Editorial: Where They Stand on Conscription: Labour Party, Liberals and Communists (1939)

Editorial from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attitude of the Labour Party towards Conscription as shown by the votes at the special Conference in May was exactly what Socialists expected. The Executive’s resolution condemning conscription because the voluntary system has not failed, and at the same time approving the “participation in all steps necessary to secure the proper protection of the civilian population in time of war” was carried by 1,967,000 to 574,000 (Daily Herald, June 1st.) An amendment which deplored the action of the E.C. in according support to the Government’s National Service scheme and National Register, and called for a cessation of all further support of National Service schemes (with the exception of A.R.P.), was defeated by 1,767,000 to 729,000.

At the Liberal Party Conference, according to the Manchester Guardian’s report (May 13th, 1939), “after a long debate the Liberal Party Conference at Scarborough yesterday adopted a resolution ‘reluctantly’ accepting conscription.”

An amendment favouring uncompromising opposition to conscription “was overwhelmingly defeated.”

The Communist Party, as was also to be expected, came out in favour of conscription but not under a Chamberlain Government. Their official statement, published in the Daily Worker (May 24th, 1939), contains the following: —

“The Communist Party has fought Chamberlain’s Conscription Bill on the grounds that Chamberlain’s introduction of Conscription is designed, not for the purposes of strengthening the military forces of a Peace Front against aggression, but in pursuance of his reactionary policy of collaboration with Fascism abroad and attack on the working-class and democratic movement at home.

The question of Conscription cannot be treated as a question of abstract principle, irrespective of the Government which operates it.

. . . under a different Government which genuinely stood for peace and resistance to Fascism, the question of compulsory military training would take on a different complexion. The voluntary principle is no absolute democratic principle. . . .

In all the great struggles of the people—in the English Civil War, in the French Revolutionary Wars, in the Russian Revolution, in the War of Spanish Democracy—the principle of compulsory military service has been applied.”

The statement also calls on the workers to “decisively reject the pacifist propaganda which proposes the futile path of individual resistance to conscription.”

A few days later, June 3rd, the Daily Worker was quoting Lenin and Liebknecht in condemnation of Conscientious Objectors.

One quotation from Lenin has a special interest. Lenin wrote : —

“An oppressed class which does not learn the use of arms, to possess them, and to become practised in them, is only fit to be oppressed, ill-treated and handled like slaves.”

The interesting point is the demand that workers should “possess” arms. There used to be a Communist slogan “Arms for the Workers,” but when the Bolshevik Government had got firmly in the saddle it took the Russian workers’ arms away from them. Are we to understand that if and when the Communists persuade the Labour Party, the Liberals, and Mr. Winston Churchill, etc., to form a Popular Front Government, the Government will let the workers keep their arms ?

Notes by the Way: From Mosley to Cripps (1939)

The Notes by the Way Column from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

From Mosley to Cripps

Capitalism’s crises, and the efforts of reformist politicians to grapple with them, produce curious feats of political tight-rope walking, coat-turning, and somersaulting. In 1931 Sir Oswald Mosley and his associates, including Mr. W. J. Brown, rebelled against the Labour Party leadership, and announced the formation of a New Party, with a new policy. Their argument was that critical times demanded drastic remedies. Socialism must be put into cold storage—”questions of the ultimate goal of society are excluded by the very urgency of the problem which confronts us” (“A National Policy,” published by the Mosley Group). It will be observed that the argument used by Mosley and Brown then is identical with that being used by Sir Stafford Cripps. But why aren’t Mosley and Brown backing Cripps? Sir Oswald Mosley is now a Fascist, and finds himself quite out of step with his old associates. He says that compulsory military training in this country is not necessary, and that “it was being imposed because those who had capital—about £300,000,000—invested in Eastern European countries feared for its safety.” (From a speech at Dalston, May 7th, reported in Times, May 8th, 1939.)

Mr. W. J. Brown, on the other hand, is all for conscription, and is not deterred by the argument that war for Britain means war for capitalist Britain. Speaking in support of conscription at the Conference of the Civil Service Clerical Association, Mr. Brown said: “I hold that the survival in the world even of Chamberlain’s Britain is worth a war, to ensure that it does not go under.” (Daily Telegraph, May 12th, 1939.)

Sir Stafford Cripps finds himself using the Mosley-Brown argument of 1931, but is at daggers-drawn with both of them. He wants foreign alliances against Fascism, but he thinks that the urgent task of the moment is to get rid of the Chamberlain National Government — hence the Popular Front campaign. Speaking at the Labour Party Conference in May last, where he was voted down heavily, he declared that “a Great Britain without a National Government is the Mecca of everyone in this Conference.” (Daily Telegraph, May 30th, 1939.) He thinks that the National Government under Chamberlain represents something nearly as bad as Fascism; but he did not always think that way. In November, 1935, he said of the Baldwin National Government, that it had “done quite well for a capitalist Covernment. . . . There is really very little case at all for an alternative Government within the capitalist system. . . .” (Quoted in “Unity, True or Sham,” Labour Party, 1d.)

That is how they stand at the moment. Where will they be in a few years’ time? Sir Stafford’s brother, Colonel the Hon. F. H. Cripps, in an article in the Evening Standard (May 30th), says that Lord Baldwin in 1930 tipped Sir Stafford as “a future Conservative Prime Minister.” Who knows? Or will it be Brown or Mosley ?

Wages Under Fascism

The Labour Party and Trade Unions and, latterly, the Conservative Press, use the argument that under Fascism wages are heavily and continuously reduced. The Communists, before their new-found enthusiasm for democratic capitalism, used to say the same about wages here. In both cases they never explain how it is possible for an originally low standard of living to be continuously reduced by large amounts year after year. Either the original level must have been very high, or alternatively, the present generation must be rapidly dying of starvation. The truth is that the changes have been smaller in amount than the over-zealous propagandists would have us believe, and it is not, in the long run, useful to employ fallacious arguments against Fascism. The case founded on fact is quite strong enough, anyway. Capitalists, whether under Fascism or democracy, are interested in making profits, and to do so they seek to force wages to the lowest possible level, but even the greed for profits does not permanently blind them to the fact that the worker cannot work efficiently if grossly underfed. Moreover, the forces which from time to time enable the workers to secure upward adjustments of wages, operate under Fascist capitalism as well as in the democracies. One of these is the shortage of labour, which has recently become very much evident, particularly in Germany. Under the influence of that shortage German workers have been able to get wage increases, even in spite of the efforts of the Government to keep wages down and the destruction of Trade Unionism. A similar situation of labour shortage existed in Great Britain during the war, and the method of evasion is exactly the same. Dr. Mansfield, an official of the Ministry of Labour in Germany, an article by whom is summarised in the Manchester Guardian (June 1st, 1939), “reveals that in many industries the official restrictions on wages have been dodged by employers competing for labour. Bonuses, expenses, holiday contribu¬tions, etc., are being offered to entice workers from other firms.”

The Manchester Guardian says that this has become so prevalent that, in the words of Dr. Mansfield, “the State has temporarily lost control of wages and incomes.”

The German authorities have tried to fix maximum wages, but haphazard attempts to enforce them have “caused much tension.” It is safe to say that, so long as the labour shortage continues, the efforts of the Government will continue to be ineffectual since the employers themselves, or many of them, will have an interest in evading the law. Dr. Mansfield also mentions the fact that the increase in the hours of work has not been a success from the employers’ point of view. Output did not increase proportionately, and there was a rapid increase in illness. As a result of this and the accompanying unrest, the authorities have reduced overtime in many factories, and the official organ of the Nazi Labour Front “has proclaimed the eight-hour day as the most likely measure to keep up a steady output in most industries.”

The above relates to a fairly recent tendency.

