitalist class in control of political power will decide when and where privately run industries will serve their class better as State capitalist concerns, such as the Post Office. Despite empty phrases of Communist and Labour reformers, the workers will have no control what the masters own. “Forward” (13/8/-27), the Scottish organ of the I.L.P., says: “The whole of the Labour programme for the reconstruction of our two basic industries is based on the practicability of Nationalisation.” True, the Labour Party, with its lords, viscounts, parsons and capitalist financial support, require a programme that will win the votes of those who are tired of the orthodox parties, but it must appear to be one different from those parties. It must contain issues over which they appear to fight the capitalists, issues over which the workers can win a “great victory,” but which will still leave them workers as of yore. At the moment the Trade Union Bill and Nationalisation serve the purpose, as Home Rule, Free Trade, Votes for Women, etc., have done in the past—served to divert your attention from your slavery. But a problem confronts the Labour Party. With office and power looming in the distance, to make Nationalisation an issue would, with power conferred upon them, imply the necessity of introducing legislation to make it a fact : What would be the result? They would first lose a vote-catching stunt that has served them well when power seemed remote, but more important, its worsening’ effects upon the workers’ conditions would eventually disillusion those members of the working class who support capitalism masquerading as Labourism. J. H. Thomas, ambassador of class docility, sees this. Addressing an international gathering of school teachers on the subject of the practicability of Nationalisation, he told them plainly that as a Labour Party measure it is not practical now.

“Forward” (Ibid) quotes his statement from the “Manchester Guardian” (9/8/27), and appears to express astonishment. Say they : ”In the light of this, Mr. Thomas is surely entitled to give us an explanation of his statements at the Teachers’ Conference.” But stay! There is a gentleman whose photo appears on the same page as this request, from whom “surely” an explanation is due also. He is the Great God (capitals, please) of the I.L.P., Ramsay MacDonald. He saw the light sooner than J. H. Thomas, so is entitled to the first explanation. He has said : “I should not be doing justice to you or to myself if I told you that Nationalisation was going to get you out of your present difficulties; you know that I should be lying if I tried to spoof you in that way.” “Times,” (27 7/25). Here is a dilemma. According to this idol of the I.L.P., both they and the Labour Party, whose programme is based on the “practicability of Nationalisation” are lying and spoofing to you. Shall we be told it is not true because “we are only a small party,” or is it true because these more far-seeing leaders realise that things are only practical to them while they serve as vote-catching expedients.

W. E. MacHaffie

The role of the financier. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Finance, we are told, is the sinew of modern industry, the base upon which commercial operations rest, and the controller, in high finance, is one of the worshipful company of captains of industry. Now and again there is a storm in financial circles, one of its star performers comes to ruin, the veil is torn aside, and we get a glimpse of the nature of financial operations.

Such an instance has occurred lately with the ruin and suicide of the financier, James White. A fellow financier, Sir Edward Mackay Edgar, made a statement to the Daily News (2/7/27) from which we extract the following :—

 “Thousands of people will be ruined as the result of the wild speculations of the late Mr. James White. Already two of his closest friends have gone ‘broke,’ and God alone knows what will happen within the next fortnight. It will be the sensation of the 20th century in the matter of finance.

“The British Controlled Oilfields is my baby. I organised it and got it into a fine position. It was the aim of Jimmy White to obtain as many shares as possible and force up the price. Then he hoped to sell and realise a fortune. That was as far back as three years ago. I would not consent because of the advice of technical experts on the spot.

“On the Thursday before Good Friday, Mr. White came to me and asked me to join a pool to force up the price of B.C.O. shares. For five hours I was on my hands and knees in my flat imploring him not to engage in such a mad venture, knowing that disaster could be the only result. He left me that night, and I have only seen him once since.

“He entered upon a bitter campaign to reduce me to financial ruin. He failed in his efforts. He bought shares right and left. He relied upon by group of friends selling short. We never unloaded a single share, but kept them, and we knew that White on June 30th would have to meet his enormous commitments or go ‘broke.’ This last effort of his was a gambler’s last throw of the dice. I knew the crash was coming. All my friends were aware of it.”

