From the June 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard
Readers and sympathisers in New York are invited to communicate with the Socialist Educational Society at 557, Amboy Street, Brooklyn, New York.
Saturday, May 7, 2022
Does capitalism reward inventive genius? (1927)
The recent celebrations held in Lancashire to commemorate the memory of Samuel Crompton, a Bolton weaver and inventor, who died 100 years ago, call to mind a question often asked of the Socialist. How about the inventor under Socialism?
Ironical as it may seem, it is such inquiry that throws a lurid light upon the treatment that Capitalism has meted out to genius and ability. When this is understood, the position of all under Socialism will present no difficulty. We do not claim that exceptional ability can exist apart from the social conditions which give it birth. We propose to show that it is those who can exploit such ability to-day who reap the reward which the labour of others makes possible. Without the discoveries in the remote past of such now apparently simple things as the wheel, the lever, the ratchet, all the machinery of to-day would be unthinkable. Without the skill and dexterity of the workers, past and present, all the inventive genius ever born would have remained sterile. The cotton industry of to-day is one to which a number of fundamental inventions have been applied during the last century. Their application, with its operatives, has increased its productivity far beyond the effective demands of the world’s markets, but under the present system these operatives live in poverty and suffer years of short-time working through their very productivity. What insanity ! And what of those who did so much to make such output possible. One of these was John Kay, inventor of the “Fly Shuttle,” one of the most important inventions made toward the improvement of the loom. He was a man of whom it was said he invented “everything.” But his ideas were shamelessly stolen, and he died in poverty and obscurity somewhere in France. Another, James Hargreaves, saw a spinning wheel overturned which caused him to reflect upon certain improvements. He invented a machine as a result of which 20 to 30 spindles could be attended by one person. He died in Nottingham Workhouse. Richard Arkwright invented the water-frame. He appears to be one of the few who gained financial reward, yet, strange he is one about whom there are doubts as to his originality. He was assisted by Kay, who declared “the water-frame was no device of Arkwright’s,” but of another obscure individual. Whether this was true or not he, like others, had to contest his patent rights, and had at one time as many as nine law-suits going. Samuel Crompton invented the “mule,” a combination of Hargreaves spinning jenny and Arkwright’s water-frame, which, with Watts’ steam-engine revolutionised the cotton industry. He was a man of gentle and sensitive nature, made a violin, taught himself to play, and earned eighteen-pence a night in a Bolton theatre while working in his spare time on his invention. His machine was such that any mechanic who saw its finished condition could carry away its leading features ; crowds gathered round his house, and he was often afraid to go out lest it was stolen. A few months, he says,
“Reduced me to the cruel necessity of destroying my machine altogether, or giving it up to the public. To destroy it I could not think of, to give up that for which I had laboured so long was cruel. I had no patent, nor the means of purchasing one. In preference to destroying it I gave it to the public.” (National Dictionary of Biographies, Vol. XIII.)
For using his invention, 80 firms and independent manufacturers gave him a document possessing no legal validity, in which they agreed to pay him certain sums. As a result, he received the handsome reward of £67. Sir Robert Peel offered him a partnership, but he declined. Like so many of his type, he possessed little business acumen. Making fortunes possible for others, he reaped little or no pecuniary reward himself, and died in poverty, embittered with his experiences. A like fate has awaited in the past composers, artists, scientists, poets, writers, public performers, etc. It is the Capitalist reward and fitting tribute to a rotten system. Mankind will ever crave to approbation of his fellow-man. When, with the coming of Socialism, security and a full life is made possible for all, those who show exceptional ability will not need to give of their talent to serve the profit of the idle few, but will add to the comfort of the whole race —whose best interests will be identical with their own.
W. E. MacHaffie
The budget, taxes and prices. (1927)
In the April “Socialist Standard,” we showed briefly that the wages the Workers receive represent only the sum total of the prices of the things required to reproduce them. They cannot, because of that reason, contribute toward the growing expenditure of Capitalist bureaucracy. Though the Press always tells the worker that “he pays,” that is to conceal the truth that the great bulk of their product forms the subsequent wealth of their masters. The introduction of the Budget provided an opportunity to unearth this mouldy illusion. This is how it reads :—
“The broad truth remains that taxes on commodities tend as by a law of nature to be passed on to the consumers.” (Daily Chronicle, 18/4/27.)
Even upon the basis of their own reasoning, this would not be much consolation to our masters, who, by a Capitalist law of surplus value, consume nine-tenths of labour’s product. The statement is really made to hide this ugly fact by the veiled inference that the Workers loom large as consumers. The Budget, in money terms, has risen from 194 million in 1914 to 825 million in the present year, and if this expenditure can be shifted on to other shoulders by the wealth-owners, why the howls that went up from the “business” men of the day? In the “Westminster Gazette,” 5/4/27, bold headlines informed us that “Industry warns the Chancellor,” and of “Trade Leaders’ anger.” Sir Hugh Bell, director (on paper) of a dozen large concerns, bemoaned that :
“Really the country is bankrupt. It will not mend until public expenditure is lowered, taxes reduced and the costs of industry diminished ” —Ibid.
What becomes now of passing on taxes “as by a law of nature” ? But enough, this tripe is only for the workers. In “Business Organisation” (April), is an article by H. A. Silverman, B.A., addressed to “those who maintain high income-tax is prejudicial to the interests of industry and trade.” Those interested in profits get, of course, the facts, though it seems absurd to doubt that they don’t already know them. For those who are only the human raw material in producing those profits any old bunkum will do. Compare this with the statement quoted from the “Chronicle ” :
“… to increase the price is to risk a serious contraction of the market. . . Where competition prevails the seller will hesitate to add the equivalent of the tax to his prices lest his rivals should continue to charge the old price and so capture the market.”—Ibid.
Though prices of commodities are determined at the time of sale by supply and demand, they are ultimately governed by their value, and it is this value that the up-to-date Capitalist is always trying to reduce in order to lower his prices and thus increase his market. The falsity of the raising prices, argument is often a deadly weapon used against the workers when endeavouring to secure wage increases in order to maintain their standard of living. It is argued that such increases will be passed on to them as consumers. A little reflection will show that argument false, for why should the sellers of commodities wait upon such increases? Were they previously taking a lower price than they could have charged? The advice given to the traders supports our contention, they tell them,
“and this is the crux of the matter, that they are, as a rule, already charging the highest prices consistent with maximum profits . . . The case of the “benevolent Monopolist who has been deliberately and consciously charging less than his strict financial interests would permit, but under the stress of income tax is compelled to raise his prices, is so rare that we may disregard the effects on the general position.”— Ibid.
All the ups and downs of prices matter little to the workers in the long run. To understand the cause of poverty they must realise that it is as producers and not consumers that they are kept poor. It is to production that they must look if they would understand how the great thieving trick is done.
W. E. MacHaffie
Editorial: The Socialist View of the Trade Union Bill. (1927)
The Government, to please the “Die-hards” in the Conservative Party and the more unthinking of its supporters generally, has chosen this moment to produce a Bill containing very drastic amendments of the law as it affects the trade unions. The chief provision may be summarised as follows :—
Certain sympathetic strikes and strikes for non-trade union purposes are to be declared illegal. Picketing is to be restricted. Civil Servants and unions are to be cut off from contact with outside trade unions and political parties, and local authorities are to be forbidden to give preference to trade unionists in their employ. Lastly, the member of a union who wishes to contribute to the political fund must individually express his desire to do so, instead of, as now, the onus being on the non-contributor to express his unwillingness.