It is much more difficult to say what has been the total result of Fascism, so far as wages are concerned. Most reports say unhesitatingly that wage levels as a whole are lower, but one competent observer, Mr. C. W. Guillebaud, in his detailed inquiry, “The Economic Recovery of Germany,” thinks that the standard of living of the German workers has been rising in recent years, and is above the level of 1929. All such estimates must be received with caution, because the subject itself is a difficult one, which does not lend itself to simple sweeping generalisations, but, at least, we can reject as false the view that democratic capitalism, compared with Fascism, is working class prosperity compared with destitution.

Another interesting news item relates to Italy. Early in March the Government ordered wage increases ranging from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., and The Times correspondent in Rome reported that “this general rise in wages, coming so suddenly, is a bitter pill for employers.” (Times, March 9th.)

Doubtless, the wage increase was given largely, if not entirely, to meet past increases in the cost of living—which shows once more how capitalist economic laws operate, Fascism or no Fascism.

Loud Cheers in the House of Commons

In the official declarations of the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Conservatives over a period of years will be found definite promises to abolish unemployment within the capitalist system, or at least to reduce it to small proportions. Each party in opposition has savagely and indignantly denounced the other parties when in power for failing to fulfil their pledges regarding unemployment. On June 5th occurred a little incident which shows just how little the M.P.s themselves believe in the possibility of abolishing unemployment under capitalism. The following is from a report of Parliamentary proceedings, published in the News Chronicle (June 6th, 1939).

“With his customary cheerfulness Mr. Ernest Brown, who has now performed the feat of being Minister of Labour for four years, announced the fall of 152,112 in the number of unemployed in the House of Commons last night.

Members cheered and cheered again when he added that the total figure was now below a million and a half—1,492,281.”

Just think of it. They actually cheered because the number of unemployed is ONLY 1 millions—representing, with their families, from 3 to 4 million men, women and children of prosperous Britain!

Why the League of Nations Failed. A Laughable Capitalist Explanation

Three-quarters of a century ago Marx poked fun at the sentimentally-minded capitalist reformers who wanted to keep capitalism intact, but purify it by abolishing its inevitable effects. We have them with us still, Sir Arthur Salter, in “Security: Can we Retrieve It?” sets out to explain, among other things, that the League of Nations was not foredoomed to failure, “its failures were largely due to accident.” The phrase here quoted is from a long review of Salter’s book, written by Mr. J. L. Hammond (Manchester Guardian, May 16th, 1939). What were these “accidents”? The “first bad accident” was the “fall of the franc,” which “brought Poincaré back to power in France.”

The second bad accident was “the economic depression of 1929 and the financial crisis of 1931.” This crisis destroyed the hopes that had been based on the “new spirit of co-operation.” It produced the National Government in Great Britain, and also the Nazi regime in Germany, which owes its success “to a combination of political resentment and economic distress. Sir Arthur Salter thinks that neither would have sufficed without the other.”

In short, if only capitalism had not produced a series of economic crises and international tensions resulting from commercial rivalries, then the League would not have been hit by these “accidents,” and would have succeeded. And if, of course, capitalism in future could be pruned of its capacity for causing never-ending economic poverty and class-conflict at home and fierce international conflicts of interests abroad, then the League would succeed. What could be clearer than that? Pigs could fly if they had wings, only then they wouldn’t be pigs. Capitalism would be fine if only it weren’t capitalism, but then there wouldn’t be any need for a League of Nations.

From Marx to “Financial Times”

In its editorial of May 9th, 1939, the Financial Times expresses the concern felt by the capitalists at the threatened scarcity of workers—”in many skilled trades connected directly and indirectly with rearmament the demand for labour has already out¬run supply.”

In view of the fact that the registered unem¬ployed still number nearly If millions, or 11.4 per cent., it might be thought that there can, so far, be no question of a shortage.

The Financial Times says, however, that: —

“The normal turnover of labour in the various industries accounts for a short-term unemployment of about 6 to 8 per cent. of the working population, whereas about 4 per cent. has in the recent past been attributable to those affected by structural changes in industry, mostly in the depressed areas. Unless the latter can be found alternative occupation—and this may be by no means easy—the limits of full employment are fairly closely reached when the numbers of unemployed are within 10 to 12 per cent. of the total employable population.”

The conclusion drawn is that we are “getting within close limits of the pool of reserves normally required for the adequate functioning of labour movement inwards and outwards.”

What is, however, more interesting is the following : —

“ . . the unemployed who have presented a harassing social problem to every Government in the post-war period now appear in the guise of an invaluable reserve of labour supply.”

Note that phrase, “invaluable reserve of labour supply.” It exactly sums up what Marx said about three-quarters of a century ago concerning the attitude of the capitalist to the unemployed.

After explaining why capitalism necessarily produces unemployment, Marx continued: —

“But if a surplus working-class population is a necessary product of accumulation, or of the development of wealth upon a capitalist basis, on the other hand this over-population becomes a lever promoting capitalists accumulation and is indeed a necessary condition of the existence of the capitalist method of production. It forms an available industrial reserve army, which belongs to capital no less absolutely than if the capitalists had bred the members of this army at their own cost. For its own varying needs in the way of self-expansion, capital creates an ever-ready supply of human material fit for exploitation, and does so independently of the actual increase in population.”—(“Capital,” Vol. 1, page 698. Allen & Unwin Edition.)

What King George Told the Americans

A correspondent of the News Chronicle in U.S.A. reports the following conversation between King George VI and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Hopkins: —

“There is another Washington story about what the King said to Secretary of Commerce Hopkins when the subject of social reform was being discussed. After Hopkins had explained what was being done here, the King amiably told him, ‘We did many of these things in England much earlier than you have. The capitalists have retained control in America longer than they did in my country.’”— (News-Chronicle, June 16th, 1939.)

King George is hopelessly wrong about his facts, but are we to conclude from his remark that he thinks it would be a good thing if the capitalists had been ousted ?

Catholic Bishop Condemns Rebellion in Ireland, Not in Spain

Those who recall the support given by the bulk of the Catholic dignitaries to the Franco rebellion against the constitutionally-elected Government of Spain will read with surprise a speech made by the Bishop of Ross, Monsignor Casey, at Rosscarberry, County Cork, on May 7th, 1939.

“Saint Paul lays down very clearly the duties of the citizen towards the Government of the country. He tells us that all power comes from God, and that unlawful resistance to the lawfully appointed Government cannot be done without incurring a great crime. You have the privilege of appointing those who are to rule over you. You did so, and any person who resists the Government you have elected, resists it by murder, burning and looting of property, by assault and other violent means.

All such persons, and all who aid or support them, are guilty of great sin before God.”—(Dublin Evening Mail, May 8th, 1939.)

Far from denouncing Franco as criminal and sinner, we find the Pope,, on June 11th, receiving 200 Franco soldiers and thanking them for defending “the faith and civilisation” of Spain. (Manchester Guardian, June 12th).

The “Daily Mail” Tells all About the Russian Parliament

The Daily Mail, which used to be so hostile to everything Bolshevik has changed its tune now that it badly wants the Anglo-Russian pact to go through. One change is the publication of articles on Russia, friendly in tone. One such article (June 1st, 1939) is called “Yes, there is a Parliament in Russia.” It tells of the electoral system and the work of the Russian Parliament; all about the universal, equal, direct suffrage, secret ballot, etc., etc. Well, not quite all, for it omits entirely to mention that the elections are run on totalitarian lines, only the Communist Party being allowed to exist and no opposition candidates permitted.

The omission must have been accidental: or would it perhaps be tactically unwise to spoil the “democratic” alliance by mentioning such things?

Who Benefits from Empire? 

The following is from an article on French Morocco, in the Manchester Guardian (May 15th, 1939). “Not that Morocco has ‘paid’ France as a nation; on the contrary, the cost to the French State has been very great. But occupation has obviously paid the French banks to judge by a comparison of their offices with those of their British competitors; it has paid the French steel companies, who supply the Moroccan railways, and despite the lack of mining concessions it has paid the French mining companies who provided the machinery and direction for the State mines. In a word, Morocco—like other colonies—has provided out-relief for the investing classes. It has, perhaps, profited the 300,000 French people who have settled in Morocco since the war. It has not profited the Frenchman who stayed at home, but it has given him a great achievement—and presumably, that is worth paying for.”