The interesting side to us in the above statements is the fact that the foundations of modern industry are so frail that men like White can play ducks and drakes with it and bring chaos where order should reign, by indulging in lawful financial operations. Instances such as this bring to the front the question, “What is the object of industry?” Is it to provide people of a peculiar nature with an outlet for a glorious gamble, or is it to provide society with means to meet the mental and physical needs of the people composing society. Evidently our “great”captains of industry hold the view that the earth and the fulness thereof was made for their sport and enjoyment—and we are merely items too cheap to be worthy of consideration.

Gilmac.

Larkin protests. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the October issue we dealt with the Irish Election and the confusion caused by the conflicting policies of English and Irish Communists. We pointed out that while Larkin supported the Republicans and opposed the Labour Party, the English Communists who supported Larkin supported the Labour Party too. It appears that Larkin is not satisfied with this, and in the “Workers’ Life" (September 30th) is a statement to the effect that Larkin and his Irish Worker League have protested against what they regard as an “error” on the part of their English Communist colleagues. The matter is to be referred for a ”full report and discussion” to the Central Committee of the C.P.G.B.

It is, however, amusing to observe the ground on which Larkin objects. “The Irish Worker League, alone of all Irish political groups, is carrying on a revolutionary fight on behalf of the Irish working class.” (Italics ours.)

Larkin, with a peculiar logic of his own, while opposing the Labour Party because “The Irish Worker League alone is carrying on a fight, etc.,” tells the workers to support and vote for the Republicans !

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The fruits of “reform”. (1927)

Editorial from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who credit our present rulers with a special regard for the interests of the workers would do well to ponder upon the facts revealed at the recent inquiry into the fire at the St. Pancras film factory, when five workers’ lives were lost.

According to Mr. Macklin, Inspector of Factories, “The outbreak of fire could have been avoided by the use of some other method of drying” (“Daily Chronicle,” Oct. 11th); while Miss Ada Dunch, another inspector, stated that she addressed a letter to the firm regarding breaches of the regulations as long ago as January. She further stated that there were over 4,800 factories and workshops in her district and that her staff consisted of one half-time man, and some assistance given by another inspector.

Asked by a representative of the Home Office if she found it difficult to carry out the annual inspection, she replied that it was impossible. Her statement was corroborated by Mr. Macklin already quoted.

In his classic examination of capitalist industrialism, Marx long ago showed how numerous Acts of Parliament (ostensibly designed to regulate conditions in factories) remained dead letters owing to the failure of Parliament to vote the funds for the necessary inspectors. Seventy odd years later we find that his criticism still applies.

Liberal, Labour and Conservative Governments have succeeded one another in the task of administering the affairs of the capitalist class; with the result that working-men and women still go needlessly to their doom in order that their good, kind masters may enjoy lives of culture and benevolence on the profits realised from the workers’ toil.

The wage-slaves of to-day pile up wealth in hitherto unheard-of quantities; yet it is too much to expect that they should be enabled to do so in security. It is cheaper to let them be burnt or buried alive than to pay for the necessary supervision to prevent such events.

The tragic death of five factory hands is of course a paltry flea-bite which passes unnoticed by the average slave who enjoys, by way of amusement, pictures of the wholesale slaughter of the members of his class when glorified by such names as “Mons” and “Verdun.” The putrid sentiment which clogs the minds of working-class patriots prevents them seeing the shrieking absurdity of a social order under which millions can be poured forth daily for years in order to produce a blood-bath while the money cannot be found to save women in England from a holocaust.

Over a million men and women on the Labour Exchanges and a shortage of factory inspectors ! What have you to say, you Tory, Liberal and Labour reformers?

The blood of the workers calls out for an answer!

"Capitalism's Big 3." (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The cartoon is unsigned but there was a William Cameron cartoon that appeared in the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Letter: What is Socialism? (1927)

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

The following is a letter from a correspondent, and our reply :—

London, October 20th, 1927.

Dear Sir,

I attended the debate at the Battersea Town Hall on “Socialism.”

Rather unfortunately, neither party defined Socialism, so the debate was rather a failure. Perhaps you can help me. “Socialism means the entire absence of private property. The State is to own and control everything.”

