Party News from the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard
Wednesday, November 4, 2026
The Passing Show: Our People (1961)
Our People
The Government’s recent call to employers to reject any application for wage increases — at a time when inflation has been continuing for twenty-one years — was not, it now appears, an attack on wages. It was, in fact, a “defence of wages.” For Selwyn Lloyd made this clear in a recent speech to those well-known wage-defenders, the bankers and merchants of the City of London, at a banquet in the Mansion House. He said:
“Whatever is said to the contrary in the heat of the moment, I believe that the common-sense of our people will assert itself and they will acknowledge I am right.”
(One passing thought: do our rulers realise how much they irritate the rest of us by calling us “their people”?)
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd could hardly have expected his audience to believe him. As members of the owning class, they knew that all members of that class must constantly strive to cut their costs to the lowest possible; and one of the most important of their costs is wages. Since their competitors, both here and abroad, are always trying to restrict wage-costs, either by reducing wages or by holding back their increase as much as possible, any capitalist who did not watch this aspect very closely would soon be out of business. Either his shareholders would withdraw their money from his business, or he would go bankrupt. Mr. Selwyn Lloyd has simply tried to help the employers in this process by telling the workers that “the country’s well-being” depends on a “wage-pause.”
Mr. Lloyd should take care, next time he addresses an upper class audience, not to speak too persuasively. For if the ruling class did believe he was “defending wages” (that is, from their point of view, keeping up costs) he would not last long as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
A good way to die
The Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury called recently for the abolition of capital punishment, or at least for its complete suspension for a period of five years. The rural dean of Dulwich, however, kept up the good old tradition of those bishops and prominent churchmen who for centuries have supported the most barbarous of punishments against those who broke the law. Hanging, the rural dean said, might be “theologically and intellectually, rather a good way to die.” He went on:
“Why should the Christian say it is such a terrible thing to end someone’s life? We do not believe death is the end. Intellectually, is it so frightful to know, in full possession of your faculties, that you are going to met your Maker in a certain definite time ? I cannot see that, from a Christian point of view, it is so frightful.”
When one thinks of the millions of men killed in wars supported (on both sides) by Christian churches, it is not very surprising that the rural dean should seek to defend the “ending of someone’s life ” by the state apparatus. But, of course, the rural dean’s remarks are for export only. He claims it isn’t so frightful to be told you are going to have your neck broken “in a certain definite time”; but he appears to have taken no steps to embrace such a fate himself.
Convicted
Russia, the country which claims to be Socialist and still has property and all the institutions of property society, has again gladdened the hearts of anti-Socialist propagandists by sentencing two men to death and jailing several others for thefts of public property.” There is, of course, no such thing as “public property” in a private property society. There is property which belongs to members of the ruling class individually, and property which is usually managed by state or “public” boards, which act on behalf of the whole owning class. If this property was really public, or in common ownership, then it would belong equally to everyone, which is another way of saying it would belong to no one. To steal it would be impossible. So that when Russia holds trials for the “theft” of “public property,” it is really the system itself which is put on trial. And convicted.
Affluence
After the vague talk about “the affluent society” come the actual figures, produced by the state machine itself. According to National Income and Expenditure, 1961, published recently, these were the figures of national income:
“In 1960, 10,900,000 people (counting husband and wife as one person), 41 per cent of the total, were receiving less than £500 per annum before payment of tax ; 45 per cent between £500 and £1,000; 12 per cent from £1,000 to £2,000; and 2 per cent more than £2,000. After tax the corresponding percentages were 44; 46; 9 ; and 1.”
In other words, after tax 44 per cent, get less than £10 a week, and 90 per cent, less than £20 a week. And this, remember, is counting the wife’s income in with her husband’s. In the small minority of homes where there is an income coming in besides those of the father and mother, the standard will be correspondingly higher; but in the great majority of homes, the standards are indicated clearly enough by these figures. And anyone who thinks they amount to “affluence” for the ninety per cent., for the workers, should try bringing up a family at today’s inflated prices on anything under £20 per week.
Alwyn Edgar
Reflections on images (1961)
Mr. Gaitskell has been saying it again. This time, it was at a meeting at Blackpool, organised by Socialist Commentary during the last Labour Party Conference. Perhaps the Labour leader was joking. Perhaps he was trying to cheer everybody up. Or perhaps he was serious. Anyway, he said it. He denied that the Tories have the predominant appeal to the electorate and added: “I think the Labour Party at the moment has a tremendous opportunity which I hope it will grasp.”
Now what must have struck the audience was that this is the sort of optimistic statement which political leaders are always putting out and which mean exactly nothing. The Labour Party reckoned that they were full of hopeful expectation just before Eden trounced them in 1955, and again when Macmillan came out on top two years ago. It is, in fact, curious that on one occasion when they did win, and with a thumping majority, there is evidence that they were not particularly optimistic. Mr. Shinwell once said that, although he expected the landslide victory in 1945, most of the other Labour leaders took a gloomier view of their chances. Naturally, nobody expects Mr. Gaitskell to say that he is looking forward to losing the next election and that there isn’t really much point in all this arguing about election programmes because the Conservatives already have it in the bag. When he muses upon the Labour Party’s great opportunities and the success which he says is in their grasp we know that, whether he is right or wrong, he is saying what he is compelled to by the necessities of his situation.
For Mr. Gaitskell must project an image of his party to the electorate Labour are out for power over the affairs of British capitalism and to get this they do not have to educate or enlighten people. They only have to persuade enough voters that they are the cleverest, most responsible, most humane bunch of would be ministers in the land. And, of course, the most successful. Most politicians must be attached to the slogan “Nothing, succeeds like success.” Like the salesman who tells you that his product must be good because it sells so well, the political leader must always strive to give the impression that their fortunes are set fair. It is all part of the business of projecting an image.
It does not end there, as we saw at the last Labour Party Conference. This year’s conference rejected once again the idea that they are a party of wholesale nationalisation. Let us say right away that nationalisation is not, and never was, anything more than an alternative method of organising capitalism. But the Labour pioneers used to cling to it as the cure-all for capitalism’s ailments. We may depend on it that they would have castigated Mr. Gaitskell for his milk and water version of their favourite potion. Yet in doing so they would be ignoring the reasons for the Labour Party going back upon itself. Nationalisation, which might have had a brief fling as a vote-getter just after the war, is now an electoral liability. The theme of Mr. Gaitskell’s great battle over Clause Four was his realisation that the surest way to lose votes was to declare for outright nationalisation. True, Gaitskell lost his battle over the clause. But his party’s attitude to State control has changed and to that extent so has their public image.
