“Germany will have to assume a liability, and put up security for the interest and the gradual amortisation of the debt. That security must take the form of a transfer of the mortgages. The Allies, in a proportion to be agreed among themselves, must become, instead of the German State, the universal mortgagee, with a lien on all German property, public and private, real and personal.”
“The proper plan will be for the Allies to become mortgagees in possession. In the case of the land and houses, they can either draw the rents or institute some system of purchase, enabling the occupants to buy back the holding by instalments. In the case or industries, they can put in receivers to carry on the business for their benefit, just as debenture holders do in the case of insolvent joint stock companies.”
“and no German shall be allowed to own any property, or to handle any money that he does not earn, from day to day, by the sweat of his brow.”
“But that work will not be punitive. It will be done under normal conditions, and for reasonable remuneration. The men engaged in it will be earning their living, in accordance with their capacities, as of old. They will no more be slaves than are other workmen in other countries.”
“The first charge on the businesses will naturally, and, indeed, necessarily, be the wages of the employees. They—the working classes of Germany— will suffer no detriment from the change. Whether they work for foreign or German capitalists, their position will be the same.”
“For whichever side wins they will suffer no detriment from the change Whether they work for foreign or “native” capitalists their position will be the same.”
Much has been written and said with regard to the question of British Prisoners of War and their treatment in Germany, but of late various items of news come to hand which tend to show that the “Ger-Hun” can be out-Hunned by the Brit-Hun. Witness the following:
“The Newhaven Guardians have declined to admit for treatment to the workhouse conscientious objectors working on the Newhaven to Seaford road improvement scheme who fall sick.”—”Star,” Sept. 23rd, 1916.
And, again, there is the report in the Press of a conscientious objector who met his death at Dyce, near Aberdeen, under the administration of the Military Service Act. Whilst the Local and the Appeal Tribunals disallowed his claim for exemption, after nearly concluding his sentence pronounced by court-martial, he was re-examined by the Central Tribunal and offered work of national importance—a reversal of the two previous decisions. He was eventually sent to Scotland and there contracted a chill, the result of leaky tents and damp soil, with no provision for drying wet clothes, from which he died.
Dr. Clifford describes this as:
“The latest of a long series of incidents demonstrating the injustice of the new conscription policy, and the fearful tyranny of our growing militarism.”
Further he adds :
“The fact is, we have been grossly deceived. Faith has not been kept with the people. With or without intending it, the Coalition Government has betrayed us. Parliament distinctly arranged that conscientious objectors should be safeguarded.”—”Daily Chronicle,” Sept. 9th, 1916.
A later announcement on this case states that a Deputation from the Home Office visited the camp and a “representative of the men stated afterwards that the Committee decided that the tents should be abolished and arrangements made with local farmers to accommodate the men in lofts. A building is to be erected to deal with cases of sickness.”—”Daily Sketch,” Sept. 20th, 1916.
When cases of neglect or ill-treatment of prisoners of war occur in Germany large headlines and long articles are necessary to point out the enormity of the offence, reference being made to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, etc., but when it is the Hun in our midst a short paragraph suffices. Such is our prostitute Press.
I well recollect how important, in the days of my youth, it was considered to be that my religious instruction should in no wise be neglected. And so it came to pass that at this period of our existence we used to read that “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof;” the meek “shall inherit the earth”; and many other such texts. But in due season one came to the conclusion that in the first quotation the printer had omitted the prefix “Land.” Verily, verily, I say unto you, hearken unto me and read you that which is good. For the last two years and two months we have had dinned into our ears a lot of talk about “our” country, but even during that period we have read of desirable plots of freehold land being bought and sold. An interesting case of how “our” country is disposed of from time to time may be gathered from the following :
“Mr. Harry Lauder has bought an estate of 14,000 acres, it was stated yesterday in Glasgow, on the east side of Loch Fyne, at Glenbranter, a place formerly linked with the name of the late Mr. David MacBrayne, Steamshipowner, Glasgow.”—”Reynolds’s,” Oct. 15th, 1916.
There’s war economy for you ! Save your money and lend it to your country, screech our masters and their hirelings to the workers, whose portion of the country is contained in a flower pot.