The National Income in Russia and India

The issue of the Economist for June 10th, 1939, reviews two books, one by Mr. Colin Clark, on the Russian national income (“A Critique of Russian Statistics,” Macmillan, 6s.), and the other by Mr. V. K. R. V. Rao ("India’s National Income,” Allen & Unwin, 6s.).

The estimated national income in Russia in 1937 was £4,637,000,000—almost identical with the estimated national income of Great Britain in the same year. The population of Russia is, however, nearly four times as great, so that the average per head of the population is about £28 in Russia and £100 in Great Britain.

As regards the upward movement of the aggregrate national income in Russia, the Economist, after making certain adjustments for armament expenditure and revised population figures, concludes that in 1928 the amount available per head of the population was rather smaller than in Czarist days.

“Between 1928 and 1934 the aggregate national income rose by 16 per cent. whilst the population only increased by 8 per cent. But this increase was entirely due to the expansion of industry. The supply of meat, milk and eggs was halved; that of other foods was barely keeping pace with the increase in population.”

Between 1934 and 1937 the aggregate income has increased more rapidly, although much of the increase has been swallowed up in armaments.

“If defence expenditure is assumed to have trebled in the three years, living conditions might have improved to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent. “

The book on India discloses an appalling condition after long years of British rule. The national income

“works out to a little more than a rupee (1s. 6d.) a day for a family of five, and the figure includes the incomes of both the millionaire and the manual labourer.”

The mass of the Indian population

“live in hovels, have only a few clothes, know no furniture, rarely drink milk, hardly ever eat meat or fruit or other expensive, though nutritious, items of diet.”

The Indian national income is estimated to be increasing very slowly, by about 1 per cent, per annum.

With regard to all estimates of the amount and increase of national income, it is hardly necessary to remark that the mass of the population are not benefited by an increase in the total production of wealth if the additional amount goes to benefit the privileged minority or is wasted in armaments.

Labour M.P. Does Not Like German Trading Methods

During a debate on the Government’s foreign trade policy, in the House of Commons, on June 9th, one Labour M.P., Mr. W. G. Cove (Aberavon) accused another Labour M.P., Mr. E. Shinwell (Seaham, Durham) of wanting “economic war with Germany,” “sheer, naked war.” (Hansard, June 9th, Col. 812.)

Hard words, but certainly justified, as can be seen from the following, which are typical passages in Mr. Shinwell’s speech: —

“. . . Clearly the Government must make up their minds what is their objective in relation to foreign trade. Is it to recapture, our lost markets, no matter where they are …. or are we to allow Germany, by the employment of questionable devices, to prevent this country from re-establishing herself in foreign markets?”

The Government spokesman had said that this country must get its share of the Rumanian and other Balkan markets. Mr. Shinwell said: —

“. . . the right hon. gentleman must do more than that. He must obtain from those markets the greatest possible share, irrespective of the claims of other countries; otherwise our export trade cannot prosper. There is no half-way house. We must go forward.”

And again : —

“If Germany will persist in using devices which adversely affect our foreign trade, we must, for our own protection, employ discriminating devices, whether they are regarded as economic war or not. On the other hand, if Germany will refrain fromemploying questionable devices of that kind, and if Germany will play the game …. it is obviously all to the good that we should assist Germany to maintain her economic position and even to improve it.”

There is only one thing more dangerous than a reformist movement which is passive and quiescent all round, that is, one which develops aggressive tendencies and wants to be more assertive about capitalist foreign interests than the capitalists themselves.

News is still awaited as to the way Goebbels, Goering and Hitler received Mr. Shinwell’s appeal to them “to play the game.” Play the game, you cads!

Edgar Hardcastle

Whither Britain? (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the War, the Labour movement of this and other countries had come to regard the progress of democracy as something inevitable. In spite of the lean time democracy has gone through since the suspension of hostilities, both Labour leaders and ruling-class politicians still successfully manage to create the myth that, in England, at any rate, democracy is still the order of the day. Democracy here is said to provide a striking contrast to the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini; indeed, the chief task of our politicians to-day is to maintain that illusion above all others in the minds of people. But the view of the Socialist has always been that, although the growth of capitalism necessitates certain democratic features, anti-democratic elements are also bound up with its continuation. In spite of feverish appeals to defend democracy, signs are not wanting that, behind this façade, the ruling class are getting ready to march along a path similar to that of Hitler’s Germany. There is no doubt that the development of capitalism in recent years has modified much of the normal workings of the system and has thrown up, as a result, new and more complex problems to be solved. The attempts to solve these problems, as always, endanger working-class interests. It is true, of course, that the basis of capitalism is the two-class nature of society, with its contrasts of riches and poverty, and the contradictions which arise from the ownership by a small section of society of the means of wealth production. Nevertheless, the working class should become aware of these changes and what they entail in democratic England as well as Fascist Germany. It is childish to assume that what is happening in Germany is independent of the remainder of the capitalist world. The problems confronting the ruling class in Germany are in the last analysis the problems that confront the capitalist class of the rest of the world. What are these problems? They are the furtherance of the interests of the national sections of the capitalist class in order to maintain or secure what is euphemistically called “a place in the sun,” or, more brutally, to satisfy the insatiable quest for profits. The task before the German ruling class is to secure for itself a privileged position, but it can only do so at the expense of its brother, the English capitalist class.

Thus Fascism is not only bound up with world capitalism but is itself a product of it. The defeated ruling class in Germany, stripped of its former colonies, its territory in Europe annexed, and weighted down by reparations, was forced into a desperate position. The Social Democracy, along with the other political parties, though trying to rebuild German capitalism, had been unable to continue doing so, because they lost working-class support and therefore ceased to be a fitting instrument. The conditions of the working class had not improved, as the Social Democrats promised they would. The task of Fascism became then one of restoring German capitalism to its pre-war strength and at the same time gaining the confidence of large sections of the working class, peasants and middle layers of the population, by promising to free capitalism from the anomalies that ordinarily affect it. The demagogue Hitler promised to provide work for all, to establish economic and national security and to balance out the periodic fluctuations and crises associated with capitalism. Thus, the first task of Hitler on attaining political power was to provide work of some kind for the six million unemployed. It was useless to produce consumption goods depending for their sale upon an increased purchasing power of the people. What was needed was a type that would not be thrown upon an already saturated market. New roads, land improvement schemes, military equipment, such as barracks, guns and aeroplanes, can be produced independently of the income of the masses. It is even possible under those conditions to produce a growing volume of these goods while wages are being steadily reduced. A gigantic programme of rearmament allowed Hitler to revive German industry, to put Germany back on the political map, and further, to fulfil his promises to the masses, through the grim formula of “guns instead of butter.”

So, to-day it can be said that unemployment in Germany is practically non-existent, and the “work for all” slogan has been realised. For gradually the rearmament industries have expanded and unemployment has fallen; indeed, many workers from other branches of industry have had to be drafted into this field of production. To finance this huge programme, methods have been adopted which have horrified our orthodox capitalist and Labour leader alike. They view with dismay the stringent Governmental control and regulation of profits and prices, and of wage rates and supplies of labour. A picture of the state of present-day Germany, from a capitalist standpoint, can be obtained from the following quotation from Lloyds Bank Monthly Review (July and August, 1937): —

“In the National Socialist State all economic activity must serve the interests of the community. Business interests in Germany must, therefore, regard themselves as subordinate to the general policy pursued by the State. Early in 1937 the German people were told that all activities will be governed by the law that the nation does not live for the benefit of the economic system, nor the economic system exist for the benefit of capital, but capital serves the economic system and the economic system the Nation. . . . With regard to the individual, the National Socialists claim that they must put an end to class differences in order to secure national harmony. Individual and class differences are subordinate to those of the national community. Under a Government with full and supreme power of enforcing its will, even to the point of overriding established law, one of the practical results of this theory has been the suppression of strikes, lock-outs and wage disputes generally.”