We also saw at Blackpool—as we expected to see—the Labour Party break off its short flirtation with the unilateralists. Now that was a vote loser if you like. The nuclear disarmers are a small minority in the population—so small that there is no point, in them testing their policy in a parliamentary election. It seems certain that if the Labour Party were to tie themselves permanently to C.N.D., it would not be long before they were counting their members in thousands instead of the hundreds of, thousands of today. That may not worry a party of rigid principle, but for those who are bothered about getting power before anything else, it is a different matter.
Then there is the little business of strikes and this, sadly for Mr. Gaitskell, is something which cannot be shaken off by a conference resolution. There are a lot of political correspondents who think that the London bus strike in 1958 did more damage to the Labour Party in the 1959 election than anything else. We all know why they are associated in the popular mind with strikers. The Labour Party built itself on a foundation of working class sympathy. At one time their members were proud to be at the head of the Jarrow marchers, to wear cloth caps to the Commons, to be militant trade unionists. Inevitably, strikers looked to the Labour Party for support and strikes became part of the party’s image.
That was all very well in the old days, when Labour were climbing to power; it’s very different now. Firstly, if they get into power over British capitalism, strikes are going to be a nuisance which they will have to deal with, just like 1945/50 all over again. Secondly, large numbers of workers regard strikes as stupid, or anti-social, or the work of layabouts, and so suspect a political party which they connect with them. This notion seems to be stubbornly held. If it were not, surely it would have been squashed by the stern anti-strike measures of the 1945 Labour government? Whatever the evidence, however much Mr. Gaitskell may soothe and reassure, no matter what his party may write in their manifestos, the idea will stay in working class heads. Strikes equal Labour. Labour equals strikes. This is the sort of thing which is so bad for the image which Mr. Gaitskell is trying to project.
For the Labour Party now wants to appear a moderate, adaptable party, ready to manage British capitalism without any complications like political theories. There is only one theory of management that is worth anything to capitalism, and that is that the system is administered in the interests of the capitalist class. Unless the Labour Party can convince enough workers that they conform to that theory they are out, and will stay out.
The Tories have fewer worries on this score. True, they have their wild men— the people described by one Labour Party delegate as “hangers, floggers and let’s-ban-the-woggers.” But there is little political kudos for the Labour Party in this. For many workers, among all their other false ideas, support-capital and corporal punishment and, although they may not practice a colour bar, in fact regard Negroes as inferior beings and would agree to some control on immigration. Here is one of the Conservative’s trump cards. Whatever mistakes they may make, however black their record, they always seem to have enough of what it takes to ride their storms and to touch the responses of the working class. This is ironical, in a party which so openly stands for the privileges and inequalities of capitalism. Perhaps it is the Tories’ empirical attitude which does the trick. Perhaps it is political flair. It could be that they are very clever, or that the working class are excessively stupid and forgetful. Whatever the reason for it, the fact is that the Tory image is a successful one.
The two great parties are not alone in worrying about their public image. Every day, everywhere, we are meeting the same thing. We see it in the advertisements which, since the days of fuller employment came to this country, have adopted an especially irritating image type. Now the earnest, well groomed, rising young executive is the chap who buys the right car, uses the right sort of after-shave and knows which wine will not upset his boss. We meet the image on radio and television, with everybody striving to convince themselves that capitalism’s all right and that what really matters is that, as the girl once said to Wilfred Pickles: “. . . people—are nice—to—people.” This is the theme, too, of the newspapers with their unctuous human interest stories telling us about rock ‘n’ roll stars who still love their deaf grandmothers, or rich greengrocers who would swap it all for the pitter-patter of tiny feet.
Irritating and shameful as this may be, it should lead us to the bigger question of why it should happen at all. The answer is that the image men always project an impression of general satisfaction with capitalism. The people who are depicted as wholesome and confident are, after all, supporters of a social system which has produced the terror and insecurity of the modern world. And if we accept their standards the one thing we shall never do is to question the whys and wherefores of capitalism.
That leads us to an even bigger question. Are we satisfied with the terror and insecurity? Are we satisfied with being treated like mental infants who will be impressed by any vapid image that the politicians or the ad-men like to squirt at us?
The working class could rise above this. They could develop their social consciousness so that the political and commercial images lose their appeal. They could do this—in fact, they must do it, if there is to be hope of solving the world’s problems. But there is no reason for the capitalist class to help in this. No matter; let us leave them with their images. We should be tackling hard, material reality.
Ivan
Thoughts on thinking (1961)
A few years ago a series of articles appeared in the Western Socialist dealing with the theoretical basis of Socialism. These were clearly written, and readers found them interesting and informative. It is our intention to publish extracts from time to time, as space permits, for the benefit of readers who missed them when they first appeared.
All marine engines, from Fulton’s Clermont to the giant turbines of the Normandie, are based on a few fundamental mechanical principles of thermodynamics, energy coefficients, reciprocal motion, and the like. These principles at least must be understood by anyone who intends to run a steam ship. And the vast intellectual machinery of modern socialism is too based on a few relatively simple principles. Principles of thought, interpretation and action. And in order to become a Socialist these principles must be grasped, understood and applied. And all this to what purpose? Merely for the satisfaction of knowing in a general sort of way? We think not! Marx has said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Our philosophy is more than expository and interpretative—it is dynamic; it deals with a real world, and is itself a potent force for change.
Have you ever listened to an argument between a Socialist and a non-Socialist? If so, the most remarkable thing you will have noticed is the degree of disagreement in the meanings they attach to the terms employed. The Socialist might assert, for example, that we are Materialists, not Idealists. Right away a protest of disapproval is voiced. Why? Nine times out of ten because the non-Socialist has an entirely erroneous conception of the meanings of these terms. Or the Socialist might say that we intend to abolish capital. This seems to his opponent like utter nonsense. Why? Because he looks upon capital as a thing, whereas the socialist regards capital as a condition of a thing. “Who will pay the workers his wages under Socialism?” the opponent demands to know. “We intend to abolish the wages system,” is his answer. This reply only confirms the questioner in his suspicion that all Socialists are hopeless mental cases. When he asks this he has in mind a conception of “wages” as the unconditioned reward for labour. The Socialist regards the “wage system” as an historically determined relationship between labour and capital, a transitory phase in social development.