Whatever the future may bring forth, the immediate effect has been to stir the officials of the trade unions to a frenzy of denunciation. It is said by many, and believed, that this is a deliberate and calculated endeavour to smash trade unionism ; and to cripple the finances of the Labour Party. Believing this, the labour leaders who feel their jobs in danger will doubtless fight with more genuine enthusiasm than they displayed last year, for instance, in the attempted General Strike.
If, however, we consider the matter calmly, it is obvious that the Government’s action is not capable of so simple an explanation. Hotheads there may be in the Conservative ranks, but the big industrial and financial capitalists whose interests the Government represents, would never want trade unionism smashed, however much they may desire the removal of certain—for them —unpleasant features. The trade unions have become an integral part of the industrial and administrative machinery of Capitalism, and the fear that the proposed legislation may be pushed too far by the Tory “Diehards” has quickly induced many Conservative newspapers as well as the bulk of the Liberal press to issue a call for a less provocative attitude on the part of the Government. Both the “Daily News” (April 19th) and the Conservative “Observer” (April 17th) have particularly stressed the opposition which is being displayed to the Bill by influential employers. They can see something which should be obvious. The employing class and their Government are quite strong enough to deal with any strike, sectional or general, without altering the law. Legal changes will not increase the power of the ruling class, and will needlessly exasperate the workers. The number of strikes will not be diminished, and they may well be accompanied by an increased bitterness which may endanger Capitalist property. Votes will be lost to Conservative candidates, and the only important gains will be to the lawyers, who will net big fees by assisting the Courts to understand what the Bill means. The Bill will certainly hamper the trade unions in various ways, and will please some very vociferous Conservative supportersv but as the employers generally will probably, on balance, reap no advantage, it seems fairly certain that the Government has no intention of pushing it through as it stands, or alternatively, they do not intend to enforce it too rigidly when it has been passed. It is possible, as has been suggested, that the Bill’s purpose is to distract attention from the Government’s activities in China.
Of one thing we can be certain. If the workers ever feel moved again to come out on strike as in May last year, a mere declaration of the illegality of their action will not prevent them.
On the question of the Political Levy, our position has often been stated. As we oppose the Labour Party, and do not believe that it will or can solve the major problems of the working-class, we do not want to contribute to Political Funds to finance the Labour Party through the trade unions, and we are not perturbed at this proposed alteration in the law. Members of the Socialist Party habitually decline to contribute and will continue to do so. Furthermore, we are convinced that it would be better for the trade unions if they confined themselves to definitely trade union objects. They must necessarily accept to membership Liberals, Conservatives, Labour Party supporters and Socialists, as well as people with no political allegiance. They would increase their fighting strength if they dropped their support of one Party, and thus removed a cause of apathy and disloyalty among all those who have other or no political views. The trade unions would then become more effective in struggling against the effects of Capitalism. When the workers become Socialist, they will organise politically to establish Socialism. Neither for that purpose nor in the present task of resisting the encroachments of the employers is anything gained by supporting the Labour Party.
The fact that this Bill should have provoked a more bitter political fight than we have seen for years, is itself an adequate condemnation of the Labour Party’s policy. Had that party ever made Socialism the issue, it would have found itself engaged in an unceasing death-struggle with the parties defending Capitalism. Because its aim is not Socialism, but merely the reform of Capitalism, its fights have all been sham fights; it has been an honoured member of coalition governments (as during the War), and was placed in office in 1924 by Liberal votes to do specific pieces of Capitalist work. What a commentary on a political party that the first serious battle of its existence occurs because of an attack on the funds which pay the salaries and election expenses of its politicians !
Letter: Is the franchise a fraud? (1927)
Below we print a letter from a correspondent. The points contained in it are dealt with in our reply which follows. For convenience we have numbered the different sections of the letter.
To the Editorial Committee :
(1) While as yet my investigations are incomplete, I have established the fact that a person can exercise two Parliamentary votes provided that he or she possesses property in two divisions or holds a University degree or rank in the army or navy.
(2) Evidence points in the direction that the privilege goes beyond two votes, taking into consideration the multiplicity of the headings which qualify the capitalist class to exercise the vote and the many disqualifications that attend that of the working class, it is exceedingly doubtful if a candidate could be returned in any division to whom the Capitalist Class seriously objected. The object of this letter is to make the above public knowledge, as I have found that the common impression is that we have a franchise based upon one man one vote. The issue at stake vitally affects working class representation, and I am raising the question for discussion.
(3) I forgot to add that a person may vote by proxy, another revelation. These things make our Electoral system smell. Just imagine to yourself a large concern with multiple shops, etc., and the chance to put in votes for each one by proxy, provided that they are in separate divisions. A handful of Directors with their dependents, could exercise thousands of votes under such circumstances.
4) I know one local instance of a family in Leicester who qualify in the three Leicester divisions for twelve votes. Now I see the reason for the Redistribution Act of 1918.
F. L. Rimington
—————–
Our correspondent has raised again a matter which has been dealt with in these columns before. It is important, not because of any so-called “democratic principle” it involves, but because of its bearing on the question of the use of the vote in order to obtain working class political control. There are anomalies in the existing franchise, but we are not concerned with them as such. We are not busybodies nobly searching for “injustices” to put right. We want Socialism and are interested in the franchise as a means to that end. If the anomalies prevent or materially hinder the workers in gaining power, then it is necessary to expose them and work for their removal. If, on the other hand, the anomalies have no practical importance, it is contrary to working class interests to waste time on them and divert valuable energy which might more profitably be given to Socialist propaganda.
(1) Taking Mr. Rimington’s first paragraph, we find that his information is not quite correct. The position is that a man, 21 years of age, may be registered as a voter on three grounds (a) 6 months’ residence in a constituency whether as householder or lodger ; (b) 6 months’ occupation of business premises or land of which the annual value is not less than £10; (c) possession of a university degree.
A woman of 30 may be registered (a) by virtue of her husband’s qualification; or (b) by 6 months’ residence as a householder; or (c) by 6 months’ occupation of a shop or workroom or other business premises of not less than £5 annual value ; or (d) by possession of a university qualification.
In a general election a man may vote in two, but not more than two constituencies. If he is registered in more than two constituencies he may vote in all of them in bye-elections. A woman can only have two votes in a general election, if one of them is a university vote. In bye-elections she can vote wherever registered. Rank in the army or navy does not give two votes. It enables the voter, however, to vote once only by post as an “absent voter.”
(2) Mr. Rimington says that “evidence points in the direction that the privilege goes beyond two votes …” This is true only of bye-elections, as shown above. He speaks of the “many disqualifications that attend . . . the working class,” but does not specify these many disqualifications, or show their importance. As will be illustrated below, the overwhelming majority of the workers are, in fact, not disqualified from voting. His further surmise that a candidate could be prevented from being returned as a result of these “disqualifications” is incompatible with the facts. This also is dealt with below.
(3) Mr. Rimington evidently misunderstands the proxy vote. Only those persons may vote by proxy who (a) are already on the absent voters’ list and (b) make a statement in the prescribed form that they will be at sea or out of the United Kingdom at the time of the election. The proxy must be named in the statement. The provisions for the absent voter and for proxy voting enable seamen and other persons whose work compels them to be away from home, to register their votes. Mr. Rimington’s hypothesis of “the handful of directors and their dependents” is nonsense. The proxy would enable a director, if he had two votes, to use both of them in a general election, but, as he could vote twice in any event, the position is not changed by that special provision for absent voters.