Thus the Fascists have created a machine which in time may have repercussions throughout world capitalism. Already it would appear that the threat of a rearmed and highly organised German capitalism is compelling British capitalism to adopt similar drastic measures. An article in The Banker (April, 1939) raises certain issues, largely, it is true, from the point of view of the capitalist class, but issues which vitally affect the working class. The writer commences by pointing out that the Government will be a borrower in the capital market of between £350 and £400 million, and the effects of a single borrower, such as the Government, taking such a large amount from the capital market and distributing it amongst a relatively small section of industry, namely, the rearmament industry, will be grave. The demand for workers in these industries will greatly increase; in fact, the writer of the article thinks that the whole of the unemployed may be re-absorbed into industry. This may well be so, when we remember that, even at the present time, there is a shortage of this type of skilled labour, and that, in addition, an increased number of men are required in the armed forces and other defence preparations. As a result of the large sums paid out in the form of wages following on the increased employment and the substitution of full-time for short-time workers, a greatly increased demand for consumers’ goods may be expected. The Government, if it is to keep at the head of the armaments race, will be forced to increase its expenditure, the money being raised either by borrowing or by taxation. In either case, it will be forced to exert a greater control over the capital market. Manufacturers of consumers’ goods will be faced with an increased demand for their products, and at the same time a shortage of the necessary capital and labour to effectively expand production. Prices will tend to rise and the standard of living of the workers fall unless they are successful in securing higher wages, a demand which will be strenuously opposed by the manufacturers and Government alike, for higher wages mean an increased cost of rearmament. The City Editor of the Manchester Guardian says (April 6th, 1939): —

“Unless the Government then assumes the direct control of industrial production and investment the arms output will be curtailed and a general rise of prices will ensue.”

This rise in prices can be offset in three ways, all at the expense of the working class. The social services may be reduced on the plea of economy, the working day can be lengthened without raising wages, as in France, or the standard of living of the workers can be reduced by allowing prices to rise more rapidly than wages. This attack upon working-class standards has begun. The Press reports to-day the strike at an aircraft factory caused by the employment of unskilled girl labour. Workers’ memories may be short but they still remember the dilution that took place during the last War. As is commonplace nowadays, the men have gone on strike without Union recognition, thus losing strike pay, but they already have the support of the workers in another of the company’s factories, from whom they have received a big collection and a weekly levy on their wages until the dispute is over. All workers should realise that this is only a prelude to a general attack upon working-class conditions and democratic rights. There are not wanting signs that British capitalism will require the working class here to follow in the footsteps of the German working class. By specious pleas of patriotism and emphasis on the horrors of Fascism, an attempt will be made to render the trade unions innocuous and to persuade the working class to be drilled and dragooned. And, needless to say, the trade union bureaucracy and Labour leaders will perform the same service for capitalism now as in 1914—note already the discussions between trade union leaders and the Government on the steps to be taken in an emergency war situation.

Although trade union leaders are paying lip service to voluntary effort as opposed to conscription, they are prepared once again to place the movement at the disposal of the State. Mr. Bevin himself agrees that prices must be controlled and profiteering cease, thus fitting in easily with capitalism organised on a war-time basis.

Now, more than at any other time, is it necessary for the workers to think and act along the lines of their own class interests. Safeguarding working-class interests is the best and only way of safeguarding working-class existence. And the action of the working class here may yet, by its example, have a stimulating and regenerating effect upon the working class of all other countries.

Sound working-class action will still prove to be the greatest impediment to the threat of war. Without this action, we must agree with the Manchester Guardian (April 11th, 1939):—

“War apart, it would be idle to predict either the form or the degree of that Governmental control of finance, employment, prices and profits that may be found necessary as borrowing and spending are increased.”

Already three Conservative M.P.s, Mr. L. S. Amery, Sir Edward Grigg and Lord Wolmer, have placed a resolution on the order paper of the House of Commons (Manchester Guardian, April 17th, 1939): —

“That this House is in favour of the immediate acceptance of the principle of the compulsory mobilisation of the man, munition and money power of the nation.”

In a circular to M.P.s, the sponsors state: —

“We feel it opportune that as many members of the House of Commons as possible should assure them (the Government) that we are ready to proceed to all lengths in pursuance of their policy. The time for half measures is past. We believe that all the resources of the nation should be mobilised now against every eventuality. ( ! !)”

So it can be seen that the State, instead of being capitalism’s sleeping partner, is becoming, as in Germany, the active and directing agent for mobilising industry and dragooning and drilling the population along lines suitable for its purpose. In addition, we have our defence dictators, and A.R.P. closely linked with the police, veiled threats of powers extraordinary in times of emergency, e.g., the right to enter individual houses, etc. So it can be seen that Hitler and our ruling class speak the same language when their interests are at stake.

Surely at such a time the voice of the Socialist should be heeded by all thoughtful members of the working class. History has placed the solution in your hands and given you the opportunity to rid yourselves, once and for all, of the poverty and misery and grey anxiety which capitalism entails. You, the working class, are the overwhelming majority of the population. It is you who make everything possible under capitalism, including war. When this is realised in sufficient numbers, you can take appropriate action, not only to dispense with capitalism, but to build a system of society fitted to the needs of a decent existence. By becoming Socialists you will help to swell our ranks, so that, when sufficient numbers are gained, there can begin that last and greatest march of the working class out of the grey menacing shadows of capitalism into the light of a system of society based, not on the dictates of a minority, but on the needs of humanity.

Ted Wilmott

Answers to Correspondents: Is Stalin a Dictator? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks: “Is Stalin a dictator, or a democratic leader?”

The Communists would, no doubt, answer that Stalin, particularly since the 1936 Constitution came into operation, is a “democratic leader,” i.e., that he holds a position more or less similar to that of the Presidents of the U.S.A. and France, or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. They certainly would not admit that he should properly be compared with Mussolini or Hitler. 

It is worth while looking at the text of the Russian Constitution for the light it throws on Stalin’s position. In theory the Russian Government (“The Council of People’s Commissars”) is appointed by the two-chamber “Parliament” (“Supreme Council of the U.S.S.R.”). and the Parliament is democratically elected by the Russian population. In practice, as only one political party is allowed to exist in Russia, the elections are no more democratic than Hitler’s or Mussolini’s elections or the periodical plebiscites at which the population are “allowed” to vote for or against those dictators’ decisions.

But although the “Council of People’s Commissars” is supposed to be the Government of Russia, and is described as the “supreme executive and administrative organ of State power” (Constitution, Article 64), it is restricted and overshadowed by another body, the “Presidium of the Supreme Council.” This Presidium is elected at a joint session of the two chambers of Parliament and between sessions of the Parliament (which, in practice, means nearly all the year round), it has all the real power. It interprets laws, conducts referendums, rescinds decisions and orders of the Government (“Council of People’s Commissars”) “in the event that they are not in accordance with the law,” controls the armed forces, convenes sessions of Parliament, etc.

The Presidium consists of 37 members, of whom Stalin is one. (He is not a member of the so-called “Government,” the Council of People’s Commissars.) Stalin’s authority really rests, however, not on the pseudo-democratic forms of the Constitution, but on the fact that he is General Secretary of the Communist Party, the only Party permitted to exist. The Communist Party is the real controlling organisation in Russia, and the elaborate Parliamentary organisation set up under the Constitution is, so far, merely the shadow.

Editorial Committee.

Answers to Correspondents: Can the Workers be Won Over by Socialism? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. J. T. R. (Carlisle) doubts “the possibility of converting the masses to Socialism . . . when we consider the barrage of capitalist propaganda in its many forms.”

The case for Socialism rests upon the fact that the evils which the working class has to endure cannot be ended within capitalist society.

Therefore, capitalism itself, by its very helplessness, forces the working class to turn to Socialism. So far the number of Socialists is small. However, these few Socialists are not necessarily more intelligent than other workers. To-day, workers run capitalist industry from top to bottom. A class which is intelligent enough to do that, is intelligent enough to understand Socialism.