Arguments such as these may go on interminably with relatively little change of view for either party. Both sides are, in a way, right; the substantive difference between their mental states is seldom as wide as it appears. The clashes are essentially verbal and the viewpoints irreconcilable so long as each puts a distinctly different interpretation on the terms used. Our Socialist contender must first realize that there is scarcely an important word used by him that is not tinctured in meaning by our economic theories or by its scientific or philosophical significance. The non-Socialist on the other hand almost invariably reacts to the same set of terms by their colloquial or every-day sense. Confronted with this barrier of language there can never be a meeting of the minds.
So the first step necessary towards an understanding of Marxian Socialism is a clear comprehension of the terms involved. The beginner must not only enlarge his vocabulary to accommodate new ideas but must make many of the old words with which he is familiar take on new shades of meaning, and in many instances entirely different from commonly accepted usage.
While reading this the question may be shaping in your head—”why do Socialists find it necessary to fashion a philosophy of their own, and why should proletarian logic differ from the currently accepted forms?” This is a reasonable query, and briefly, here is the answer: Socialists proceed on the incontestably established fact that society has for many thousands of years been divided into economically distinct classes. And now, on this one point, it is well to settle what we mean, and also what we don’t mean by the expression “economic classes.” The science of economics, as you are doubtless aware, deals with the social process of producing and distributing wealth. In a Capitalist society, based as it is on the private ownership of property, a fierce contest is at all times raging for each member of society to annex as much of this wealth as possible. But by the very nature of the game it calls into existence two mutually opposing classes. Both, while Capitalism lasts, necessary to each other, yet diametrically opposed in interests. Gravitated at one pole are those who, by the rules of the game, sanctioned by the Law, Church, Tradition and Custom, have acquired possession of the machinery of wealth production, and by means of this ownership exact tribute from the rest of society. These persons, although at war among themselves, are knit into a cohesive unit in a common resolve that the rules governing the private nature of property shall not be changed. But by their similarity of economic interests they form a category which we variously call the Capitalist, master, ruling or dominant class.
The opposing economic pole is composed of those who, by the very nature of the game, are excluded from participation in the ownership of the means of wealth production. Capitalism can only be Capitalism where this sharp cleavage exists. These compose that heterogeneous mass known as the proletariat (from the Latin, meaning children of the soil), wage-slaves or working class. They are the overwhelming majority in modern society and are doomed by an ineluctable law of Capitalistic development to be swamped in the mire of poverty and whipped by the scourge of necessity to offer their only possession—their power to labour—to the owners of creation. How well Marx describes this “free” transaction: “the possessor of labour-power follows as his (the Capitalist’s) labourer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business: the other timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but—a hiding.” This brief synopsis should give you a fair understanding of economic class distinction. Do not confuse it with social, cultural, political or educational differences. These latter may be, and often are, explicable on the basis of different economic levels; but they are effects only, reflections of the actual parts men and classes play in the scheme of the economic system. The wealth of society is represented as a vast accumulation of commodities, and an incessant struggle obtains between the two class divisions over the share each shall possess. On the economic field this conflict is known as the class struggle. But we live in a political society in which the diverse economic groups strive to achieve their ambitions through the control of the state power. This contest for political supremacy is the ground on which is fought the battle for economic mastery. Whichever group succeeds in capturing the state imposes its economic will on the rest of society. Now the strongest economic class today is the Capitalist. They dictate the policies of state and directly control the functions of the state, i.e., the police, judiciary, armed forces, primary education, etc., and indirectly, by reason of wealth and influence, the prevailing ideology (this word means, roughly, reflected ideas from a system or social order) of the people. Writers, preachers, scientists, educators, philosophers, dance to the tune called by the Caesars of commerce and industry. The ruling class permits the dissemination only of those ideas which tend to perpetuate the existing order. This viewpoint is class biased and serves to vitiate the teachings of history, science and philosophy and bend them to the support of entrenched privilege.
And this interest, as we have shown, is contrary to the true interests of the working class. Consequently the enlightened, class-conscious element among them, the Socialist, must, to achieve its economic and political emancipation, correct the distortion in the world of ideas and supplant error and prejudice with true proletarian knowledge.
From Hegel to Marx
Hegel was in advance of his times by reason of the enormous historical sense that underlay his system. The current of his thought always proceeded in line with world development. But the process of world development was regarded as a test of the unfolding of the concept, that is, the Concept was the ultimate Reality and the uncoiling of physical events over time evidence of the logicalness of his postulated concept. Hegel regarded phenomenal change, i.e., manifestations of social and natural law, as the self-development of the Absolute Concept. Not his concept or that of any man, but a universal concept that existed independently of time and space—an all-embracing world-soul. The dialectic development in nature and history struggled along after the self-developing concept, which moved itself, how or why, nobody knew.
Now, if the universal concept be self-moving, governed by laws inscrutable, or no laws at all, and the process of natural change be but a reflection of the evolution of the cosmic concept, then what purports to be an explanation, being itself explained, is no explanation. How explain the known in terms of the unknown? How can history be logical if history but images a ’causeless, self-changing -mind?
The only wisdom such a philosophy can impart is that whatever is in the world is in the world and that it changes because it does change. Four thousand years ago the chroniclers of Hebrew myths had explained as much—or as little—and in language simple and direct. The cosmology of Genesis, the gropings of primitive speculation, had said as much and left the rationale of the universe as enigmatic as before; and similarly the ponderous intellectual machinery of Hegel, milling the same metaphysical grist, could grind out no more logic than what was already in the world.
But the great value in Hegel’s system was his sense of historical continuity. The principle of evolutionary progression pervaded his entire work, its content was historical and there was a real relationship between the thought process and the world. But the true relationship between the concept and the universe was inverted. It was standing on its head. If it could be turned upright on its feet the real content which everywhere entered the philosophy would be in alignment with the true sequence of causality. Before Marx could satisfactorily apply the dialectic he had to make his ideological reversal. Marx turned Hegel’s system upside down, or rather, he turned what had heretofore been upside down right side up; and as Engels says, “We contemplated the concepts in our heads once more materialistically—as images of real things instead of regarding the real things as images of this or that stage of development of the absolute concept.”
Marx applied the dialectic primarily to history and human society and showed that all problems, all knowledge and the purposes of all knowledge are always set in a concrete historical context. Here was discovered a guiding thread running through the mazes of the social process. By its guidance not only were the apparent anomalies and inconsistencies of the past reconciled and explained, but a course of action was suggested that would rid society of its major ills.
