Society and Morals. Part I. Morality. (1917)

From the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we examine the mental condition of any people or section of mankind it is invariably found that, among each and all of them, human actions are judged as good or evil according to the degree they approximate to an ideal standard of conduct, held up and “somehow or other” acquired by the people in question. This standard by which conduct is judged is usually termed their moral or ethical code. The voluntary actions and opinions of men, be they savage or civilised, are guided by the moral code which either they have partly inherited, unconsciously grown up to accept, or their ripened experience has suggested.

The utmost variety is to be found in the moral notions of mankind. Cannibalism, incest, nudity in public, chattel-slavery, piracy, and a host of other practices to-day considered immoral have, in their age and place, all been perfectly moral and thoroughly justifiable.

The Problem of Ethics.

The problem of the origin and nature of the “moral law” has been one which thinkers in all ages have taxed their brains to solve. We all remember being told in our childhood how the god of the Jews gave to his “chosen people” the ten commandments. Most barbaric peoples believe their moral standard to be thus decreed by their god or gods.

Among all people who hold this view, be they uncivilised, or civilised people who accept the barbarian beliefs of Christianity, we naturally enough find a violent intolerance of those codes which differ from their own and sanction actions which theirs condemn. Those people who hold and act up to these other codes, are “working against the will of God” ; they are condemned as wicked, perverse, immoral, or as devoid of a “moral sense.” The books of missionaries are full of such allusions regarding the “heathen.”

It was only after morality in general was made the subject of research in the critical scientific spirit that any serious opposition to the “god theory” was forthcoming. Even the ancient Greeks did striking work in this field considering their very limited means. Notably the so-called “Sophists” of the Protagorean school denied the absolute and emphasised the relative character of morals. With the revival and growth of science in Europe since the fifteenth noiitury, ethical science advanced step by step ; Adam Smith, Kant, Locke, Hume and others building up a scientific theory which was finally rounded off by the work of Darwin, Spencer, Marx, and Morgan.

Social Regulations.

The labours of travellers, explorers, and historians gradually piled up data and widened the field for investigation. As in all other branches of science, the accumulated array of material first had to be sorted out and classified by finding the common characters in which the seemingly unlike agreed. It was then discovered that there is one common factor running right through all varieties of morality—they all have a social basis.

We have stated that the moral law is a guide to action. But all the activities of men do not come within the scope of the moral code. In the wearing of clothes there are fashions and customs the violation of which is not, usually, to-day, regarded as immoral. In the performing of the normal operations of living, e.g., eating, drinking, and sleeping, there are certain manners and customs, but they are not considered moral obligations where they affect only the personal welfare. But consider certain variations of the above cases. Let a man over-eat so as to knowingly deprive others of food ; or by being drunk cause obstruction in the public highway ; or being a working man remain in bed when he “should be working for his employer,” then contempt and perhaps punishment are meted out to him for he has outraged the morality of the community.

This is the crux of the matter. It is those activities which, when performed by an individual, affect and interfere with his fellows which are embraced within the moral law. Morality is a regulator of the relations existing between beings living in association. It is essentially a social phenomenon. A few illustrations will make this clear.

To-day a farmer may plough his land, sow and reap his crop on any day which suits him without regard to his neighbours ; but in the Mediaeval village where the villagers held several strips of land each, these strips being strewn and intermingled over a large area, such independence would have led to endless confusion, and accordingly certain days were allotted for the various kinds of field work and the whole agriculture of the community was carried on according to customary rules. Strict adherence to these rules was of the highest moral importance. In the first case, the labour was an individual concern ; in the second, one affecting the entire village community.

Again, the killing of a person, for private reasons, which brings discord into a society, is highly immoral ; when the killing, however, is multiplied a millionfold, but is in the “national interest,” showers of praise fall upon the heads of the slaughterers.

Barbarian societies are usually small, self-sufficing, and independent of other communities. While, in them, theft, fraud and murder are considered awful crimes when a fellow-tribesman (a kinsman) is the victim, such actions are permitted against men of other groups, are indeed, considered glorious and praiseworthy, for the neighbouring tribes are usually dangerous enemies and thus any injury to them is beneficial to the community.

That which is believed, by the bulk of its members, to be in the interests of the social group, is regarded as moral, that which is injurious to it—immoral. Apart from, society morality has no significance—solitary beings would have no use for it.

The Light of Evolution.

Before the science of society itself developed, the moral code could never be really understood and this was the great handicap upon the early ethicists. One school carrying their belief in the “supremacy of reason” to the extreme believed society to have originated in a consciously made agreement or contract entered into by primitive man. All moral principles were the product of reasoning from experience. Recognised social utility was, they argued, the basis of morals, hence this school is often entitled, the “utilitarian.”

Another school pointed out, however, that the basic impulses towards social unity and harmony appear to be grafted into the very personality of man—to be part of his physico-mental nature.

