Detestable years. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Earth is sick

And heaven is weary of the hollow words

Which states and kingdoms utter when they talk

Of truth and justice.

—Wordsworth.

The rough, black years tower over the nations and no man can escape their might. Whatever our work or inclinations we cannot be free of the net of this war. The old man shut in his house is caught in the mesh, just as the young man who battles for a noble cause in public. Old occupations are away, old impulses are put to sleep, old schemes, wishes are battered and injured ; good sentiments are rare and broken. Malice, fraud, cruelty and ambition are feeding fat, while misery follows misery close as thunder clouds when there’s rain and lightning,

Yet it seemed as though the transition from quietness to bloodiness was only a matter of hours. It seemed scarcely an hour before this shadow fell on Europe that the lands were sparkling with new hopes : from end to end of this kingdom the workers listened in contentment to the sweetness of the parliamentarians, to the masses of clerics, and to the sovereign officials of trade unions. For there had come a leader among men, one above all, one with a gentle, sorrow-sodden heart in which he kept ancestral Celtic fire. I have heard that he was a Welshman. We were told that every fibre of his body thrilled with the misery of the poor, whose mourning was as an everlasting dirge in his sympathetic ear ; we learned that a sweeter heart, more in unison with the poor, never beat in old England. Over the land there was hope, and, despite the fact that his Celtic wit looked stale and cold in print, that acres of corn were too largely introduced into his speeches, that there was a superabundance of stars and too many unnecessary rainbows in his answers to questions, he must be given credit for a most astonishing thing. It is this. Although on the introduction of his Health Insurance Bill the vast bulk of the heavenly angels were indifferent to it, he did manage to interest in his proposals one Angel of Light with a less stern heart than his or his companions in Paradise. Forthwith this celestial spirit, on the invitation of the Cabinet Minister, arrived on a sudden at Kings X, incognito, and was about to start on a tour of the slums, when the world shook in the fever of war and the traffic in metals and men started. Ever since the election of the Liberals we had awaited the coming of this luminous visitor, so it was a pity that, when the diplomats let slip the dogs of war and the clownish thwacking of the drums commenced, the burning guest should spend the night, among old friends, in a rent-collector’s office. The angel’s host, the gentle Welshman, has become War Minister.

The war seemed to happen in a moment of noble indignation against the crimes of Germany. It seemed so, yet it was not so. Long before the war’s outbreak stealthy preparations were being made for the carrying on of the war with Competitor Germany. The first thing to be done was to inspire the people with confidence in the politicians. So certain gentry were boomed and praised in all ways so they might use their inflated prestige, on behalf of the masters, during any crisis. Principally through the means of sneaking newspapers virtuous reputations were gained, and are at this moment proving of value to the capitalists. It would seem that so long as a man is a reactionary with influence it does not matter what his other characteristics are. If he is ignorant then he is named sound and democratic ; witness Will Thorne. If he is cruel and unflinching then he is praised as unbending in the people’s cause ; witness Kitchener. If he is a chatterer then he is an orator ; witness the Welshman. If he is silent then it is the quietness of strength ; witness the Prime Minister. With several newspapers at his back, with a thousand lies ready at hand, the most foggy idiot, the worst shivering coward may gain a reputation for soberness, dignity, wisdom, truth, and courage.

The virtues of the hierarchy having been, planted, nourished, and a false impression of them established in the minds of the people, the politicians could turn their attention to other items of preparation. Before this war the Socialist enlightened the workers as to the worst which capitalism can do. It was not the worst to deal you out shillings from the pounds you earned, or to defraud you in the workshop or domineer over you there, or to tire your body, or to exhaust your brain. The level of life was bad but the level of life was not the worst. While you took your shillings contentedly, and derided the Socialist for fighting phantoms of evil of his own creation, other forces were sleeplessly and silently working towards this volcanic carnage on the Continent. Middling folk with power were forming treaty on treaty which have now contributed to this wreck of the nations, this modern mockery of civilisation. The worst Russians were unearthed to do vile business abroad, the most sugary Japanese too. Greedy eyes were wandering over the mines of the world : they were listed in secret catalogues. Constantinople has been secretly valued ; the riches of Morocco have been estimated ; Albania and Montenegro figure in the hidden sheets ; the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine are totalled in the chronicles ; Finland and Persia have wealth which cannot be overlooked by the avaricious. There are diamonds here, salt there, mines elsewhere. Ports, coasts, mountains, rivers and valleys of value to the masters of one land are exploited, guarded, and locked by the ships and guns of alien authorities. All the lands concerned in this war were filled with growth and rush, avarice, hate, and rotting commodities. That is the natural result of the principles of competition in modern societies, and they are the reasons for the present clash of arms. All this chatter of liberty and honour, of which we are sick, is like fat wrapped over the old skeleton of profit.

Each of the fighting nations prepared for the inevitable conflict by a combination of forces similar to that of England’s. Each erected barriers of soldiers and floated nets of ships, and in each country the workers have been cunningly engulfed to effect an interchange of vineyards and mines, cities and seas, which will in no way change their condition of wage slavery.

These then were the martial circumstances and commercial facts with which the war opened. During the early days of the campaign we might have expected that the avarice of the masters would have been redeemed by some show of skill, and their scoundrelism equalled by their judgment. It was not so. They were bigoted in their ideas and stuck to their hum-drum, traditions. In the more noble occupations of life men of genius are not trammelled by tradition. Shakespeare disregarded almost all the laws of Athenian Drama and sang his own mighty plays to perfection. In France, rough Francois Millet was unworried by any remembrance of the smooth Italian Primitives. Walt Whitman was not troubled in his mind over the metres of the past poets. Neither is the Socialist to-day deceived by the conclusions of Ricardo, or Mill, or Ruskin. In all such work vast ideas, find new vast expression. It is always so with true genius. It has not been so with the main men in this war, for they have not even the evil spark of military genius, but are prompted, solely by ambition, which mimics talent and is separable from it. Their strategy has been as befogged as their motives are villainous. It is sufficient for such contemptible folk that the Sea of Mamora is held by the opposition forces, that its waters lead to the rich markets of Constantinople, in order to send hostile vessels into it. The peaks and dells of Gallipoli are similarly owned so they must be scaled and stormed. Every effort where prudence was needed has been marked by stupidity ; every hostility where, from their point of view, vigour was required has been marked by idleness and waste.

None of our eyes are closed to the terrible things around us and yet we remain hopeful. We proceed with our work and hope in it. The masters may imprison and murder our comrades but they can never destroy our principles ; for the principles of Socialism are not the fruit of our lives but are the fruit of those forces of capitalism to which they are eternally opposed. No matter how many of our comrades are shot, no matter how many Welshmen speak, no matter how many wars are waged, our principles remain indestructible. For the Socialist at least, then, despair does not exist apart from hope ; though suffering is here it is not separated from joy. For the Socialist there is one hope, one joy, and one annihilation. None of us will suffer a miserable death till our immortal principles are dragged to an impossible grave. Meanwhile we look with hope and joy to the time when the workers will acknowledge and establish the principles of Socialism ; to the time when nation on nation will be rescued from the littleness of nationalism ; to the time when manliness, womanliness and brotherhood will develop and this painful wilderness of war, of cold faiths, and watery charities be destroyed. Then every waggon which knits the hamlets together will carry other messages than those of sadness ; every centre of throbbing looms, every acre of corn, every accumulation of houses, will help in our fight against cold and hunger. We shall be free of the profiteers, so every ship which sails will elsewhere deliver happiness, while each new ship which visits us will deepen our wealth. These, then, are some of the beauties and benefits of international co-operation, upon which we look and know well. Yet the deeper we penetrate into our philosophy the more the loveliness of our prospect increases. What we know of Socialism is worthy of our life-long devotion, but depending from such principles of Liberty must be great comradeship and calm which we know not of, of which we may sit and dream, and before which the visions of Bunyan seem garish and Milton’s golden dreams grow pale.

H. M. M.

Some elements of the social problem. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wherever man may be and at whatever period we may examine his condition, one plain fact is apparent to even the most casual observer—that man never gets away from the elementary needs which his body requires to perpetuate its life. No man has yet learnt to live without at least food and drink and in all probability never will do so. To-day, at all events, may be added also shelter and clothing. It is obvious, then, that at all times man has to obtain for his upkeep a certain quantity of materials, as for example, food and clothing, which materials we sum up under the name of wealth.