Nowhere in Marx is the dialectic expounded as a formal philosophical system. But the method is bone and sinew of his entire work and its detailed application is to be found in all of Marx’s economic theories. It is practically applied in the materialistic conception of history and is woven warp and woof in the socialist theory of the state and the class struggle.
The essential idea in the dialectic as applied to society is-this; it seeks the. cause of social change within the social process itself and not in the realm of metaphysical abstraction.
Socialists do not claim that society is an organic mechanism which can be entirely explained by one invariable rule. They admit the existence of relatively independent factors which effect the course of history in varying degrees. The influence of the exceptional intellect on the state of general culture, the inimical or benign influences of religious movements, the accidents of technological and scientific discovery, or the caprices of fashion — all are recognized as real, active subsidiary influences on the body social and politic. It may safely be admitted that many of the minor and some of the major turns in social and economic progress are unpredictable. The multi-variety of causes, the incalculable complexity of social reactions do not admit of strict scientific prediction. But again. the point to remember is—all the causes and all the effects operative within the body of society are to be explained in terms of nature and society itself. Or in other words nature and society generate the forces under which new forms and expressions arise. This explanation of social motivation completely eliminates the idealist’s soul-concept.
Marx’s method is realistic, materialistic; but it should not be reduced to a standardized mechanical formula by which alone to account for every possible variety of social phenomena.
A philosophy of social change must admit of empirical verifications of its theories, that is it should be submissible to proof; and the conditions under which change is possible must be indicated as at any given time. Furthermore, it must recognize the consciousness of human beings; that they actively participate in shaping the course of their own histories.
Dialectics provides a nexus between one culture and another. This is revealed in the development of social institutions: an antecedent condition exists—from it arises more or less appropriate social responses. But as the conditions become unstable the form of the institution either effects a change in the conditions or perpetuates itself as a new thing, the product of the altered conditions and its antecedent form. The new combination in turn giving rise to a continuous modification of conditions, reacting reciprocally on them and itself. Marx refused to divide social experience into two mutually exclusive compartments and classify one, the external world, “cause,” and the other, consciousness, “effect.” On the contrary, he showed that social change resulted from the interactions of nature, society and human intelligence. That the conventionally accepted “effect,” consciousness, was itself as much a cause as the laws of nature and society, and that vice versa, the assigned causes were in turn effects.
Marx applied the dialectics of social change to all stages of development. For the first time in the history of human thought a law was discovered with which to explain local and universal social evolution. The gist of the dialectic—the merging and harmonizing of opposites into a new but different synthesis—may be reduced to a definitely stated law: From conditions arising outside of man’s consciousness, the social and natural environment (thesis), there come into being certain human needs and corresponding purposes which act upon the possibilities of the given situation (antithesis), and therefrom arise purposive responses which resolve the possibilities into a new situation (synthesis). The process of change from situation to situation and social system to social system exhibits certain inevitable features; there is unity between both phases in that certain features of the old are preserved and carried over into the new; e.g., the technically developed processes of production and highly specialized division of labour under capitalism will be carried over into the new society. Socialism. Secondly, there is a difference in that certain features of the old do not appear in the new; e.g., the slave status of labour and private ownership of the means of social existence along with the coercive state will fall into desuetude under Socialism. Thirdly, the quality of novelty appears. New forms, activities and purposes arise out of the new combination; and these further change the meaning of whatever is retained of the old. The novelties are something more than a simple sum of the old plus the new: there is a reorientation of moods and purposes; e.g., the monarchy in feudal society was a bulwark for the landed aristocrats against the encroachments of serf, freeman and burgher; under capitalism it becomes a figure-head for commercial expansion and international salesmanship and more too, the deathless champion of “democratic liberties.”
The process of social change, interchange and development goes on forever. The only law that never varies is the eternal, immutable law of change itself. And contrary to anti-Marxists who wilfully or ignorantly misrepresent Socialists as ignoring the factor of consciousness and human nature, Marx never wearied reiterating that the characteristic mark of social development, as opposed to biological or natural development, was the increasingly greater part played by human consciousness.
W. C. Currey
Chasing shadows (1961)
Since Man’s earliest days, he has looked for an explanation of the things he cannot understand. Not knowing why the sun rises and sets, why the weather changes or why blights and sickness occur, savage man created for himself gods to worship, placate and fear; gods who controlled the things he could not understand. With the advancement of knowledge, man’s ideas of the supernatural have changed constantly.
In the present day, when so much of the mystery has been explained and the world is no longer regarded as flat with heaven above and hell below, religion in “civilised” countries has subtly changed its role. In the mid. 20th century it has ceased to be the explanation of the unknown and has become instead the comforter. When the problems and insecurities of present-day life become overwhelming, it is soothing to put all one’s problems before an Almighty Being who, in infinite wisdom, will either solve our problems and relieve us of our troubles, or decide that we should bear them to prove our faith and devotion and build up credits in an after-life. How much easier it is to do this than to battle with the situations and attempt to solve the problems.
The thought that death is inevitable and final is an unpalatable one, especially at times when things go badly or dangerously. The belief that this life is only a preparation for the hereafter makes it easier to bear frustrations and less fearsome to think of death. To this can be attributed the fact that every war brings with it a religious revival.
Even the troubles and uncertainties of “normal” life are easier to bear if ons can believe that “the meek shall inherit the earth,” and this is well known and exploited by those in authority today. In wartime God’s help and protection in “Our Just Cause” is called for equally fervently by the leaders and churchmen of opposing sides. It must make it difficult for him to decide who has prayed the hardest and deserves to win. . . .
Christian churches have learnt to adapt themselves to modern life—not so much in the advice they give or the lessons they preach, but in the way this is done. Sales promotion and motivation research experts are engaged to determine the best ways of approaching the public; ministers are trained to look and speak so as to inspire confidence. Neon signs and slogans appear on churches and Billy Graham type crusades make Sunday afternoon band performances by the Salvation Army look like very poor relations. Religion today is adapted to life in the mid. 20th century. To be saved, you must pray; but there is little time to spare for it. There are even believers in Texas who are not worried by this if they have a little money to spare. In this day of ready-mix foods and self-service stores, “Tolerants” of San Antonio offer them an excellent service in their PRAY-ER Organisation. For the price of one dollar, they will mechanically pray 10,000 prayers for any individual contributor.