Conflict waged between the two schools until the evolution theory revealed for the first time man’s real place in the scheme of nature. Man was then clearly proven to be the outcome of a long line of changing animal ancestors, developing in succession from a jelly speck in the warm primeval ocean, through the worm, fish, reptile, lowly mammal and finally ape stages. Darwin showed in his “Descent of Man” that altruism and social solidarity is widespread among the higher types of gregarious animals and that a sort of instinctive “morality” is very prevalent.

It required the historical materialism of Karl Marx, Engels, and Morgan, to reveal how, granting the animal origin of sociability, its many-sided applications as reflected in morality are worked out, as we see them, in human society—savage, barbarian and civilised.

The Social Instinct.

Animal societies are bewildering in their number and variety. There are temporary unions like the wolf packs for hunting in winter ; the wonderful organisations of the ants and bees ; the fine examples of mutual support, among the hoofed animals, the rodents and the monkeys. The closer and more permanent the unions, the more developed are the social impulses of sympathy, self-sacrifice, the sense of duty and responsibility which are vital to a society’s existence, for they function as a protective discipline against the too full assertion of the primary instinct for purely personal welfare.

The impulses bound up with sociability therefore, develop in the same proportion as the greater efficiency of co-operation over individual competition asserts itself in the struggle for existence which pervades the animal kingdom.

The social instinct was, it must be remembered, not evolved to safeguard the community for its own sake, but only because the organisation was a factor in securing the welfare and survival of the bulk of its members, as individuals capable of perpetuating the species. The more thoroughly social a species becomes the more dependent upon the association is the individual creature, and, correspondingly, the greater is its danger and helplessness when isolated from its kind.

Early man, conspicuous and yet without any efficient organic means of defence, was forced to use collective might and action to struggle successfully against opposing nature. Speech evolved through and for social intercourse, and reacting, greatly aided his intellectual development. Even the artificial tools and weapons which man uses were dependent upon social habits for their progress. Perfected by an infinite series of modifications, such did not pass away with the death of the inventors but were taken up, adopted and passed on to succeeding generations by their fellows. Primitive man was therefore as dependent upon his social organisation as is a lion upon its teeth and claws.

At their dawn the social impulses are as unreasoned and instinctive as those of sex or maternity and so can hardly yet be classed as moral forces, which presuppose a certain consciousness of choice in actions. But once reason begins to supersede blind instinct in the ordinary work of living it also urges in man an enquiry into the why and the wherefore of his conduct in relation to his fellow man, and a conscious conception of morality gradually takes the place of unreasoned, half or non-conscious social impulsiveness.

R. W, Housley

(To be Continued.)

Society and Morals. Part IX. Socialism, Its Economic and Theoretical Basis. (1918)

From the August 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Part IX. Socialism, Its Economic and Theoretical Basis.

From whatever point of view it may be examined, the capitalist mode of production is seen to be involved in economic difficulties, social anomalies, and logical inconsistencies, such as no previous system at any time of its existence has ever presented. And though these are chronic enough to-day, there is every evidence that in the future they will become immeasurably more pronounced. Marx and Engels detected many of these contradictions even in the immature capitalism of their day, and made a forecast of their development which has been fulfilled with remarkable accuracy.

Moreover, they were successful in showing the anomalous phenomena of capitalism to be but the effects of a fundamental, inherent contradiction rooted in the very base of the system, and this discovery became of supreme importance in forming the theoretical basis of Socialism.

Production is to-day a thoroughly social process, involving the co-operation of millions of interdependent workers in every corner of the globe. A modern factory, by reason of the fine division of labour which an up-to-date machine plant necessitates, organises its thousands of “hands” into interdependent association. Industries are now so mutually dependent that the cessation of a single one can cause the stagnation of nearly every branch of production. This interdependence is not confined merely within national boundaries ; it transcends them and is to a growing extent international. A Lancashire factory may work up cotton grown in Egypt or India with machinery of American make. The same applies to distribution, for the products are scattered from their place of production among people of every clime and colour. A modern grocer’s shop, however small, contains products of all the continents.

In strong contrast, however, to the socialised form of the labour process is the method of its control, which is distinctly anti-social. This embracing, world-wide process upon which the very life of organised humanity depends is only allowed to operate conditionally upon its yielding a profit to a small and diminishing section of society, the capitalist owners of the means of production. Thus the socially produced produce of industry is not created primarily for social use and consumption, but for private profit, and in this we have the basic anachronism of existing society, a little analysis showing that therefrom flows the whole flood of complications which we have noted above.

It was the co-operative character of production by machinery, imposed upon a basis of individualist handicraft which completed the separation of the workman from the “tool” he used and gave rise to a class of capitalist owners on the one hand and of propertyless workers on the other. This caused the wage-system to become universal by making it necessary for the worker to sell his labour-power, and the wage-system is the immediate cause both of the poverty, drudgery, and slavery of the workers, and of the riches, idleness, and mastership of the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, where labour products are circulated throughout society and yet the object of production is individual profit, the products become commodities to be exchanged in the market value for value. Now, as we have seen the greatest difficulty which capitalist society experiences to-day is a result of the commodity nature of all its products—the problem of the sale of its gigantic output of profit-bearing merchandise.