As time goes on, the working class will grow tired of supporting capitalist parties, of demanding reforms which still leave them in poverty; they will give more serious” attention to studying the solution of their problems.

At first the movement for Socialism grows slowly. Still, it DOES grow, and it will gradually gather more and more momentum.

Capitalist propaganda will not permanently stand in the way, for it cannot change the exploiting nature of capitalism, it cannot end poverty, it cannot prevent the class struggle breaking out into full view again and again.

C. A.

Answers to correspondents: Should the S.P.G.B. Join the Labour Party ? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (J. T. R., Carlisle) asks why the S.P.G.B. does not join the Labour Party, and carry on its work for Socialism within that Party’s ranks. The answer, in brief, is that the Labour Party’s aim is not the same as ours. We are working for Socialism, a system of society in which the means of production and distribution will be commonly owned and democratically controlled. The Labour Party seeks to reform the capitalist system, replacing private capitalist concerns by State capitalist concerns, and public utility corporations, like the London Passenger Transport Board. The S.P.G.B. is not in favour of State capitalism, but opposed to it. Therefore, in order to carry on our work we have to condemn outright the objects of the Labour Party. Even if the Labour Party would permit an affiliated body to do so (which, obviously, they would not) it would be of no advantage to Socialist propaganda. On the contrary, such an exhibition of political dishonesty would cause doubt and confusion in the minds of the workers, and would hamper us in our work of preaching Socialism.

For fuller treatment of this question readers are referred to articles in the following issues of Socialist Standard, which are obtainable on application to the Literature Secretary at 2d. per copy: April, 1931; May, 1934; April, 1936, and July, 1936.

Editorial Committee.

Answers to correspondents: Abolition of Capital ? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. D’Arcy Denny (Biggin Hill)

We have your letter asking us to explain what we mean by the phrase, “Abolition of Capital,” which, you say, appeared on page 35 of the Socialist Standard, dated November, 1933. On referring to the page in question we find that what we said was, “Abolition of Capitalism.” Under Socialism goods will be produced only for use. There will be no monetary system, and no capital.

Editorial Committee.

The death penalty in Soviet Russia (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our March issue (p. 41) appeared a quotation from Yvon’s “L’U.R.S.S. telle qu’elle est,” a statement taken from Russian official sources, to the effect that “from the age of 12 children guilty of theft, wounding, assassination or attempts thereto, are subject to all penalties provided by the common law.”

A correspondent from Exmouth, who describes this statement as a “wicked attack upon the Russian people and their rulers,” refers us to “The Soviet Comes of Age” (p. 163), which states that “the death sentence cannot be pronounced on a person under 18 years of age.”

We publish the correction, pending further information which may explain how the discrepancy between the two statements arises.

For the benefit of our correspondent we may add that we would regard as a “wicked attack” on Socialism any implication that in a Socialist country boys and girls of 18 could be liable to the death penalty for theft.

Editorial Committee.

SPGB Meetings, Lectures, etc. (1939)

Party News from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

More Fabian Notes. With Some Fabian Notions. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter from a gentleman who suggests that our regard for common honesty will move us to the desired point of publication has been passed to me. If he had appealed to our regard for an uncommon honesty it would have been more to the point. However, here is the communication : —

Dear Comrade,

I am a regular reader of the “Standard” (the monthly, not the daily), and in the current issue I see that one of the features of the March issue is to be an interesting letter on “Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B.”

In part the answer is supplied by some of the writings in the Party’s official organ—your own paper. I admire unfettered thinking, and clear, incisive writing, but I wish to lodge a respectful protest against the column-and-a-half entitled “Fabian Notes” in the February issue. It embodies either a ridiculous misapprehension of a sentence used by Mr. H. Snell (and quoted), or a wilful distortion of his obvious meaning—for the purpose of discrediting the Fabians in general. Even if an individual member did entertain the ideas attributed to Snell, it is grossly unfair to brand the whole society on such evidence.

The quotation from Snell’s speech was as follows : “The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts.” In this sentence, “we” most certainly means Socialists generally, and not members of the Fabian Society in particular. Under the Socialist State (unless people should revert to a very simple life—which is unlikely), it is certain that experts will be needed—in manufacture, in the arts, and even in distribution. There will be no government in any sense approximating to the present class government. And during the transitional stage, which has now commenced (with the growth of trusts on the one hand, and of municipal enterprises on the other), it is equally certain that experts are needed ; and it was to this aspect that Snell’s remark had special reference, for if one thing seems specially obvious in this matter, it is that the workers—the real producers—will receive a nearer approximation to justice under a Socialist than under an individualist; but, just as obviously, the Socialist expert is likely to be passed over, if his principles are known and put into practice. The implication is, that the experts must be converted to Socialism, just as the workers must be : and in this direction the Fabian Society is doing sound work (although its work covers much ground in other directions also).

Whether, under Socialism, the expert would be paid at a higher rate than the “ordinary” worker, is a question which is really not raised by Mr. Snell. I would give my own answer to the question by asking another: Why should he be ? That his abilities are of a less common kind than those of the men who work under his direction, supplies no ethical claim for special treatment. Generally speaking, the work of the expert (as of the artist) is agreeable : he is impelled to do it: and he will give his best howsoever he be rewarded. I, and many who think like me, would have a high reward accorded to the scavenger rather than to the expert.

Your leading article, “The Quintessence of Socialism,” gets to the root of the matter. Until all industries are socialised, and their control won by the workers, the nationalisation (or municipalisation) of isolated industries will be of little service. The best to be hoped of the latter is that conditions shall be somewhat superior to those in the corresponding privately-owned industries—and even that is too seldom attained. The moral is : Unite, for Socialism and Democracy; accept all palliatives offered, but be sparing of thanks, for the most that will be conceded falls far short of the just claims of the workers.

Nevertheless, to preach hatred of the bourgeoisie or the so-called “upper” classes or to foster misunderstandings or “bad feeling” between class and class is both impolitic and immoral. All classes include Socialists—genuine Socialists. So far as the well-to-do are concerned—the people who stand to gain nothing tangible from the victory of Socialism—I ask, why decry those who adhere to the cause “for righteousness sake,” and for no other reason ?

Yet another, and a practical reason for preaching class-consciousness rather than class-hatred, is the immense numbers of “hangers-on” of the wealthy—those who produce useless luxuries for the “upper” classes or who minister directly to their comfort. These, too, are underpaid and oppressed : and the serious part of it is that they are rapidly increasing (in consequence of the growing aggregation of wealth in capitalistic hands). Yet their apparent interest, in the immediate future at any rate, lies in perpetuating existing conditions. These also need to be converted—must be converted, if Socialism is to be won ; for they are too numerous to be disregarded. At present they appear to be about the most impermeable classes of the whole community : they are unlikely to be moved by mere rancorous abuse of their “masters,” but in the long run they must be amenable to reason. (As my letter has dealt largely with an attack on the Fabian Society, I may say—to anticipate a possible gibe—that I do not think the Society either tries or expects to make much impression on the classes in question—though ultimately, perhaps, the impression may be made through their masters).

Whilst preaching the Class War, then, it is imperative that the constructive and idealistic side of Socialism should also be emphasised. In the Socialist State, none (save the shirkers) will be worse off than at present—in all that really makes the happiness of existence : but it will uplift the toilers almost beyond their most daring visions.

I plead, therefore, for union and co-operation within the movement—with free but not ill-natured criticism of each other when differences arise.

Yours fraternally,

Fabian Free.

Reply:

As the blushing author of the article referred to I beg to thank “Fabian Free” for his “free but not ill-natured criticism,” the more so because with almost overwhelming magnanimity he gives me the choice of two labels, I am, it seems, either a liar or a fool—whichever I please. (As a lover of “clear, incisive writing” “Fabian Free” will appreciate the merit these easily understood terms possess over “ridiculous misapprehension” and “wilful distortion.”) And that is very sweet and comradely in my good-natured critic. There have been gentle Fabians who have given me no such freedom of selection.