On another page of the same paper I notice that the question of war time economy was to be practised on the old people, whom our spiritual guides would describe as the Lord’s poor. It reads :
“The Walsall Guardians by a majority of one vote decided to substitute suet pudding and treacle for the Christmas plum puddings in the workhouse. Alderman Bull said the workhouse master expected to save £15 to £20. Mr. Carter, another member, said the action was contemptibly mean.”
It would indeed be interesting to learn whether these paragons of economy contemplate sitting down at the Christmas season to similar fare. Precept and practice are so vastly different, you know.
With a desire to try and get a further lease of life and to regain their hold over the masses the Church has inaugurated a National Mission of Repentance and Hope. Sky pilots from far and near are busily engaged telling us how the war is uniting high and low, rich and poor, in short, how it is attempting to bridge the chasm between classes. And that after the war capital and labour must cease fighting each other and work for each other’s good. The Bishop of London himself says: “If it is shown to us by the Spirit of God that we must alter the whole system I can promise we are ready to do it. If there is anything in our position, houses, incomes, in our motors, in anything we have then that thing has got to be scrapped.” Our well-paid bachelor Bishop might as a preliminary make a start by following his Lord and Master a little more closely. For I read that the “Son of Man hath not where to lay his head.” This 20th century disciple, however, is more fortunately placed than He who said : “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” But stay, the Bishop says “if it is shown to us ‘by the Spirit of God’ that we must alter the whole system . . . we are ready to do it.” Seeing the vast epoch that has elapsed since the statement with regard to taking up the cross was made, methinks it will be “some” time yet ere these gentlemen who have waxed fat on the cross will be able to discover “by the Spirit of God” whether they are to abandon pelf, place and power.
,
This Right Rev. Father in God, speaking at Victoria Park, made reference to a desire for a better state of morals in London, and said “we mean to have a . . . cleaner London for the boys when they come home from the trenches and the North Sea.” The pearl of greatest price is found in the following:
“It is the working-class daughter that I am trying to save by my campaign in West London. Why should they be at the mercy of the lusts of mankind ? The fault is largely in the home teaching.”
It would be more correct to say that they were at the mercy of the wealthy class in society. Has this shining light and supporter of capitalism never heard, or has he forgotten, the Queenie Gerald case with its sordid story of obtaining girls for wealthy patrons ? We have no recollection of the Bishop at that time speaking outside St. James’, Piccadilly, pointing the moral and adorning the tale of the cadet who wrote asking for a virgin and offering a respectable sum for the privilege. Yet, forsooth, he wants to save the working-class daughters. It will be within the recollection of many that when the defendant in this case was conveyed to the police station a large sum of money was found in her possession, also valuable jewellery, which went to show the nature of her patrons. The Bishop would be better employed in prosecuting his “purity” campaign in fashionable churches rather than in a public park in the East End ; and working-class parents might profitably consider the cause of, and remedy for prostitution.
I might in passing just note for the benefit of my clerical friends and others, who so often refer to the waywardness of mankind across the seas, that in a recent issue of a weekly capitalist paper there was an announcement to the following effect: “Nearly 500 cases, mostly divorce, will occupy the attention of the Judges, in the Probate and Divorce Division during the Michaelmas Sittings . . . Of this number 376 are undefended matrimonial suits.” Who said Socialism would break up the home life?
Reverting to the subject-matter of an article in last month’s issue of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD. The nonsensical statement attributed to Jaures, that,
“Without nations there could be no international”
One is not surprised to see that statement repeated by Dan Irving in the Burnley “Pioneer.” One fool makes many, and the time-servers of the master class who pose as Socialists, must indeed be conscious of their own fraudulent position, when reduced to such puerile phrases, in order to justify their support of capitalist anarchy.
“the German Socialists must wash the blood off their hands with tears of remorse, and even then they would have to take a back seat in international movements.”
“Mr. Poel (the employer) : Applicant is a married man, with children.Lieut.——(military representative). So he ought to be. Nowadays every man ought to have children, whether he is married or——I mean if he isn’t married he ought to be.”
Earth is sickAnd heaven is weary of the hollow wordsWhich states and kingdoms utter when they talkOf truth and justice.—Wordsworth.