We see, then, that the social anomalies of capitalist all spring from the fundamental inconsistency between socialised production and anti-social control and appropriation. They are the symptoms of a social disease. First as the growth of industry at an earlier stage in evolution was fettered by feudalism, so now the forces of production have out-grown the social relations of capitalism ; the existence of capital, of the wages system, of class distinctions no longer assists, but fetters and cramps the process of economic development. When feudal society was moving headlong towards its fall the landed nobles became parasitic, useless encumbrances ; like them the bourgeoisie have lost their once important social function. The day when they personally superintended the process of production has gone for ever. Increase in wealth and the growth of trusts and combines have transferred this function to employed managers and foremen to members of the working class. The capitalists are real social parasites, rendering no social service and yet living in ever-greater luxuriousness upon the riches of society.

Capitalism to-day shows every mark of a system ripe for revolution. The longer this is delayed the more terribly chronic become the vicious effects of its internal contradictions. Marx and Engels not only showed that capitalist society was doomed to dissolution, they essayed the equally important task of working out the form of society which would supercede the existing system. Knowing that society could not be re-constructed according to any abstract ideals of social perfection and moral justice, they realised that the form of the post-revolutionary organisation could only be inferred from the analysis made of existing conditions of production, and that only in outline. This position was one of the most important and pronounced departures from the methods of the Utopians.

According, therefore, to the Marxian conception the transformation of the future can and will only be the re-adaptation of the method of controlling industry and appropriating its products so as to conform to the social nature of the process of production itself, and the only conceivable way of achieving this is by the community taking over the ownership of all the means of production and distribution and using them for the satisfaction of the needs of all its members.

Upon the abolition of capitalist society those contradictions and problems which are its necessary result will disappear also. With the possession of the land, the forces and mechanisms of production vested with the entire community, an idle, proprietary class will no longer exist. The comfort and security of each member of society will then advance in exact ratio to the of the powers of production. A few hours necessary labour daily would provide comfort, security, and leisure for all, thus leaving the opportunity for aesthetic, scientific, and recreational pursuits universally available. The introduction of improved or new machinery which to-day results in intensified toil and poverty for the workers, will then serve either as a means of increasing the wealth and security of the society, or of lessening the expenditure of productive labour. The problem of the overproduction of wealth would be unthinkable with social distribution, not private increment, the aim of the productive process. And with the disappearance of commercial and industrial rivalry will go the cause of modern wars among civilised peoples, and thus with the abolition also of class subjection the necessity for armaments and that coercive organisation we call the State. Man will cease to be the victim of economic forces beyond his control, and will consciously mould and develop his industrial powers and social organisation to ever-increasing advantage.

Socialism and the Classes

Had the founders of modern Socialism done nothing more than show the desirability and pressing need for communal ownership and control in production and distribution they would still have been little in advance of the Utopians whom they so severely criticised. But Marx and Engels accomplished more than this : they linked Socialism with the real succession of events in the actual life of the present by showing the manner by which, if the whole teaching of history, combined with existing tendencies, was to be trusted, the Socialist revolution would inevitably be brought to pass. This was, perhaps, their crowning achievement and that which constituted the most striking severance of Marxism from Utopianism.

Reasoning, not only from the history of past revolutionary periods, but also from the facts of society, Marx and Engels concluded and declared that the Socialist movement could never receive support from the capitalist class. To the bourgeoisie, capitalism is the best of all possible systems. Every one of their institutions, political, literary, intellectual, and religious, has for its primary function the preservation of the existing relations of production, the safe-guarding of capitalist property, and the perpetuation of the wages system. The establishment of communist production and distribution necessarily implies the complete obliteration of class distinctions the abolition of economic privilege and exploitation in every form. The whole history of capitalist society justifies the belief that the bourgeoisie will resist to the uttermost such an assault upon their class position.

But the capitalist class forms only a small section of the community. On the other hand, far more numerous, impoverished, oppressed, with less security of livelihood than a chattel-slave, stand the propertyless mass of wage-workers. This class, even when impregnated with capitalistic ideas, is compelled to recognise in a half-conscious way, that its interests and those of the employing class are distinctly different, and is compelled to engage in a constant struggle to maintain its standard of living against the profit-increasing encroachments of the capitalists. It is from the proletarians, who have nothing to lose but their chains, that any modern revolutionary movement must draw its strength, and it is to this class that the Socialist movement primarily appeals.

This brings us to one of the basic principles of Socialism. We have seen the important part which class-struggles have played in past revolutions ; recognising this, the Socialist movement founds itself not only upon an adequate appreciation of existing class antagonisms and their tactical implications, but it relies upon the struggle of the working class against the capitalist class for the achievement of the social revolution. Socialists believe, as the founders of their movement believed, that the proletariat reaching a consciousness of their class interests will act in accordance therewith, dethrone the capitalist class from political power, and with their own hands erect that industrial democracy which will mean to them emancipation from the enslavement of the wages system.