But notwithstanding this much appreciated concession for the sake of “union and co-operation within the movement,” (which the gods forbid that I should attempt to disturb), I will venture a free and not ill-natured rejoinder in the hope that I may be successful in making my “grossly unfair” conduct appear a little less reprehensible. I hope “Fabian Free” will bear with me.

Now it seems that when Mr. Snell said “we naturally want to be the experts” who will govern in the future, he most certainly meant Socialists generally and not Fabians in particular. Did he ? And how does “Fabian Free” know that ? Will he be greatly surprised to learn that Mr. Snell “most certainly” meant nothing of the sort ?

When Mr. Snell made the statement he was describing the special function of the Fabian Society as distinguished from all other Socialist and pseudo-Socialist parties whose origin and work he was at the moment outlining. If his words had any meaning at all they made it emphatically clear that Mr. Snell was of the opinion that the particular duty laid upon the Fabian Society on whose behalf he was speaking, was that of the training of the expert who was, he thought, to govern in the future.

This may, of course, be a wilful distortion or a ridiculous misapprehension of the function of, and grossly unfair to, the Fabian Society, but that is not my affair. “Fabian Free” had better take the matter up with his Executive Committee, who will then probably restrain their unhappy fugleman. But I think it more likely that “Fabian Free” will receive the shocking intimation that the Executive of his Party share Mr. Snell’s view. In which case “Fabian Free” will perhaps apologise to Mr. Snell and withdraw from the Fabian Society—and perhaps not. However that may be, I trust he will not trouble to apologise to me. I don’t matter. Besides, I’m used to being called names—especially by good-natured comrades of other parties. It’s their little way of ensuring union and cooperation in the movement.

For the rest, “Fabian Free” does not appear to have profited by his regular reading of this paper, and therefore fails to realise that “clear and incisive” style which is his admiration and our normal method. His meaning is often, if he will allow me to say so, obscure, and is not made more apparent by repeated use of the word “obviously” or its equivalent. It is a little—may I say—ludicrous, to keep on making the strenuous assertion that obviously it is so-and-so when obviously it isn’t. It is like crying peace when there is no peace. But I will try my ‘prentice hand at digging his argument out.

Let us assume Mr. Snell meant what “Fabian Free” says he meant. So. “The government of the future” applies only to the transition stage. It is for this stage that the Socialist expert is required. Yet in this stage “Fabian Free” agrees the working class can be little if anything better off. Why ? Because while capitalism holds the causes of poverty and working-class unhappiness remain. Therefore your Socialist expert under capitalist conditions, because he can do no more than administer capitalist laws, is of no more use than a non-Socialist expert. And as under Socialism “there will be no government in any sense approximating to the present,” the Socialist governmental expert of the transition period will then find himself without visible means of subsistence !

It seems to a plain person like myself a dreadful waste of effort to labour in the conversion and training of Socialist governmental experts who are useless to day and for ever. They had far better take my advice and apply themselves to the acquisition of some useful trade.

And I cannot allow “Fabian Free” for one purpose to limit Mr. Snell’s statement to a certain machinery in a certain stage and for another to apply it in a broader sense to a different stage. I am quite ready to have at him with a free and not ill-natured criticism on any question of working-class interest he likes to raise, but he must keep to his premise or definitely relinquish it. If Mr. Snell’s statement referred, as I believe it did, to government under Socialism,—that at any rate was the impression left not with myself alone, by Mr. Snell’s clear and incisive oratory,—”Fabian Free” may deal with my article from that standpoint, and I will deal with him—very happy for the chance, I’m sure. (And then perhaps I shall be able to get him to explain what the Dickens he means by his Socialist expert under Socialism being overlooked because his principles were known.) If the statement referred to the ante-Socialist period, as “Fabian Free” asserts, then the question of the remuneration of the governmental bureaucrat does not arise. The industrial expert under Socialism is a different person from the governmental expert. The first, adequately defined, may be allowed. The second is the person we are talking about. If “Fabian Free” desires to drub me on him, let him wade in. I’ve still got an old pencil stump and a piece of paper left to me by the friendly broker’s man.

“Fabian Free’s sixth par is, I admit, a fair contribution to incisive writing and displays at once the unfortunate misapprehensions existing in the writer’s mind. To talk of hatred of the bourgeoisie being impolitic and immoral is piffle. The hatred is simply an expression, a natural and inevitable expression, of detestation of what “Fabian Free” admits is a wrong, viz., the subjugation and robbery of one class by another. To point this out and emphasize its purport is not immoral—if there be any meaning left in that ill-used word. Nor is it impolitic—unless “Fabian Free” desires to suggest that it is unwise to tell the truth. True all (read both) classes may prima facie, include Socialists, but members of the capitalist class are only Socialists to the extent that they vacate their class position and go over to the working class.

I will argue this point at greater length if “Fabian Free” wishes it, later, and will only say here that the number of people who are Socialists “for righteousness sake,” large though it appears to “Fabian Free,” will dwindle almost to a vanishing point under scrutiny, and come out from the ordeal mainly as a congregation of individuals who have decided that anyhow, to use “Fabian Free’s” own words, they will not be worse off under Socialism, but might be considerably better. Holding as we do that material interests are, in the final analysis, at the root of all human actions, we can quite understand the existence of men in the ranks of the bourgeoisie who can see the advantages of Socialism, and are prepared to fight their own class in order to realise it. Their help is not rejected, but it is not necessarily of more consequence than the help of a similar number of the working class. On the other hand, however, it must not be forgotten that men of the capitalist class have come out ostensibly to help but actually to wreck, if possible, the working-class movement. Therefore, recruits from that quarter should be dealt with circumspectly.

The important point to be remembered in this connection is, that the Socialist movement is absolutely and entirely a working-class movement. It expresses the struggle of the working class against the exploiting capitalist class, and must finally result in the triumph of the workers and the extermination of the capitalists.

Nor can we gild the Socialistic pill for the benefit of the flunkey class. Their material interests will probably keep them bound to their masters until pressure of economic forces, already perceptibly operating, compels them to see that their sole hope, also lies in Socialism. They will have to swallow the pill willy-nilly. And if they then discover, as they will, that there is nothing nauseating in the operation, so much the better.

For our part we will tell them the truth (when we can get at ’em) as straight and clear as we tell it to any other section of the people. That is our business—the only reason for our existence. And not even for “Fabian Free,” much though we should value his union and co-operation, will we depart from our habit of calling a spade a spade, or a labour misleader a fraud, or a Fabian a bureaucrat, or an I.L.P.-cum-L.R.C’er a man on the bounce, or an S.D.F. palliative-monger a confusionist.

And that, gentle “Fabian Free,” if you particularly want to know, is in brief the reason why every other party is opposed to the S.P.G.B. and the S.P.G.B. is opposed to every other party.

A. James

A Look Round. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Weekly Times and Echo is a Liberal newspaper. Between elections it plays to the Labour Gallery, prints articles from prominent Social-Democrats and Labour men. But at elections it supports the Liberal (which, of course, includes the Progressive) candidates, and should therefore be regarded as an enemy by those who claim to be Socialists.

***

“He that is not with us is against us,” used to be recognised as a truism by the S.D.F. But recently things have been altered. On the front page of the Weekly Times and Echo for March 17, 1907, appears an advertisement by the Edmonton Branch of the S.D.F., addressed to the Electors of Edmonton, and announcing a mass meeting in support of S.D.F. candidates for the District Council. In the advertisement the electors are advised not to blindly vote for “the man your landlord thinks the best, and who is selected by the landlords themselves.”

***

This denouncing of the landlord, while ignoring his companion, the capitalist, is an old Liberal dodge, but I hardly expected to find it in an S.D.F. Advt.

***

The advertisement concludes : “Take in this paper weekly. It is the best for all workers.”

***

So the S.D.F. are now reduced to urging the workers to be taken in by taking in a paper which appears several times during the week for the greater glorification of the Liberal section of the capitalist class !