There is only one way in which this wealth which is so necessary to human life can possibly be produced, and that is by work by man applying his labour-power to the manifold natural resources of his surroundings and adapting them to meet his needs by transforming them into objects of utility to him.

To-day only a section of the whole society apply their energy in this way, and this section is appropriately termed the working class. In the factories, the fields, the mines and the shipyards ; on the fishing boats, the merchant ships and the railways, the working class toils to pile up the vast quantity of wealth which the community uses and consumes. But, as every workman is aware, the workers do not possess the wealth thus produced by them. The workers in the factory do not own the boots they have made, nor yet the value in other goods which they represent. Neither are the products of labour owned by the society as a whole. The wealth produced by the working class to-day is turned over in the first place to either individuals or groups of individuals of another class in society distinct from the workers—the employing or capitalist class.

But the workers must needs continue to live if they are to continue to produce, and therefore wealth in a certain quantity must be allotted to them. This wealth which is returned to the worker—called wages—stands, however, in no direct relation to the quantity of wealth which he produces. Wages usually vary according to the supply of and demand for labourers, just as the price of butter is high when the demand for it outreaches the supply and is low when the supply exceeds the demand. And, moreover, this comparison reveals more than a mere accidental resemblance, for under present-day conditions the labour-power of the working man does take on the character of merchandise just like butter. The worker’s labouring energy is bought and sold to-day as a commodity, and the “labour” market is as commonly referred to to-day as is the cattle market. Wages, indeed, are the price of labour-power. What it costs to keep the workman up to the required standard of efficiency and to enable him to reproduce his kind in sufficient numbers, is the normal point about which the price variations caused by supply and demand fluctuate.

This explains how it is that, although the amount of wealth produced by the workers has progressed by leaps and bounds, and is continually increasing, their position, estimated by the quantity of wealth which they receive, does not materially improve. This is so because the amount of the workers’ wages is determined by circumstances which are quite different from those which fix the productiveness of their labour power.

The use of improved machinery in production, for example, increases the wealth-producing capacity of labour. But does this cause a corresponding increase in the wages of the worker ? Not at all. By a little elaboration, in fact, it can be shown that the opposite actually tends to occur. Perfected machinery renders less labour necessary to turn out the same or even a greater number of products in an equal time. Fewer workers are required and the superfluous ones are dispensed with, forming a more or less permanent body of unemployed. This increases the supply of labour-power relative to the demand, and tends to lower wages. By lessening the skill and dexterity required by the worker, machinery also enables unskilled labour to be employed which costs less to produce by eliminating special training, and is therefore cheaper. This also lowers wages, and the same effect follows from the fact that with machinery less strength is usually required and the cheaper labour of women and children can be introduced.

With these facts in mind we will not be surprised to find that despite the enormous and increasing body of wealth created as the process of production becomes ever more perfect, the wages of the working class, as estimated by their purchasing power, have since the beginning of the present century gradually declined. On the other hand the wealth remaining with the capitalists after the wages of the workers are deducted, and out of which they obtain their profits, shows a corresponding tendency to increase.

The capitalist, as such, takes no part in the production of wealth, yet he retains possession of the product of the worker’s labour. This he is enabled to do because he is the owner of the material means necessary to production—the factory, machinery, raw materials, etc. He owns the wealth produced as the result of his ownership and control of the means of its production. In the Middle Ages the craft worker also owned the tools and material of the productive process, and was able to appropriate the resulting product. But there is this immense difference between the economic status of the modern, capitalist owner and that of the handicraftsman of old : whereas the capitalist does not partake in the labour process himself, but reaps the return of the labour of others, the craftsman was a worker and himself used the means of production of which he was the owner. He therefore appropriated in normal cases the full value of the product of his own labour. As a consequence, in spite of the primitive tools and methods then in use, and of the small quantity of wealth which a given expenditure of labour yielded in comparison with that of to-day, the lot of the hand-worker was in many respects better than that of the modern wage-worker.

Prof. Thorold Rogers says of the artisan of the fifteenth century that he could supply his family with sufficient provisions to keep them throughout the year with what he earned in ten weeks.

To-day the working class, who form by far the greater part of the community, receive less than one-third of the total wealth produced, although none but themselves raise a hand or turn a wheel to help in its production. Over ten millions of the population of Great Britain live in a condition of perpetual poverty. This is certainly not because there is not enough wealth, for never before has it been so plentiful and so easily produced. The mighty mechanisms of modern production turn out goods a thousand times more quickly, and with a much smaller expenditure of labour-power than was possible in our fathers’ day.

This frightful poverty cannot, therefore, be due to limited production. The problem of producing wealth sufficient to supply the requirements of all in society has been solved. Therefore the material conditions necessary for the abolition of poverty already exist. Seeing that poverty is rampant, what are the conditions \which are wanting if the material ones are present ? The answer gives us the key to the poverty problem of to-day. It is the social conditions which would transform the existing giant means of production into agents for the elimination of economic poverty, which are the missing factors in modern society. The social conditions of to-day, based upon the commodity nature of labour-power and the private ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production and distribution result, as we have seen, in poverty for the workers and a superabundance of wealth for the idle capitalists, and must be superseded by other social conditions if poverty is to be abolished.

And what are the conditions which are necessary to bring about this much to be desired end ? Let us recall some of the points we have already noted.

1. The producing class to-day do not own the means of production which they use, nor yet the wealth which their labour produces.

2. The capitalist class to-day own and control the means of production and distribution, which they themselves do not use, yet they appropriate the product of the workers’ toil. 

3. The handicraft worker of the Middle Ages owned and controlled the means of production which he himself used, and also the wealth, or part thereof, which he produced.

We can draw from these three examples the following general principle : to the possessors of ihe means of production goes the product of the labour process.

Seeing that the workers, who create wealth in such abundance as to be capable of providing ample comfort for all, are poor, the only sure way in which this condition can be changed to the workers’ benefit is by bringing the product of labour info the possession of those who create it. To do this it is necessary that the workers should own the means of production, as the handicraft worker did.

The puny tools of the handicraftsman were, however, only suitable to individual use, and the worker who used them performed all the operations which were necessary to turn out the finished product. Consequently there could be no doubt as to where the product of his labour began and ended ; it was all his product ; he knew exactly what he had produced. But does this also apply to day ? No ! for in modern production the labour process is divided into numerous sub-processes each performed by different machinery manipulated by different workers. No one man makes a product from beginning to end. The labour product is the result of the collective activities of numerous workers ; the machinery is worked collectively and the raw material is consumed collectively.

The interdependence of the workers engaged in each industry is extended throughout the entire community as the various industries become more dependent upon each other, and it even develops on an international scale. To-day workers in England often rely for the raw material they use upon workers on the other side of the world, and possibly their product forms the basis of a further industry in another part of the globe.

To-day we can with truth say that the entire process of producing wealth has become social. The workers engaged in any occupation or industry are no longer independent and self supporting producers, but are only useful as producing agents in conjunction with, and as a part of, the producing class as a whole. No individual worker can, therefore, be said to use the means of production himself. At the most he could use the means of producing a part of the product, and he could not own and control these, for what control could be exercised over possessions which would be useless and a burden except in conjunction with the rest of the productive forces ? Likewise the impossibility of any worker owning personally the product of his labour under such conditions is obvious. There would be no means of ascertaining the amount of the individual’s product, and although, each individual might not lay out an exactly equal amount of energy, yet as the product only resulted from the combined labour of the whole, all would be equally necessary, one no more than another.

The only conceivable way in which workers collectively operating the forces of production, could own and control these forces would be by collective ownership—the means of production and distribution forming the common property of the entire working community.

When those who work, or, more exactly, all those essential to the continuance of the social productive process, by owning and controlling the means of production and distribution, also possess all the wealth they produce, there will be no means whereby an idle class in society could obtain their subsistence. Therefore there will be no idle class. All society will then form one united community of workers. In conformity, then, with the principle that the producers must own the means of production which they use, these means must be owned by the whole of society.

To abolish poverty and to guarantee economic security and comfort to all, what is necessary is “the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.” That is the Object of the Socialist Party.