To-day the workers as a class are not revolutionary. For them to become so implies a great mental change. We have seen how successfully bourgeois vehicles of thought, such as the schools and the Press, have given the workers a capitalistic outlook. Is it possible and likely that they will ever be able to throw off these baneful influences and come to a realisation that their interests lie in social revolution ? The Socialist answers, yes ! The process will doubtless be slow, but there are two powerful agents which further it—economic and social developments and Socialist propaganda. The former is the more important, for the Socialist, unlike those Utopians who worshipped at the shrine of “reason,” knows that masses of men have never been moved to effect social changes through mere argument, however logical they may be, unless reinforced by interest, by the sting of outraged feeling. It is experience of the bitter fruits of capitalism that will have the dual effect of undermining the sophistries of capitalist apologists and of imparting to the proletariat a frame of mind conducive to the acceptance of revolutionary ideas. The real function of Socialist propaganda is to clarify and organise the vague anti-capitalist thoughts already present in the minds of discontented workers, by educating them as to the true nature of capitalism and the means of their emancipation, thus giving to the working-class movement an objective which social development demonstrates with ever-increasing vividness to be both desirable and possible. The Socialist movement is thus the highest expression of the working class movement, based as it is upon the clearest and most thorough-going recognition of proletarian interests, and that is why we have stated that Socialism alone provides a real proletarian system of morality.

R. W. Housley

(To be Continued.)

Society and Morals. Part X. —Morals and Socialism. (1918)

From the October 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part IX.

Part X. —Morals and Socialism.

The relation of ethics to Socialism may be considered under two main aspects which correspond with the two-fold nature of Socialist activity; on the one hand its character as a comprehensive theory of social evolution, and, on the other, its practical aspect as a working class revolutionary movement. In other words, we have to consider the place occupied in the Marxian theoretic system by morals in general, and also the nature of the moral obligations, imposed upon Socialists, by their revolutionary principles.

The Materialist Conception of Ethics.

We have already, in the course of these essays, outlined the Socialist theory of the evolution of morals. Little further, therefore, on this head need be said here. Nevertheless, it is desirable to emphasise again the distinction which exists between the Socialist and the orthodox conceptions of morality.

In this historical sketch we have considered principally those ethical ideas which were really observed and those which sanctioned the social conditions existing and the modes of conduct actually practised by masses of men in each social epoch. This method of treating the subject, however, does not suit those whose view of history is idealistic. To them morality is the cause, not the result, of social conditions. This position is very common indeed. The Socialist is, for instance, frequently informed that, to achieve his aim, he must first "moralise the people," make them all "loving brothers," and so on. Very often, indeed, he is told that the Socialist aim is impossible because such "moral perfection," as it presupposes, is incompatible with human nature. In this way also has arisen the absurd misconception that Socialism is a scheme for reforming the morality of individuals in the direction of altruism, with a view to establishing a perfect system of society. Most of the so-called "Christian" Socialists take up this attitude, and by so doing proclaim themselves in reality anti-Socialists.

The generally accepted non-scientific conception of morality and immorality regards these as not in any direct way connected with social utility or material interests, but simply as the conforming to or deviation of conduct from certain "principles" which are independent of forms of society, common to all periods of history; of universal application and unalterable. Briefly, morality is considered not as a relative thing dependent upon certain temporary conditions, but as something absolute and eternal. "Truth," "Liberty," "Brotherhood"' and "Justice" are some of the abstract principles in question.

A study of history, however, demonstrates that, although several of these conceptions are themselves very persistent and of great antiquity, the actual concrete expression of them, the real meaning attached to the terms has varied according to the changes in social needs. Thus, amongst the rudest barbarians, "brotherhood" has a very real significance, but one vastly different, in many respects, from its modern meaning. It denoted loyalty to the tribe (a very small community judged by modern standards), reverence for the tribal gods and ancestors, as well as strict observance of the customs of the tribe, both social and religious. Its practice, moreover, entailed antagonism, and often absolute ferocity, towards those outside the community.

So with the bourgeois conception of "freedom" which, on its positive side, meant freedom of production, of trade, of emigration, of property rights and of exploitation, and on its negative, the abolition of patriarchal and feudal ties and obligations.

Owing to his conviction, based upon an understanding of social evolution, that moral systems are generated by, and can only be explained in relation to, social institutions, the Socialist cannot agree with those "advanced ethicists" who, accepting a standard of so-called ''humanitarian" ethics, condemn all things, past and present, which cause or have caused pain or misery. These people ignore the findings of biologic and social science. To condemn cannibalism, torture, robbery, slavery, war, et off-hand without regard for the conditions which gave rise to them is, the Socialist sees, as foolish it is futile. These practices have all been inevitable and relatively useful in their time and place, and so long as these conditions were maintained they were moral. They gradually came to be regard as immoral only after the circumstances which necessitated them had passed away and such habits had become inadapted to the ways of living and institutions newly evolved.