(4) Mr. Rimington instances a family who qualify for 12 votes in the three Leicester divisions. Unfortunately he does not say how many members there are in the family, but, as I have already pointed out, each could only vote at most twice in a general election, and at most three times in the unlikely event of three successive bye-elections in the three divisions.
Let us now examine the actual figures and see what these anomalies amount to.
In 1921 the number of males of 21 and over in England and Wales was approximately 10,500,000, and the number of females of 30 and over was 9,500,000. (See statistical abstract of Board of Trade, 69th number, 1926. Page 244). This gives a total of roughly 20,000,000 persons entitled to qualify in respect of age. To obtain a similar figure for 1925 it is necessary to add l/40th, which represents the approximate estimated increase in population during the interval. (See Registrar General’s Statistical Review, 1925. Page 80.) The total for 1925 is then 20,500,000.
In 1925, the total number of voters registered in England and Wales, excluding university voters and voters with the business premises qualification, was 18,898,409. Thus we find that including inmates of prisons, lunatic asylums, workhouses, etc., and those persons omitted from the voters’ list, and those who fail to qualify for any other reason, only a little over 1,500,000 persons out of the 20,500,000 of qualifying age are not registered as voters. The bulk are women who fail to qualify as householders. This disposes of the greater part of Mr. Rimington’s case.
We next come to the question of university votes and business premises votes. The total of men registered for business premises qualification in 1925 was only 217,509 for the whole of England and Wales (Registrar General Statistical Review, Page 81), and the number of university voters, men and women, only 51,357.
Our correspondent mentioned the three Leicester Divisions. Out of a total for the three of 120,596 voters, there are only 1,995 men registered on the business premises qualification (Page 86).
We have thus shown that the anomalies are of quite negligible effect. Only in a handful of exceptional areas like the City of London, is the business premises vote considerable. (22,769 out of 43,891).
We now come to the much more important question of the distribution of votes between members of the capitalist class and the working class respectively.
The population of voting age amounts to 20,500,000. How many of these are members of the capitalist class? It is impossible to obtain any very precise estimate, but an approximate idea can be obtained in a slightly roundabout way.
In “Fabian Tract,” number 5 (13th Edition, 1926. Page 18), it is estimated that the proportion of the population with incomes over £250 per annum, together with their dependents, amounts to about 13 ⅓ per cent. of the whole population. (This estimate is adapted and brought up to date from that made by Chiozza Money in “Riches and Poverty.”)
It is true that below the £250 line are many shopkeepers and small property owners, but against these may be set many persons in the better paid technical and managerial positions, who earn more than £250, but are none the less members of the working class, in that they must sell their services to an employer and are wholly or mainly dependent on their earnings.
Let us further assume, in order to be on the safe side, that all members of the capitalist class of voting age are actually registered, and that all of the persons of voting age without votes are workers.
13⅓ per cent. of 20,500,000 gives us 2,730,000, add to 2,730,000 capitalist voters, 270,000 business premises and university votes. This gives us approximately 3,000,000 capitalist votes in England and Wales, out of the total of 19,167,275 on the voters’ list in 1925. We find then that there are more than 16,000,000 working class votes to 3,000,000 capitalist votes in England and Wales. We can afford to make ample allowance for any possible margin of error in the assumptions on which we have worked, and yet be certain that the working class have an overwhelming majority of the votes in this country. They are not prevented from registering their wishes by electoral anomalies. When they want Socialism they can vote for it. If at present defenders of capitalism are returned it is due only to the fact that the mass of the workers want capitalism and either vote for capitalist candidates or do not use their votes at all.
In these circumstances, there is no need to waste time on red-herrings like the demand for proportional representation, or the abolition of electoral anomalies. The work of getting Socialism is impeded only by the lack of Socialists, not by the existence of a handful of double votes.
It is interesting to notice in passing that the present Government has pledged itself to give the vote to women of 21 and to remove the chief barriers which at present debar many women over 30 from possessing votes. It is estimated that the proposed measure will add 5,000,000 women voters to the electoral register of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Note that the calculations given earlier in this article refer to England and Wales only.) Of these 5,000,000 it is stated that about 2,000,000 will be women of 30 and over at present unable to qualify. The great majority of the 5,000,000 will be members of the working class, although, of course, they may be expected, like their brothers and husbands, to vote for some form of capitalism.
Edgar Hardcastle
Letter: The Inflation Question again. (1927)
To the Editor, Socialist Standard.
Dear Sir,
Your reply to my letter on the money question, for which I thank you, has made clear that the differences which appear to mark off your school of thought on this subject from that of other Socialist parties, are more apparent than real.
For example, you accept credit-inflation as an incident of the war period.
You do not dispute that the period was an abnormal one.
Your indignation at the introduction by me, as you insist, of an “emphasis” in relation to the formula stated by you in the December issue, would indicate that you are less rigid in your adherence to a formula than I at first thought.
The real point of difference is, I think, to be found in the last paragraph of your reply. You state : “Gold was not permitted to function freely until the gold standard was restored in 1925.” That is misleading ; gold functioned freely on the open market from 1919, and it is on the open market only we can adequately measure the degree of credit-inflation by the depreciation of the circulating credit-units.
If credit is issued in excess of that justified by the goods produced at a given time, such goods assumed to be in direct contact with the newly-mined gold for exchange, then a state of inflation is made evident by the premium on gold.
If, however, gold is not permitted to measure itself against other commodities, at a time when metal is displaced by paper as legal tender, inflation and deflation become largely a matter of conjecture.
During the war period the Bank of England paid for the standard gold brought to it, by its notes, and at the rate of £3 17s. 9d. per ounce. That this price in paper did not give the gold magnates a value in commodities equivalent to that obtainable under conditions of normal barter, is obvious from the involuntary closing down of the less productive mines during that period.
That the currency-note was for the first time made inconvertible in 1925, is considered by you as “enormously important.” Would it not also convey to one the unimportance of its “convertibility” previous to that year?
It is of no importance whatever to those anxious to delve below the superficialities involved in the best methods likely to ensure the smooth working of the gold standard, and which were embodied in the “Gold Standard Act, 1925.”
The question of convertibility or inconvertibility of paper into coin is entirely beside the point and absolutely useless as far as a correct understanding of this problem is concerned. The thing that does matter is the right for any individual to do what he likes with a coin in his possession. That he shall have the right to melt or even to deface or diminish, provided the intent is not present of passing it on as current coin. Deny a person the right of laying a coin at “rest,” i.e., of assuming its commodity form as a piece of metal, and you have denied him the possession of a measure of value. The principal function of money as a universal equivalent is missing, and from that moment a quantitative determination of prices will be possible, and the qualitative determination of the price-level will be relegated to the background.
I am, Sir, Yours faithfully,
William Nicholls.
Reply to W. Nicholls.
In his previous letter, Mr. Nicholls admitted, in fact, that our contention with reference to the so-called “inflation” of the currency during and since the war, was correct.
His letter above deals with what are really side issues that leave the main point alone. When he talks of our difference from “other Socialist parties,” his remark is meaningless, as there are no “other” Socialist parties in this country. Neither were we “indignant” at his introduction of an emphasis and adding it to our statement. We suggested a reason for his action, and Mr. Nicholls does not deny this suggestion.
