After The Poll. (1924)

From the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The election is over and the result has left each of the aspirants to governmental power faced with a situation probably unique in our political history. Of the three parties—Conservative, Liberal and Labour—not one has a majority over the rest.

The writhings and squirmings of the different groups, in the endeavour to find a way out of the difficulty, enlivens the
dullness of our lives.

Immediately after the election the official papers of the different parties united in the view that of course Mr. Baldwin would resign, as his main proposals for dealing with the unemployment, trade stagnation, and the Ruhr, had been turned down by a majority of those voting.

The Observer, a supporter of Baldwin, lays the defeat of the government at the door of a “Trust-controlled Press.” In its issue of 9th December, Garvin complains that the Unionists were deprived of their chief resort at previous elections, the popular newspapers. This is a peculiar admission, particularly for a paper that has the Astor millions behind it. This is equivalent to admitting that the interests behind the Trust-controlled Press swept the Unionists into power, and have now swept them out of power!

The same issue of the paper, uses up considerable space to prove that there is no point in Mr. Baldwin retaining office until kicked out, that the obvious policy is for him to hand in his resignation immediately and go into opposition.

Mr. Baldwin, however, has declined to oblige either friends or foes, and proposes retaining his position. This has destroyed the beautiful Unionist and Liberal schemes of “sympathetic opposition.”

The Observer promised the Labour Party or Liberals, whichever took office, a sympathetic assistance in the carrying out of certain general proposals for dealing with unemployment, Russia and the Ruhr. It finally recommended that the Liberals should take over the government because, as they, with the assistance of the Trust Press, had made the mess, they should be left to clear it up.

The Liberals, however, are not anxious for office; there are too many reasons at present, from the capitalist standpoint, in favour of letting the Labour Party take over office.

Writing of the Labour Party the Daily News, Dec. 10th, 1923 says:—

  One of its chief claims to national confidence is the way in which, under its present leadership, it has rallied elements which might have drifted into disruption and dangerous discontent to the support of constitutional charges to be attained by constitutional means. To pretend otherwise is merely to obstruct this laudable and valuable service.
  For either Liberals or Labour men, on the other hand, to contemplate a fresh dissolution now, with the tariff issue eliminated, would be a piece of unspeakable folly, fatally destructive of the reputation of those guilty of it for sanity and common sense. The only possible course open to them is such a degree of co-operation between them as shall keep this Parliament with its progressive majority in being for the enactment of the wide range of social and political reforms on which they are agreed. 

So spoke the Liberal journal, but the Unionists spoke in an even more amiable way to the Labour Party.

The Observer (9th Dec., 1923) had the following :—

  There is not the smallest fear of a capital levy, or of any other proposal of Marxian Socialism. In these circumstances, the majority of Unionists would prefer to see the Labour party in office during the six months of transition between now and another general election. The extraordinary thing is the growth of personal sympathy between Unionists and Labour. Unionists recognise that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald from his own point of view has made a fair and decent fight, if he were sent for by the King and took office, Unionists would be prepared to give him every facility for dealing with the Budget and routine business. He might propose a new electoral law. In the Unionist Party there is no fear of it. It is bound to come. Unionists stand to gain by the transferable vote more than any other party.

The Observer gave the Labour Party a further suggestion. It may be remembered that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald declared a short time ago that the Labour Party’s aim was to develop the resources of this country. The Observer has met this view by pointing out:—

  What this country requires above all is cheaper power and cheaper transport. (9th December, 1923.)

This cheaper power is to be provided by the use of coal for generating electricity, and the application of electricity as far as possible to means of transport.

The Observer further points out:—

  Nothing like a wrecking policy on the part of Labour is possible, if the leader of the Labour Party were consulted by the Sovereign, it would be an historic but not an alarming event. (9th December, 1923.)

How has the Labour Party met the offer of this olive branch?

In the first place there have been assurances of no coalition or agreements with Liberals or Tories. Those who remember the times when the Labour voted against their own amendments to save Liberal governments from defeat will not give serious attention to the “no coalition” attitude.

However, fierce protestations are often but the prelude to an inclination to negotiate. But a suggestion of the way the Labour Party would meet the situation was given in the New Leader on the 7th December (before the secret of the poll was revealed) which harmonises with the Liberal and Unionist view given above:—

   The reform of our grotesque electoral system is necessary for the restoration of honest politics.  . . . The problems of the moment are too grave for tactics of wrecking or negation. We should certainly not refuse in the lobbies a discriminating support to a minority government, so long as it was realising ideas common to both our programmes. (Italics ours.)

The nearness of Labour to Liberals is suggested by the following quotation from the same issue of the New Leader :—

  In some constituencies, where Liberals are strongly attached to Free Trade, it is probable that some of them have voted for Labour in the absence of a Liberal candidate.

and, we may add, the same is probable in the absence of a Unionist candidate.

After the Labour Party’s victory at the polls they found themselves in a dilemma. The New Leader (7th Dec.) stated :—

  If Labour had a chance, it is not in the Ruhr that it would begin to save the Ruhr. It would recognise Russia. It would stop the fortification of Singapore. It might offer to demilitarise the Dardanelles and the Baltic. It might give Cyprus to Greece. It would quit the oil wells of Mosul. It would make India a Dominion and lift the yoke from Egypt.

There is a more or less definite statement of things it might do and things it would do. Now that Labour looks like having a “chance,” what is the position? The boot is now on the other leg, and they frankly admit that they don’t know what to do. Various views of the situation are put forward by different writers in the New Leader (14th Dec.). The following lengthy extracts from the editorial article by the New Leader's £1,000 a year editor may be useful for present and future reference :—

  We are facing one of those situations which admit of no ideal solution. Any proposal which any section puts forward can be riddled with destructive criticism. Government by coalition is an evil which the party rightly and unanimously rejects. Government by minority is no less an evil. An immediate election might be fatal to the party which precipitated it. It is in the last degree unlikely that at this stage any Liberal-Tory combination will be formed. It is theoretically open to us to allow the Baldwin Cabinet to retain office on terms; but this solution would expose us to grave misunderstanding. To allow the Liberals to take office would be interpreted as a confession of our own incapacity.

#    #    #    #

   For any wide and comprehensive programme it will not suffice that Liberals should refrain from Votes of No Confidence. We must be able to reckon on a measure of goodwill. It is easy to say that we contemplate no arrangements. Face to face with Liberals, side by side with them, our Party would have to realise that they too have their point of view, their interests that must be considered. We shall be every hour at their mercy.

  To talk of ignoring the Liberals and refusing any understanding with them seems to me difficult, if we are contemplating as much as six or eight months of office. If we are going to walk down this long road we should have to carry them with us, halting, limping and breathless perhaps, but not jostling or tripping. With any weighty programme on our backs we should soon find ourselves consciously drafting our Bills with the fear of Mr. Asquith before our eyes Would he object to this or jib at that  Then out it must go.

#    #    #    #

  But the moment one faces public works, to say nothing of any increase in the dole, then money must be found. An adequate housing scheme cannot be cheap. Apart from unemployment and housing, we have denounced the cruel economies of past Governments on education, child welfare and every social service. We have given pledges as to the removal of the thrift restriction on old-age pensions and the abolition of duties on sugar and tea.

Oh! Those awful pledges! How some of the Labour members must curse themselves for their election pledges. Without these pledges and their campaign against “broken pledges” the situation would be much easier.

  We have not forgotten our own campaign for the Levy. Are we going to undertake to compose a Budget without it ? The alternative would be a tremendous addition to the unpopular income tax, which the Liberal Party would not assist us to vote.

Evidently one of the pledges must go; but which? That is the question. According to the Labour programme the Levy was to provide the means to carry out certain reforms which were alleged to be of advantage to the workers. In fact, it was a corner stone of their programme. Now that they have secured their “chance,” the Levy is beginning to retreat into the distance along with most of their other “pledges.”