Morality and Revolutions.

Although it is true that conceptions of justice and injustice, good and evil, have never formed the basis of revolutions, which is always to be found that external world from which the ideas underlying revolutionary activity are mainly drawn, yet moral notions have certainly been powerful factors in the concentration of that class power which enacted the fiat of economic development. While the time, place and character of the revolutionary current was always determined by objective economic conditions, it was through the effect of these conditions upon the perceptions of men, rousing the emotion impulses which promoted them to action that the social revolution was transferred from the potential to the actual.

But in the past, revolutionary convictions have at the best been based upon only a superficial knowledge of economic circumstances and the social requirements. Consequently much energy was wasted and its efficiency impaired by hopeless strivings after ideals which were impossible of realization. Over-reaching the practicable the movements were rudely checked and dragged back by the hard facts of economic reality.

The Socialist movement, however, lives in the "age of Science," and, to this extent, has an enormous advantage over its predecessors. Firstly, the Socialist movement must be disciplined by sound knowledge; given this, the greater the feeling put into it the better; in the absence of scientific principles, however, the success of the movement will be gravely imperilled. Nevertheless, it is certain that the power of the movement and, therefore, its capacity to attain its end, will in large measure be determined by the degree to which it develops among its adherents a consistent moral code, based upon Marxian principles, and into which is infused those powerful impulses—the social instincts.

The Practice of Social Morality.

It will be evident from what has been said before that the Socialist's opposition to the bourgeois and the capitalistic system for which they stand, by no means springs simply from a recognition of the misery, slavery and degradation which capitalism entails, though being human and not mere automata of logic, Socialists are naturally strongly influenced by such facts. They know, however, that capitalism has been a necessary and useful stage in the evolution of human society. It is because the system is neither of these to-day, because it can be shown that the functioning of wealth as capital is now a hindrance to economic and therefore social and intellectual progress, that the Socialist regards capitalism as an obsolete and evil institution.

If the Socialist holds exploitation and class oppression to be morally wrong, it is because, for the first time in history since the formation of class divisions away in the remote past, the material means are now available wherewith these, together with all their consequences, may be eliminated from human institutions. It is because this latest existing phase of class society, capitalism, is the great obstacle, holding mankind back, so to speak, on the very threshold of a new and splendid era manifesting untold developments in the material, social and mental triumphs of the race, that the Socialist holds this system and all the agencies which uphold or tend to perpetuate it, in hatred and abomination. The Socialist guides his own conduct according to this principle, abstaining from all actions, except such as are unavoidable, which in any way support the capitalist system, and he judges the behaviour fellow Socialists by the same standard.

But, above almost all else, the Socialist ethic is proletarian. The welfare of the working-class is the concern of every Socialist—their interests are his interests. Every effort of the workers to resist the predatory profit-hunger of the capitalists, and their strivings towards greater economic security, has his sympathy and support. For all that, the Socialist does not fail to criticise the ideas, organisations and activities of his class whenever he considers it necessary, for he sees that only too often these are based upon bourgeois conceptions, and betray an almost complete ignorance of social science, the structure of capitalism, and the facts the class-struggle.

This ignorance of the bulk of the workers regarding social matters is the greatest barrier in the way of their emancipation, and to assist in its dissipation the Socialist considers his first and most important duty. Among the workers be strives to undermine those bourgeois ''virtues" humility and reverence for constituted authority and tradition—by preaching self-assertion, independence of thought, and irreverence for tradition and the "powers that be." He sees the paralysing effect of apathetic contentment upon the minds of the proletarians, and endeavours to instil among them that slave virtue, discontent — discontent with slavery, with exploitation, and with poverty, with every social evil it can be proved possible to abolish. Against the beguiling ethic of "universal goodwill" and "brotherhood," the Socialist urges upon the working-class, suspicion, opposition, and hatred for their inveterate enemies the capitalist-class.

Incessant educational work, spreading amongst workers a knowledge of social development and the economic basis of capitalism, is the pressing need of the moment. This work of agitation the Socialist regards as an imperative duty. It is, moreover, his duty to make himself a fit propagandist. His code of morals embodies and insists upon the necessity of study and self-education, wherever possible. A Socialist who neglects to do this is hardly worthy of the name.

R. W. Housley

(To be Continued.)

Link to Part XI.

Society and Morals. Part XI. Morals and Socialism. (1918)

From the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part X.

Part XI. Morals and Socialism

The need for the efficient organisation of the Socialist movement has enforced, as a part of its moral principles, a stern "party discipline." Faced by innumerable obstacles, surrounded and attacked by every agency of the ruling class, the butt of misrepresentation, the hunting-ground of the would-be demagogue, self-seeking "leader" and agent provocateur, the revolutionary organisation can only maintain its integrity unsullied and its vitality unweakened by being democratic in constitution, definite in principles, self-critical, and by the rigorous exclusion of non-revolutionary elements. The Socialist must be loyal to his party organisation and vigorous in its defence. He holds as despicable traitors those who, while affirming their adherence to Socialist principles by mouth, deny those principles by acting in contradiction to their implications.