Would my P.O. bank account be confiscated ? Would they take away my little shop ? Should I be compelled, with a Grey Ticket, B.2, 48392, to deal at only one shop and take the goods they offer ?

Can I own a £5 note? Bernard Shaw says no, that would make me a capitalist. I heard him say that, at a lecture in answer to a question. Could I buy a cricket bat, and call it my very own ? How should I get the money ?

Could I buy a joint of beef without money ?

I am quite in a fog. Please discuss this and get the next Socialist Standard—a good paper—to reply.

Yours truly,

A.B. Firmin.

Our Reply:

Mr. Firmin claims acquaintanceship with the Socialist Standard, but he surely does not read it very carefully. If he did, he would have observed that the debate in question centred round the question which of the two parties should the working class support, and further, that every issue of the “S.S.” contains the definition of Socialism. Socialism does not mean anything so negative and silly as “the entire absence of private property,” nor is “the State” to “own and control everything.” The latter is a distorted description of State Capitalism which may justly be attributed to one section of the Labour Party. It is not Socialism, and has never received the support of the Socialist Party as our “Object” states (see last page). Socialism is “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.”

Mr. Firmin will see here that ownership and control will be vested in the whole community, not in the “State,” that common ownership is concerned with means of production which, as our “Principles” go on to explain, refers to land, factories, railways, etc. We hasten to relieve our correspondent of the horrible fear that we propose the communal ownership and control of his toothbrush and collar-stud.

Far from abolishing “all private property/’ Socialism will place it in the power of all of the population to share in the varied kinds of wealth which society can produce—something which at present is denied in large measure to most of them.

As for Mr. Firmin’s “little shop,” we suggest that he probably wants it only as a means to an end, the end being the obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, recreation, amusements, etc. Socialist society will place these things at the disposal of Mr. Firmin as for the rest of the members of society. As it is to obtain these useful articles that we all at present endeavour to secure £5 notes, we shall most of us lose interest in the means, e.g., the £5 notes, when the end can be secured otherwise. (The exceptions will be those who have a taste for collecting useless oddities. Speaking for myself, Mr. Firmin may at that time have all my £5 notes, then as valueless as old Mark or Rouble paper money.)

We are not responsible for the reported vagaries of Mr. Bernard Shaw. Mr. Firmin would not need to BUY a cricket bat, but we assure him he could have one for his very own.

We ask our correspondent to remember that buying and selling, and the use of money as the basis of the economic activities of human society are relatively recent acquirements. They have served their useful purpose, and the means now exist (as a result of the development of Capitalism), for society to arrange the production and distribution of wealth without the intervention of money. We do not know what Mr. Firmin sells in his little shop, nor whether he is the father of young children, but supposing that a hypothetical Tommy Firmin occasionally asks for food and clothes, etc., it is most unlikely that Mr. Firmin would insist on the production of money from members of his family (if any) before he allows them to eat or dress at his expense.

We trust that our correspondent is no longer in a fog, but if he is, we shall be pleased to answer any further questions or criticisms.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The debate that Mr. Firmin attended was the one below.

Letter: Socialism v the I.L.P. (1927)

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

The following is a letter from a member of the I.L.P. :—

7/10/27.

To the Editor of the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I have been very interested in the discussions contained in the “S.S.” from time to time, especially between your Socialism and that of the I.L.P. I, however, fail to see any gulf between the objects of the S.P.G.B. and the I.L.P., and its kindred association. It, therefore, seems to me unfortunate that speakers of your party should be continually denouncing the representatives of working-class interests, and it would be better if they devoted their speeches entirely to making Socialists. I have before me the “S.S.” of September, 1926, in which you say (page 12) that “no fundamental change in the object and policy of the I.L.P., however, is dreamt of,” and later on “These champions of Nationalisation . . . would not solve the wages problem.” I will, and have only the time, to deal with these two points.

(1) Firstly, “no fundamental change” is necessary, as their object is, has been and always will be, to transfer the private ownership of land and means of production, etc., into social ownership. You are at liberty to criticise their tactics, but not their object. Advice from technical and economic experts must be taken in the transformation of society, and we must be assured that this advice is in the interest of the working-classes. These experts must be, then, of the working-class.