  The struggle with France, however, would be no easier for us than for our predecessors—indeed, the inclination of M. Poincaré would be to treat us as an ephemeral administration, a passing episode in the life of Europe. America would regard us as "radicals,” the sort of people whom the Ku-Klux-Klan would deal with, if we lived beneath the statue of Liberty. Nor could events march swiftly. We should aim at a conference at least as wide as that which General Smuts proposed; but would it be wise to call it before the French general election decides in May whether M. Poincaré is still the Dictator of Europe ? One hope I see, and only one, for a conference. It is that we should first create, before it meets, an atmosphere of expectation throughout the world. 

#    #    #    # 

   The recognition of Russia and the symbol of Singapore would help. Dare we next make Egypt truly “independent” by withdrawing the British garrison from Cairo? What if we were to give Greek Cyprus to the Greek motherland, or offer to discuss the demilitarisation of the Black Sea? When we had relaxed our hold on the oil-wells of Mosul, we might with less inward hesitation invite M. Poincaré to quit the coalfield of the Ruhr. By such calculated acts we should rally the peoples behind us, and might without hypocrisy organise at a conference moral pressure against French militarism. But we should fail, as Mr. Wilson failed, and for the same reason, if our Parliament, like his Senate, were hostile. Everything once more turns on our relations with the Liberals; would they, sitting in the shadow, help us to face the Tory assaults on such a policy ? We cannot accept their alliance. It follows that we must limit our own ambitions.

On paper, for months before the election, the above matters were easily settled by airy statements—and “moral” flourishes. But now the situation has changed ! “Evolution”—blessed word !

Brailsford winds up his “ifs” and “mights” as follows — with a mournful remark on the pre-election programmes and speeches :—

  By April the problem of the Budget would overtake us, and we should compromise our own case if we undertook to solve it without a capital levy. The danger before us leaps out from some of the extensive programmes which have already appeared in Labour speeches and in print. If we set our hopes on a big agenda, if we talk even of six or eight months of office, then inevitably we shall drift into the fatal attitude of buying it on the only possible terms — by arrangement with Liberals, which would obscure our Socialist policy, compromise our independence, and make us in the end mere caretakers cf a capitalist and Imperial system. (Italics ours.)

In the same issue of the New Leader as that from which we have just quoted, Clifford Allen, Sidney Webb, Pethick Lawrence, and Ramsay MacDonald contribute articles on the situation.

Clifford Allen says :—

  We must only take office with a definite and publicly declared design, namely, that we will form a purely temporary and emergency Government for a few months to deal with two or three selected urgent questions, such as unemployment and the European chaos. The War Debt could be submitted to a Commission.

This is certainly a handy way out of the Capital Levy difficulty. But the Capital Levy was to provide the means for dealing with unemployment. How then are they to raise the necessary funds? And what about “reduced taxation”?

Sidney Webb informs us that:—

  I am quite sure that we need fear no bias or dislike at the Palace that would cause the Labour Party to be treated with any unfairness.

With this view we could hardly disagree in view of the fact that Labour members have so frequently had their knees under the same mahogany as Royalty !

Webb joins the chorus of mourners and points out :—

  the plain impossibility of passing into law in this Parliament any large and contentious measures.

Pethick Lawrence states that he addressed “a meeting of business men, most of whom were Liberals or Conservatives, to a discussion limited to the Capital Levy” and heard privately afterwards :—

  that many of them entirely changed their view as to what the Levy was, and not a few actually voted Labour for the first time on this issue alone.

Under the heading "Sacrificing Luxuries” he is careful to point out:—

  In this it is essential to make it clear that we are not animated by hostility to any section or class of the community. We are merely calling for a sacrifice on the part of the wealthy to meet a national emergency.

Finally Ramsay MacDonald sums up the difficulties as follows :—

  At times it is as necessary to preserve the forms of government as to produce legislative changes, even when the latter are very pressing. Can the Labour Party devise a policy which would enable it to do some useful and urgent work, like helping to settle Europe and increase the provision for dealing with unemployment, without compromise in any shape or form?

Having put the question, one would expect MacDonald, as the leading figure in the Labour Party, to give us an answer. But this is all he has to say :—

  That is the difficult problem which we have to face now, and I venture to ask our supporters in the country to help us with their trust.

A very satisfying answer, is it not? Note, too, the slimy appeal for "trust,” proving once more how leaders depend upon a sheep-like following.

The plain fact of the situation is that the Labour Party is in a fix. It is composed of individuals with a hotch potch of ideas and has been voted into its present position by individuals similarly placed. Its fundamental weaknesses have placed. it in the dilemma. It has been voted to Parliament on a vote catching programme and not on fundamental questions. If it does not justify these vote catching pledges it will lose a good deal of the support so far given. Had the Labour group been voted in on a Socialist programme by class-conscious workers, the voters would have understood the position themselves; they would have defined the path to be followed ; there would have been no dilemma.

The Reward of Genius. (1924)

From the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "New York, Saturday. — Johannes Sophus Gelert, the famous sculptor, attempted to commit suicide at the Danish Home for the Aged. He slashed his throat with a razor, but will probably recover."
  "He is without friends and practically penniless, and owing to creeping paralysis was unable to continue working.  — Reuter."

Rates, and Rates of Wages. (1924)

From the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The National Council of the Independent Labour Party have issued a manifesto entitled “How to deal with the rates; what a Socialist Government would do.”—New Leader, October 19th, 1923. In a final paragraph they say :—

  Socialism approaches the subject of rates from a new point of view. To-day most people denounce rates as an imposition. To-morrow they must look upon them as a first-class instrument; as a method of providing cheap communal services, and therefore, a means of increasing real wages; as a protection against slums, diseases and dirt; as a guarantee of decent education for their children; as a contribution towards a healthy and fully developed community.

This view is neither new nor socialistic. The Progressive Party have claimed it as their policy, in and out of office, for many years, while never once making the dishonest claim that it was socialistic. The constitution of the I.L.P. is not socialistic and no fundamental principles have ever been laid down by that party that could be described as the necessary basis of the socialist movement.

The National Council speaks for the I.L.P. It thinks for the I.L.P., reproaches the workers for their apathy and indifference, yet up till the present moment has never once set out a simple straightforward statement outlining the workers' position in modern society, the cause of the evils from which they suffer, the line of action they must follow to remove them and the principles upon which society must he established for that purpose.


The I.L.P. in the course of its propaganda completely ignores the facts of vital importance to the workers if they are to consider fully any public question from their own point of view as workers : The class ownership of the means of wealth-production, the consequent slavery of those who do not participate in this ownership; the antagonism of interests between these two classes and the consequent struggle between them, which can only end in favour of the workers when the latter take over the means of wealth-production and control them democratically for the purpose of satisfying all their needs.


These are the vital and indispensable facts for the workers to bear in mind when considering any question of political or industrial interest. Any party that claims to represent the workers should base its antagonism to capitalist governments on these principles. It is not sufficient that it should be opposed to both Tory and Liberal. It is possible to oppose both these parties on purely capitalist grounds and for purely capitalist reasons without being socialist.


If the workers are to come to a right conclusion on the rates question, they must first understand clearly their class position and how they are enslaved by the capitalist class. Wage-slavery is different in form from all preceding systems. It is more effective in binding the worker to his task while at the same time conceding him the freedom to leave it. How this can be is easily seen without much knowledge of economics. Every worker is free to leave an employer but his physical needs compel him to find another. To use an economic phrase, he is compelled to sell his labour-power in order to obtain the necessaries of life. His wage is the price of his labour-power.


In their general propaganda the I.L.P. denounce the capitalists for treating the workers as mere commodities. As human beings they say that the workers have rights above material commodities. The facts are, however, that the workers themselves are not commodities, nor are they treated as such by their masters. Every worker is the undisputed owner of his labour-power. He can sell it to any capitalist who is willing to buy. He sells it for stipulated periods and can discontinue the sale by giving notice according to the terms agreed upon. These are the extent of the workers’ rights, his actual position.


Moreover, it is all that they claim. Nor does the I.L.P. claim any higher rights. The right to work. The right to a living wage, with or without work, is their latest ‘cry; concede them so much : How is it possible for the workers to pay rates while their share of the wealth they produce is a living wage? How may they consider themselves ratepayers when their wages are subject to modifications with changes in the cost of living?