Owing to the cosmopolitan nature of capitalism, the economic and social status of the workers is fundamentally the same the world over. They have the same problems to face in every country, like interests to satisfy, and a common enemy to combat. Evidently, therefore, proletarian revolutionary morality is of international application.

This "Internationalism" of the Socialist movement is in direct antagonism to that national sentiment which is fostered by the bourgeoisie under the name of "patriotism." Despite cosmopolitan finance, the growth of world trade, and the fact that the capitalist class is internationally solid when faced with the opposition of the proletariat, the politics of the bourgeoisie have always been predominantly "national" in character. This has been so because, during the evolution of the bourgeoisie, their class power became consolidated into numerous national governments which could not expand in power territorially for the purpose of enabling the acquisition of further economic advantages and resources without sooner or later coming into conflict. With the rise of Imperialism this "national antagonism" became exceedingly acute and, as we have seen, "patriotism" received a still greater moral significance by reason of its being the prime mental agent in the satisfaction of the imperialist needs of the capitalist class.

But the class-conscious worker sees that "nationalism" is a snare in the path towards emancipation. Not only does it serve to cloud the class issue within the nation, but it also hinders the workers of the world from recognising and acting up to their unity of interest. To the Socialist, therefore, national pride, like racial aloofness, is a contemptible and pernicious prejudice which it is highly immoral for any Socialist to uphold or give way to.

What significance has the "fatherland" or the "glory of Empire" for the wage-slave whose only guarantee of livelihood rests on his ability to sell his labour-power ? None! save that it receives from political superstitions inculcated and carefully nurtured by agents of the dominant class. "Workers of all lands unite!" will inevitably be the watchword of the latter-day revolutionary.

For that organ of oppression and of capitalist protection and attack—militarism—together with closely-allied phenomenon—"war"'—through which are sacrificed millions of workers on the altar of Profit, the Socialist cannot possibly have anything but the liveliest hatred. He never fails to unveil their hideous reality to his fellow-workers. Nevertheless, being a stern realist, he does not allow himself to be led into the delusion, so fervently held to by idealistic pacifists, that the use of force itself is futile and unjustifiable. The use of force is never an end in itself but always a means to an end. History shows that, whilst force has frequently served as a means of subjection and a preserver of enslavement, it has also been indispensable to any movement of revolt on the part of the oppressed.

"Strife" is likewise considered by many so-called "advanced thinkers" to be in itself immoral, and by these the Socialist doctrine of the class-war is discredited and disliked. As we have seen, however, Socialist principles are not deductions from any "absolute ideals," but have been arrived at by a study of the actual evolution of human society ; and such a study shows that class-struggles have been, and that inevitably, the medium of social progress. The proletarian revolutionary movement, therefore, clearly recognises the necessity of a consciously organised struggle against the forces of opposition and reaction, together with the vital importance of acquiring that social and political power by the use of which alone it can institute social control of the means of life.

Conclusion and Summary.

With the emancipation of the workers achieved through economic socialisation human society will enter upon a new phase of its existence. With the forces of production democratically used by and for society, economic exploitation will become impossible and class distinctions a thing of the past. Then the prevailing ethical code will no longer represent, as it has done for so many centuries, the interests merely of a minority of the community. As in the far back savage and barbaric communism the social organism will be a harmonious structure in which the welfare of each and every member is conditional upon the well-being of the society as a whole.

But whereas the morality of tribal society was narrow because the groups were small and exclusive, the communism of the future will be embracing, and probably as wide as the human race itself. Thus the "brotherhood of man," often dreamt about but never achieved, will become a living reality. Grounded upon the world-wide inter-dependence of economic processes, such a ''world'' society will leave as little room for national and racial antagonisms as for those of class.

Moreover the elaborate political machinery which to-day is necessary to enforce the most vital tenets of the capitalistic code will be rendered functionless and obsolete, because the incentive to act in a manner menacing to the social system will have diminished to insignificance. Free from drudgery and emancipated from the miseries or even possibility of material poverty, having access to every avenue of knowledge and art, the men and women of the future will also witness the reconciliation between egoism and altruism, because through economic democracy the merging of the interests of the individual in that of the whole community will have been for the first time rendered completely possible.

The writer has in this series of essays attempted to give a brief account of the changes which have taken place in human society with especial emphasis upon the co-relative changes in the opinions of men as to which modes of conduct and principles of living were good and which were bad in the moral sense. In thus epitomising the results arrived at by the wide researches of many historians and sociologists, many points, even important ones, have necessarily been omitted. The outstanding features of each epoch have alone been dealt with. But as an introduction to an immense subject, rendered in simple language, to members of the working class, its purpose will have been served if it succeeds in dissipating, even in a slight degree, those superstitions prevalent in the minds of so many workers, that what is "right or wrong" always has been and always will be, and that social phenomena, such as the division into classes and the wages system are anything more than temporary and relatively short-lived products of changes in the material conditions under which men have lived.