There is only one way in which this wealth which is so necessary to human life can possibly be produced, and that is by work by man applying his labour-power to the manifold natural resources of his surroundings and adapting them to meet his needs by transforming them into objects of utility to him.
To-day only a section of the whole society apply their energy in this way, and this section is appropriately termed the working class. In the factories, the fields, the mines and the shipyards ; on the fishing boats, the merchant ships and the railways, the working class toils to pile up the vast quantity of wealth which the community uses and consumes. But, as every workman is aware, the workers do not possess the wealth thus produced by them. The workers in the factory do not own the boots they have made, nor yet the value in other goods which they represent. Neither are the products of labour owned by the society as a whole. The wealth produced by the working class to-day is turned over in the first place to either individuals or groups of individuals of another class in society distinct from the workers—the employing or capitalist class.
But the workers must needs continue to live if they are to continue to produce, and therefore wealth in a certain quantity must be allotted to them. This wealth which is returned to the worker—called wages—stands, however, in no direct relation to the quantity of wealth which he produces. Wages usually vary according to the supply of and demand for labourers, just as the price of butter is high when the demand for it outreaches the supply and is low when the supply exceeds the demand. And, moreover, this comparison reveals more than a mere accidental resemblance, for under present-day conditions the labour-power of the working man does take on the character of merchandise just like butter. The worker’s labouring energy is bought and sold to-day as a commodity, and the “labour” market is as commonly referred to to-day as is the cattle market. Wages, indeed, are the price of labour-power. What it costs to keep the workman up to the required standard of efficiency and to enable him to reproduce his kind in sufficient numbers, is the normal point about which the price variations caused by supply and demand fluctuate.
This explains how it is that, although the amount of wealth produced by the workers has progressed by leaps and bounds, and is continually increasing, their position, estimated by the quantity of wealth which they receive, does not materially improve. This is so because the amount of the workers’ wages is determined by circumstances which are quite different from those which fix the productiveness of their labour power.
The use of improved machinery in production, for example, increases the wealth-producing capacity of labour. But does this cause a corresponding increase in the wages of the worker ? Not at all. By a little elaboration, in fact, it can be shown that the opposite actually tends to occur. Perfected machinery renders less labour necessary to turn out the same or even a greater number of products in an equal time. Fewer workers are required and the superfluous ones are dispensed with, forming a more or less permanent body of unemployed. This increases the supply of labour-power relative to the demand, and tends to lower wages. By lessening the skill and dexterity required by the worker, machinery also enables unskilled labour to be employed which costs less to produce by eliminating special training, and is therefore cheaper. This also lowers wages, and the same effect follows from the fact that with machinery less strength is usually required and the cheaper labour of women and children can be introduced.
With these facts in mind we will not be surprised to find that despite the enormous and increasing body of wealth created as the process of production becomes ever more perfect, the wages of the working class, as estimated by their purchasing power, have since the beginning of the present century gradually declined. On the other hand the wealth remaining with the capitalists after the wages of the workers are deducted, and out of which they obtain their profits, shows a corresponding tendency to increase.
The capitalist, as such, takes no part in the production of wealth, yet he retains possession of the product of the worker’s labour. This he is enabled to do because he is the owner of the material means necessary to production—the factory, machinery, raw materials, etc. He owns the wealth produced as the result of his ownership and control of the means of its production. In the Middle Ages the craft worker also owned the tools and material of the productive process, and was able to appropriate the resulting product. But there is this immense difference between the economic status of the modern, capitalist owner and that of the handicraftsman of old : whereas the capitalist does not partake in the labour process himself, but reaps the return of the labour of others, the craftsman was a worker and himself used the means of production of which he was the owner. He therefore appropriated in normal cases the full value of the product of his own labour. As a consequence, in spite of the primitive tools and methods then in use, and of the small quantity of wealth which a given expenditure of labour yielded in comparison with that of to-day, the lot of the hand-worker was in many respects better than that of the modern wage-worker.
Prof. Thorold Rogers says of the artisan of the fifteenth century that he could supply his family with sufficient provisions to keep them throughout the year with what he earned in ten weeks.