Let the National Council carry out its programme, municipalising supplies and services in order that the prices of necessaries may be reduced, and what happens? Cost of living falls and wages, the price of labour-power, follows; with greater certainty, too, because the cheapening of supplies and services is effected by labour-saving methods; in other words, by increasing the number of unemployed. If wages always fall for the bulk of the workers, when the cost of living falls, the workers would not benefit if rates were entirely abolished. Nor would the fact that their wages fell prove that they previously paid rates. On the contrary, it would go to show that the capitalist paid them, by the mere fact that he reduced wages to that extent. The result for the workers being a living wage based upon the same standard as before the reduction in rates took place.


Commodities are always subject to changes and fluctuations in price. The price of a commodity changes under three sets of conditions: when it is produced with a smaller or greater expenditure of labour-power; when supply and demand are unequal, and when the material of which money is made can be produced with a smaller or greater expenditure of labour-power. Labour-power is a commodity and subject to fluctuations in price under all three sets of conditions.


During the few years immediately preceding the war, wages were affected by the last named condition. Through improved methods of gold-production the sovereign bought less of the necessaries of life, and as a consequence the workers were compelled to struggle for higher wages. During the war prices rose still higher, with the result that capitalists were compelled to raise wages in order to avoid widespread discontent through serious depression of the workers' standard of living. How the cost of living more than doubled during that period is common knowledge, but the workers were in a favourable position to enforce a rise, though never as a whole to the new level of prices, because there was little or no unemployment. The demand for labour-power was exceptional.


Since the war new sliding scales have been introduced into a number of industries. Cost of living figures have been systematically used by employers in a continuous effort to “get back to pre-war standards." The fact ignored by most people is that the standard of living for the workers to-day is approximately the same as it was in 1914. The money name of the amount of necessaries they obtain in a week has risen, but if anything, their standard of living has slightly fallen.
The policy of employers to-day is to keep before the workers and their leaders on the industrial field these cost of living figures. They form the plea and the reason for every reduction of wages enforced. A living wage is the demand of trade unionists; their leaders dispute the figures but never debate the principle. Why then does the National Council confuse the workers' minds with questions that do not concern them?


By their schemes of municipal ownership and production they propose to reduce the cost of living while making the workers more efficient. A reduction in the cost of living means a reduction in wages that need not mean a reduction in the standard of living. An increase in general efficiency, however, would intensify competition and increase unemployment. In operation their policy would be as harmful to the workers as its propaganda is confusing.

F. Foan

Where The Labour Party Fails. (1924)

From the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many are the points on which the Socialist disagrees with the policy of the Labour Party. We have frequent occasion to condemn the actions of its members, and the utterances of its leaders, on the ground that they are opposed to the interests of the workers; but there is one ground of disagreement which is more important than all the others and which, in fact, underlies most of them. Before discussing it let us exclude the minor ones for the purpose of clarifying the issue. Let us assume that the leaders of the Labour Party are men of honesty and integrity, that they possess as much wisdom as it is given to any man to possess, that they sincerely desire to do for the workers all that is humanly possible, and that they are gifted with uncommon singleness of purpose.

Let us also be clear on certain general assumptions, acceptable to them as well as to us. They are that only by the consent of a majority of the workers can any considerable change be made; and that any such change can at least be attempted within the framework of the existing constitution of this country. The workers by capturing Parliament will be able to rebuild society, secured, by their control of the armed forces, against interference from any quarter.

Even on these assumptions it would still
 be impossible for us to support the Labour Party, and the reason is that we believe the capitalist system to be the enemy while the Labour Party does not.

One section believes that low wages are the evil, and that the remedy lies in raising them. Another believes that inflation will bring prosperity by stimulating trade, and a third looks to deflation and low prices as their Mecca. Some members want to increase the technical efficiency of production, decrease the costs of producing British goods, and thus capture a larger share of the world’s trade; others want to eliminate the middleman to achieve the same object. Just now many hopes are placed on a capital levy to reduce the national debt, and with it, taxation. Some Labour propagandists urge that the state take over the land and the staple industries and run them like the Post Office. Relief schemes for the unemployed; conciliation to obviate strikes; honest government and open diplomacy; bigger old-age pensions and more compensation for injured workmen: state assistance in the building of workers’ houses, statutory minimum rates of wages; bounties on the production of corn; heavy death duties and excess profits taxes, and even the limitation of inheritance; these are some of the many suggestions made.

Now it is obvious that these proposals are put forward to meet certain definite evils, and that if they could be isolated and treated by themselves many of them would he of decided benefit to the workers. Other things remaining unchanged it would be good for the workers to have their wages raised; greater efficiency regarded on its merits alone would be most desirable; and nobody would pretend that stoppages of production are in themselves praiseworthy objects of human endeavour. But unfortunately none of these things can be treated on its own merits. We live in a system of society called capitalism, and every proposal, made by whatever party, must be regarded in the light of its effect on the working-class as they exist under capitalism. So regarded, some of these reforms are plainly bad for the workers and good only for the capitalists; such is greater efficiency. Some are of no effect at all. Some are of limited use, but bring inevitable aggravations of other evils; such is a legal minimum wage which leads to the putting off of those who are not able-bodied and induces the employers to instal machinery to replace hand labour. And all of them are harmful to the degree that they are used to keep your minds off the real problems which face you.

Our attitude is simple and straightforward. We see many great and growing evils from which we, as workers, suffer, and after due examination we see that it is the capitalist organisation of society which is the cause of these evils. We see that poverty, unemployment, war and many other harmful features of the modern world can be abolished only by the establishment of Socialism, which is a new and different social system. In this we differ from the Labour Party.

We see that CAPITALISM is the cause of unemployment; not the wickedness of the capitalists, nor the selfishness and incompetence of their governments; not war nor low wages; not their foreign policy nor their inactivity at home. We see that the workers are wretchedly housed and badly fed and shoddily clothed and vilely miseducated, because they are poor. We see that they are poor because they are robbed, and they are robbed because the capitalist system is based on robbery. The Labour Party says “let us administer the system, and we will show you that we are fit to govern," but if we are correct, when we say that it is the system itself which is at fault it will not matter who administers it. It will still be a system of exploitation of one class by another. If it ceases to be this, it will cease to be at all, because that is its nature. A system which is based on the robbery of the workers obviously cannot be made to work out to their benefit.

In the December issue some information was given showing how utterly the Australian Labour governments had failed in their attempts to make capitalism a success from a workers’ point of view. Those workers are still exploited and they are still poor: they still suffer from unemployment, and they still cannot get houses. Their position is, in fact, worse than when Labour governments took office, and this is not due to their having been governed by a Labour government but to the continued existence of the capitalist system.

What then do we mean by this term capitalism? I will take the definitions of two anti-socialists, both of them recognised authorities on Economic History.

Sir William Ashley writes :—

  By capital the business world has always meant . . . wealth which its owner can employ for the purpose of gain; and by investment we mean . . .  the fact that there really exist openings for the use of wealth in directions which will bring an income or “revenue" over and above the return of the sum employed. (The Economic Organisation of England, page 79.)

Archdeacon W. Cunningham, D.D., F.B.A., defines it as :—

  The fund of wealth which is employed with a view to obtaining an income. (The Progress of Capitalism in England, page 20.)

A capitalist then is one who owns capital, and through his ownership receives an income; and the capitalist system is one in which this form of ownership predominates.

Capitalism, therefore, is a system in which the means of producing wealth are privately owned. There have been other systems of private ownership, such as Feudalism and Slavery, but in them the wealth has not taken the form of capital. Before them again there were societies in which there was no private ownership of the means of producing wealth and no exploitation of one class by another. Socialism will mean not only the end of capitalism, but also the end of all private ownership of the means of production and exploitation. Of course, when we talk about common ownership we are only referring to the means of production, like the land and the factories, not houses and clothes and food and things like these.