This last point is important, for a wider appreciation of the truth of the "materialist conception of history" is a necessary factor in achieving that supreme aim towards which the writer has made this humble contribution —the emancipation of the proletariat.

Let us now, in conclusion, recall to the reader's mind some of the essential facts set forth in this rather disconnected series of essays. First, the nature of morality was discussed, and it was seen to consist of certain opinions regarding conduct and the principles which underlie it. These opinions are forced upon men by the social life which they lead. The impulse to moral activity was seen to be based upon certain instinctive sociable feelings which antedate the existence of man himself, and are to be found among all the higher animals which live in organised communities. Then it was shown that the evolution of the artificial appliances and processes which, among animals, man alone has been able to use in maintaining existence, is the root cause of the changes in the form of his social aggregations.

Following these changes in greater detail from the rudest organisations of savagery to the capitalist civilisation of our own day it was seen that, along with changing needs and interests, went a corresponding development in outlook, in men's notions of good and evil, right and wrong. Parricide, cannibalism, incest, and group-marriage, once normal and moral, through the pressure of economic change became immoral. Maternal "law" makes way for the dominance of the patriarch. Polygamy, then normal, is later superseded by monogamy. Chattel slavery becomes the basis of society, and its many horrors are upheld by the moral law until, at a later date, having become obsolete, it is declared anathema. Serfdom passes through the same phases.

Wage-labour and "free contract" become lauded to the skies, and along with the "rights of capital''' are declared the only just and moral basis of society. Competition is now the "life of industry," and free trade, according to the cant of Liberalism, the ''hope of humanity." Imperialism dashes this hope to the ground and substitutes the patriot's answer to the call of empire as the virtue par excellence. Only by the clear-eyed workers for the proletarian revolution is the veil torn from these hypocritical shibboleths revealing naked the profit-hunger of capital, of the bourgeois interests.

Spurning the ideals, the threadbare theories and canting morality of decadent capitalism, the Socialist formulates his own code of morality upon those principles and ideals which flow from the logic of Marxism. Socialist morality is revolutionary because its ideal is the overthrow of bourgeois society and the institution of communism; it is critical because it ruthlessly analyses all the manifold institutions, opinions and motives supported by and themselves in turn supporting existing society ; it is scientific because based upon the findings of sociology ; it is a fighting morality because it promotes the class-war and provides the discipline and fervour necessary for the revolutionary struggle; it is proletarian because the Socialist movement draws its vitality and strength from the working class who, alone in modern society, are fitted by their mode and condition of life to accept the Socialist Ideal.

R. W. Housley

The End.

Society and Morals. Part IX. — Socialism, its economic and theoretical basis. (1918)

From the September 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Part IX. — Socialism, its economic and theoretical basis

Among the many factors which are to-day preparing and disciplining the workers for the revolutionary struggle of the future is the struggle on the industrial field carried on by the organised labour unions. Trade union organisation gathers large numbers of workers together for concerted action and shows the immense superiority of co-operative over individual effort. The struggle promotes the sense of solidarity, which, as “sympathetic” strikes have shown, can transcend, even to-day, immediate and sectional interests. Union meetings being purely working-class gatherings, become centres of discussion, where political, social and economic theories can be thrashed out, and they can therefore become fertile fields for revolutionary propaganda. On the other hand the failure even of “successful” strikes to materially or permanently improve the economic position of the workers will reveal the economic limitations of the economic struggle and will show to the workers the titanic forces they are up against; while the solidarity of their employers in their associations, especially when made manifest, as has recently been done, throughout entire groups of industries, will make the conflict more and more obviously a class struggle. In this latter connection the ready use by the ruling class of the armed forces of the State to defeat the striking workers will be of significance also in showing that the basic power upon which the bourgeoisie relies is in the last resort political.

With the constant application of science to production, not only in the shape of ever more perfect mechanical instruments of production, but also, as has been increasingly done in recent years, in the more efficient management and organisation of the labour process, the exploitation of the workers is correspondingly intensified. In proportion to the total wealth produced, the share produced in wages by the proletariat grows less and less. The rapid growth thus caused in the wealth of the exploiting class, with its concomitant increase in ostentatious display, throws into ever more glaring contrast the gay, luxurious living of the idlers on the one hand, and the drab, monotonous, toiling lives of the working class on the other. At the same time the rise of trusts and of the multi-millionaire has made more obvious than ever the colossal social power wielded by those who control the means of production, whilst (and this applies with ever greater force to industrial concerns under government control) it has also demonstrated to all the absolute uselessness of the capitalist class in the field of production.