R. W. Housley

Analysis of Society. II. Ideas. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part I.

An examination of society which ignored the social consciousness, the system of ideas which reflect social relations, would be obviously incomplete. It is characteristic of Socialism as a theory to be comprehensive, to view the various aspects of life as a whole and to see their real unity even in their seeming diversity.

On the contrary, capitalist philosophers are almost invariably idealistic. With them mind is something essentially different from matter and antagonistic to it. The process of thought they assume to be independent of any other process. In this they merely reflect the antagonistic relations from which they spring. A confused economic existence necessarily gives rise to illusions. Class domination expresses itself in class conceit, which is the certain father of self-deception.

The working class, which suffers most from the prevailing social chaos, can afford to have no illusions concerning that chaos. Since men act more or less in accordance with their ideas and since actions in the mass have a direct influence on social relations, ideas are of practical importance in so far aa they retard or assist the process of social evolution. In fact, the human brain may be said to be the turning-point of this process, which commences with the inward pressure of external conditions and reaches its climax in the conscious adaptation of social institutions to those conditions.

Two factors enter into the formation of ideas, viz., the sensory impressions of the objects of the outer world and the desires and emotions aroused by these impressions. The mind mirrors the relations between its organic basis—the body —and its environment.

Like other mirrors, it may from time to time give distorted, out-of-focus reflections, may even show things as appearing the reverse of what they really are, but by the laws of its own nature it must eventually adapt itself to circumstance, i.e., reveal the truth, or perish ; and in this it shows itself to be of the same stuff as all other things organic. Its function is to provide a guide to its owner in the pursuit of his interests. All so-called inventions, “creative ideas,” etc. (apart from chance discoveries), which effect changes in external relations are the products of the re-action of desire on the accumulated fruits of experience.

From this it follows that the conflict of interests existing in society to-day breeds hostile ideas. The experience of one class is radically different from that of the other and so are its interests. Consequently while the notions of the dominant section become more and more conservative, the working class shows an increasing tendency to frame revolutionary conceptions, which must sooner or later lead to revolutionary actions. Hence the master class constantly endeavours to provide an artificial education for the workers which will divert their minds from direct observation and scientific induction, and induce them to accept as their own the views of their superiors.

In this process the preservation of traditional illusions phys a large part. Chief among these are religion, abstract morality, and the sophistries of party politics. In reserve the ruling class have the fundamental economic illusion, i.e., that the workers are in a state of pre-ordainad dependence upon capital and that their interests are therefore identical with those of the capitalists ; but they rightly consider economic discussions to be dangerous to their position and desire as long as possible to occupy their subjects’ minds with other topics.

Having already shown that the independent life which capital appears to possess is but the reflection of the living labour of which it is the product, and having thus exposed tha central fallacy of the capitalist mind, we can proceed to deal directly with the supplementary fallacies.

As a general rule illusions arise whenever human beings, confronted with problems which they have as yet no adequate means of solving, fall back on their imaginations for the solution, and accept its suggestions as facts. Thus primitive man, as he forsook his purely animal mode of life and launched out on the lengthy journey of industrial development, came into conflict with natural elements which had hitherto concerned his mind but little. The taming of stock and the cultivation of plants introduced him to strange phenomena in the way of floods, droughts, seasons, and other physical changes which affected his means of subsistence. He thus acquired an interest in and desire to master the natural elements which gave rise to them, and began to speculate on means to this end.

Lacking sufficient experimental data to frame general laws for his guidance, he fell back on the narrow circle of his ideas to explain the relations of the forces and objects around him. What these ideas lacked in breadth and profundity they made up in intensity. The savage notoriously fails to distinguish between realities and imaginations, actual sense-impressions and the mental reproductions of these. The memory of a dead man or a pre-existing state of affairs is as “real” to him as any objective perception of them. Consequently the most absurd and contradictory notions spring from his brain unquestioned by his reason, which can only develop after lengthy experience has exposed illusion. Primitive man’s memory of the dead merely means to him that the dead have two personalities, the body which perishes and the spirit. His recollection of things as they used to be indicates to him that affairs can be in two contradictory states at the same time. States of mind which under modern conditions we describe as hallucinations, lapse of memory, insanity, etc., characterised primitive society and harmonised with its impulsive moods and savage conditions.

From this mental atmosphere developed the fundamental tenets of religion, viz., the survival of the human personality after death and the existence of higher spirits which control the destinies of the world and mankind. At first these higher spirits were identified with natural elements, and to secure their favourable inclination toward his industrial efforts man adopted all possible arts of appeal, such as the sacrifice of the first-fruits, prayers, and sacred edifices. In those days there was no attempt to disguise the relations between religion and economic life, and as industry became more diverse in character, so there increased the number of divinities. In its development religion has followed the same course as the social conditions which it reflects. The division of primitive society into hostile tribes was religiously expressed in the distinctions between the “gods of our fathers” and “strange gods.” As society became more centralised the “strange gods” became converted into devils. The division of society into classes was accompanied by the development of a hierarchy in heaven. Paganism, with its wealth of fantasy, was a fitting emotional expression of the ancient world.

Just as feudalism was a kind of half-way house between chattel-slavery and wage-slavery, so it’s special form of religion, Catholicism, compromised the individualistic metaphysics of Christianity with Paganism. Lssser divinities became patron saints, and the harshness of monotheism was toned down for the popular mind by the deification of God’s carnal spouse.

Capitalism, however, is the sure foe of sentiment, chivalry, and the like. It brought with it sour Protestantism, determined to make this world more than ever a vale of tears for the masses. The numerous Catholic holy days interfered with business and so were abolished. “Freedom of contract” was accompanied by “free-thought,” competitive commercial anarchy by the disruption of the Church into sects. Along with the capitalist’s devotion to his individual accumulation of capital went his absorption with the salvation of his individual soul. In the production of commodities he was not concerned with their exterior qualities, which made them attractive to the flesh of mankind, but rather with their subtle, illusive essence, exchange-value, their spiritual community with money, the god of all commodities. So in religious matters he became a Puritan decrying the carnal and corporate expressions of belief and asserting his inner relation to his maker to be the sole claim on his conscience.

If he has since modified the exclusiveness of the form of his creed, that is only because of the pressing problem presented by the ever-increasing proletarian restlessness. For the workers heaven has long ago become the dullest of the phases of a remarkably dull existence. Their respect for the institutions which cause them so much trial and tribulation is if anything maintained mainly by fear of worse to come either here or hereafter.

The modern conception of God differs as widely from ancient notions as the chief problem of the present does from those of old. Science, stimulated by the needs of capitalist industry, has driven the Almighty from one department of nature after another. Geology and astronomy have exposed him for a clumsy impostor, and his own defenders and representatives grow more and more rationalistic in dealing with nature.

Mankind has, however, yet to solve the economic riddle. The cause of poverty and all other social evils existent has still to be discovered by the mass of society. For them the mystery which formerly veiled the natural elements has now surrounded the products of labour, which in the form of commodities and money have manifested a singular intractability. Ignorant of the secret of their nature, which is essentially social, men are unable to control them. Consequently economic laws assert blind sway and society remains under the illusion that it is still in the grip of a higher power which is destined to work its will irrespective of human wishes. Civilised man is as superstitious as the savage but in another fashion. He mistakes a product of his own life-process for an independent being. Those who have assimilated the truths of economic science know that this “higher power” is simply capital. God, to-day, is nothing but the ideal expression of bourgeois prejudices, the spiritual guardian of the capitalist interest. His sole function is to keep the workers in a state of perplexed reverence for things as they are and the powers that be.

Let us now examine morality. Since the dawn of history every ruling class has framed what is called a moral code, according to which the actions of its members and its subjects are classed as right or wrong, praiseworthy or otherwise. So long as society rested on a communistic basis the habitual activities of men were in harmony, at least within the bounds of any given community. The development of hostile classes introduced hostile actions, and in order to preserve the social structure on which its power rested, the ruling class had, perforce, to resort to coercion, of which more hereafter. Legal codes were framed, the infringements of which were punished by the State. These, however, were mainly directed against the slave class. Freemen were expected to conform to dominant interests voluntarily. The old social instinct, which characterised the tribesmen, survived in a class form and became transformed into a conception of duty. The free citizens of ancient States showed a civic patriotism incomparably greater than the much-vaunted article of modern times. It was corrupted by the division of interests among the freemen and the accumulation of private wealth.