Capitalist enterprise was a feature of the ancient civilisations round the Mediterranean, but in Western Europe its rise has been quite a recent development.

  There are, of course, forms of social organisation which are appropriate to conditions in which capital does not exist at all; the formation of capital implies the existence . of money economy. In countries and in circumstances where natural economy prevails, capital is unknown. . . . (Cunningham, page 21.)

Other factors needed for the development of capitalism were the existence of free landless labourers; and the prevalence of buying and selling instead of the production of goods to be consumed by the producer. These clearly had to be preceded by the common use of money.

Cunningham notes the coming in of money in the 14th and 15th centuries and the corresponding break up of “natural economy,” which is the name given to societies in which there are no money transactions.

  The change from natural economy which existed at the time of the Conquest, to the capitalist system which had come into complete possession at the beginning of the 19th century, is spread over a period of eight centuries (page 21.)

Now nobody would deny that capitalism brought with it great economic, political and social advantages, but we say that it also brought the seeds of unavoidable evils and conflicts, and that the evils are now so great that only a new and higher system can be of any use. Such a system is Socialism.

Now, remembering our definition, let us examine the system which covers the whole civilised world. We find that some countries are monarchies and some republics; some have free trade and others protection; some have Liberal or Conservative governments and others have Labour or Communist governments; some have much and some only little foreign trade; some have big national debts and heavy taxation and others little of either; yet in one thing they are all alike. In all of them the capitalist economic system prevails. In all of them there is a class of poor people who have no property, and who live by working, and another class of rich property-owners, who live by owning property. The workers get wages or salaries, which they have earned by their labour. It is they who have grown the food, made the clothes and built the houses and factories, and carried goods from one place to another, and it is they who have organised this work and supervised and directed it. On the other hand, the property-owners have received rent, interest and profit without having to labour for it at all. From what source then do their incomes arise? Is it not plain that these people who own the means of production are living on the labour of those who use them to produce wealth?

The issue is somewhat confused, especially in young capitalist countries, by the fact that some employers do work themselves. To the extent then that they do useful work, part of their incomes is earned, but most of them do not work at all, and in any event are not compelled to do so. In our modern huge joint-stock companies the shareholders never come near the factories and workshops. They may live on the other side of the world, or die, and still the shares would continue to bring in dividends.

We say that it is this private ownership which is at the root of our problems, and we propose that society should take over the means of production and use them, the only sensible suggestion to satisfy the needs of the members of society, instead of allowing a class to make a profit out of their use.

At present we have the workers compelled to ask permission of the owners before they can get to work, and the condition on which permission is granted is that the workers should keep the owners in idle luxury.

And this private ownership has other evil effects besides being a means of robbing the workers.

Over the whole capitalist world we have the workers producing goods of greater value than they receive back as wages, the difference being a surplus for landlords, bankers, and manufacturing capitalists. So that after the workers have spent their wages there is still a great mass of goods in the warehouses which the owners must sell before they can realise their profits, and it is much more than they can possibly consume themselves. It is in this way that unemployment is caused. The people who own the goods want to sell but cannot find buyers, while the workers who want the goods have no money to buy. Production has to be curtailed, and goods are wasted or slowly consumed by the unemployed who live on doles and other forms of relief. Alternatively, capitalist countries are forced to go to war to try to snatch markets from their rivals, and destroy their powers of production. But whether they win or lose, the problem is only aggravated.

This is the capitalist system, and we propose to abolish it. We want to destroy entirely the right of any individual or class to live by privately owning something which society wants to use. We say this results in robbery, and we are out to end it.

But this is not the Labour Party’s object; therefore, we are compelled to oppose that party. We do not want to see them running capitalism even if they could do it better than the older parties. Australian Labour governments, in the words of Premier Theodore, went into office to “administer capitalism.” We do not want anyone to administer capitalism; we want to destroy it.

Moreover, we do not believe that any government can make conditions under capitalism good for the workers. Mr. E. J. Holloway, ex-president of the Australian Labour Party, and General Secretary of the Victorian Trades Council, writing on the lessons of the Labour governments, confesses that while they have been able to make

  conditions a little better they have reached their limit, and no real or permanent improvement in modern society can be effected unless we begin to bridge over that great gulf which exists between the rich and the poor. . . . This cannot be done unless the Government . . . begin to transfer from private ownership those agencies of wealth production and distribution which produce and distribute socially necessary commodities. ( Labour Magazine, December, 1923.)

Now no government can attack the property of the capitalists without a mandate, and no Labour government in Australia had such a mandate. Until the workers understand and want socialism, they will never put into power a government able to undertake that great task, and the only alternative to socialism is the continuance of capitalism. But the harm done by the Labour Party is to spread the false idea that there is another solution not involving the abolition of capitalism. This is called “nationalisation," but it is, in fact, merely capitalism in another and worse form. The Labour government compensates the present owners by giving them interest-bearing bonds (5 per cent, bonds are promised to British landowners by the Labour Party) or else they are paid out with money raised by loan. In either event we still have a class living by owning, robbing the wealth producers. We still have the capitalist system, and it is probable that many land-owners would actually be better off with a sure 5 per cent, than they are now !

The Labour government would have to pay this interest and make the industries a financial success in competition with home or foreign rivals, and would be forced whether it wished or not, to keep down the worker’s standard' of living to the general level. Australian Labour governments have to find the agreed rate of interest on loans, and to do this they have had to beat down the wages paid to the workers. Once committed to the task of  “administering capitalism," the choice is between ruin or an increased exploitation of the workers, either by longer hours, harder work, or lower pay. How else can an industry pay dividend to the bond-holders and compete with other capitalist producers. The workers are poor in Queensland because of the tribute levied on industry by the capitalists for whom the Labour government must act as a slave driver.

The Labour Party here also seeks to attain office without a mandate to overthrow capitalism; therefore, we cannot support it. At the recent election the Labour Party’s programme contained no reference, explicit or implied, to socialism. When they come into power they will, therefore, be impotent to remedy the worker’s poverty or abolish unemployment. The leaders do not promise to abolish profit-making.

  It is no part of Labour's policy to establish revolutionary socialism or to confiscate private property.—J. R. Clynes (Glasgow Evening News, 4th October, 1923.)

The Labour Party demands:—

  nothing more than the nationalisation of the land, mines and essential public services, and this does not carry the Labour Party further than many Radicals, who would vigorously disclaim being socialistic, are prepared to go:— Philip Snowden. (Manchester Guardian Supplement, 26th October, 1922.)

Mr. Snowden, in the House of Commons, on March, 20th, 1923, when speaking on the motion condemning the capitalist system, expressly stated that the Labour Party always repudiated confiscation. How can the capitalists be denied the right to live by owning property unless that property is “confiscated""?

J. H. Thomas, in “When Labour Rules" (page 24), states that

  Capital will be entitled to some return. He also says that all that we claim is a first charge on industry to the point of a reasonable share in the decencies and comforts—net luxuries, note —of life. . . . 

Why the workers, who produce necessities and luxuries alike, should hand over the luxuries to a parasite class Mr. Thomas does not explain.

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in “Socialism, Critical and Constructive" (1921, page 196), is quite definitely opposed to the idea of abolishing the right to live by owning.

  The right of inheritance is unassailable except in communities based upon pure communism, and for my purpose they need not be considered; but, from a social point of view, the powers of inheritance might with advantage be strictly limited. (198.)
  To limit profits by taxation is no easy matter, but the problem will have to be faced. What, for instance, is to be the basis upon which the legitimate profit is to be calculated? Is it to be the dividend on watered capital, or on capital in economic use? Is it not to be a dividend on capital at all, but a profit on the turnover and trade ? (209.)

We say that profit-making is robbery. What then is a legitimate rate of profit? And if the members of the Labour Party believe that profit-making is legitimate, should they not cease to denounce the capitalist system, and ought they not to avoid confusion by recognising that their object is not socialism?

Sidney Webb, in his "Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain” (1920), deals with the question, too.