Thus every development makes for a deeper cleavage between the classes, the growth of the antagonism between them, and an intensification of the class struggle. We have already seen how prior to the war there had already been for years a growing volume of proletarian discontent which manifested itself primarily in an unprecedented industrial strife, both in the number and the bitterness of the disputes. The war itself, while temporarily acting as a soporific bringing a lull in the storm of the class struggle, has nevertheless only served to force on those very economic developments which make the struggle increasingly severe. The simplification of processes which has taken place, the “dilution” of “skilled” by “unskilled ” labour and the rapid influx into the ranks of the wage-earners of millions of females, while tending towards an increased exploitation, will also make for the breaking down of craft and sex prejudices among the workers and the fuller recognition of the uniformity of their interests.

Now that the age of Imperialism is upon us there will be, as we have previously pointed out, a growing community of interests among the capitalists of each rival national (or quasi-national) group; strikes will more and more be regarded as “national” calamities, no longer the private affairs of individual firms but matters of vital interest to the whole capitalist class. We may therefore expect that forcible suppression will become more frequent and ruthless, and thus the class nature of the State, and the mercilessness of the bourgeoisie will be unmasked.

Among the developments which tend to prepare the worker’s mind for revolutionary concepts we may therefore place the ever more glaring contradictions presented by existing society, and the intensification of the antagonism and severity of the conflict between the capitalist class and the working class. But other factors are not without importance.

For the first time in history there exists a working class among which reading is universal. The application of science to industry has led to a widespread knowledge of natural forces among the workers. A growing interest in natural science has stimulated the demand for popular, cheap books upon its several branches. Not only has this scientific popularisation led to a decline in superstition and religious belief, and also to a closer acquaintance with scientific methods of reasoning, but with the growing acuteness of social problems, to a wider interest in social science.

True, this interest is to-day fed on every hand by the apologists of capitalism, advocating manifold schemes of social reform and regeneration. But in so far as these various palliatives are tried and found wanting (as they assuredly will be) leaving the fundamental basis of capitalism untouched, to that extent will they be discredited in the eyes of the workers.

The growth of huge reformist or pseudo-Socialist parties which has been one of the features of modern politics, while giving little guide to the actual amount of sound Socialist knowledge among the workers who have flocked to them, are certainly a proof of the fact that millions of the world’s producers are profoundly dissatisfied with capitalist conditions. Marxian writings are to-day read and discussed wherever capitalism has established itself, and to an ever-increasing extent. In proportion as this influence gains ground will the workers obtain a dear grip of social realities and economic phenomena. As the general level of sociological knowledge is raised the working class will be enabled to take the control of their industrial organisations completely into their own hands, and to dispense with leaders, and thus will be fitted for a more definite and uncompromising attitude toward the employing class. At the same time we may expect, with the growing perception of the futility of palliatives within the structure of capitalism, the increasing acceptance of the true Socialist position and the gradual growth around the nuclei which already exist in most countries, of those political parties which have for their avowed aim the waging of the class struggle to a successful revolutionary conclusion—the expropriation of the capitalist class and the institution of the co-operative commonwealth.

It is evident that this final struggle must be international in its span and primarily political in character. The class struggle between the capitalists and the workers is necessarily as world-wide as is the capitalist system itself. That the bourgeoisie of all nations are prepared to sink their differences in the face of working-class rebellion and to join hands in the work of suppression we have already ample evidence. Recent events in Russia and Finland have brought further proof to that provided by the notorious repression of the Paris Commune. As the consciousness of the proletariat grows and is translated into action we may dearly expect further manifestation of the international solidarity of the capitalists in defence of their mutual interests. Moreover, the international character of modern scientific production demands a correspondingly wide social organisation and therefore the society of the future must be world-embracing and its establishment will mean the obliteration of national divisions.

Apart from the evidence of history the necessity for the political organisation and action of the class-conscious proletariat is shown by the fact that the capitalist class to-day are only able to dominate society because of their control over the political machinery.

Representatives of the bourgeoisie are elected to power by the votes of the politically ignorant workers, and will continue to be so long as this ignorance remains. Once it is dissipated, however, the workers can just as easily gain control over the complex organisation of government (which is not as the Anarchists think, a mere arbitrarily imposed power, but has grown through centuries of evolution, step by step with economic development, and is firmly rooted in the social and intellectual life) for themselves.

After constituting themselves the ruling class the working class can. proceed with the work of socialisation, and of levelling to the ground the old, tottering edifice of class rule and class subjugation. But to speculate on the manner of doing this is to-day futile. Both the tactics of the revolutionary struggle and the actions taken in the event of victory will be determined by the precise conditions which obtain at the time. It is not for us to dictate to, or even to advise, the men of the future. We who live in the present have our own duty to perform—incessant agitation, persistent education, so that we may build up our organisations strong in principle and discipline, without compromise or falter, and armed at every point to withstand the assaults, either open or covert, of the enemy without, or perchance within.

R. W. Housley.

(To be Continued.)