Socialists do not believe in life after death; our thoughts are firmly fixed on a worthwhile future in this life. We therefore expend our energies in working to abolish Capitalism and establish Socialism which, although no “heaven on earth,” will solve most of the problems besetting mankind today. It is the only safe and satisfying way of life of which we know. To achieve Socialism, the majority of men and women must understand it, want it and work for it. Unfortunately, unlike the PRAY-ER Organisation, we cannot offer to understand or work for it for them. The only assistance we can offer is what we are doing; explaining the system under which we live and showing how it is the cause of wars, periodic unemployment and the other insecurities we suffer today. We try to make them see that it is futile to use up energies to build up rewards in heaven while relying on an Almighty Being to solve their problems on earth.
Eric Coffey
Finance & Industry: Report on piecework (1961)
Report on piecework
The Labour Gazette for September contained the latest report by the Ministry of Labour on the extent to which piecework and other payment-by-results systems are operated in different industries. The advantages to the employer of having workers who, to earn more, speed up their own output without the employer having to bear the cost of supervising them, are obvious, yet payment-by-results systems have never become predominant in industry as a whole in this country; partly because trade unions resisted, but mainly because some work processes are not suitable for practicable payment-by-results systems.
What the Report shows is that while 42% of workers in manufacturing industry are paid by results, 58% are on systems of payment which do not vary the amount of pay according to the output of individuals or groups of workers. Generally speaking, piece-work, etc., is much less common in the non-manufacturing industries; in the gas, water and electricity group, for example, only 2% of workers are on piece-work. It is more common among women and girls than among men.
The manufacturing industries are divided into fourteen industrial groups. Among them the two groups with most piece-work, etc., are iron and steel, and shipbuilding (65% and 59%); and the two with least piecework, etc., chemicals (21%) and paper, printing and publishing (19%).
Bevan on piecework
The second world war gave a big impetus to piecework among men. In all the industries covered by the Report (manufacturing and non-manufacturing) only 18% of men were on payment-by-results systems in 1938, but after the war it was 24% and it is now 30%. Among women workers it has fallen slightly, from 46% in 1938 to 44%, but among girls under age 18 it has increased from 27% to 44%.
The ratio among boys of 1 in 5 has remained about unchanged.
When the late Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Labour in 1951 it fell to him to sponsor the Government’s campaign to increase production by going over to piecework and similar schemes, and the Ministry published its pamphlet Wage Incentive Schemes to encourage the idea. One of the reasons given by the Ministry for needing increased production was to help the Labour government’s rearmament programme. “The need for reduced costs of production and increased output has become even more urgent in face of the unavoidable diversion of a substantial portion of the labour force to the carrying out of the government’s defence programme.”
Bevan had read some of Marx’s works and it is unlikely that he had not come across Marx’s derisive remarks about “a fair day’s pay,” (not to mention his denunciations of piece-work), but the Ministry’s pamphlet contained in the Foreword:—”A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay remains the soundest basis for relationship between employers and workers. . . .”
Impact of Automation
The increase in payment-by-results in recent years goes against some forecasts that it would decline because of the development of automation. The expectation that it would decline was based on the proposition that the employer has no use for a payment system designed to speed up the worker or group of workers, if this is looked after by the technique of production. A rather different view was taken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in their booklet Automation (1956, page 78). They thought that payment-by-results would take different forms.
“Payment by piece-rates, based on the output of individual workers, rarely suits work on automatic processes. The rate of output will be decided by managements on technical grounds, and it will be controlled by technicians rather than operatives. Moreover, the contribution of one operative can rarely be isolated from the contribution of others, so payment will tend to reflect the performance of a team or factory rather than that of any individual ; and it may be based on criteria other than output, for example, machine-utilization.” (Page 78.)
A speaker at a recent conference on automation, Mr. J. Jones, Birmingham regional secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, pointed out that the old incentive schemes to encourage the individual to increase output have no place because “with automation a worker no longer had control of output” (Financial Times, 29/6/61). But he went on to say that in the engineering industry some managements have tried to adapt old systems of payment-by-results to the new conditions, apparently not at all successfully.
Russia’s Oil Market
The oil companies of the West have for many months been facing a determined drive by Russia to enter their markets with oil at undercutting prices. Russian oil production has jumped from 80 million tons in 1955 to over 120 million, and is expected to double by 1965, so the threat is not a trivial one. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that Russian production is still only half than in U.S.A. and her oil exports have to be multiplied many times before they reach the level of the nineteen thirties when Russian oil accounted for about one-eighth of the Western markets.
Back in 1934 Stalin was asked about Russian oil exports, by a visiting delegation of workers from various European and other countries. They wanted to know how Russia could sell so cheaply and were offered the explanation that Russian oil (and wheat) were cheaper because Russian industry “does not require super-profits.” He also told them that Russian policy of cheap export “reduces prices and improves thereby the position of the masses of consumers.”
Among the eighty visitors there must have been some who had seen in their homelands how little falling prices ever benefited the workers, since the employers naturally took advantage of it to press down wages, and in those times of heavy unemployment, with complete success.
However, rumours, so far not confirmed, have been floating around that there is a possibility of the Russian government now doing a deal with the oil companies to cut out undercutting, and to divide up the market.
A writer in the Daily Telegraph (19/9/61) alleges that because the Russian government sometimes uses cheap oil exports to further political ends they have been selling their oil more cheaply in Italy and West Germany than to their own allies, Eastern Germany and Poland.
Our “prosperity”
In its issue of September 16, the Daily Express had one of its cheery little editorials informing readers about the “growing prosperity of the ordinary men and women of Britain.” It claimed, on the strength of the government booklet on National Income, that “in 10 years their income has almost doubled. Allowing for the rise in the cost of living, they are still more than 50% better off.” Seemingly, arithmetic is not a strong point at the Express office, because while the national income in money terms actually has nearly doubled in 10 years the adjustment for the rise of prices reduces this, not to 50% but to about half that amount, making an average annual increase of about 2½% a year. Even that exaggerates the increase because in those ten years the population has risen by two million.
Russian Industry
Many of those who have studied the expansion of Russian industry have remarked on the fact that while some industries have jumped ahead both in size and the use of modern methods, others have lagged far behind the development in other countries.
An example of this is Russia’s backwardness in telephone development. The latest figures show Russia as having four million telephones, compared with about eight million in Britain, 70 million in U.S.A. and nearly five million in Japan. Related to population Russia shows 1.91 per 100 of the population; Britain 15.03; U.S.A. 39.52 and Japan 5.21.