(2) Secondly, the I.L.P. fully recognises that the wages system has got to go, and here again, the method to be adopted must be one that will not injure the class whom they desire should benefit.

(3) It is obvious to you that the so-called “living-wage” proposals, in my opinion, are held out to the masses as so much bread and butter to them under the Capitalist system, and that by intensive propaganda, more support will be given to the party in order to conquer the political machine and to use it without inflicting too great a hardship on their supporters. For instance, if in one sweep, a Socialist party abolished interest, some of the people who would be hit the hardest are those who are trying to live on a starvation wage, plus a few shillings resulting from a small investment—say £200 5 per cent. stock. When it is a matter of principle, there must be no discrimination between one form and another.

(4) If you have any suggestion as to what a Socialist Party should do when it has been returned to power, and at the same time retain the confidence of its supporters, I should be glad to hear of it in your next issue alongside of this letter. Could you spare me the space, please?

I.L.P’er.

Ruskin House,

Croydon.

Our Reply.

For convenience of reply we have numbered four paragraphs with which we propose to deal.

(1) It is news to us that the I.L.P. propose to abolish private ownership. It will also be news to the I.L.P. The abolition of private ownership would involve the abolition of all forms of living by owning property, i.e., rent, interest and profit. Asked as recently as August whether the I.L.P. proposed to abolish “rent, interest and profit,” Mr. E. E. Hunter, Secretary of the I.L.P. Information and Research Department, replied in an official letter, dated August 22nd :—

“Many Socialists are in favour of their complete abolition, while others have held the view that complete abolition is not desirable.” (Of course, when Mr. Hunter writes ” Socialists,” he means here “members of the I.L.P.”)

The “Socialist Programme” published by the I.L.P. (1923) is more definite. Under the heading “A Socialist Programme for Industry,” it says (page 24) :—

“The present shareholders in mines and railways could receive State mines or railway stock based on a valuation and bearing a fixed rate of interest.”

Mr. J. R. MacDonald, in his “Socialism, Critical and Constructive” (page 274) says :

“When Labour uses capital and pays its market value, property is defensible . . .”

This may be the aim of “I.L.P’er,” but it is decidedly not Socialism.

(2) The I.L.P. will be equally surprised to learn that it. proposes to abolish the wages system. The constitution adopted at the 1922 Annual Conference states under “Political and Industrial Democracy,” that the “basis of industrial democracy must be the organisation of the wage and salary earners.” (See the “Story of the I.L.P., page 20.)

(3) “I.L.P’er” believes he knows why the I.L.P. advocates its “Living Wage Policy.” We do not know that, but we do know that Socialism is not going to be introduced by a political party which has been placed in power for some other purpose by electors who are not Socialist. If “I.L.P’er” will recall the administration of Capitalism by the Labour Party in 1924, or the experience of various Labour Governments (e.g., New South Wales in September of this year) he will perceive that when electors find themselves deceived by a political party which fails to carry out its promises, or which goes beyond its mandate, they express their disapproval by voting against it at the first opportunity. It is interesting also to recall that the Labour Party in office appealed to the miners not to embarrass it by asking for more wages, and threatened striking transport workers with the Emergency Powers Act. That seems to us to be a curious way of expressing the I.L.P.’s enthusiasm for a living wage. (As well over 50 per cent. of the Labour M.P.’s at that time were I.L.P. members, the I.L.P. is fully accountable for all of the anti-working class actions of MacDonald’s Ministry.

(4)”I.L.P’er” here overlooks the important point that Socialist Party candidates will only be elected to the House of Commons on a Socialist Programme (not on a programme of Capitalist reforms), by a Socialist electorate (not by electors who want a living wage, or family endowment, etc., etc.) and for the single purpose of establishing Socialism. The only way of retaining the confidence of a Socialist electorate will be to work for Socialism just as it is now true that the only way I.L.P. M.P.’s can retain the confidence of their non-Socialist electorates is to work for everything other than Socialism. If Socialist M.P.’s fail to do the work for which they are elected, the voters will get rid of them at the first opportunity.

Edgar Hardcastle