With the disappearance of chattel-slavery, the subject classes became included in the moral bond. Lords and vassals alike came under the code of honour, commonly called chivalry, according to which they were bound to protect their subordinates or support their superiors, as the case might be.

Capitalism put an end to all reciprocal personal sentiments between master and servant. The cash relationship is now the central feature of human existence. The only obligations which capital itself recognises are legal ones. This, however, cuts both ways. As the class struggle becomes more violent coercion becomes more and more expensive, and our masters “feel deeply” the need of some magic love potion to soothe the ruffled feelings of their slaves. Hence they try to revive the sentimental illusions of the past—for the exclusive guidance of the working class. They talk of the “brotherhood of capital and labour,” and endeavour to prove “moral justifications” for exploitation.

In the ancient and medieval worlds the interests of men were shrouded in mystery. Hence they found the explanation of their actions (which were the products of instinct derived from prolonged habit) in a sense of right and wrong. The capitalist class is not so constituted. It is class-conscious to the roots of its hair, whatever its colour may be, and it knows its interest to be dependent upon force in the last resort. So long as the workers remain ignorant of their class interests religion and morality will be preserved, but with the growth of a revolutionary consciousness among them these “eternal truths” will vanish like mists before the sun. Economic emancipation will be accompanied by intellectual and emotional freedom.

Eric Boden

Conscription Continued. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

When dealing with, the scheme known as the “Derby Group System” in The Socialist some months back it was pointed out that the capitalist class were being pushed on to the horns of a dilemma in the endeavour to find men for the Army. This simple truth is now being demonstrated by two prominent incidents. One is the threat of raising the age for military service to 45 years, though even the “”Daily Mail” admits that the army does not want men of this age; and the other is the cry to extend conscription to Ireland.

On the former point it is significant to note that though Mr. Asquith has stated that an army of over 5,000,000 men has been raised by the “voluntary” method, no statement has been issued of the number of men the Conscription Act has brought in. With the single men this might be accounted for by the miserably small number that was available after the “voluntary” system was closed. The later application of the Act to married men does not seem to have brought much of a result if the official silence is any guide. The scandal of the medical “examinations” is a further point showing how few fit men were really available.

Now we are told that there must be a “combing out” of the various munition and other factories to obtain the young men, while the fact that the “combing” process has been steadily, if quietly, carried on for months is coolly ignored. The result here, if munition work is to be carried on at its present pressure, will be exceedingly small.

It is in this dilemma that the turn is made to Ireland. This looks surprisingly hopeful. For generations Ireland has been a nation of women, children and old people. The young, vigorous manhood has been compelled to emigrate because of the impossibility of obtaining a livelihood in Ireland.

With a population, at the last census, of about 4,300,000 in the whole country ; with an unduly large proportion of this number consisting of non-military material; with over 150,000 of its manhood already in the Army, we can see what a rich reservoir is here to make up what is so sweetly termed “the wastage.”

The difficulties already existing in Ireland, coupled with the feelings engendered by the ruthless use of the military both during and since the futile “rebellion,” would seem to make the game scarcely worth the candle. But, apparently, there are other reasons at work, and if one may take certain indications, it has already been decided to apply conscription there. The “Daily Mail” howls for it. The Nationalist Party howls against it. In such a situation the position of a third section is a useful guide.

When conscription was being brought forward as “practical politics” in Great Britain the “Daily Chronicle” claimed it would never be applied here. For answer to this, as Sir Christopher Wren says in another connection, “look around.” Now the same paper states it is estimated that 150,000 men could be obtained from Ireland, which “is a very respectable total.” But it goes on to. state “No man with any real knowledge of Ireland or any experience of its government would ever dream of applying conscription to that country,” and later on we are told ” Even were it carried . . . it could never be worked.” (“Daily Chronicle,” 14.10.1916.) In the light of previous experience this looks ominous—for Ireland. It looks as though the “deal” has already been arranged .and the shrieking of the Nationalists and the “never” of the “Daily Chronicle” are mere window dressing exhibitions preparatory to the complete swallowing of the pill.

To complete the parallel it is suggested that a “Derby Scheme” be started in Ireland. This, of course, would be a “failure” just as it was here. Indeed, many complaints have already been made that Irishmen, joining the army on purpose to enter Irish regiments, have been placed in English, Scotch or Welsh regiments much against their will. Then the authorities complain that “Irishmen are not filling up the Irish regiments ” ! When the proposed “Derby Scheme” has “failed” sufficiently this “failure” will be used as one of the reasons for conscription as it was here. Just as Asquith deceived and swindled the workers here with his “promises” and “pledges” so the Irish workers will be swindled by Redmond and Carson.

While the results in men would be small, relative to the supposed requirements of the Army, the effect would be, practically, to impose martial law in Ireland as in reality it already exists here, though not in official terms. This enables the ruling class to carry out their wishes ruthlessly and rapidly in any direction they desire while apparently observing the usual constitutional forms. That it “never could be worked,” as the “Daily Chronicle” states, is mere nonsense, for though forceful resistance might hinder and bother the authorities for a short time, ultimately it would be quite futile as the last experience of this method has shown.

Not until the working class in Ireland clearly grip the essential fact that they are slaves to the master class no matter what nationality these latter may be ; fully realise that such slavery is confined within no national boundary but is world wide; throw off the mental shackles of either “nationalism” or “religion,” and join hands with their fellow workers the world over to abolish capitalism—the cause of modern wars—not until then will they be free from oppression and tyranny and be able to enjoy the results of their efforts applied to Nature’s resources.

Jack Fitzgerald

Retrospective. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

While politicians and newspaper scribes are foaming at the mouth over the “rights of small nations” and “our national liabilities”—to say nothing of “our” army, “our” navy, “our” allies, etc., etc., ad absurdum—the present writer took it into his proletarian head to delve among his books and cuttings relating to past history in order to find out something about the above-mentioned mysterious things. Hereunder you will find set out “All the Harvest that I reaped.”

Let us take a mental tour of the world and witness some of the doings of the British Empire (the apostle of freedom) during the last fifty years or so, and examine some of the benefits that have accrued to those who have had the good fortune (!) to be born within its pale.

We will commence with Africa, the land opened up by the Holy Trinity : Bible, Whisky, and Gunpowder.

In 1852 the control of the British Government in South Africa was limited to Natal and Cape Colony, while the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic were in the hands of Dutch settlers. The most powerful native tribe in South Africa was the Zulu nation, under their chief Cetewayo, whose territories bordered Natal. Cetewayo and the Transvaal Republic quarrelled over a certain strip of land and the matter was referred to England (with whom Cetewayo was on the most friendly terms) for arbitration. Four English arbitrators decided that the disputed strip of territory properly belonged to the Zulu nation. Yet in spite of this the English Lord High Commissioner, Sir Bartle Frere, kept back the award for several mouths. This aroused Cetewayo’s suspicions and convinced him that his territory was going to be annexed and he himself sent to prison, as had already happened in the case of Langalibalele in 1864. Eventually Bartle Frere announced the award to Cetewayo, accompanied with an ultimatum that the Zulu army must be disbanded. This was immediately followed by the invasion of Zululand, when the English troops were completely defeated ! (Jan. 22nd, 1879.) In the end, however, the Zulus were vanquished, Cetewayo transported, and the territory divided up. Thus were the “sacred rights” of a small and trusting nation safeguarded. The whole matter in detail will be found in Justin McCarthy’s “Short History of Our Own Times,’ p. 427.

The desire of English capitalists to obtain possession of the rich gold and diamond mines of the Transvaal and their attempted annexation of the Republic’s territory led to the war which culminated in the victory of the Boers at Majuba Hill in 1881.