Edgar Hardcastle
Letter: “Brave New World” (1961)
To the Editors
I recently read one of your Socialist Standards with interest, and can to a large extent sympathise with your criticisms and even ideals, but I cannot accept your deductions and methods. If man was a completely rational and perfect social animal your plans might work, and society could indeed be run in the ways suggested, but Socialism omits the fact that man is an individual, with a free will of his own and bad qualities as well as good ones. Many, indeed most, of the working classes would behave in exactly the same way as the “capitalist exploiters” if they had the chance to take power themselves. The failing of all ideologies, whether of Marx, Hegel or anyone else, is that they fail to take account of man’s “spirit” : he will not be regimented, treated like a machine, or tied down by laws, however beneficial to himself ! Thus Socialism, unless you can change human nature, would be abused and turned into an inverted capitalism, just as the Russians failed with Marxism.
Another important point would seem to be the question of progress. All of mankind’s material advances are the result of competition between companies to produce a better or cheaper product, or alternatively, are a result of international conflict. In short, without a profit motive, where does the incentive come from ? I am convinced that a Socialist and propertyless society would stagnate.
In conclusion, I cannot for one moment contemplate a system being accepted which is irrevocable such as yours is. Unless the population have the right and opportunity to remove the government there is merely tyranny.
I feel that a Socialist must indeed be prepared for a “Brave New World.”
Ian Vine,
Bristol Young Liberal Association.
Reply:
Mr. Vine should ask himself how it is that, if man ". . . will not be regimented, treated like a machine, or tied down by laws . . .” he submits so meekly to this sort of treatment under capitalism. It is difficult to imagine what more in the way of regimentation we could have suffered in the last war ; yet the working class accepted it as part of the war effort, which they supported. In the same way, they accept the uniformity of peacetime capitalism. This is not because they lack individuality ; they simply cannot afford to do anything else. Their wage packet forces them to live in a working class house, which is pretty much the same as the others around, to wear the same inferior clothes and to eat the same substandard food as their fellow workers. But if man were as individualistic as Mr. Vine supposes, why does he not rebel against such conditions?
In fact, men have always broadly conformed to the relationships of their social system—very few of them are sufficiently individualistic to opt out of society. Thus man will conform to the social requirements of Socialism, without needing to be “… a completely rational and perfect social animal. . . .” Nobody should pretend that man is such an animal ;. but he is rational enough to organise and maintain human society and to change it to suit his needs. That is as much as he can expect of himself, and it is enough to establish Socialism and to keep it running smoothly.
There may be examples of better and cheaper goods being produced as a result of economic competition. There are also examples of better and cheaper goods being deliberately suppressed, of badly needed food being destroyed, of harmful and shoddy goods being produced—all in the name of competition. International conflict may give something of a boost to, say, some branches of medical research. But it gives an even greater boost to the development of weapons. Socialism will replace the anti-social spurs of capitalism with the incentive which is based upon the simple fact that the people of the world will own the world. Then man’s ingenuity and energy will have complete freedom, because they will be working for the good of society, instead of for the profit of a minority.
Contrary to our correspondent’s view, this was never an issue in Russia because, as we pointed out at the time, the conditions were not ripe for it. All that happened in 1917, in fact, was that a country with a backward, semi-feudal system was enabled to develop itself into fully-fledged capitalist State,
Socialism is nothing unless it is a democratically controlled system. The fact that it will be a classless system means that it will not have any political parties (including the Socialist Party of Great Britain) to represent class interests, and no government to act as the coercive agent of a ruling class. But that is not to say that Socialism will be irrevocable—eternal, in fact. If, when it is established there were to develop enough faults in it to convince society of a need to abolish it, there would be nothing to stop them doing so.
But we hardly think this is likely.
Editorial Committee.
SPGB Meetings (1961)
Party News from the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard
Blogger's Notes:
- Socialist Current were a small orthodox Trotskyist group based mainly in East London. Members included Sam Levy and Ted Crawford. (The latter spoke at the Westminster Branch of the SPGB in 1968, when he was a member of the International Socialists.) There is an extensive archive of Socialist Current material over at the excellent Splits and Fusions blog.
- The German Story was a 1956 East German documentary film by Andrew and Annelie Thorndike.
- R. Donnelly' of Glasgow Branch was Dick Donnelly. His obituary appeared in the April 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard.
- 'R. Reid' of Glasgow Branch was Robin Reid. His obituary appeared in the January 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard.
- R. Russell' of Glasgow Branch was Robert Russell. His obituary appeared in the June 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard.
- H. Weaver was Harold Weaver. His obituary appeared in the February 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard.
SPGB Meetings (1961)
Party News from the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard
Blogger's Notes:
- The SPGB speakers at the 'Must workers strike?' meeting at Denison House, Vauxhall, were Harry Baldwin and Jon Keys.
- The Longhouse People documentary was written and directed by Allan Wargon, and dates from 1951. It was made by the National Film Board of Canada. It was a study of the Iroquois people living in Ontario.
- The December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard carried a written report of 'Gilmac's (Gilbert McClatchie) visit to North America
SPGB Snippets: MAGA unseated (2026)
From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website
November 4, 2026
The US mid-term ‘Blue Wave’ election results could render Donald a lame Duck and unleash Democrat prosecutorial vengeance on an epic scale.
‘If you’re involved in any of this [government corruption], next year you’ll be raising your hand to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,’ Democrat senator and golden boy Jon Ossoff threatened last week. Many are devoutly hoping to see the MAGA madness finally arrested and held to account, and some semblance of order return.
But even then, capitalism will remain the same beast. The 1% will exploit the 99% and the planet. Trump and his band of brazen grifters simply made it obvious. MAGA may be a busted flush, but not much else will change.
Tuesday, November 3, 2026
Proper Gander: Up to date (2026)
While each instalment of ITV’s Up has the simple format of conversational interviews with people about themselves, the series as a whole has become one of the most significant ever broadcast. The first episode, Seven Up!, was made in 1964 and featured a group of seven year-olds talking about their views and aspirations. Its narrator says ‘We brought these children together because we wanted a glimpse of England in the year 2000. The shop steward and the executive of the year 2000 are now seven years old’. In 1970, the children, now teenagers, were interviewed again, then every seven years the cameras returned for another update: 21 Up, 28 Up, 35 Up… with the series now ending on 70 Up.