  Each owner should receive in compensation the fair market value of that of which he is compulsorily dispossessed.  . . . The community will, of course, be saddled with the interest and sinking fund, or the annuity; and will thus, on the face of it, be no wealthier than before; just as the expropriated person will be no poorer, and the aggregate tribute on production levied by ownership no less than before. The object of “socialisation” is “socialisation” —that is to say, the transformation of profit-making enterprise into public service; not the enrichment of the community by confiscation, (page 334.)

It would require all the subtlety of the professorial mind to convince me that the act of socialisation really does mean leaving things as they are.

It is true that Webb goes on to talk about the ultimate and gradual extinction of living on interest by the power of taxation, but he fails to explain why the capitalists, who will resist confiscation, will submit quietly to the same progress if only it is called by another name. He gives no reason whatever why the workers should— once having attained power—set up a new vested interest, a “rentier” class.

To sum up, therefore, we see that capitalism is the enemy, and that socialism is the only remedy. Socialism necessarily means the denial of the right to live by owning. All who can work must work in order to earn the right to enjoy the products of labour. Socialism can be introduced only by a socialist electorate, and the present owners, as a class, cannot be expected to yield their rights until they must. The Labour Party does not condemn the system of living by owning, at best it only proposes to limit the rate of profit. It is not committed to socialism, is not composed of socialists, does not seek election on a socialist programme, and, therefore, whatever the will of those elected, they will be impotent to advance the cause of socialism. Its attempts to patch up an obsolescent system of society will fail, and end in its own undoing. It cannot give the workers that comfort and security which alone can end their discontent, without attacking the foundations of capitalist society. Those who set their leaders the impossible task of solving the insoluble contradictions of capitalism will themselves be responsible for the inevitable disillusionment and betrayal. The issue lies in the hands of the workers. We appeal to your intelligence, confident that soon or late, the brutal pressure of economic forces will compel consideration and acceptance of our case—the case for socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Capital Levy. (1924)

From the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ramsay MacDonald Supports Our Case.

In previous issues we have dealt with the Labour Party’s scheme for a levy on Capital to pay off part of the war debt. It was explained why the levy is merely a matter for the consideration of the capitalist class, who have to decide on purely financial grounds whether the levy is advisable in principle, and secondly whether it would be wise to institute it so long after the war and in a period of depression. In the main they decided against it, because, apart from mere prejudice, they were of the opinion that the problems of the capitalist system were not pressing enough to warrant such a difficult measure. Moreover, that section of the capitalists which stands to gain most from it, the financiers, were unable or unwilling to come out vigorously in its support at an election. It was, therefore, from a vote-catching point of view, probably a mistake for the Labour Party, to make it their main plank. But for that they would have received the valuable support of the section of the Conservative Party which centres round the Observer. These people believe that two things are needed to maintain Britain in her world position, and to safeguard the dominance at home of the ruling class.

These are industrial reconstruction to regain and extend our foreign markets; and an advanced programme of social reforms to increase the efficiency and stifle the discontent of the workers.

But the Conservative Observer was strongly against the levy on account of the undoubted disturbance it would cause (serious even if only temporary) in the British financial world.

  We are perhaps nearer to them on international questions than to the older parties! If Labour had confined itself to a drastic programme of practical reconstruction—for electric power, transport, and the general development of the resources of the country—we would have been disposed to lend it a hand. (Observer, 25th November, 1923.)

The leaders of the Labour Party were, of course, not blind to the political situation, but, unfortunately for them, it was too near the date of the election (December 6th) to do anything very effective. Mr. Snowden had only a week or so earlier tried to find a way out by proclaiming that while the levy was good, the time was not quite so opportune, and that the proper moment was just after the war. And then, on Saturday, November 24th, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald went considerably further, and in fact admitted explicitly what we have always said : that the levy was a device to stabilise the capitalist system. He was making a last-hour endeavour to overcome the hostility of the industrial capitalists who could see in the levy only the certain danger that they would be put still more at the mercy of the banks. These are MacDonald’s words in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester :—

  Referring to the Capital Levy, Mr MacDonald said he found it a most popular topic. It was not a special Labour proposal. Some people imagined they wanted to use it as a malign or magical leverage for the complete change of society. If he were a Capitalist and opposed to Socialism, he would support the capital levy. . . .  He supported the capital levy, not as a Labour man but as a Scotsman. (Observer, 25th November, 1923.)

Those who have followed MacDonald’s career will be impressed by the frequency with which his Scotch nationality has overwhelmed his socialist principles.

During the same week he spoke at Northampton and at Bristol, and showed again how little the levy had to do with the workers.

  The Capital Levy proposal did not come from the Labour Party in the first instance. It came from business men, economists, university professors, and others, and the Labour Putty had not taken it up until they had enquired in to it.
  When the Labour Party had educated the people, it [the Capital Levy] would become popular and would be applied by other parties. (New Age. 29th November.)

It is, I think, quite plain that if the levy did mean helping the workers at the expense of those who exploit them it would not have come "from business men, university professors and others," nor would it ever become popular with the "other parties.”

But the Labour Party’s chances of getting the Astor millions behind it in the election, were doomed to disappointment for the reasons I have mentioned above. The Observer had already decided upon its attitude. There was, however, an amusing sequel. While it was all very well for MacDonald to make such a speech disclosing the levy’s real object, it would have been decidedly unwise to print it in the Daily Herald, where it would be read by the militant trade unionists who only fight for the Labour Party because they believe that it means to take really drastic action against the employing class.

Accordingly, we find that although the speech is reported in the Daily Herald of November 27th, and the same amount of space is given to it as in the previous day’s Observer, the remarks about the levy are left out

By a curious coincidence the same issue of the Herald contains an indignant letter from a worshipper of MacDonald, complaining that the British Broadcasting Company does not broadcast his speeches!

The Editor of the Herald was no doubt privately thanking God that the B.B.C., doesn’t; and hoping that they never will.

Edgar Hardcastle

By The Way. (1924)

The By The Way column from the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another of our wise rulers has been giving us the benefit of his profound intellect ; speaking at Bradford, Sir Eric Geddes said (Daily News, 7/7/23) :

  “Trade cycles are very undesirable . . . they are probably due to the natural and to some extent commendable tendency of sales departments to overestimate future demand.”

Which means of course, that trade cycles are due to—eh ! trade cycles. No doubt Eric, they are undesirable, for they interrupt the smooth working of the profit producing process, and play havoc among the smaller capitalists, but they are not the only undesirable things in a world of trade and profit. War, poverty, prostitution, and disease, are also noxious conditions generated in that world. But what happens that demand should suddenly cease? Have the masses a plentitude of the things they require? Let us see if there is an explanation. Lancashire produces cotton goods, and at one time had practically the monopoly of the world trade; for years her products represented more than a quarter of the total British exports. But other countries, including France, China and Japan, entered into competition, becoming to us lost customers and new competitors. Furthermore, we now export up-to-date textile machinery to these very countries. In 1913 the total exports of this class of machinery were valued at a little over eight million pounds. In 1922 they had risen to .£25,000,000 (quoted from News of the World, 23/9/23). What does this mean? It means relatively shrinking markets, with fiercer competition in those markets, not only for cotton goods, but for nearly every other industry, industries in which these countries now engage. An enormous quantity of products produced in an ever shortening period of time, which neither the unlimited luxury of our masters and their hangers-on can consume, nor the meagre wages of the workers buy; wages representing in value but a small part of the wealth they have produced—not for their use, but for sale or exchange to realise the capitalists' profit. Failure to effect this sale, which to-day comes between production and the use of wealth, brings about a stoppage in production, known as an industrial crisis, with its consequent anarchy and chaos. Only then, when they cannot sell their goods, and the crisis is upon them, do the manufacturers become aware of their overestimated demand. Under Socialism, with production for use, sale would be abolished, thus allowing the uninterrupted and full satisfaction of social needs through cooperative organisation, instead of our present chaotic scramble. It is a striking confirmation of the Socialist exposition of trade cycles, that the gradually increasing competition for markets, dating from the first crisis of 1825, has been accompanied by shortening periods of years between the recurring crises, until to-day, international competition, accompanied by monopoly and deliberately restricted output, has resulted in one prolonged depression, that after three years shows no signs of abatement. The fiercer the competition grows, the greater the need for sections of the capitalists to secure and retain markets. Hence the cause of modern war.