As the riches of the Transvaal in gold and diamonds became known to the world swarms of adventurers began to invade it and claim full citizenship of the Republic on entry—a claim which the Boers would not grant. The Chartered Company (founded in Cape Colony by Cecil Rhodes) wanted a finger in the pie, and one of their officials, Dr. Jameson (now Sir Starr Jameson, a man of great respectability !) attempted a raid on the Transvaal which was a failure. No doubt a good many readers will recall the famous trail of a few years ago, when. Von Veltheim, adventurer and sometime member of the Cape Mounted Police, was convicted of the attempted blackmail of the Joels. In this case interesting sidelights were thrown on the attempt to provoke war between England and the Transvaal on behalf of the diamond and gold magnates of South Africa.

Perhaps a quotation from Justin McCarthy would be useful at this point :

“The discovery of the gold mines had brought into South Africa a rush of adventurous immigrants from various parts of the world, especially from England and from British territories, whose principal object was to make themselves the absolute rulers of all that vast tract of country which was teeming with limitless sources of wealth. The established republics were not strong enough to secure themselves against the internal disturbances to be expected from such an invasion. The invaders may not have had in the beginning any intention or desire to make themselves the rulers of the whole region, yet it soon became evident that they would endeavour to sweep away from their path any obstacles the existing systems might set up. The rulers and people of the Transvaal Republic were determined so far as they could to manage their State according to their own ideas. The newcomers were equally determined to secure a free-way for the promotion of the principal objects they had in view when they sought for settlement in South Africa.”— (P. 538.)

Such was the material out of which the Boer War arose, resulting in the defeat of the Boers and the triumph of the British capitalists, who immediately proceeded to exploit the rich regions gained with, as I will soon show, disastrous results to the workers. Thus were another small nation’s liberties—defended !

In July 1913 a strike broke out in the Rand Goldfields (part of the region Jameson was knighted for trying to pinch). For many years native labour had been recruited for the mines by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the British South African Native Labour Recruiting Corporation at the rate of about 6,000 per month, and, being cheaper and more easily obtained than white men, the natives were gradually displacing the latter. The strike was chiefly for the eight hours day, better underground conditions, and the restriction of the introduction of native labour.

In the House of Assembly (South Africa), May 28, 1913, the Minister of Mines gave the following figures :

“During the ten years ended December 31, 1913, of those employed in Transvaal mines 52,205 native died and 16,556 were killed or injured in accidents. Between 1907 and 1912 32,103 natives were sent home unfit for work. In 1900 6,900 men died at mines of pulmonary disease alone. . . . No less than 10,000 people die in these mines every year—men in the prime of health.”

Well, the miners struck and the following is a report culled from the columns of the “Morning News and Leader” (11.8.13) as to the result:

“A prominent business man of Johannesburg, writing to Mr. Joseph Fels, gives a graphic description, of the terrible happenings there during the recent conflict between the military and the civil population.

He tells how the police and soldiers rushed a peaceful meeting of strikers, bludgeoning and batoning all and sundry. . . .

Though there were miles of plate glass-fronted shops to loot, very little damage was done, although at this time the crowd had complete control !

On Saturday, in the Rand Club in the afternoon some members were jeering at the crowd, when about 25 of them “rushed” the building.

Fifteen to twenty soldiers formed at the junction of two streets, facing four ways, and fired for 4½ hours intermittently. Everyone who attempted to cross the road was shot. Men were shot down who were merely trying to get away. Two children (one of twelve and the other younger) were shot whilst standing on the side walk. One poor fellow, in a spirit of bravado, stepped into the road and dared them to shoot. He was dead before he had finished speaking. The correspondent adds that an advocate of the Supreme Court told him that he watched three men shot as they were running away. A young man who was sauntering along with his hands in his pockets towards the line of fire was shouted to by the police to go back again. When nearly out of danger he stopped and looked at the soldiers and was shot dead.

A portion of the crowd who were peering round the corner at the soldiers, bulged into the street, and the soldiers fired into the thick of them, killing one man and wounding two others.

It is insisted that there was no more danger in the watching crowd than in a “parcel of school children,” as the unruly element had gone. Sixteen were killed, 150 wounded were treated in the hospitals besides scores who were treated by their own doctors.”

Other figures give the killed as 20.

By 1914 the capitalists, who had originally the control of the diamond and gold mines only, had become the owners of nearly all the land in the Transvaal as well, so that the early fears of the Dutch farmers were justified by the passing years. A writer in the “News and Leader” of 31.3.14 made the following statements on the position in South Africa :

“There are five companies, euphoniously termed ‘Land and Exploration’ companies, which between them own over thirteen million acres, mostly in the Transvaal, The biggest has a four and a half million, the smallest a paltry million, acreage. There are fifteen other companies, each of which has an acreage running into six figures, and seven with areas of tens of thousands of acres. All told these twenty-seven companies own seventeen and a half million acres, or 23 per cent. of the Transvaal.”

The land these companies possess is the very best in the country.

“These ‘land and exploration’ companies were generally floated in the first instance to secure mining rights over very large areas. Thus one company has coal rights over 201 square miles, and possesses in addition a township site. . . .”

The writer concludes as follows :

“The fate of South Africa, then, lies still in the hands of a clever, far-sighted, not too scrupulous coterie of financiers, who have now drawn into their web the farming (and this in Africa means the landowning) community.”

Now in view of the above perhaps the working-class reader will commence to wonder what 20,000 of his class laid down their lives for on the yellow South African veldt— and perhaps he will carry parallel reasoning to the existing case, where his follows are pouring their blood out on the Continent.

Before leaving Africa to continue our personally-conducted tour we will just, notice a further article relating to South Africa which appeared in the “News and Leader” for 26.7.13.

It appears that the Chartered Company (founded by Cecil Rhodes) proposed leasing to an international company one million acres in Rhodesia (that’s a decent chunk of “our” Empire to give away !) and the writer waxes somewhat indignant on the matter. He says :

“These grants of land are far too common in the British Empire. They are made too readily, and with much too little regard for native interests.

The prevalent land-owning custom in Europe is private ownership. In Africa it is communal ownership. Therefore, if we hand over great tracts of this territory to private owners and those private owners proceed to exact rents or grazing dues, the African native does not regard that as a normal economic development. He regards it as an act of aggression, of conquest—an arbitrary charge wrung from him in bitterness, and leaving behind a deep sense of injury. That resentment has been the cause of most of the African wars and rebellions since the presence of the white man in Africa.

Take this great concession in the country of the Chartered Company. The company assert that the black population in that territory is thin. But there is a considerable population—perhaps some hundred thousand or so human beings—especially as the concession allows the new company to choose selected areas throughout Rhodesia. What would be the use of the concession to the new company—a company for extracting the essence of oxen and delivering it to the invalids of Europe—if they do not possess power both over the cattle and over the labour of the country which is handed over to them ? Plainly if they are going to pay one shilling an acre for this land they will expect to possess powers of this kind. In other words, the Chartered Company is not merely leasing the territory: it is selling the people.”

Such has been the fate of small nations in South Africa under the British Empire.

Gilmac.

(To be Continued.)

Political Pantoum No.3: In Out, In Out Shake . . . (2026)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

In Out, In Out Shake…

 

Britannia seemingly sinking,

There appears to be but one hope,

Desperate means – desperate thinking

By setting a course for Europe.

 

There appears to be but one hope

For true British leaders and led,

By setting a course for Europe?

Let’s reclaim sovereignty instead.

 

For true British leaders and led,

No giving foreigners’ free rein,

Let’s reclaim sovereignty instead,

Closing the borders tight again.

 

But there again reconsider,

Britannia seemingly sinking,

Selling to the highest bidder;

Desperate means – desperate thinking.

 

D. A.

About Socialism (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

1. What is the Socialist Party of Great Britain?

It is a political party, separate from all others, Left, Right or Centre. It stands for the sole aim of establishing a world social system based upon human need instead of private or state profit. The Object and Declaration of Principles printed in this introductory leaflet were adopted by the Socialist Party in 1904 and have been maintained without compromise since then. In other countries there are companion parties sharing the same object and principles, and they too remain independent from all other political parties.

2. What is capitalism?

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means of production and distribution (land, factories, offices, transport, media, etc.) are monopolised by a minority, the capitalist class. All wealth is produced by us, the majority working class, who sell our mental and physical energies to the capitalists in return for a price called a wage or salary. The object of wealth production is to create goods and services which can be sold on the market at a profit. Not only do the capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class, but, as a class, they go on accumulating wealth extracted from each generation of workers.