To-day the working class, who form by far the greater part of the community, receive less than one-third of the total wealth produced, although none but themselves raise a hand or turn a wheel to help in its production. Over ten millions of the population of Great Britain live in a condition of perpetual poverty. This is certainly not because there is not enough wealth, for never before has it been so plentiful and so easily produced. The mighty mechanisms of modern production turn out goods a thousand times more quickly, and with a much smaller expenditure of labour-power than was possible in our fathers’ day.
This frightful poverty cannot, therefore, be due to limited production. The problem of producing wealth sufficient to supply the requirements of all in society has been solved. Therefore the material conditions necessary for the abolition of poverty already exist. Seeing that poverty is rampant, what are the conditions \which are wanting if the material ones are present ? The answer gives us the key to the poverty problem of to-day. It is the social conditions which would transform the existing giant means of production into agents for the elimination of economic poverty, which are the missing factors in modern society. The social conditions of to-day, based upon the commodity nature of labour-power and the private ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production and distribution result, as we have seen, in poverty for the workers and a superabundance of wealth for the idle capitalists, and must be superseded by other social conditions if poverty is to be abolished.
And what are the conditions which are necessary to bring about this much to be desired end ? Let us recall some of the points we have already noted.
1. The producing class to-day do not own the means of production which they use, nor yet the wealth which their labour produces.
2. The capitalist class to-day own and control the means of production and distribution, which they themselves do not use, yet they appropriate the product of the workers’ toil.
3. The handicraft worker of the Middle Ages owned and controlled the means of production which he himself used, and also the wealth, or part thereof, which he produced.
We can draw from these three examples the following general principle : to the possessors of ihe means of production goes the product of the labour process.
Seeing that the workers, who create wealth in such abundance as to be capable of providing ample comfort for all, are poor, the only sure way in which this condition can be changed to the workers’ benefit is by bringing the product of labour info the possession of those who create it. To do this it is necessary that the workers should own the means of production, as the handicraft worker did.
The puny tools of the handicraftsman were, however, only suitable to individual use, and the worker who used them performed all the operations which were necessary to turn out the finished product. Consequently there could be no doubt as to where the product of his labour began and ended ; it was all his product ; he knew exactly what he had produced. But does this also apply to day ? No ! for in modern production the labour process is divided into numerous sub-processes each performed by different machinery manipulated by different workers. No one man makes a product from beginning to end. The labour product is the result of the collective activities of numerous workers ; the machinery is worked collectively and the raw material is consumed collectively.
The interdependence of the workers engaged in each industry is extended throughout the entire community as the various industries become more dependent upon each other, and it even develops on an international scale. To-day workers in England often rely for the raw material they use upon workers on the other side of the world, and possibly their product forms the basis of a further industry in another part of the globe.
To-day we can with truth say that the entire process of producing wealth has become social. The workers engaged in any occupation or industry are no longer independent and self supporting producers, but are only useful as producing agents in conjunction with, and as a part of, the producing class as a whole. No individual worker can, therefore, be said to use the means of production himself. At the most he could use the means of producing a part of the product, and he could not own and control these, for what control could be exercised over possessions which would be useless and a burden except in conjunction with the rest of the productive forces ? Likewise the impossibility of any worker owning personally the product of his labour under such conditions is obvious. There would be no means of ascertaining the amount of the individual’s product, and although, each individual might not lay out an exactly equal amount of energy, yet as the product only resulted from the combined labour of the whole, all would be equally necessary, one no more than another.
The only conceivable way in which workers collectively operating the forces of production, could own and control these forces would be by collective ownership—the means of production and distribution forming the common property of the entire working community.
When those who work, or, more exactly, all those essential to the continuance of the social productive process, by owning and controlling the means of production and distribution, also possess all the wealth they produce, there will be no means whereby an idle class in society could obtain their subsistence. Therefore there will be no idle class. All society will then form one united community of workers. In conformity, then, with the principle that the producers must own the means of production which they use, these means must be owned by the whole of society.
To abolish poverty and to guarantee economic security and comfort to all, what is necessary is “the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.” That is the Object of the Socialist Party.