The Daily News, commenting' upon Sir Eric’s observations, despairingly wails :—

   "There is surely a middle course between sanctioning monopoly and tolerating anarchy.”

Alas! a barren hope, for there is but one course, and it is for the workers to take it. It is to end capitalism, with its absurd contradiction, super abundance, and want, coexistent, and to establish a community of interests—Socialism.

Mac.

Cooking the Books: Trump and anti-socialism (2019)

The Cooking the Books column from the March 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Here, in the United States,’ President Trump declared in his State of the Union message to Congress on 5 February, ‘we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence – and not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.’

The United States was founded on capitalism and so involved government coercion, domination and control from the start. The American ‘war of independence’ was a classic bourgeois revolution in which a class of rich merchants, landowners and slaveholders mobilised enough popular support to set up an independent capitalist state on the east coast of North America. A state is a coercive institution and, when controlled by a capitalist class, is used to dominate and control the subordinate working class, as it has been throughout American history.

When it came to imposing controls on individual capitalist activity in the overall or long-term interest of the capitalist class as a whole, however, it has been a different story. Individual capitalists, defended by their ideologues, resented this and were able to minimise it due to the relative weakness of the US central state compared with its European counterparts.

Without ideological leftovers from feudalism such as honour and duty, American capitalists could devote themselves exclusively to profit-seeking and money-making, idealised as ‘rugged individualism’ and ‘free enterprise’. As far as they have been concerned, the ‘liberty’ and ‘independence’ that Trump spoke about has been their liberty to pursue profits and capital accumulation unhindered by state interference, with attempts by the government to restrict their activities in the general capitalist interest being denounced as ‘socialism’ and later ‘communism’ and, more ridiculously, ‘Marxism’. Hence Trump’s rhetoric.

Even so, the US state has intervened to curb individual capitalist excesses – to save them from themselves – as with trust-busting before WW1 and, then, in the 1930s with Roosevelt’s New Deal. In fact, before WW1, genuine socialist and Marxist ideas did circulate amongst a section of the American working class, as a rich body of literature bears witness to. After WW1, however, these were swamped by Bolshevik ideas from backward Russia and working class understanding regressed. After WW2 ‘anti-communism’ ruled supreme.

Now, especially since the Crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed, more and more people, in particular young people, are no longer afraid of the word ‘socialism’. There is even one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives who openly call themselves ‘socialists’. It is this that has alarmed Trump (or that he feigned to be so as to take a dig at the Democrats). But he has no need to worry as they are merely reformist Social Democrats who are no threat to US capitalism. They may want to rein in the activities of individual capitalists that are harming the long-term interests of the US capitalist class, as for instance over carbon dioxide emissions, but they don’t want to get rid of capitalism as a system.

We don’t want to be too churlish about the revival of interest in the word ‘socialist’ not being an interest in genuine socialism in the sense of a society based on common ownership and democratic control with production directly to satisfy people’s needs. The very fact ‘socialism’ is no longer a dirty word means that real socialism can be discussed too, bringing closer the day when what used to be the United States of America becomes a part of the world socialist commonwealth.

50 Years Ago: The Catholic Church and the Pill (2019)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mussolini’s massacre of the Abyssinians, Hitler’s systematic murder of the European Jews, the American slaughter of Vietnamese—none of these atrocities, or others like them, caused more than mild rumblings in the Roman Catholic Church—and yet Catholics were deeply involved in all three. But the use of ‘the pill’ has caused a series of explosions which threaten to blow it apart at its rotten seams. The contrast would be laughable if it were not so tragic. The Pope’s ruling on oral contraceptives has caused more Catholics to question the authority of their church than any other event this century. It has called forth more jokes than the Profumo affair. And the jokes and arguments have arisen because people are struggling to understand and digest a seemingly absurd situation. For thousands of Catholics it was a shock situation, because the pill seemed to offer the answer to all the objections that the church had raised to mechanical or chemical contraceptives. Many of them were already using the pill in expectation that the Pope would bless it, and there was a powerful lobby of bishops and influential lay Catholics urging the Vatican to take this decision. When finally, after long delay, and against the majority advice of his own Commission, Pope Paul’s encyclical forbade its use by Catholics, the reaction by Catholics and non-Catholics alike was close to incredulity.

That was seven months ago. Many non-Catholics have already forgotten it—or at least they would have done if it had not been for the way Catholics are still reacting. For many, particularly in countries like Holland, France and Britain, the resentment and disappointment have led to a continuing series of minor rebellions on other issues such as the celibacy of priests, the virginity of Mary, and the dominance of Rome. It is plain now that the Vatican must prepare for many years of dissent and controversy.

(Socialist Standard, March 1969)

Editorial: Lethal Might Before Needs (2019)

Editorial from the March 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

As the calamity of Brexit continues to engulf British capitalism, its representatives and supporters indulge in all manner of fantasies and delusions. We are assured that once the UK leaves the EU, the rest of the world would be falling over themselves to negotiate trade deals with it. Now we are told that the UK can again become a great global military power as it was in the good old days of the British Empire.

As Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, put it in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute on 11th February , ‘Brexit has brought us to a great moment in our history. A moment when we must strengthen our global presence, enhance our lethality and increase our mass.’  However, this speech was not well received in certain quarters. His boss, Theresa May, was none too pleased with his plans to send an aircraft carrier to the Pacific, a move that the Chinese leaders  would interpret as being provocative, as she hoped to establish closer economic ties with Chinese capitalism. Provoking other countries militarily is generally not seen as the best way to form advantageous trading relations with them. Indeed the Chinese leaders were so incensed by this, they cancelled a proposed visit to Beijing that Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, had intended to make with the hope of forging trade deals with them.

It is also ironic that Williamson proposed to take ‘action to oppose those who flout international law’ when the UK government has done that on several occasions.

However, the speech was more than posturing by a Churchill wannabe trying to promote his career. When he said the Western powers  must be prepared to ‘use hard power to support our interests’, he was not just laying bare the current real tensions between Russia and China on one side and the Western Powers on the other, but was  also revealing the essential nature of capitalism  as a system whereby nation states need to compete with each other over global markets and that for this purpose vital trade routes and sources of raw materials need to be safeguarded. Thus they need to be constantly armed to the teeth and prepared for war. As too often when all else fails, war inevitably breaks out.

Perhaps the Labour Party in its response called out Williamson for ramping up the pro-war rhetoric? No, actually, Nia Griffith, the Shadow Defence Secretary, took the government to task for running down the armed forces over the years as part of their cost-cutting programme. The Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Jamie Stone, also made a similar criticism that the armed forces had been ‘hollowed out’.

It must be borne in mind that this speech was made at a time when there have been cutbacks in welfare and local services — more people using foodbanks and local libraries closing. Therefore, what Williamson has also shown is that the priority of the capitalist state must be to advance the interests of its capitalist minority, even at the risk of war, over the needs of the working class majority.

Rear View: A frightful hobgoblin is stalking US colleges and universities (2016)

The Rear View Column from the March 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

A frightful hobgoblin is stalking US colleges and universities

‘The Communist Manifesto is ranked among the top three most popular assigned readings in American college and university classes, according to the Open Syllabus Project (OSP). Karl Marx himself is the most assigned economist in higher education courses … One of the reasons Marx and Engels’s pamphlet may be so popular nearly 170 years after its publication is that it can be used to study a wide variety of subjects, including history, economics, social theory, and politics. It is also arguably the most influential work of the twentieth century, inspiring several uprisings, a number of communist revolutions, and the formation of both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China among other governments’ (inquistr.com, 1 February). Supporters of the status quo can relax: the spectre haunting colleges is not that of communism but, at worst, social democracy, as espoused by Bernie Sanders. Marx and Engels, by contrast, wanted something rather different: ‘in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’ (Communist Manifesto, 1848). Nothing like this exists, or has existed. The old lie about Russia being socialist or communist (Marx and Engels used the terms interchangeably) – and later, China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc – was identified remarkably early: in the August 1918 edition of this very journal.