He now states that the real point of difference is over the “free functioning” of gold on the open market. Mr. Nicholls claims that this began from 1919. This statement has no bearing on the question unless Mr. Nicholls means to say that the “open market” included this country. Mr. Nicholls is careful not to say this because, as he knows, there was no “open market” for gold here till 1925. The alteration of the arrangements made between the British Empire Gold Magnates and the British Government during the war, did not affect matters here, as gold could not be exported from this country without a special permit. Hence, as stated in our previous reply, the “unpegging” of the exchange with America in 1919 did not touch the essentials of the question we were discussing.
In his paragraph beginning “If credit is issued in excess,” etc., Mr. Nicholls talks of goods being in direct contact “with the newly-mined gold.” Why “newly-mined”? As a matter of fact all the gold available will be considered in this relation — not merely the “newly-mined.”
He also asks whether our view that making the currency note inconvertible in 1925 was enormously important, would not convey the impression that its previous convertibility was unimportant. Exactly the contrary. The “Plebs” editor considered it so important that he tried to deny the existence of this convertibility till faced with the Act of Parliament.
To say that “convertibility or inconvertibility of paper into coin is entirely beside the point” is to ignore both economic theory and historical experience. The abstract “right” of a person to “do as he likes with his own” has always to be countered by the “rights” of others. The great disadvantages caused by tampering with the currency — as clipping, sweating, etc. — caused the passing of the Coinage Acts to protect the general body of traders from the depredations of the swindlers.
Like all other laws, these Acts necessarily restricted somebody’s “rights,” but the advantages are found, in practice, to overwhelmingly outweigh the theoretical points of abstract “rights” thereby lost.
It may be said in passing that a coin can be treated as a piece of metal in the exchange relation, without defacing or tampering with it; and as a matter of fact this is done daily in gold transactions where coins are taken at their weight instead of by tale.
As stated before, all these questions are beside the question at issue. That question was whether the high prices prevailing during and after the war were due to inflation of the currency. We denied this excuse of the “Plebs,” the Labour Party and other misleaders of the workers, and pointed out the facts. Neither they nor Mr. Nicholls have been able to show any error in our case.
Editorial Committee
Friday, May 6, 2022
Letters: Psychic Science. (1927)
44, Maryland Road, W.9.
Dear Comrade,
Regarding your reply to my letter in the January number of your paper, I would say that it seems to me that Materialists neglect one branch of science, namely psychic science, taking no account of phenomena, which are really well-established, seeing that they are vouched for by large numbers of well-known people, some of whom were formerly materialists themselves.
Yours fraternally,
F. Baldwin.
95 Northview Road, N.8.
I am at a loss to understand your attitude to psychic research and spiritism when, having investigated the phenomena, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Crookes, Sir William Barrett, Professor Flammarion, and many other eminent scientific men, do not say that the claims of spiritualists are baseless, but rather the contrary. It is illogical to argue that, because spiritualism is a stumbling block in the way of working-class economic enlightenment, therefore spiritualism is untrue. It does not follow at all.
Yours,
Geo. T. Foster.
Our Reply to Above Letters:
Both Florence Baldwin and Mr. Foster raise the same point in their letters, what one may call the “Great Man” point. Florence Baldwin talks of “psychic” science, but instead of telling where this “science” can be found, or the facts upon which it is based, she merely says the phenomena “are really well-established, seeing that they are vouched for by large numbers of well-known people.” But the facts of a science only need demonstrating, not “vouching for” by well-known people It is the merest truism to point out that “well-known people” have vouched for and defended fraud, superstition, crime and cruelty throughout the ages. Chattel slavery, feudal serfdom, the horrors of the Inquisition, the foul cruelties of the early days of Capitalism, particularly to women and children, and the terrible treatment meted out to native races today, have all been defended and supported and vouched for as the “proper way” by well-known people from Royalty to parsons. The case that has only this for support must be in a specially bad way, and it reflects little credit upon the intellectual abilities of those who can find nothing else for their argument.
Mr. Foster, in addition to the above rotten creed, misquotes our reply. We did not say that because spiritism is a stumbling-block—therefore it is untrue. If Mr. Foster will take the trouble to read our reply he will see that we said exactly the reverse—namely—that because the claim of spiritists were proved to be untrue, it should be cleared out of the way. We may also correct Mr. Foster when he suggests that Professor Flammarion supports the claims of spiritists. He does not. The most he will grant is that some mediums possess abnormal, but quite human, powers. No one disputes this as a general proposition. Several “well-known people” possess abnormal power. Cinquevalli possessed extraordinarily abnormal powers, far greater than any medium ever displayed in that line. Houdini was another instance. So—till quite lately, at any rate—did Jack Dempsey. But none of these persons claimed that their powers were due to spirits.” And, as pointed out in the answer to Isabel Kingsley, the “evidence” that men like Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir William Crookes consider convincing would not impose on a child. The medium that “convinced” Sir William Crookes was twice exposed as a fraud in his presence, but he had not the honesty, or moral courage, to admit his mistake.
Jack Fitzgerald
Agriculture and the workers. (1927)
“Agriculture,” by H. B. Pointing and Emile Burns. Labour Research Department, 162, Buckingham Palace Road. Price 6d. 64 pages.
This booklet in the L.R.D. Labour and Capital series, is a really valuable contribution to the discussion of the so-called agricultural problem from the workers’ viewpoint. It is noteworthy because the writers have seen that the agricultural industry in this country is a Capitalist industry, existing in and dominated by the Capitalist system in general. This ought to be obvious to every observer, but one could read the bulk of the book and pamphlet literature on the subject, including that written by professed Socialists, without ever discovering that essential fact. One has only to consider the numerous back-to-the-land schemes which hover round the labour movement to realise the harm done by the persistence of the belief that agriculture is in a marked way different from other Capitalist industries. Almost every day we hear of some Labour “thinker” suggesting that the unemployment problem can be solved by promoting the growth of more food in this country instead of importing it, and thus increasing the number of workers employed on the land. Why does no one ever suggest putting the unemployed into the mines or the engineering shops? Why do we hear perpetual moans because some less fertile land is going out of cultivation. Yet no one ever protests because inefficient mines cease to be worked. At bottom, it is due, as we have stated, not to any fundamental difference between the economic laws governing agriculture and mining—there is no difference.
The confusion arises from the habit of sentimentalising about mother earth instead of applying the Marxian analysis and the test of working-class interests. This booklet should be a useful corrective to these old bad habits of thought.
It analyses agricultural production and the distribution of profits, with ample and up-to-date figures from the 1921 population census and the 1925 Agricultural Census (published in March, 1927).
Chapter II., dealing with productivity, shows that between 1871 and 1901, although the number of persons engaged in agriculture declined by 30 per cent., production fell at most 10 per cent., and probably not at all. In other words, the output per worker has been and is increasing. On page 14 it is bluntly stated that before the war the productivity of world agriculture “was rising less rapidly than that of world trade.” The phrasing is bad, but presumably it is intended to mean that agricultural productivity was falling behind industrial productivity. If so, it is a statement which calls for evidence. Its importance lies in the backing it gives for the Neo-Malthusian fallacy that food supplies are declining relatively to population. If it were true, we would expect to find agricultural prices rising in relation to industrial prices, and as was clearly demonstrated by Sir W. Beveridge in his address to the British Association in 1923 and in his subsequent controversy with Mr. Keynes, this is not the fact.
Chapter IV. deals with wages, and Chapter V. with trade unions in agriculture.