“The discovery of the gold mines had brought into South Africa a rush of adventurous immigrants from various parts of the world, especially from England and from British territories, whose principal object was to make themselves the absolute rulers of all that vast tract of country which was teeming with limitless sources of wealth. The established republics were not strong enough to secure themselves against the internal disturbances to be expected from such an invasion. The invaders may not have had in the beginning any intention or desire to make themselves the rulers of the whole region, yet it soon became evident that they would endeavour to sweep away from their path any obstacles the existing systems might set up. The rulers and people of the Transvaal Republic were determined so far as they could to manage their State according to their own ideas. The newcomers were equally determined to secure a free-way for the promotion of the principal objects they had in view when they sought for settlement in South Africa.”— (P. 538.)
“During the ten years ended December 31, 1913, of those employed in Transvaal mines 52,205 native died and 16,556 were killed or injured in accidents. Between 1907 and 1912 32,103 natives were sent home unfit for work. In 1900 6,900 men died at mines of pulmonary disease alone. . . . No less than 10,000 people die in these mines every year—men in the prime of health.”
“A prominent business man of Johannesburg, writing to Mr. Joseph Fels, gives a graphic description, of the terrible happenings there during the recent conflict between the military and the civil population.He tells how the police and soldiers rushed a peaceful meeting of strikers, bludgeoning and batoning all and sundry. . . .Though there were miles of plate glass-fronted shops to loot, very little damage was done, although at this time the crowd had complete control !On Saturday, in the Rand Club in the afternoon some members were jeering at the crowd, when about 25 of them “rushed” the building.Fifteen to twenty soldiers formed at the junction of two streets, facing four ways, and fired for 4½ hours intermittently. Everyone who attempted to cross the road was shot. Men were shot down who were merely trying to get away. Two children (one of twelve and the other younger) were shot whilst standing on the side walk. One poor fellow, in a spirit of bravado, stepped into the road and dared them to shoot. He was dead before he had finished speaking. The correspondent adds that an advocate of the Supreme Court told him that he watched three men shot as they were running away. A young man who was sauntering along with his hands in his pockets towards the line of fire was shouted to by the police to go back again. When nearly out of danger he stopped and looked at the soldiers and was shot dead.A portion of the crowd who were peering round the corner at the soldiers, bulged into the street, and the soldiers fired into the thick of them, killing one man and wounding two others.It is insisted that there was no more danger in the watching crowd than in a “parcel of school children,” as the unruly element had gone. Sixteen were killed, 150 wounded were treated in the hospitals besides scores who were treated by their own doctors.”
“There are five companies, euphoniously termed ‘Land and Exploration’ companies, which between them own over thirteen million acres, mostly in the Transvaal, The biggest has a four and a half million, the smallest a paltry million, acreage. There are fifteen other companies, each of which has an acreage running into six figures, and seven with areas of tens of thousands of acres. All told these twenty-seven companies own seventeen and a half million acres, or 23 per cent. of the Transvaal.”
“These ‘land and exploration’ companies were generally floated in the first instance to secure mining rights over very large areas. Thus one company has coal rights over 201 square miles, and possesses in addition a township site. . . .”
“The fate of South Africa, then, lies still in the hands of a clever, far-sighted, not too scrupulous coterie of financiers, who have now drawn into their web the farming (and this in Africa means the landowning) community.”
“These grants of land are far too common in the British Empire. They are made too readily, and with much too little regard for native interests.The prevalent land-owning custom in Europe is private ownership. In Africa it is communal ownership. Therefore, if we hand over great tracts of this territory to private owners and those private owners proceed to exact rents or grazing dues, the African native does not regard that as a normal economic development. He regards it as an act of aggression, of conquest—an arbitrary charge wrung from him in bitterness, and leaving behind a deep sense of injury. That resentment has been the cause of most of the African wars and rebellions since the presence of the white man in Africa.Take this great concession in the country of the Chartered Company. The company assert that the black population in that territory is thin. But there is a considerable population—perhaps some hundred thousand or so human beings—especially as the concession allows the new company to choose selected areas throughout Rhodesia. What would be the use of the concession to the new company—a company for extracting the essence of oxen and delivering it to the invalids of Europe—if they do not possess power both over the cattle and over the labour of the country which is handed over to them ? Plainly if they are going to pay one shilling an acre for this land they will expect to possess powers of this kind. In other words, the Chartered Company is not merely leasing the territory: it is selling the people.”