***

What Judge Emden described as an extraordinary state of affairs was revealed at the Lambeth County Court on March 13, when a member of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners named Murphy sued the Society for £50 which he claimed as accident benefit. Counsel for the Union submitted to the Judge that as the Society was an illegal society for the purposes of restraining trade, the Court had no jurisdiction to try it, which was proved by section 4, subsection 3, of the Trade Union Act of 1871. This provided that members of the Society, or vice-versa, shall have no power to resort to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing any agreement between them.

***

After a lengthy legal argument the Judge decided favourably to the Union, dismissed the action, and at the request of the Union’s advocate, gave costs against the Union member.

***

The plaintiff’s advocate described the Union as a “swindle” and was promptly reproved by the Judge. But the irony of it ! The workers are urged to join their Trade Unions, in order to make provision, amongst other things, for sickness, old age, accident, etc. And then the Union into which they have paid, week after week, a large proportion of their earnings, resists claims by its members and defeats them by the tactics detailed above.

***

The Liberal Government at home are mouthing threats against the House of Lords, mainly because they claim that “it thwarts the people’s will.” At the same moment they have established a second chamber in the Transvaal with the definite object of thwarting the wishes of the elected Assembly.

***

The scandal of the Upper House nominations, writes the Daily Chronicle’s Johannesburg correspondent, must be remembered in estimating the political outlook. The people elected a majority pledged to the repatriation of the Chinese, and Lord Selborne has nominated a Progressive Chinese majority in the Upper House. Consequently it is premature as a result of the elections to predict the peaceful elimination of the Chinese, since the power to precipitate a crisis and thwart the policy of the Assembly and the home Government by voting such legislation as is essential to repatriation is placed in the hands of the puppets of Lord Selborne and the mining houses, as, in case of a deadlock, the Governor can dissolve the Assembly without calling a joint sitting of both Houses.

***

“Improvements in administration, chiefly in the interest of the middle-class ratepayer, improvement even in the status of organised labour, does not take us far on the road to genuine Socialism. It is reform certainly, and it has, in some respects, a good effect in so far as it shows the way to better things. But, on the other hand, palliatives are likely to obscure the main issue and the idea itself of the maintenance of municipalities, and the raising the status of wage-earners, stunts the revolutionary intelligence and restricts the area of economic foresight.”

H. M. Hyndman, November, 1895.

***

“To get a little they must ask for the lot, if they ask for a little they will get nothing. As he was growing older he was beginning to feel the futility of crying for reforms when you find yourself face to face with a system which makes all reform impossible.”

H. M. Hyndman, March, 1904.

***

Those who will carefully read the above Hyndmanisms, and then read through the addresses issued by S.D.F. candidates at recent elections will not need to subscribe to the Daily News edition of Punch.

***

“Who aims a star, shoots higher far

Than he that aims a tree.”

***

On Saturday, London had spoken for the forces of reaction, and had played into the hands of the Harmsworth family once again, said our Lady of Warwick at the East Ham Town Hall on March 4. As London had to choose between a majority of “Progressives” and one of “Moderates,” both of whom serve the interests of the capitalist class, it is evident that her Ladyship would have hailed the victory of the former as a defeat of the forces of reaction.

***

According to the Burton Evening Gazette, something of a sensation has been caused by certain staff changes at Messrs. Allsopp & Sons’ Offices. A number of clerks, some of whom had given life service to the firm, were dismissed peremptorily, but with their salaries in advance, and the incident, although it is merely an elaboration of a policy which has unhappily long been in progress, caused much comment by reason of the position of the parties concerned and the length of their association with the brewery.

The lady clerk is to make her appearance at the desk, and she and her class will very largely take the place of those gentlemen who have been sent adrift. It is contended that the somewhat drastic changes which are now in progress in Messrs. Allsopp’s internal affairs are dictated by the demands for a strictly economical working plan. Whatever may be the verdict of the general public on the matter, it cannot be denied that much resentment is expressed locally at the continued dismissal of clerks, and this has especially made itself felt within the past few days.

A representative of the Gazette had an interview with Mr. C. J. Stewart, the chairman of the Board of Directors, who stated that the policy of economy had been going on generally since he commenced his tenure of office. “A considerable saving has,” he said, “been effected in the administrative staff in accordance with that policy.” He had had experience of lady clerks in other capacities, and he thought that they would be very suitable for the work it was proposed to give them. It would be merely a matter of figures, and what might be monotonous for men would not be so in the case of girls. In fact, it was really women’s work to do that sort of thing.

***

Of course, “it is really women’s work to do that sort of thing,” and any other sort of thing whereby the wages bill can be reduced.

***

As we have so often pointed out, the displacement of men by women and even by children is incidental to the capitalist system and must and does take place in offices as well as in mills and factories. The writers of some of the letters that have appeared in the Press concerning this particular case have made some extraordinary suggestions and have mostly shown a lamentable ignorance of things as they are. They have appealed to the “feelings” of the Directors, etc. In days gone by, when businesses were small, when they were personally superintended by the proprietors, there no doubt did exist some feeling of friendship between the employer and his employees, but since the advent of the large concerns, the joint stock corporations, where often the employees never see the actual proprietors, where the departmental managers are expected to make their respective departments “pay,” sentiment is entirely out of the question. Business is not carried on for philanthropy but for dividends.

***

It has also been suggested that the lesson, to be learnt by the clerk is that there is still room for him if he will make himself an all round competent man. But there are plenty of these today working for a mere pittance, and plenty even dossing nightly at Booth’s hotels. Moreover, the only practical school for acquiring efficiency in office routine is the office itself, and the conditions of modern offices render it impossible for the necessary experience to be obtained. The “From Powder Monkey to Admiral,” “Office Boy to Proprietor” fiction is long since exploded. In the small office, say with manager, cashier, clerk, junior and office boy, the “yob” certainly did have an opportunity, provided he were smart, of acquiring a general and particular knowledge of the office routine and of the business transacted, but as the small offices gave place to the mammoth concerns now so common in commercial centres, the work became departmentalised and all-round knowledge rendered unnecessary for the majority of the staff. The newcomer, however proficient he may have made himself at commercial schools and similar institutions for extracting fees out of would-be Pierpoint Morgans, finds himself set to work which, as Mr. Stewart says, is “merely a matter of figures.” Usually, his only hope of promotion is to become the head of the department, or one of that worthy’s ”coppers,” but between him and the coveted post intervenes an array of a score or more all anxious for advancement and all as little likely to secure it. His knowledge is useless because his only prospect is to remain at one particular job, at work which could be done by any other fairly correct person, male or female.

***

What the clerk has to do is to drop his cant of respectability and to recognise that economic development, which has reduced the skilled mechanic to a casual labourer, has also affected him. The growth of large concerns, the aggregation of capital, the increased use of mechanical appliances, in offices as elsewhere, the subdivision and departmentalisation now generally in vogue, have effected vast changes in the status of the wage and salary earner, of those who have to sell their abilities, physical or mental, to the master class. Under capitalism, production per head of the population tends to increase continually, but production per head of the actually employed workers also increases. Thus the army of the unemployed will be an evergrowing one and we ask our opponents to show how the problem can be dealt with, apart from a re-organisation of industry—apart from the substitution of Socialism for the present system.

J. Kay

Editorial: The New Hebrides and the Transvaal. (1907)

Editorial rom the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has repeatedly been pointed out in these columns that there is no essential difference between the Liberal and Tory parties. The way the Liberals have shuffled out of their promises to the electorate, particularly regarding the Chinese Labour Ordinance, is patent to all; and now we have them perpetrating a New Hebrides Convention that is in all ways worse than the Ordinance they were elected to overthrow. Out of their own mouths they stand condemned. Thus the Daily Chronicle says :

“Let us state the case at its worst, so that Liberals may appreciate the point which they have to meet. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Government have denounced the system of indentured Chinese labour in South Africa. By the New Hebrides Convention the same Government has set its seal upon a system of indentured labour which is, or may be, far more oppressive and objectionable. The indentured labour drawn from China is confined to adult males. From the New Hebrides, unmarried women may also be indentured, and children ‘if they are of a certain minimum height.’ The women or children may be employed between sunrise and sunset, with an interval of only one hour, and at rate of 10s. a month. There might also, in the case of labourers indentured from the New Hebrides, be no inspection during employment.