Chapter VI. on “The Future of Agriculture” effectively disposes of the smallholdings myth. A table on page 54 shows how much greater is the output per man on large farms than on small. It is gratifying to know that although all three parties favour small-holdings they are not holding their own.
There is one somewhat serious criticism of the book, but it probably touches the L.R.D. rather than the writers. The agricultural programmes of the three parties are given, but the fact is not honestly faced that not one of the three proposes any fundamental change in the position of the working-class employed in agriculture. The workers are exploited because, being propertyless, they must seek employment as wage-earners. The Labour Party urges Nationalisation of the land, and a “living wage” (whatever that may be), but it does not propose the common ownership of the means of production, either industrial or agricultural. As the writers themselves point out (page 52),
“Security of tenure for the farmer, compensation for improvements, reduced taxation, co-operative marketing, stability of prices, cheap State credit, and all the other medicines offered to the capitalist groups in agriculture—all of these are advantages for one or other of the capitalist groups, but may mean little to the workers. . . In fact, these proposed measures, if successfully applied, would strengthen the position of the farmers, and give them greater advantages in their struggle against the workers.”
They go on to show that Nationalisation will not improve and may actually worsen the position of the land-workers, but they avoid applying to the Labour Party programme the condemnation it deserves. This happens, no doubt, because the L.R.D. dare not risk offending its non-Socialist Labour Party supporters. The L.R.D.’s discretion in this matter is understandable, but the usefulness of their publications is greatly diminished by the subordination of independent criticism to the propaganda needs of the Labour Party or the Co-operative Society, or any other propagandist body.
However, we can confidently urge every student of Socialism to get this booklet if he wants (as he should) to understand the structure and tendencies of British agriculture.
The authoritative statistics alone are worth the price. There is a bad misprint on the last line of page 52—”farmer” should obviously read “former.”
Edgar Hardcastle
The Anti-Socialist Union runs away again. (1927)
Party News from the May 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard
Years before the war the Anti-Socialist Union decided that it would not debate with the Socialist Party, although it was willing enough to meet the numerous bodies which misrepresented the Socialist case, because they were afraid to accept the full implications of Socialism. The excuse of the A.S.U. was that we had printed a scurrilous article on the occasion of the coronation of George V. They declared that such vile matter ought never to have seen the light of day and they would not countenance it even to the extent of opposing us in debate. Yet the declared object of the A.S.U. was precisely this work of opposing Socialist propaganda ! The Anti-Socialist Union promptly demonstrated its sincerity by circulating this same scurrilous article among potential givers of donations, in order to scare them into paying up. We pointed out then, that the A.S.U. was a fraud. It obtained money under false pretences, since it was unwilling to carry out its nominal purpose of fighting Socialism. It has now changed its name to “The Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union,” but it has not grown either more honest or more courageous.
On March 28th, a Mr. Norman, speaking on Tower Hill, expressed to one of our members his willingness to debate, and invited us to approach the Union to make the necessary arrangements. Their reply and our subsequent letter are printed on facing page. No further comment is needed.
—————-
The Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union,
58 and 60, Victoria Street,
Westminster, S.W.I.
April 5th, 1927.
Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 1st inst., I have to say that it will be impossible for us to arrange for Mr. Norman to take part in a debate with you, owing to the very large number of meetings which have been arranged for him in different parts of the country.
I may say, however, that Mr. Norman has debated on many occasions, during the past winter, with prominent Socialists, under the auspices of this organization.
Yours faithfully,
The Director, Public Speaking Class.
—————-
Socialist Party of Great Britain.
8th April, 1927.
The Director of Public Speaking Classes,
The Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union, 58, Victoria Street, S.W.I.
Dear Sir,
I learn with surprise that Mr. Norman will not be able to debate with the Socialist Party. It would seem reasonable to suppose that Mr. Norman was aware of the large number of meetings he is engaged to address at the time of accepting the offer to debate with us; why then did he accept it ?
The fact that Mr. Norman has already debated with representatives of other Parties hardly seems to have any bearing on his expressed willingness and your refusal to debate with a representative of the Socialist Party.
Yours fraternally,
Acting General Secretary.
Notice ! ! (1927)
Notice from the May 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard
The continuation of the Plechanoff articles on "The Monistic Conception of History" is still postponed owing to the translator's pressure of work. We expect to be able to continue the articles shortly.
Letter: Materialism v. Spiritism. (1927)
To the Editor, the Socialist Standard.
Dear Comrade,
It is only the great importance of the subject under discussion that induces me to continue a controversy in which my opponent, conscious of the weakness of his case, stoops to personal abuse. I will leave it to your readers to judge which of us, your reviewer or myself, has been guilty of “evasions, assumptions and misrepresentations.”
The Society for Psychical Research was NOT “founded by Spiritists,” and it has never hesitated to expose fraudulent mediumship when it met with it. If J. Fitzgerald were up-to-date in his knowledge of its methods, he would know that nowadays mediums never dictate the conditions of the séances arranged by the Society. It is simply laughable to read my opponent’s description of its publications as “chatter, drivel, and ramblings,” when we know that the Society number amongst its members scientists of the standing of Madame Curie, Dr. Hans Driesch and Professor Julian Huxley. So much for the first and second points raised by your reviewer.
I now come to points three and four. Years before Einstein the Theory of Relativity was anticipated in occult writings, which called in question the then accepted dogmas of Space and Time, and, moreover, regarded Matter itself as a “derived” instead of a fundamental concept. Occultism also declared that there had existed very early civilisations resembling our own (see Mrs. Besant’s Man—Whence, Whither?) and later, archaeologists laid bare the traces of the Minoan civilisation with its modern system of sanitation. Occult science has always taught the underlying unity of all created things—one spirit but many forms. Now orthodox biology surveys the entire zoological series, and sees the psyche increasing in powers and capabilities as we rise higher and higher in the scale. But the chief discovery of occultism is the supernormal powers of man, and modern science has by hundreds of recorded laboratory experiments by first-class men, incontrovertibly proved that the phenomena due to these powers are true occurrences in nature. I refer readers to the writings of Osty, Tischner, Richet, Geley, and Schrenk-Notzing, now obtainable at Boot’s Libraries. These things are not matters of opinion, but of hard fact. The objection that since they were known to primitive man they must be “cleared out of the way,” has no validity whatever. On the contrary, the antiquity and wide prevalence of the ideas constitute a claim on the attention of the unprejudiced. We are here in the presence of faculties or senses, more or less latent, but at the same time universally distributed, which form part of the general heritage of mankind.
In conclusion, I brand as a wicked lie your reviewer’s assertion that my pamphlet contains “pages of abuse of Marx.” I challenge him to quote ONE WORD of the kind from my pamphlet. Marx’s view of the universe was that generally held in his day. His true glory, obscured by his followers, is that his idea of society should be so much in line with the idealistic reactions of today against materialist science.
Yours fraternally,
Isabel Kingsley
Reply:
After accusing Marx, among other things, of intellectual dishonesty, and myself of ignorance of the subject I was criticising, Isabel Kingsley now claims that her opponent, ”conscious of the weakness of his case, stoops to personal abuse ” !