Workers of the word wake up!

1865: ‘Instead of the conservative motto, A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, Abolition of the wage system’ (Marx, Value, Price, and Profit).

1928: ‘Earning a wage is a prison occupation’ (Wages, DH Lawrence).

1965: Workers still ‘don’t realise that they can abolish the wages system’ (Socialist Standard).

2016: ‘Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to gradually increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour is supported by two-thirds of New Yorkers, according to a new Siena College poll’ (syracuse.com, 1 February).

Vice-president Marx?

‘Some Americans seem to be disconnected with historical reality, as a number of Hillary Clinton supporters signed a mock petition to approve 19th century socialist philosopher Karl Marx as her choice for vice-president if she’s elected president’ (rt.com, 2 February). Socialists do not agree with everything Marx said, even less actions carried out in his name or that of socialism/communism by groups or states –which would have him repeating in his grave the declaration ‘one thing’s for sure – I’m not a Marxist! – but starting with a clean slate, without misconceptions, can be viewed in a positive light. Emancipation à la Marx is ‘the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority’, without leaders, presidents –vice or otherwise.

Danger! Capitalism at work

Residents of Flint, a city in the US state of Michigan, have suffered greatly of late: cost-cutting has resulted in drinking water containing toxic levels of lead whilst clean water goes to Nestle. Legionnaires’ Disease is on the rise as is poverty. Flint also has a per capita violent crime rate seven times higher than the national average. Investigations are underway, but some members of our class, in a refreshing display of unity and concern, have already taken action: ‘more than 300 union plumbers from all over Michigan flooded Flint to install free filters for residents … Local plumbers with United Association Local 370 in Flint have been going door-to-door making sure that faucets are filter-ready since October … And last weekend, they got a boost from hundreds of union volunteers’ (huffingtonpost.com, 2 February). Sadly, local action is not enough as across America 535,000 children ages 1 through 5 suffer lead poisoning, by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, and, of course, this ‘problem’ exists worldwide.

Cultural poison

Lead poisoning such as that of water in Flint or from paint and petrol is an old ‘problem’ of modern capitalism which will end along with many others when a worldwide majority of us act to bring about socialism. The end of pre-history will also see the yoke of many barbaric cultural practices lifted, such as that of female genital mutilation which, according to a new study, ‘at least 200 million people in 30 countries have experienced ‘ (time.com, 5 February). This particular tradition of long dead generations is a nightmare for its living victims. Other poisonous cultural relics include forced marriage, child brides, non-evidence based medicine, cock and dog fighting.

Dublin, Easter 1916: What We Said At The Time (2016)

From the March 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

A grave armed revolt in Dublin against English rule is raging at the time of writing. It is a revolt doomed from the outset, both because of the futility of its narrow nationalist aims, and the utter hopelessness of such a revolt against the mighty organised force of the political State. It is, apart from the fact that Socialism alone is worth fighting for, yet another illustration (if such were needed) that the organised Socialist conquest of the political power of the State is the only way, and that mere mob violence plays into the hands of the oppressor and strengthens the gyves that fetter us. Such a revolt, however, is the natural result of centuries of alien oppression, which has forced the ideas of Irishmen into nationalist channels and blinded them to its futility. And it is at the same time a fitting commentary on the pervid declarations of the British champions of “honour” and “righteousness” that “they” are fighting, above all, for the “rights of small nationalities”. (Editorial, May 1916)

The capitalist class – national and international – being in possession of the wealth stolen from the workers, compete with each other for the control of the world’s markets. This capitalist class, split into warring factions, are continually embroiled in trouble over the disposal of the wealth on the markets, but they present a solid front to the workers whenever the latter get out of hand in the endeavour to better their conditions of life. We have just witnessed in Ireland an example, where, as a result of an incorrect conception of their position in society, thousands of working men and women flocked into the Sinn Fein movement, only to be butchered by their oppressors in control of the armed forces of the State.
It is true that the Irish workers have a fearful struggle to live, like the rest of their class the world over. But an anti-social movement like theirs, with “Ireland for Irishmen” for its slogan, was doomed to failure from the start. We, the working men and women who form the Socialist Party of Great Britain, sympathise with our fellow workers in Ireland in their struggle against the hideously squalid conditions that prevail among them, but must record our hostility to any movement that is not based upon the class struggle. (The Prize-Fighter’s Evidence, July 1916)

We have heard much in times past on the subject of German atrocities, but the revelations vouchsafed to us in connection with the Dublin revolution leaves the question, a very debatable one as to whether the ruling class here are any better than elsewhere. The shooting of Sheehy Skeffington and two other journalists affords an illustration of the point. The details are rather significant, particularly the second shooting of Skeffington, when it is borne in mind that the officer who gave the order is declared insane. The reports of the court-martial to be found in the columns of the “Daily Chronicle” for June 7th and 8th are highly interesting. (By the Way, July 1916)

The latest blunder of the Irish working class is in the support given to the Sinn Fein movement, which seeks to establish a republic, with the examples of France and the United States before them proving conclusively the futility of such an experiment to abate their ever-growing poverty. The form of government makes no difference to the workers. Government implies subjects and under the capitalist system of society the actual government machinery, Parliament, councils and judiciary, etc., are representative of the capitalist class – the necessary machinery for ruling a subject class composed of wage-slaves. (….)
It is a false notion of the Sinn Feiners and Nationalists that the Irish workers must struggle for national independence before they can tackle the problem of poverty. But the working class everywhere is under one capitalist government or another. To split territories, set up new governments, or to re-establish old ones will not help them nor even simplify the problem. Their only hope lies in the speedy establishment of Socialism. They must join hands with the workers of the world, and make common cause against the ruling class. They must make ready use of the last war – the war of the classes, in which classes will be abolished and a real equality established on the basis of “common ownership and democratic control of all the means of life.” (The Irish Question in History, August 1916.)

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 [of imposing conscription on Ireland] scarcely worth the candle (…)
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. (Conscription Continued, November 1916)

50 Years Ago: The Election – What is at Stake? (2016)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

On March 31st the electorate will once again go to the polls and perform the act which Socialists consider is of crucial importance to the way in which society is organised ― they will vote. Like other elections in the past, this one will generate its own groundless optimism. Once again, the illusion will be fostered that here is a fresh opportunity at last to solve the problems which have been a burden for so long. In spite of the enduring failure of all varieties of political parties to overcome such problems as war, poverty and the general chaos that is a constant feature of Capitalism, the Labour and Tory parties will go blandly into this election as if the experiences of the past had never occurred.

Once again, there will be the cheap traffic in promises. Once again, there will be the contrived differences between parties who are united in their defence of Capitalism. Once again, there will be the complete failure to face up to the realities of life in 1966. Once again, the politics of personalities, gimmickry and opportunism will take precedence over a serious understanding of the difficulties besetting society.

The records of both the Labour and Tory parties make a mockery of their claim to be the instruments of social improvement. The past policies of both these parties are an indictment which no amount of hollow phrase-mongering can overcome. For all their talk of progress and modernisation, their ideas and actions are imprisoned by the limitations of the status quo ― that is ― Capitalist society.

What is at stake in this election? What is it that the electorate by voting Labour, Tory or Liberal will endorse?

Whatever spurious disagreements will engage the Heaths and the Wilsons during this election, in fact they have a great deal in common. Socialists talk about the means of production and by this we mean all the instruments and technical know-how that man has developed for the purpose of producing wealth, from hand tools to nuclear power stations. All reformist politicians agree that these means of production should continue to be monopolised by a small privileged section of the population.

(From Socialist Standard, March 1966)

Rear View: Peaceful New Year? (2019)

The Rear View Column from the February 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

Peaceful New Year?