3. Can capitalism be reformed in our interests?

No: as long as capitalism exists, profits will come before needs. Some reforms are welcomed by some workers, but no reform can abolish the fundamental contradiction between profit and need which is built into the present system. No matter whether promises to make capitalism run in the interests of the workers are made sincerely or by opportunist politicians they are bound to fail, for such a promise is like offering to run the slaughter house in the interests of the cattle.

4. Is nationalisation an alternative to capitalism?

No: nationalised industries simply mean that workers are exploited by the state, acting on behalf of the capitalists of one country, rather than by an individual capitalist or company. The workers in nationalised British Leyland are no less the servants of profit than workers in privately-owned Ford. The mines no more belong to "the public" or the miners now than they did before 1947 when they were nationalised. Nationalisation is state capitalism.

5. Are there any “socialist countries”?

No: the so-called socialist countries are systems of state capitalism. In Russia and its empire, in China, Cuba, Albania, Yugoslavia and the other countries which call themselves socialist, social power is monopolised by privileged Party bureaucrats. The features of capitalism, as outlined above, are all present. An examination of international commerce shows that the bogus socialist states are part of the world capitalist market and cannot detach themselves from the requirements of profit.

6. What Is the meaning of socialism?

Socialism does not yet exist. When it is established it must be on a worldwide basis, as an alternative to the outdated system of world capitalism. In a socialist society there will be common ownership and democratic control of the earth by its inhabitants. No minority class will be in a position to dictate to the majority that production must be geared to profit. There will be no owners: everything will belong to everyone. Production will be solely for use, not for sale. The only questions society will need to ask about wealth production will be: what do people require, and can the needs be met? These questions will be answered on the basis of the resources available to meet such needs. Then, unlike now, modern technology and communications will be able to be used to their fullest extent. The basic socialist principle will be that people give according to their abilities and take according to their self-defined needs. Work will be on the basis of voluntary co-operation: the coercion of wage and salary work will be abolished. There will be no buying or selling and money will not be necessary, in a society of common ownership and free access. For the first time ever the people of the world will have common possession of the planet earth.

7. How will socialism solve the problems of society?

Capitalism, with its constant drive to serve profit before need, throws up an endless stream of problems. Most workers in Britain feel insecure about their future; almost one in four families with children living below the official government poverty line; many old people live in dangerously cold conditions each winter and thousands die; millions of our fellow men and women are dying of starvation — tens of thousands of them each day. A society based on production for use will end those problems because the priority of socialist society will be the fullest possible satisfaction of needs. At the moment food is destroyed and farmers are subsidised not to produce more: yet many millions are malnourished. At the moment hospital queues are growing longer and people are dying of curable illnesses; yet it is not "economically viable" to provide decent health treatment for all. In a socialist society nothing short of the best will be good enough for any human being.

8. What about human nature?

Human behaviour is not fixed, but determined by the kind of society people are conditioned to live in. The capitalist jungle produces vicious, competitive ways of thinking and acting. But we humans are able to adapt our behaviour and there is no reason why our rational desire for comfort and human welfare should not allow us to co-operate. Even under capitalism people often obtain pleasure from doing a good turn for others; few people enjoy participating in the "civilised" warfare of the daily rat-race. Think how much better it would be if society was based on co-operation.

9. Are socialists democrats?

Yes: the Socialist Party has no leaders. It is a democratic organisation controlled by its members. It understands that Socialism can only be established by a conscious majority of workers — that workers must liberate themselves and will not be liberated by leaders or parties. Socialism will not be brought about by a dedicated minority "smashing the state", as some left-wingers would have it. Nor do the activities of paid, professional politicians have anything to do with Socialism — the experience of seven Labour governments has shown this. Once a majority of the working class understand and want Socialism, they will take the necessary step to organise consciously for the democratic conquest of political power. There will be no Socialism without a socialist majority.

10. What is the next step?

Many workers know that there is something wrong and want to change society. Some join reform groups in the hope that capitalism can be patched up, but such efforts are futile because you cannot run a system of class exploitation in the interests of the exploited majority. People who fear a nuclear war may join CND, but as long as nation states exist, economic rivalry means that the world will never be safe from the threat of war. There are countless dedicated campaigns and good causes which many sincere people are caught up in, but there is only one solution to the problems of capitalism and that is to get rid of it, and establish Socialism. Before we can do that we need socialists; winning workers to that cause requires knowledge, principles and an enthusiasm for change. These qualities can be developed by anyone — and are essential for anyone who is serious about changing society. Capitalism in the 1980s is still a system of waste, deprivation and frightening insecurity. You owe it to yourself to find out about the one movement which stands for the alternative.

If you have read this set of principles and agree with some or all of them, contact the Socialist Party with your questions and ideas about what you can do to help speed the progress towards Socialism.

Running Commentary: Corpses (1987)

The Running Commentary column from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Corpses

With the withdrawal of Gary Hart, Joe Biden and Richard Gephardt, the struggle to become the Democratic candidate in the next presidential election in America looks like producing as many political corpses as there are human ones in a Clint Eastwood movie.

The first to go — and of course the most famous, the most charismatic — was Gary Hart. Hart, we were told, is a liberal; his heart (no relation) bleeds for the poor, the downtrodden, the victims of discrimination. A nice guy like him could not fail to put it all to rights. And anyway he is so good-looking. But he blew it all when he not only involved himself with a leggy model but handled the crisis with a marked absence of the politician's expected ability to dissemble and temporise.

Biden's downfall came when some sharp member of his audience realised that he was in the habit of using material from other politicians' speeches, without acknowledging it. He not only pinched passages from a speech by Neil Kinnock but pretended to have a background similar to the British Labour leader's. The resultant hunt through Biden's real life story revealed that he had also once cheated at his exams. Clearly, this was a man quite unfitted to occupy the White House.

Gephardt, who once had a reputation for integrity, was laid low by an extravagant statement that more soldiers from the Vietnam war had committed suicide than were killed there. A pretty daft thing to say, you might think — and so did the Democrats, who don't want a daft person on their ticket next November.

But wait a second. The motives and reasons of the tens of millions of workers who regularly vote for capitalism are something of a mystery (why should they so stubbornly ask for more of the system which does them so much damage?), but despite that the discarding of those potential candidates raises some questions.

Does any American worker seriously expect, in the case of Gary Hart, the President to practise what he preaches and to conform to the confines of a monogamous marriage? After Roosevelt. Johnson, Kennedy. . .? Do any of them believe that the sexual activities of a President affect the manner in which he runs American capitalism? That monogamous - or preferably celibate - leaders would run capitalism any differently from libertines?

Do they expect politicians always to play by the rules, always to say original things? How can capitalism — a stale, outdated, unsupportable society — be justified other than by stale, outdated, unsupportable rhetoric? Do they really want their leaders to be honest — which would mean confessing to their own impotence and to the need to abolish capitalism?

The personalities and the individual quirks of the politicians of capitalism are of no consequence. It is the system which decides how they operate — not the other way round. Capitalist politics are all futility, often plumbing the depths of absurdity — as we are witnessing now. And the campaign proper has not yet begun.

Now They Tell Us

Shamefaced admissions about the dangers of nuclear power reactors have been part of the fall-out from Chernobyl. In the so-called democracies of the West it took, after Three Mile Island and Windscale, an explosion in a Russian plant to stimulate these admissions but better, perhaps, late than never.

At a London conference in September the head of Russian Fire Services said that Chernobyl demonstrated there is no such thing as a safe nuclear installation:". . . the very probability of an accident was considered unlikely and was not taken into account in any estimations and suppositions" was how he put it.

This example of glasnost may have convinced some people that the Russian record in these matters is better than that of other capitalist powers. The facts give a different picture.

When the prospect of nuclear electricity dawned on the world, with its promise of producing energy so cheaply that it would not be worth metering it. it was greeted by politicians, industrialists and scientists with what can only be called hysteria. Exultantly, they babbled about the benefits of this wonderful, eternally self-reproductive source of all the good things in life. Nuclear power stations quickly took on a vital role in the energy plans of the major industrial powers.

In some cases, the hysteria was under the control of a grim resolve; France, for example, splashed nuclear plants all over the country with virtually no regard for the wishes of the people who had to live alongside them. Nuclear electricity came to be seen as essential to the economies of those countries — which means to the profitable production of goods, to their competitive standing in world capitalism.