The readers will certainly be able to judge of the “evasions, assumptions and misrepresentations” as the numerous quotations from her pamphlet given in the review published in the October, 1926, Socialist Standard, prove the truth of my charges. Isabel Kingsley has not made the slightest attempt in any of her letters to meet those charges. The only shadow of a reply is the hysterical shriek that it is “a wicked lie” to say that she abuses Marx, and her challenge to me to quote “ONE WORD” of the kind from her pamphlet. Why does she not read the instances given in the October, 1926 issue? There it was pointed out that on page 13 of her pamphlet she says :—
“Never was there a less scientific mind than Marx nor a less scientific book than Capital .”
Perhaps, with her peculiar mentality, Isabel Kingsley thinks it is praise. This point is further emphasised on the same page, when she says that Marx’s theory of value “is not a scientific deduction; it is an ideal of social ethics, a moral ideal” ; while it is extended on page 15, when we are told :— ” Marx’s method in Capital is the method of the moralist. He first postulates on absolute morality.” This is only one of the falsifications of Marx given in the pamphlet. Worse than these is the direct charge of dishonesty levelled against Marx on the same page where Isabel Kingsley says:—
“No doubt Marx realised that the law of determinism, if valid, would tend to paralyse all revolutionary action by making us condone the brutalities of capitalism on the ground that those responsible for them wire automata moved by some impersonal force called history.”
Thus, having first twisted Marx’s theory from the “Materialist Conception of History” into “Economic Determinism,” our authoress then suggests that Marx disbelieved his own theory ! But perhaps the greatest, if more subtle, instance of abuse, as pointed out in the review of the pamphlet, is Isabel Kingsley’s deliberate refusal to quote a single word from Marx on his theory, but to substitute a travesty from a Capitalist publication in its place. After perpetrating such a dirty trick, she does well to protest against a truthful description of her attitude as abuse.
On her defence of Spiritism, the reader will notice that although this is her third letter on the subject, she makes no attempt to bring forward any evidence to support her case. As in her pamphlet, all that is done is to make various assertions without a single fact to back them up. Her only reply to my statement that the Society for Psychical Research was founded by Spiritists is to say—in capital letters—that it was NOT so founded.
This retort raises an interesting—and instructive—point. Does Isabel Kingsley know who founded the S.P.R? If she does not, and the extremely superficial character of her writings gives some support to such a view, then why wildly deny my statement? If she does know, then why did she not quote their names and so smash my argument? The answer to this is easy. Here are the names of the four men who founded the S.P.R. : Frederick W. H. Myers, Henry Sidgwick, Edmund Gurney and William Barrett—all well-known leading Spiritists.
When our authoress says “that nowadays mediums never dictate the conditions of the séances,” she is guilty of another deliberate mis-statement. Eusapia Palladino refused to allow a Committee of the S.P.R. to uncover her feet during a test séance (F. Podmore, Newer Spiritualism, page 117).
“Eva C.,” one of Conan Doyle’s “white angels,” insisted upon her clothing being left in a certain manner to suit herself. The Thomas brothers—other of Conan Doyle’s loudly advertised marvels from Wales—refused to allow Stuart Cumberland to be present at the séance they gave in London. Unfortunately for the mediums, the latter gentleman was allowed to assist in arranging the preliminaries with the result that nothing more wonderful happened than a pair of braces being thrown upon a sitter’s knees—a terrible disappointment to those who thought there “must be something in it,” because of Conan Doyle’s extravagant claims. But the over-riding fact that shows the falsity of Isabel Kingsley’s statement is that all séances are held in shaded or red light or else in total darkness. When it is remembered that conjuring tricks far more marvellous than anything ever performed at a séance, are given every week-night on music halls in brilliant light, and yet completely mystify the audiences, one may judge the value of the mediums’ tricks.
The only attempt at a reply to my description of the contents of the 40 volumes of proceedings is to give the names of three scientists who are members of the S.P.R. But what does Isabel Kingsley mean by this? Does she wish to suggest that these scientists are responsible for the contents of these volumes? If not, then why give their names? If she does suggest it, the only answer is that she is again guilty of deliberate falsification. The bulk of the contents of these volumes are descriptions of séances, and so-called supernormal occurrences. In many instances they read like conversations in Bedlam, or conferences among persons in an advanced state of intoxication. Has my opponent read these volumes herself? If so, what has she to say to the statement of one of the S.P.R.’s own committees, when they remark :—
” Further we would warn future readers that the details of the evidence are in many cases not only dull, but of a trivial and even ludicrous kind.” ‘ (Proceedings S.P.R., Vol. 1, page 118.)
One can certainly agree with this after reading the stuff. This trick of quoting names is, of course, an old one with defenders of Spiritism. When, however, one turns to “evidence” that is supposed to have convinced many of these scientists the reader is amazed at the credulity that can swallow such drivel. One example is the séance held by Sir Oliver Lodge with Mrs. Thompson at the former’s house in Birmingham. The conversation of the supposed F. W. H. Myers that Lodge says “was in fact as convincing as anything that could be imagined ” (Survival of Man, p. 290) was too stupid to impose upon a school-child in an inquiring frame of mind.
I asked for one scientific discovery that confirms occultism or Spiritism. In her third paragraph of about 250 words, she has to admit that she does not know of one, for the whole paragraph consists of vague assertions without a single fact or quotation to support them.
The history of Spiritism is one long record of fraud and swindling. Practically every prominent medium—whether paid or unpaid—has been proven a fraud, while not a single “miracle” has been produced when the conditions have been at all stringent. In other words, while fraud has been proven as rampant throughout the Spiritist movement, not a single claim of anything “supernatural” has ever been established.
Jack Fitzgerald
Letter: Mussolini and Parliament. (1927)
To Editorial Committee:
I read with interest your reply to Kett re “Mussolini and Parliament.”
You state that Mussolini was returned to Parliament with a majority of his supporters. Surely, comrades, you have made a grave mistake, as he gained power through the now well-known “March on Rome.” His majority came at an election after he had changed the election laws of Italy and crushed the organisations which opposed him. He cares little for majorities as he frankly states, as long as his own followers are well armed in support of the present system. However, it does prove the foolishness of supporting leaders, as at the time of the coup d’etat in Italy, his party was more republican, and its home policy different to the present one ; it has changed to suit him and the Capitalist interests.
Although I keenly support the need for a majority of Socialists in Parliament (if possible), yet I see the danger of such methods being used here in this country. The boss class may “close down” the House if it suits their purpose. This may come, as in Italy, through confusion in the working-class organisations.
Yours fraternally,
S. W.
Reply:
The “grave mistake” lies with “S.W.” Had he read the description of the so-called “March on Rome” at the time it took place, he would know that the half-armed rabble that followed Mussolini on that occasion bore no comparison with the better-armed and more highly-drilled body Mussolini commands to-day. When this rabble reached Rome, they were not allowed to enter the city, as the regular soldiers denied them admittance. The commanding officer of these soldiers who offered to clear Mussolini’s crowd out of the place in an hour, found to his disagreeable surprise that not only was he not to drive them out, but received orders to let them in. It suited the Capitalist government to let Mussolini take charge of affairs owing to the strained conditions of the time. It still suits them to let him continue in charge.
When the Capitalists no longer need this opera-bouffe hero as a “smoke-screen” between themselves and the Italian workers, Mussolini will be kicked out like an office-boy.
“S.W.” is also wrong about the election laws. These were altered after Mussolini had been elected by a majority of those voting. Conditions here are different from those existing in Italy, and the “closing down” of the House of Parliament, apart from a special temporary crisis, a much more difficult matter.