“Such are the facts, or rather such is that part of the facts about which on Opposition platforms we are likely to hear a good deal more. In the debate in the House last night, the party business was largely of the pot and kettle order. To the Opposition’s taunt, ‘With what face can you condemn the Chinese Labour Ordinance when you have sanctioned the New Hebrides Convention ?’ the Ministerial reply was ‘With what face can you condemn indentured labour in the New Hebrides when you introduced it into the Transvaal ?’ Each side in turn described the other as ‘Satan rebuking sin.'”

Herbert Spencer and Socialism. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reprinted from the Burton Evening Gazette

Sir,—In a recent issue of your paper there appeared a report of a lecture on “Herbert Spencer,” which was delivered by Mr. F. E. Lott, F.I.C., A.R.S.M. Being an ardent admirer of Mr. Spencer and his “Synthetic Philosophy,” as well as an enthusiastic Socialist, I may be permitted to crave your indulgence for the following remarks regarding your report.

The passage which engaged my attention is the following:—

“His principles of sociology showed that he was no believer in Socialism, though he had often been hailed as such. The principle of ethics was, perhaps, the most important part of his works, and in it he demonstrated that Socialism attempted to improve social life by breaking the fundamental law of social life.”

I presume that the fundamental law of social life referred to is the principle of every man being entitled to the fullest liberty so long as the like liberty of others is not infringed. With this principle as thus expressed in abstract terms I think few Socialists would disagree. The difficulty arises when we discuss what constitutes an infringement of the liberty of others. Spencer held that the State was an organism. But in applying his principles to man in his relation to the State he treated Society not as an organism but as an aggregation of individual units.

Another quotation may be allowed me from a letter from Spencer to John Stuart Mill—

“The view for which I contend is, that morality properly so called—the science of right conduct—has for its object to determine how or why certain modes of conduct are detrimental and certain other modes beneficial. These good and bad results cannot be accidental, but must be necessary consequences of the constitution of things, and I conceive it to be the business of moral science to deduce from the laws of life and the conditions of existence what kinds of action necessarily tend to produce happiness, and what kinds to produce unhappiness. Having done this, its deductions are to be recognised as laws of conduct, and are to be conformed to, irrespective of a direct estimation of happiness or misery.”

Now, how can Socialism be viewed as infringing those principles ? The Socialist looks upon Society as an organism of which human beings form the cells. Any disease of the cells of an organism is injurious to the organism. Anything depriving the cellular tissue of its proper nutrition causes a disease of the tissue, and the organism suffers. The Socialist viewing the present society, based upon the class ownership of wealth and the means of wealth production, sees that many millions of the human cells forming that society are deprived of the means of proper sustenance, whilst others of those human cells are fed to repletion. As one organ of the human organism may be a parasite seeking aggrandisement at the expense of the other organs, so in the body social we have a class of machine-owners living as parasites upon the labour of machine-minders.

View human society as it has been pictured by Mr. Charles Booth in his investigations into London poverty, by Mr. S. Rowntree in York, others at Egremont and elsewhere, as well as the conditions mentioned in the Interdepartmental Report on Physical Deterioration, and the more recent report on the condition of the working-class in Dundee. From these reports it is evident that at least 13,000,000 people in this country are living below the line of bare physical efficiency. And why ? Because Society to-day is organised in the interests of a class. That this is the inevitable result of a long process of evolution makes it none the better for the working class, though this knowledge affords a hope that the end of the evolutionary process is not yet.

The reason is that the worker to-day can live only by selling his labour power—his power of working—for such a remuneration as barely suffices to replace the energy expended on his work, together with rearing, in the cheapest possible manner, a family of future workers to replace him when he gets “too old at forty.” In return for this wage—this food, clothing, and shelter—the worker toils for a longer period than is necessary to replace its value. The surplus he creates in this surplus time forms a product which is divided into various parts. These parts are the profit, the rent, and the interest of the ruling class.

The Socialist, therefore, contends that profit, rent and interest are merely the various shapes which is taken by the unpaid labour of the worker. He further contends that every new improvement of machinery, each wage-saving contrivance, which speeds up the working-power of the individual worker, increases the wealth of the capitalist, while it further degrades the worker. The division between extreme wealth and extreme poverty has never been so great as it is to-day. Though the economic position of the worker is declining relatively to his powers over nature, his potential power of altering the structure of Society is ever increasing. The manufacturer, the merchant, producing in order that his capital may fructify, has to compete in the market with other men of similar aim. Each manufacturer seeks to augment his share of the market. In prosperous times, like the present, he works his machines at full pressure to meet the demands of the market. Unwitting his efforts, his rivals do likewise, and the market becomes glutted. Men are thrown out of work, thus reducing the “effective demand” for commodities. Amidst the plethora of wealth poverty increases. Under capitalism, says Charles Fourier, “poverty is born of superabundance.”

The capitalist, finding his warehouse glutted with merchandise, ofttimes perishable, and his machines idle, finds it difficult to meet his bills. The necessity of paying his creditors, of redeeming his bills of exchange, makes it imperative to sell at a loss. During such a period of commercial stress bankruptcies are many. On the other hand, those manufacturers with a larger capital who are better able to face those times find in them their most glorious harvest, and buy up their smaller rivals.

Thus the tendency of modern competition is towards the concentration of capital in fewer hands, and the growth of gigantic businesses. Competition must necessarily evolve monopoly. 

We see, then, that the evolution of modern industrial forms is towards the trust. No human effort can head back this movement. Under Free Trade or Protection, under Monarchy or Republic, the trust alike flourishes. To-day, then, it is evident that the evolution of industrial forces and of methods of production, upon which the social superstructure is erected, is in the direction of sameness of life, sameness of outlook, monotony in dwelling, monotony in work, monotony in every phase of our mental, physical and moral life, under which man must sell his labour as a merchandise, under which he is virtually a slave to a wage system.

Against this the Socialist makes a vigorous protest. The Socialist is an individual who wishes to introduce a system of society under which the highest individuality of every man could be developed. He claims, however, that in the necessary toil of Society in providing the means of satisfying human needs every healthy man and woman should bear their share. With the present power of man and the machinery at his disposal two hours work a day on the part of every adult member of the community, excluding the aged and the infirm, would more than meet the necessary demands of Society, and beyond that Society would not seek to restrict his efforts in any way.

Surely this would not constitute so great an interference with man’s individuality as does the social conditions of to-day with its overwork on insufficient wage. Socialism would be a system of Society in which the needs of the individual would be no longer antagonistic to, but harmonious with, the needs of Society. It would be a condition not of Man v. Society, but of Man and Society with identical interests. In such a society only would it be possible to properly “deduce from the laws of life and the conditions of existence what kinds of action necessarily tend to produce happiness and what kinds to produce unhappiness.”

To prepare for the establishment of such a society is the object of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, which recognises the need of propagating these principles, and building up a political organisation which will capture the forms of Government for the express purpose of taking command of the trusts and of the means of producing and distributing wealth. We are seeking to get rid, once and for all, of individual ownership of social forces, to the end that man’s individuality, health, comfort, and welfare may be secured.

I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

“Economicus.”

Blogger's Note:

There's a lot of references to Burton-on-Trent in this issue of the Socialist Standard. I initially got my hopes up - like you do - that “Economicus” writing to a local newspaper in Burton might mean that “Economicus” was the pen-name of a local SPGBer in Burton. A 'J. Blundell' is listed as the local contact in Burton in this issue of the Socialist Standard, but it turns out Blundell joined the SPGB in March 1906 and “Economicus” was appearing in the Standard as early as May 1905.