Two things were inevitable in this situation. Firstly, that comers would be cut in the hurry to build the plants; chances would be taken, essential facts and doubts about safety played down or concealed. Secondly, as nuclear energy was the new glamour industry its workers would be given a status of something akin to super stars. The team which went to Chernobyl to carry out those fatal experiments were allowed to take those frightful risks because their standing was such that they could dice with the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

But of course Chernobyl is not the only example. Which leaves us with the awful question: where next? and what will happen, how bad will it be?

Profit was the driving force behind the erection of nuclear stations and the “accidents" which they have become notorious for. Profit means that power for modern industry has to be dangerous, unpleasant, polluting. The warnings about Chernobyl came too late but the case for the social system which will have no use for anything which damages or threatens human welfare has been around for a long time.

Victorian Values, Comrade

If Margaret Thatcher would like to see the allegedly Victorian, alleged values, which she so often spouts about in action she could do a lot worse than pay another visit to Russia. In that so-called communist country which, Thatcher tells us, is basically different from England, there is a state sanctified reverence for hard work. This is the land where the memory of Stakhanov is still worshipped, where the highest form of human activity is a worker's selfless application to producing as much wealth as possible for the employers — which means as much profit as possible for them. In this case, of course, the employers are represented directly by the state.

In Russia respect for the law — for the legal structure which stands guard over the privileged social position of the ruling class — is expected to be absolute. The same crimes — like unlicensed violence and illegal theft — are punishable there as they are here but there is another category which may attract the heaviest penalties. Economic crimes, like fiddling the books of a collective, can end up with the hapless criminal facing a firing squad.

Patriotism, too, is revered in Russia, in a style which Thatcher might envy. Their national festivals are marked by enormous parades of armed marchers and displays of some of the most destructive weaponry in the world. Russian patriots find it a blood-stirring spectacle, just as British patriots thrilled to the Falklands victory parade. The mindless, unquestioning acceptance of the nonsense that "your" country is the best and merits your devoted service even to the point of death is official Russian propaganda, just as it is in Britain.

A recent practical example of these values in action was the re-organisation of Russian agriculture, entailing the merger of several ministries into one mega-bureaucracy. Over 20,000 jobs have been re-organised out of existence and, in a niggardly spirit worthy of Thatcher at her worst, the sanitary service has been abolished. The work previously carried out by this service, such as the inspection of premises and the imposition of standards of hygiene, has now been allocated to doctors employed by the Ministry of Health.

This may have been advisable from the point of view of profit but not from that of public welfare. A dysentery epidemic has been sweeping some parts of the country, its origin traced in most cases to the hygienically risky method of packing sour cream. The deputy health minister responsible for public sanitation is in no doubt that the situation has been worsened by the cuts under the reorganisation.

Supporters of state capitalism in Russia are often in the forefront of protest about expenditure cuts in this country and are quick to use evidence of their effect on vital services like hospitals and public health work. They might ponder about their attitude, when the things they protest about also happen in Russia. Thatcher's supporters might ask themselves the same questions. Capitalism, and its inhuman values, infects the entire world.

Learning, earning and yearning (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

"I never let my schooling interfere with my education." Mark Twain

You might have left formal education years ago. You might be involved in it now as a student or a teacher. What, though, is your opinion about the way education is organised? Is it a pleasurable, inspiring, challenging experience? Well, if you stop a group of young people making a swift exit from school at the end of their classes or a tired troupe of teachers and ask them about their day, "pleasurable" and "inspiring" are probably not the sort of words they will use to describe their routines.

Acquiring useful knowledge and developing new skills are pursuits that people can, in the right circumstances, greatly enjoy. Why, then, do millions of people involved in formal education find it such a boring and uncomfortable business? For an answer to this question it is worth considering what is contained in the text books and what is imparted in the classrooms and lecture halls. For a clearer understanding of what education is all about, however, it is reasonable to look out of the classroom window to consider the type of society which education is designed to prepare us for. What sort of person does the education system want to make? In order to understand the instruction manual you need to look at a picture of an ideal version of the finished product.

What is Education?

The word “education" derives from the Latin word educere meaning "to lead out”. It is seen as the process whereby young people are led out from states of inability and ignorance into the workings of the world beyond — their idea being that the older and more experienced generations will equip the members of the new generation with the knowledge and abilities required in order to cope with social life. In order for society to survive it needs to produce goods and services like food, clothes, accommodation and transportation. Human history has developed through different social systems, like slavery and later feudalism, and consequently the way in which young people have been prepared for the life ahead of them has varied according to the sort of society they are to inhabit.

The commercial society we live in today is a stage in history. There is no evidence to suggest that after thousands of years of change and development human history has ground to a halt and that the style of society we have now is something that will never change. The main characteristics of today's society are quite simple and they are the same all over the world. Society is divided between the wealth producers (the great majority) and the wealth owners (a small minority). Most people have to sell themselves to an employer like a company or the state in order to get a livelihood. A price is put on everyone as they flog their lives away in order to make someone else rich. How much are you worth? £3.25 an hour? £506.78 a month? £10,000 for one year of your life? Meanwhile a few men and women live in luxury with gigantic wealth which has been legitimately robbed from the people whose energies and skills have produced it. It is a society in which a man or a woman in a pinstripe suit can take a decision which will devastate a local community, ruining hundreds of lives, by deciding to "withdraw investments" from some local industry. A couple of days later the person who took the decision could be in drunken revelry at a chic nightclub, celebrating a successful £10,000 share deal made in ten minutes while mothers from the wrecked community are weeping over the new wasteland in which their children will be growing up.

We are living in a world where conscripts to the Argentinian military forces and economic conscripts to the British forces were ordered to massacre each other in the name of civilisation. What is reasonably described as an act of insane savagery when it is committed in Hungerford is called noble heroism when it is committed in Goose Green. In the same way, Russian soldiers in Afghanistan and American soldiers in Nicaragua are being ordered to murder people in "defence" of a "good" cause. How good is an argument or a cause that requires you to shoot someone with an exploding bullet in order to persuade them?

Above all, the economic principle which governs the way we live is that of profit. Although the world can easily produce more than enough food and drink for everyone, millions of people die of starvation while farmers are paid to burn wheat in order to keep its price high. Coffee is dumped in the oceans, mountains of beef and butter beshadow lakes of wine and milk while, according to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), a child dies from poverty every two seconds. A network of well-intentioned campaigns like Live Aid and Sport Aid struggle to alleviate the plight of those on the borderline of survival but the problems remain. Workers in relative poverty, thinking twice about how they are going to pay the electricity bill, shelling out a few quid to the destitute will not solve any problems. Charity may prolong the agonies, though, by lulling people into the mistaken belief that the profit system can be humanised if people were simply to be a little more thoughtful to others. The profit system has to operate according to what is profitable, not according to what is in the best interests of the majority. Think about the priorities of the profit system. In 1986 Cancer Research in the UK tried to collect £1 million by begging from people. The research here is reasonably important because one in four people in industrial areas of the world die of cancer-related disease. During the same period the United States government spent $45,000,000,000 on military research and development and a similar sum was spent by the Russian government.

Learning Compliance

What role does formal education play in all this? Primarily it is a dull and restricting process by which people are gently indoctrinated to accept a highly undesirable, difficult, dangerous and insecure way of life. The indoctrination today is not always delivered in a stark, crude way (although it was at one time) but the net result of someone going through ten years of schooling is. generally, the acquiring of a frame of mind and a set of prejudices that make for a willing wage-slave, a follower of leaders and in many cases a military recruit. "Education", according to one writer, "is what remains when we have forgotten all that we have been taught" (George Halifax). Certainly, judging by the dreary content of most formal education courses there is every reason for young people to quickly forget most of what has been taught. The hang-over effect though is the production of people who, give or take a complaint or a wish to reform something, are generally compliant to the type of society we have. In David Copperfield, Charles Dickens introduced the character of Uriah Heep who refers to his education as a young boy.

They taught us a deal of 'umbleness . . . not much else that I know of, from morning to night we was to be 'umble to this person, 'umble to that; and to pull off our caps here and make our bows there; and always to know our places and abase ourselves before our betters.