Editorial Committee
The Cost of Living Index. (1927)
A correspondent writes to point out that the cost of living index figure issued by the Ministry of Labour is inaccurate, “yet,” he says, “it is around that figure that Trade Union officials weave their settlements.” As he does not give details of his criticism of the accuracy of the figures, it is a little difficult to go into the question. It must, however, be conceded that the cost of living index figures can only be described as inaccurate if it can be shown that they fail to tell us what they claim to tell. No evidence has ever been brought to show that they are “faked,” and it is not the least bit likely that they are. The claim made for them is that they “are designed to measure the average increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-war standard of living of the working classes …. The effect is to obtain approximately the average percentage increase in the cost of maintaining the pre-war standard of living in working-class families” (Ministry of Labour Gazette, February, 1921). Now it is exceedingly difficult to discover how closely the figures approximate to the real position. The Labour Party some years ago set up a commission of enquiry which satisfied itself that the index understates the real average increase in the cost of living of a working-class family.
While many statisticians take the view that the error is in the direction of overstatement. One difficulty is that many items of the present working-class budget were absent from the pre-war budget, and vice-versa. Again, the relative position of different sections of the working-class has changed; so-called “unskilled” workers are somewhat better off, and many “skilled” workers considerably worse off than in 1914. Also, it must be remembered that the figure is an average figure. The figure is not invalidated by showing that in certain areas or for certain groups it is too high or too low. Since it is based upon the assumption that workers live in “controlled” houses, it will fail to give a true picture of those workers who have to pay higher “decontrolled” rents.
The real point in the criticism centres round the use that is made of the Index Figure in wage agreements, and here, we think, our correspondent in ascribing to the Index Figure something which is, in fact, due to the political backwardness of the workers, and to the hard facts of the capitalist system. It is not the cost of living; figures which compel the engineer, or the miner, to accept wages which leave them poorer than in 1914. It is the ability of the employers to get all the labour they require without paying more for it than they do. If they needed considerably more miners or engineers, they would doubtless have to pay higher wages to get them, Index Figures notwithstanding. On the other hand, some groups of workers are getting a higher real wage than in 1914, due to changes in the demand for their particular kind of skill. In the long run these discrepancies tend to disappear, but, in the meantime, Index Figures are not the dominant factor in securing or preventing wage increases or decreases. It is true that most workers and their leaders, are saturated with capitalist economic theories, which teach them that they should be content to accept the existing or the prewar distribution of wealth without demur, and they accordingly come to look upon the cost of living Index as a kind of divine indication of what wages ought to be, but this is the fault not of the figures, but of the workers who use them so. If they accepted the Socialist view that receivers of unearned incomes are parasites, they would not allow innocent figures or ignorant Trade Union officials to stand between them and the overthrow of the capitalist system.
Editorial Committee
Editorial: Is the Living Wage sound? (1927)
“The Living Wage” is a pamphlet written by H. N. Brailsford, J. A. Hobson, A. Creech Jones and E. F. Wise, and published by the I.L.P. It takes the form of a report submitted to the National Administrative Council of that party.
The opening chapter is entitled “The place of Wages in a Labour Strategy,” and is chiefly concerned with an attempt to strike a balance between the industrialists, on the one hand, and the political socialists, so-called, on the other. The latter, we are told, hope to tackle the problem of a living-wage, gradually, by nationalising, as occasion offers, the more essential industries one after the other.
“The New Leader,” 21.1.1927, page 7, devotes a column to proving that nationalised industries are run on business lines equal to anything under private enterprise. Expenses are cut down to a minimum, both in the number of employees and the wages paid. It would appear, therefore, that the I.L.P. have sufficient evidence to prove that the workers under nationalised institutions are no better off than those under ordinary capitalist concerns. At any rate, the enquiry now going on into the question of wages and conditions of Post Office employees should cause them to hesitate before accepting nationalisation as a means to raise wages or improve conditions for the workers.
But the writers of this pamphlet do not base their ideas on facts. To them nationalisation stands for Socialism, and Socialism stands for State control of all industries. According to them the workers remain wage-workers, living by the sale of their labour-power, whatever changes may take place; consequently they say :
“That to nationalise important industries in conditions which resemble those which prevail to-day would be a disappointing and even perilous proceeding.” (p. 3.)
We can now see the necessity for “labour strategy,” industries must only be nationalised by a Labour Government, when the possibility of raising wages will gain for them additional political kudos. How futile, even, such a policy as this would be is shown by the writers themselves :
“The industry of coal-mining is overmanned, and is carrying to-day a burden of surplus labour of anything over 100,000 men. A national administration would have to make its choice. It might maintain the uneconomic pits, risk the consequences of over-production, and continue to carry the burden of this surplus labour. In that case, it would either pay low wages or require a subsidy. The other alternative before it would be to close down the uneconomic pits and turn a big body of men adrift.” (p. 4.)
Exactly ! A Labour administration, neither elected for, nor understanding Socialism, would have to face the same responsibilities as the present capitalist Government. They would have to ensure the normal working of the system, including the exploitation of the class they pretend to represent. They could not excuse themselves for extravagance in administration because they have always preached economy in this respect in the workers’ interests. To the industrialists the writers say :
“Labour when it sells itself as a commodity in the market must usually accept a price which varies according to its scarcity.” (p. 6.)
While this statement is incomplete and unscientific in itself it is, nevertheless, an admission that wages are not determined by “public opinion” or “ethical principles that have been generally accepted.” In the body of the pamphlet there is a good deal of absurdity along these lines. All that kind of sentimental nonsense vanishes before their grudging admission that :
“In the last resort it is on the organised refusal of men to work for less than a living wage that our hope of securing it lies.’ (p. 7.)
It will be seen from the quotation in reference to coal mines that the writers appear to be impressed with the idea that capitalists are confronted with grave difficulties in the business of making profits. Hence a large portion of the pamphlet is devoted to assisting them with advice on (1) the reorganisation of industry, and (2) how to create a market.
It is now generally accepted that the enormous increase of unemployment in recent years is due to the extended application of machinery and labour-saving devices and methods. Yet the writers specifically stipulate that reorganisation of industry and mass production is a necessary condition of higher wages. They ignore the fact that in order to pay higher wages numbers of workers must be dismissed. They admire American methods, especially Ford’s, and seriously advise British capitalists to follow suit. They use the following figures as evidence of American prosperity :
“Mr. Hoover, in the annual report of his department for 1925, has published an official analysis of American prices and wages. Taking 100 as the index of the year 1913, he shows that wholesale prices had risen in 1924 to 150, while wages had risen to 228.” (p. 48.)
To understand the significance of this quotation we must first of all recognise that the workers’ improvement does not commence until his wages have reached the 150 mark. Moreover, he must buy his necessaries at retail prices, which will be much higher. The difference in 1924 was, therefore, only 78 minus the difference between wholesale and retail prices. However, this difference applies to the average worker when lucky enough to be employed. No account whatever is taken of unemployment and its increase resulting from the reorganisation. When reckoning the workers’ share of the national income, the writers should have expressed it as a proportional fraction of the total and not as the average wage of those workers lucky enough to be fully employed.
The facts regarding the Ford methods and the relation of production to wages were dealt with in the S.S. for December, 1926, and need not be repeated here. These facts show conclusively that mass production everywhere returns far less in wages per unit of production, and that it depends upon progressively doing this for its success as a business concern.
The contention of the writers that the higher wages of mass production constitute a market, becomes a myth when we realise that the total wages bill is actually reduced by this method.