2019 got off to an unexpectedly candid start with US Strategic Command – ‘Peace is our Profession’! – tweeting ‘#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball . . . if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger’. The nuclear-armed Command later recanted: ‘Our previous NYE tweet was in poor taste & does not reflect our values. We apologize. We are dedicated to the security of America & allies’ (@US_Stratcom, 1 January). The video clip accompanying the original tweet prompted Caitlin Johnstone to comment: ‘The only way you could possibly encapsulate the US military’s values . . . more perfectly than cramming it full of footage of $2,000,000,000 warplanes cruising around dropping $3,500,000 GBU-57 bombs would be to also show the human bodies they land on being ripped to pieces. Inflicting death and destruction using unfathomably expensive machinery is the US military’s whole job. Of course, it reflects their values’ (ahtribne.com, 2 January).

Class war

‘In the first three days of 2019 top bosses will have earned more than the typical worker will earn all year, according to a report. The average pay of a FTSE 100 chief executive is £1,020 an hour, research from the High Pay Centre and HR industry body the CIPD has found. By “Fat Cat Friday” bosses will have earned more than the typical annual UK salary of £29,574, the report said’ (bbc.com, 4 January). Kautsky saw such capitalists as anachronistic by the late nineteenth century: ‘But however necessary were the capitalist system and the conditions which produced it, they are no longer so. The functions of the capitalist class devolve ever more upon paid employees. The large majority of the capitalists have now nothing to do but consume what others produce. The capitalist today is as superfluous a human being as the feudal lord had become a hundred years ago’ (The Class Struggle, 1888).

‘There never was a good war or a bad peace’

Writing a century earlier Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers who paved the way for American capitalism, wrote: ‘What vast additions to the conveniences and comforts of living might mankind have acquired, if the money spent in wars had been employed in works of public utility. What an extension of agriculture even to the tops of our mountains; what rivers rendered navigable, or joined by canals; what bridges, aqueducts, new roads and other public works, edifices and improvements, rendering England a complete paradise, might not have been obtained by spending those millions in doing good which in the last war have been spent in doing mischief! In bringing misery into thousands of families, and destroying the lives of so many thousands of working people who might have performed the useful labor’ (Letter to Josiah Quincy, 11 September 1783). Indeed.

Piecemeal

Worldstatesmen.org lists 40 major wars since 1700, including WWI, the war to end all wars. Just five years after that mass murder ended, War Resisters League was founded by Jessie Wallace Hughan with a focus on ending armed conflict. ‘Today’s WRL is zeroing in on underlying causes of military tension—including economic inequality, unequal access to resources, imperialism, and racism’ (popularesistance.org, 25 October). How many such groups have come and gone? Innumerable peace treaties, pious resolutions, prayers, demonstrations have been written, passed, uttered, forgotten and staged since the dawn of capitalism. Nuclear weapons remain and cluster bombs are making a comeback. In addition to weapons of mass destruction, capitalism produces poverty, insecurity, disease, and all the vicious things that stem from those, and it gives rise to the wars for which governments are constantly preparing.

World without war

‘The increasing intensity of competition for economic markets must lead to armed conflict unless an economic settlement is found. This, however, is hardly to be hoped for. Talk about peace in a world armed to the teeth is utterly futile’ (W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia during WWI, News Chronicle, 25 July 1936). Time and time again the socialist has demonstrated that war stems from capitalist struggles for markets, trade routes, sources of raw materials, and places of strategic importance. The 99 percent based in the UK and US face the same problems as members of our class existing elsewhere. Workers have no country. If anybody can really delude themselves into believing piecemeal measures will bring everlasting peace worldwide, their gullibility can know no bounds. We have a job to do, in this century, the establishment of socialism, and while workers are pursuing reform rather than revolution, they are falling down on their historically appointed task.

Pathfinders: The Far Side (2019)

The Pathfinders Column from the February 2019 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month saw a lot of coverage of China’s ‘far-side’ moon landing, which in a technical first gave us close-up views of what’s possibly the most boring landscape in the solar system. While various scientific objectives were advanced by pundits to justify this extravagant operation, some of them even possibly valid, nobody was in any doubt about the real reason. The Chinese state did it just to show off. It would of course be churlish to suggest they could have spent the money on something more useful, such as helping the estimated 30 million Chinese living below the poverty line. Shame though that they didn’t plant their probe in the Sea of Tranquillity right next to the Apollo 11 lander, just to prove the Americans really went there in 1969, which might finally shut up the Moon Hoax conspiracy nuts. Indeed that’s exactly what the head of Russia’s space agency proposed to do recently ‘to verify whether they’ve been there or not’ (Independent, 24 November). Not that this really would shut up the conspiracy bores anyway. They would just claim that the Russians had faked their trip too.

There is in the contemplation of certain technological feats a strange sense of detachment from Earthly realities. Instead of ‘how?’ you find yourself asking ‘why?’ Take the annual CES technology show recently displaying the latest in allegedly must-have gadgets in Las Vegas. Who for instance is ever likely to need an indestructible notepad that works underwater, a digital plank of wood, a robot pet or one that draws doodles on your walls, a skin printer that covers up facial lines, an automated laundry folder the size of a wardrobe, an advent calendar that defeats ‘smell fatigue’, a walking car, or a light sabre you can really hit people with? It all makes bendy phones and wall-size TVs seem positively conservative. No wonder one visitor expressed his feelings thus: ‘I feel my sanity draining away’ (BBC Online, 11 January). In a socialist society that’s solved the most pressing social issues already, such as hunger and homelessness, you might certainly argue that there’s a place for weird and wacky inventions. Nobody wants to be a killjoy, after all. But there are certainly bigger priorities right now. Instead of inventing things that people don’t need, didn’t ask for and mostly can’t afford anyway, why don’t the tech boffins think about what people really do need?

Well the short answer is that invention in capitalism isn’t driven by necessity so much as buying power. The nerds are trying to produce things that people who already have too much stuff and money will be willing to spend that money on. So the rich are targeted with ever more techno-tat while the poor remain ignored. As for the long answer, well technology won’t give us what we need anyway, because what we really need is a change in society and the abolition of class inequality, and you can’t knock that up in a laboratory or a garden shed.

One controversy at CES was the banning of an award-winning innovation, which was a women’s robotic sex toy. Quite why this was banned was unclear. The organisers claimed it was ‘inappropriate’ although they didn’t see anything inappropriate about the Virtual Reality Porn room next door to the expo, which saw over a thousand visitors on the very first day. Many of the visitors described the experience as ‘awesome’, or words to that effect, and appeared to appreciate it far more than the debut appearance of the creepy AI sex robot that swivels its head, blinks its eyes and talks as if it has had its jaw wired. While the CES organisers contend with an ongoing image of male bias and prejudice, the idea of virtual reality porn suggests a further inspiring notion: virtual reality socialism. Maybe in the absence of a real global revolution for common ownership we could invite people to put on a VR headset and ‘see’ socialism in action. A friend’s comment in response to this idea was ‘You mean you’d put on the headset and all the beggars and rough sleepers would disappear off the streets?’ Er, yeah, we guess so, among other things, although in that case you’d better watch where you put your feet.

Nature 3/10 Must Try Harder

Contrary to what creationists seem to think, if evolution was really driven by a conscious designer, that designer would get the sack for negligence and incompetence. No engineer – much less an omnipotent being – would design the mammalian eye with blind spots, or send the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve on a long and pointless route from the brain all the way down its neck and around the heart before looping back up to the larynx. Similarly, why design plant photosynthesis to be only 2 or 3 percent energy efficient, when we can already do better than that with today’s photovoltaic cells? Well now a team has figured out how to tweak plant chemistry to increase its energy conversion rate, and first results have shown a 40 percent increase in crop biomass (New Scientist, 12 January). Now that’s what we call useful technology, although there is bound to be a backlash from anti-GM protestors who will insist that what is ‘natural’ is good and what is artificial is therefore bad. The fears of such protestors have not been borne out by experience over the decades GM has been used in America, China and South-East Asia. The world has not after all been overrun by invincible killer GM weeds or new killer pests. If socialism were established tomorrow and food production needed to be ramped up quickly, GM technology continues to look like a good bet.

Paddy Shannon