Local and national employers recently attended the college where I work to organise lectures and workshops for the students as prospective employees and the message was subtle but clear: the people who taught Uriah Heep had the right idea. Today's bosses have a wide vocabulary of terms to avoid being openly offensive. "Be obedient" becomes "Could you co-operate?" but the relationship of "master" and servant has not changed even if it is labelled as that between employer and employee. An official at the Department of Education and Science recently said.

We have to ration . . . educational opportunities so that society can cope with the output of education . . . People must be educated once more to know their place.

[The Listener 4 September 1986] 

In Britain today the children of the owning class attend costly private schools where they are trained in the techniques of pomposity, arrogance and the social hierarchy. Only 6 per cent of young people attend such schools while the other 94 per cent are learning how to know their place. It should not be forgotten, though, that the minority who own and control the society we live in (the owners of the factories, offices, newspapers and so forth) do not occupy their positions of power because they had expensive and élitist educations. On the contrary. They have expensive and élitist educations because their parents occupy positions of power. A person's class position pre-dates their education and continues regardless of whether they performed well or badly in school. You do not get to own landed estates or a string of factories or oilfields because you worked hard at school or college. The Duke of Westminster owns 138,000 acres including some of the most lucrative sites in London like Oxford Street, Belgravia and parts of Westminster. He owns estates in America. Australia. Wales and England including a 14-bedroom house set in 19,000 acres in Lancashire. That house alone is worth over £5 million. The Duke has one O' Level. It is interesting to note the disgust and indignation that the news media have today regarding acts of organised thuggery, plunder and looting because it was precisely by those methods that the early aristocrats acquired their estates, including the ancestors of the Duke of Westminster.

Finding Out the Hard Way

Many people who believe that you can get rich by working hard discover the real nature of class-divided society the hard way. Some may get jobs as £30,000 a year executives or become successful yuppies. Nevertheless, unlike the fully-fledged social parasites who live extravagantly from the unearned incomes of rent, interest or dividends, the upstarts with the company BMWs rely on a salary or commission for their dosh. Consequently. if the company they work for closes or goes insolvent (the closure of the London Daily News is a good recent example) they land with a bump on the floor of the economic class they have never really left. This fall will necessitate a rapid change of lifestyle and. ironically, one of the expenses which may no longer be possible in this situation is often the cost of sending their children to fee-paying schools.

Social problems like poverty and disorder are endemic to the profit system which puts the minority's acquisition of wealth above all other considerations. An economic recession aggravates these problems and it is in this social context that the government has decided to introduce a national school curriculum. Governments of whatever political complexion have to act as executive committees for the owning class. A national curriculum. whereby the same courses sanctioned by the government are taught uniformly across the country, is seen as a way of brain-washing tomorrow's wage-slaves and dole-queuers in a more efficient fashion than is achieved by today's methods. Bear in mind, though, that governments (not just in the UK) are opting for more thorough and systematic methods of "educating" young people into acquiescence but not necessarily because the ideology of the profit system is blossoming. Consider the instances from the past where centralised powers have used programmes of education to bolster their ethics and principles. At the time of the ancient Greek empire with the conquests of Alexander, the Greek curriculum was established all over the Hellenic colonies to explain and promote the culture of that empire which involved institutional slavery as an integral part of its so-called civilisation. Centuries later the Roman Catholic church was organising in a similar way. The Jesuit schools were originally intended for members of a special religious order but the schooling system was extended to cover the lay élites of medieval Europe. This extension and the social circumstances which caused it are similar to those which caused the expansion of early Greek schools. It was the insecurity, not the dominance, of the Greek colonies of Alexandrian times which prompted them to build and depend on schools to produce support for their social hierarchy. Similarly it was the insecurity of the Roman church in the time of Ignatius which accounts for the formation and rapid growth of the Jesuit schools. In both examples the school was regarded as a way of preserving a set of social values which were losing their dominance.

Today, many young people are deeply dissatisfied with what society has to offer them. Not just those who are rioting on the streets of places like Belfast. England and Sweden but also the classrooms full of people whose potential skill and creativity is being deliberately under developed because there are either no vacancies for them after school or work of a very limited kind. Some at least are healthily less reverential to authority today than they were in previous generations. It is harder than it used to be for the profit system to con young people into believing that it works in their interests, especially during a recession. So, one thing for Kenneth Baker to ponder is how long a system of indoctrination can succeed when its message runs against people's experience — you cannot make castor oil taste nice by teaching someone to call it syrup.

It was the development of the education systems in the emerging nation states of Europe last century which produced the earliest models of the school system of today. A national education system with schools teaching common subjects and with teachers produced by uniformly organised training colleges was first established in nineteenth century Prussia. The aim was to produce multitudes of workers tailored to meet the specifications of the architects of the German state. With the industrial revolution came the need for the new owners of industry to get a workforce which was equipped with rudimentary skills, the habit of obedience. servility to the bosses and there was also the need for many workers who had competence in elementary literacy and numeracy. The education system was developed accordingly to manufacture factory workers and clerks.

Education Today

Today most people who work are employed in commercial or service industries. The latest available figures show that whereas there are 6,368,000 people working in the manufacturing and construction industries there are 8,221,000 people engaged in service areas like distribution, transport and finance. (An Economic Profile of Britain 1986 — Lloyds Bank.) So schools and colleges need to prepare a workforce for these areas and to condition young people to accept the social scenery by referring to it in terms which make it seem sensible and unchangeable although it is neither. Maths and Statistics syllabuses are riddled with questions about companies, profits, redundancies and productivity where the desirability of a class-divided society is assumed as a self-evident truth. Accounting, commerce and Business Management courses ask sober questions about the economic laws which cause such misery. History courses focus on the affairs of monarchs and politicians and encourage people to grow up with a narrow, nationalistic and ethnocentric viewpoint. Some economics courses are entirely founded on the quite false assumption that there is an unavoidable scarcity of goods for the people of the world to consume. Education could be organised so very differently. It could be what it should be: stimulating and imaginative. Anyone, though, who sought to achieve those aims by simply reforming the methods or content of the current system would be faced with a frustrating and ultimately impossible task. From primary to postgraduate levels, education is geared to the economic system of which it is a part. What is the point in devoting time and energy to obtaining a few more scant resources for education when its entire stocks are overwhelmingly outstripped in scale and sophistication by those of the murder industry (the official one)? Time and energy spent on quickening the end of the social system which creates the perverse priorities is a much sounder investment.

The only way to achieve a real change in education is to change the social environment for which education prepares people. A society which converts the means of producing and distributing wealth from the private ownership of companies and state machines into the common property of the whole community would be able to direct production to one aim and one aim alone — the satisfaction of human needs. A society which abandons the division between a few who own and control and a majority who do not will be able to operate on the basis of the principle — from each according to her/his abilities, to each according to her/his self-defined needs. There is no problem with people behaving co-operatively, even on a huge scale, as was demonstrated by the millions of people who organised the monumental Live Aid across the world. No one working in any of the thousands of different tasks which needed to be done for this project worked for money. The 80,000,000 people who participated in Sport Aid with exemplary organisation testify to the same point.

Education in Socialism

Education in a classless society would not have to regiment, discipline and inculcate young people with rubbish the way it does now. Teachers are often authoritarian today as a result of the disagreeable disciplinary work the system demands they perform. In a social setting which does not create the need for people to be authoritarian, education will not need to be the flow from a "teacher" to a "learner" that it so often is now. People will be much less inhibited about venturing to teach someone who is teaching them or learning from someone they are teaching. More importantly, though, no-one would have to become "a teacher" and be lumbered with performing that function to the exclusion of other, more creative occupations. Today it makes sense to the profit system to make you into a mechanic or a nurse or a carpenter or a computer programmer and that's you done. There is no need, however, for anyone's creativity and usefulness to be restricted in this way in a society that puts human satisfaction as its top priority and profitability nowhere. Instead of being a series of unpleasant experiences foisted on people between the ages of six and sixteen education should become an exhilarating project continuing throughout life for everyone who wishes to maintain the mental vitality they enjoyed as a child.

Ignorant people are easy to fool and manipulate just as knowledge is strength. Don't let your schooling interfere with your education.

Gary Jay