The writers, however, do not rely entirely on reorganisation to bring about their eldorado. They have two further reforms. First, “An enlightened credit policy,” and second, “family allowances.” The object of the first, we are told, is to stabilise prices and employment.
“At the first distant signs of a slump, it must be the duty of the bank slightly to expand the volume of credit and to lower its price; at the first distant signs of a boom, it will gently apply restrictive measures. Our assumption is that in this way the price level can be kept steady, and the general level of employment constant.”
Their object is clearly stated. It is to wipe out the fluctuations in trade ; to reduce trade and consequently production and employment to its mean level. But there is no more water in the sea when its surface is calm than when it is boisterous. Trade is not increased by restricting it when it is inclined to rise and encouraging it when it flags. The volume remains the same. It is only the fluctuations that have been wiped put.
The second reform is easily seen to be useless as a means to increase the purchasing power of the workers. Capitalists and capitalist governments understand business methods too well to be induced to pay for the same thing twice over. If they keep the children by increased taxation through the State machinery, wages can be reduced to the cost of keeping man and wife.
This is clearly shown in the pamphlet under review. A scheme drawn up by an Australian Federal Commission is instanced. The Commission estimated the weekly sum necessary for a family of 5 persons to be £5 16s. When it was shown by the Federal Statistician that such a sum would absorb all profits, the Commission reviewed their figures and suggested a wage of £4 for man and wife with an allowance of 12s. for each dependent child.
Here, then, is an actual case, quoted by the writers themselves, where a Commission evidently favourably inclined towards the workers, did exactly what the capitalist would be expected to do. Moreover, it is obvious that the writers have this result in mind all the time. They say :
“It is important to note that family allowances provide the only hopeful method of realising the ideal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as between women and men. There would, for example, be no reasonable objection to equal salaries for men and women teachers if the children of married teachers were provided for in this way.” (p. 26.)
In other words, the salaries of men teachers could be reduced to the level of women if they were relieved of the responsibility of keeping their children.
The net result of the three reforms : reorganisation of industry, stabilisation, and family allowances, so far as the workers are concerned, is a balance on the wrong side. Reorganisation increases unemployment, stabilisation does nothing, one way or the other, while family allowances merely reduce the employers’ wages costs.
But the futility of the reforms is nothing compared to the harm done to the workers by the publication of the work. Apart from the confusion it engenders, the real relations of capitalists and workers, the class antagonism, is glossed over and smothered. It puts on one side the opposing interests of the two classes and holds out the bait of a prosperous industry that will enrich capitalists and keep the workers fully employed.
It is an attempt to persuade the workers that it is possible so to reform the capitalist system that there will be no occasion to work for its abolition. Under mass production, stabilisation, and family allowances, the workers would find their interests identical with their masters’. Yet the writers of this work call themselves “Socialists.” If they have not written it with the deliberate intention of confusing the workers, they should begin at once to try and understand what Socialism means.
Efficiency and its economic results. (1927)
A problem ever present with the capitalist class is to find markets where they can profitably dispose of their commodities.
In this endeavour, they seize upon every opportunity that will enable them to undersell a competitor. Science is exploited in both industry and agriculture. Improved machinery is introduced, often before the old plant is worn out, and the workers are speeded up to keep time with the increasing pace of the new methods.
The geographical limits of the world, and the entrance of the one-time commercially backward customers as competitors in the world’s markets, makes this competition keener.
Trusts and combines are formed to secure control of raw materials and to remove competition between certain manufacturers, in order to compete more effectively with others.
The more intensive cultivation of the soil and the development of the gigantic powers of production necessary in order to produce cheaply, and by this means to secure markets, lands the capitalist class in a curious position. The markets they endeavour to extend by the aid of cheap products are contracted by the methods adopted to reduce the cost of these products.
For example, if a market will absorb the commodities produced in a year by a combine of manufacturers, and they, in competition with others, adopt new methods so that the goods which were produced in a year can now be produced in eight months then, if all other things remain the same as before, the demands of the market can now be met by eight months’ production which would mean four months’ unemployment for that group of manufacturers. Of course, the cheaper production may—though, not necessarily—be accompanied by lower prices. But unless the total of this fall in prices equal the total of the previous prices of four months’ production, it is clear that unemployment would be increased by approximately the difference between the two totals.
The growth in the applications of science and the general powers of production proceeds at a far faster rate than the growth in the capacity of the markets to absorb the products. Consequently an ever-growing army of unemployed has become a permanent feature of capitalist society.
But still the cry for greater efficiency goes on. Press and platform are used to deceive the worker into believing that this speeding-up is necessary in order that there should be sufficient produced, from which he can draw his miserable pittance. And they conceal the fact that production for profit is the cause of this mad scramble for speed, resulting in greater unemployment, misery and premature death of the wealth producers.
Well to the front of this lying mob, stand the leaders of the Labour Party, competing with each other to win applause from the social parasites with whom they glory to associate.
A recent example of this toadyism comes from J. R. Clynes. Speaking at the Textile Exhibition in Manchester, he said that:
“A sound doctrine for the worker, is to give honestly and fully a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.The best interests of the workers lie in the acceptance of the doctrine that unrestricted output with accepted humane terms of labour is unquestionably in the worker’s interest. Their chance of better conditions is greater under a state of abundance than it possibly could be under a state of scarcity. Scarcity is the intimate friend of the profiteer.”
By the use of the antiquated slogan of “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” Clynes gives a demonstration of the condition of his own mentality. Apparently he is not aware that the only condition upon which the workers can receive wages is by submitting to a process of exploitation, in which they are robbed of the greater portion of the wealth produced. To talk of “fair wages” is therefore absurd.
Equally misleading and absurd is the statement that unrestricted output is of benefit to the workers. The state of abundance this “unrestricted output” is supposed to create does not necessarily follow. Directly the demand for his commodities shows signs of falling off the employer slows up or stops production, which means short time or unemployment for the workers, and the more efficient the workers the more frequent and prolonged these periods become.
In Agriculture the control of supplies is not so easy. The individual farmer endeavours to get the most possible out of every acre he cultivates, and hopes that he alone win be cnrcessful. If an abundant crop is general the benefit that he would secure from a good harvest is lost owing to the resultant fall in prices.
The general success of the American cotton growers has landed them in difficulties.
“It is estimated that on cotton alone the loss on this season’s crop will be £80,000,000, and that thousands of farmers are practically in a state of bankruptcy, and are at the mercy of small banks.”—(Daily News, Oct. 9th, 1926.)
And in the same item of news we are told that :—
“The Government has arranged a loan of £6,000,000 to enable the cotton farmers to hold back cotton from the markets, and, by artificially reducing the supply, to increase prices.”
And further :—
“In addition to the plan for withholding the present crop and feeding it slowly into the market at inflated prices proposals are being made for limiting next year’s crop.One proposal is that next year’s crop shall be cut 25 per cent. by limiting sowing.”
Such are the benefits that flow to the workers from a state of abundance. Supplies are held back to increase prices, and the prospect of 25 per cent. less ground cultivated, means that approximately 25 per cent. of the people employed in cotton growing will be thrown out of work.
The capitalists will allow the workers to starve sooner than sacrifice their profit. Fish has been thrown back into the sea, and fruit left to rot in the orchards, because it did not pay to market them.
Only by the workers establishing a system of society in which the means of wealth production will be owned in common, and wealth produced for use and not for profit, can this paradoxical position of starvation in the midst of plenty end, and abundance become a means to general happiness.
E.L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)