An inspiration for Seven Up! was the Jesuit motto ‘give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man’, the notion being that a child’s future – as a shop steward or an executive – can be seen from an early age. The producers interpreted this as meaning that society’s class structure is rigid enough for a person’s life path to be set by the circumstances in which they grow up. As the programme was made as a one-off edition of the World In Action strand, the idea of an ongoing run to demonstrate the premise only came after the interest generated led to the follow-up, 7 Plus Seven.
When finding children to interview, the first episode’s producers wanted to represent a range of socio-economic backgrounds. So, they chose from private schools and comprehensives, suburbs and estates, with two who were living in a children’s home. Of the 14 followed in the series, Neil has had perhaps the least predictable journey over the decades, including periods of homelessness, then being a Liberal Democrat councillor and lay minister, moving around the country every few years before retiring from work and settling in France. When the series introduced Charles, John and Andrew, they were attending the same Kensington pre-preparatory school, and each went on to have prestigious careers (not without some struggles along the way). The others’ later status in terms of job or wealth were also influenced by their levels of schooling. Whether they went to a private, comprehensive or a grammar school, or then on to university (Oxbridge or otherwise) depended very much on the income and situation of their parents, as did their other opportunities and expectations. Symon was staying in a children’s home at the start of the series, and later moved back with his mother. Much of his employment was in warehouses, in contrast to the broader and better paid job options available to others with more formal education. At the age of 70 he has a contented life with his extended family. Up’s participants from both more and less wealthy backgrounds have largely found lifestyles they’re satisfied with today, although some have been dogged by illnesses, including long-term depression. The four women taking part were all married with children during their twenties, with Jackie in particular objecting to how the interviews framed them, rather than the men, through their relationships.
To its credit, the programme itself has acknowledged the tensions between some of the 14 and the main interviewer and producer, Michael Apted. According to a 2013 article by Rebecca Mead for The New Yorker, Apted ‘can be unbearably patronising toward his subjects, particularly the working-class women, while he sets his more affluent participants up to look ludicrous’. Charles dropped out of the series after 21 Up because he, and others, felt that they were being presented to fit into roles.
Even so, the premise behind Up’s initial episodes was generally confirmed, with what could be called the participants’ ‘standing’ in society at the age of 70 tending to echo that of their surroundings in childhood. Their families’ financial situation at that time would later affect the extent of any financial security they have in adulthood. Our place in society’s economic framework constricts what options we have. As the series progressed, more emphasis was placed on the people themselves than on their class or economic context. At the time of 63 Up Tim Adams wrote in an article for The Guardian, ‘The primary question as its subjects have aged has become not what makes them successful, but what makes them happy’. So, as it developed, the series became more about how people live according to their opportunities, rather than what forms them. More of the participants likely wouldn’t have wanted to continue taking part if the series was pitched as an academic study of how they are moulded by wider societal forces. Focusing instead on their changing lives gives Up a rare position among television programmes, which otherwise don’t tend to bother with people’s everyday experiences. The series doesn’t present unmediated coverage, of course. The interviewer guides the conversations with his questions and the responses are edited and reframed into brief snapshots, in ways some participants haven’t liked. This approach is standard when making TV documentaries, with their separation between the producers and their subjects. This distance doesn’t apply to social media, which now gives us the means to directly broadcast whatever aspects of our lives we choose without being mediated by a production company with its own standpoint. However, the usual results of this on TikTok or YouTube are much less involving and affecting than Up, nor do they have its impressive six decade-long span.
Mike Foster
Class Divisions (2026)
Underdogs: the Truth About Britain’s White Working Class. By Joel Budd. Picador £10.99.
By working class here is meant those who fall into the census groups of lower supervisory and technical occupations, semi-routine and routine occupations and long-term unemployed (this covers 40 percent of adults, and includes jobs such as baristas, gardeners, bricklayers, chefs and shop assistants). People count as white if that is how they see themselves or how most people would see them. But ethnicity, it is said, is not a stable characteristic, and people born in Ireland or with recent Irish ancestors, can be described as Britons.
Budd investigates white workers by means of statistical studies and his own visits and interviews, which were overwhelmingly done in England and Wales. Three main kinds of area are distinguished. Heartlands, such as Rhymney in south Wales, have very high proportions of white workers who are mostly quite old. Wythenshawe is an enclave, a large council estate on the edge of Manchester and ‘an example of deep poverty in a pleasant setting’. Thetford in Norfolk is a colony, settled by white working class people from elsewhere (mainly London). The three types are not mutually exclusive, and Edlington near Doncaster is a mixture of a heartland and a colony, mainly white but with people who have come from all over England and Ireland.
The book contains a number of interesting points. For instance, poorer white British children generally do very badly at school, while better-off kids do fine. Poorer children can have high aspirations in terms of education and career, but lack high expectations. Few people expect to move for a new job, and young people from poor places usually stick around, so Britain is now ‘a nation of stayers-at-home’. Moving to a new city or town can be expensive and the rewards are not obvious.
Attitudes to immigration are determined not so much by class as by age, as ‘young white working-class Britons … are largely unbothered by immigration and ethnic diversity’, seeing diversity as ‘a fact of life’. Class (in the sense used here) does not indicate how a person will vote but whether they will vote at all, with poor people less likely to vote. White Britons have largely ceased voting Labour, but this change applies less to black and Asian Britons.
One informative section deals with the Lithuanian community in Boston in Lincolnshire. Agricultural work in Fenland is badly paid, and much of it is now done by immigrants from Eastern Europe. A community organisation teaches English to migrants and Lithuanian to their British-born children. The children have an accent that is ‘part Lincolnshire, part Multicultural London English’. More generally, language skills can vary by gender, with Polish women speaking decent English if they work in industries such as care and hospitality, while men often work on building sites with other Polish speakers and so their English is much less good.
An informative look at part of the British population, but without placing it within the general social structure of the UK.
Paul Bennett
Sociology in America. Where Yankee Scientists Fail. (1917)
It has been often claimed for America that it has done signal service in the cause of social science. Almost every university here includes sociology in its curriculum. Thousands of volumes are devoted to it in its static, dynamic, or applied aspects by the professors and savants. Arthur M. Lewis, one of the most active lecturers on this subject in the States, says in his book “Introduction to Sociology,” that “In sociology, thanks to the labours of Lester F. Ward, America holds a foremost place.”
It is true that what passes for sociology receives a great deal of attention in America. Much of it, however, is mere advocacy of reform, organised charity, and similar nostrums. A good deal of the interest “sociology” receives is due to the “problems” inevitably arising from the development of modern industry in America. Terrible poverty, with its multiform sufferings, has played such havoc with the proletariat in America that “Surveys” and “Special Commissions” have piled up tomes with reports and programmes. Almost every large factory has a “Sociological Department” to investigate the social conditions of its employees. Real Sociology, however—viewed as a study of social laws and social development—gets as little attention here as elsewhere.
Sociology is the science of Society. It deals with the whole field of social life, past and present, and gives us an indication of the future. Sociology embraces the study of Socialism as of capitalism; feudalism and slavery; primitive communism and also the developed communism toward which Society is now tending.
The relation between Socialism and sociology is briefly this : Socialism is a system of society which will occupy a stage of social development. Sociology covers the entire range of social development, and is concerned with more than the economic life of peoples. It enquires into the mental, moral, and physical activities of the population. The data of sociology are the facts presented by all the social sub-sciences—history, economics, ethics, and politics—besides the social aspects of psychology.
Where Socialism does enter upon the entire field of social life, past, present, and future, is in its value as a philosophy of history. Socialism as a theory of human society is based upon the generalisations of sociology called principles of human development. The place of Socialism within social evolution depends upon the scientific principle which teaches that systems change according to social laws. These laws should be the real subject of enquiry for sociologists, but they seldom are.
The great generalisation which forms an inevitable part of Socialist philosophy is the Materialist Conception of History. This view of history, when applied to the tendency of past and present points the road to Socialism. As a statement of the dynamic forces working throughout human development it belongs to the philosophy of history. Many non-Socialists have accepted the Materialist Conception of History theory, but as they have only applied it as an interpretation of the past and present, they have not identified it with Socialism. We apply this materialist key to the future society, and therefore associate it with Socialism. While the Materialist Conception of History forms an integral part of Socialism, it must be borne in mind that this conception may be held by non-Socialists, who step short when it comes to drawing conclusions from the material tendencies of present society.
Several “keys” to history have been offered us by modern sociologists. Gabriel Tarde finds “imitation” the fundamental fact of social life and social change. As, however, he does not trace the causes of social change, hie “solution” does not go far enough. Professor Giddings is one of the most noted of American Sociologists, and he sees in kinship the driving force of social advance. His interpretation is a psychological one, as is also Professor Mark Baldwin’s, and neither explain the varying mental culture between one epoch and another. Why association and kinship became stronger factors as the race advanced is not told.
The late Professor Lester Frank Ward was considered the most advanced of sociologists in America, and his writings deserve close study. He assimilated the evolutionist culture of our time and, unlike Professor Giddings, rejected religious superstition. His examination of social life led him to the conclusion that religion had not helped the race. His teachings are contained in “Pure Sociology,” “Applied Sociology,” “Dynamic Factors of Sociology,” and more completely in “Dynamic Sociology.” He was a pronounced exponent of evolution applied to every sphere of life and nature. A specialist in the science of botany and a voluminous authority on the flora of the American Continent, he also spent a good deal of time in his application of science to social life. He was a rigid disciple of Comte, and therefore in many ways a critic of Herbert Spencer.
The chief shortcoming of Ward’s writings is that they are more concerned with psychology than with real Sociology. His inductions are in the main gathered from the mental life of peoples. Take, for instance, his view of the origin of Society :
“I regard human association as the result of the perceived advantage which it yields and as coming into existence only in proportion as that advantage was perceived by the only faculty capable of perceiving it, the intellect.” (“Outlines of Sociology,” p. 43.)
For Prof. Ward Society is a psychical product, not a material product born out of the pitiless pressure of the struggle for existence among primitive peoples. To assert that Society is born of men’s perception and reason is to credit primitive men with greater mental concepts than modern anthropology allows. His theory is akin to Jean Jacques Rousseau’s, which was that society originates from a contract between individuals.
The same psychological view is taken of the characteristics of the human being. Contrary to the Aristotelian view that man is a political animal, and to that of later writers that man is a social animal, Ward finds the chief distinction between man and the lower animals is that man is a reasoning animal. He says :
“I am inclined to the view that man is not naturally a social being, that he has descended from an animal that was not even gregarious by instinct, and that human society, like so many other facts that I have been enumerating, is purely a product of his reason and arose by insensible degrees, pari passu with the development of his brain.”—(Same work, p. 90.)
Happiness, says Ward, is the goal of all human effort, and the sum total of Society’s effort is achievement. Feeling is the dynamic agent throughout social evolution according to him, and it is the motive force behind all social change. Such a philosophy, however, does not explain the varying concepts of happiness that have existed throughout the ages. It does not account for the changing social structures and institutions existing while human feelings have remained comparatively constant. Ward says human desires and wants have been the propelling power behind the evolution of Society, but why desires and wants change in their nature is not stated.
Summing up this enquiry I will quote Prof. Simon N. Patton of Pennsylvania University, whose statement on this question is unanswerable. He says :
“It is often put forward as an objection to the economic interpretation of history that there are just as strong grounds for a social, an intellectual, or a religious interpretation.Such critics fail, however, to perceive the essential difference between an economic interpretation and those contrasted with it. The qualities of mankind are divided into two groups, the natural and the acquired. For many thousand years there has been little or no change in natural characters. As biological beings we are to-day what our ancestors were when historians began to keep records ; all the changes have been within the group of acquired characters, which are in the main economic. Religious, social, intellectual and sexual feelings cannot be regarded as the causes of the changes appearing in history if these feeling have not varied in intensity during the historic epoch.It is only their relation to economic events that has altered, and in this way many institutions have arisen that reflect and reinforce the natural feelings. Institutions, however, are acquired phenomena, and their alterations give evidence of changes within the realm of economics to which natural feelings must adjust themselves. Should industrial habits, methods of production and institutions become stable, while new natural characters appeared or the older ones gained strength, a period of history would begin in which progress must be interpreted in other than economic terms.The present epoch with its fixed natural characters and rapid industrial changes can have but one valid method of interpretation, and that is in terms of acquired characters impressed and modified by the pressure of economic conditions.”—”Social Basis of Religion,” pp. 34-35.)
In a further article the real cause of social change will be discussed.
Adolph Kohn
By the Way. (1917)
Recently we were informed that a “soldier’s wife gets £400 a year” made up by army allowances, working on munitions, and some of her children also going out to work. The sequel of the case was that the woman was summoned for the non-attendance of her boy at school. In fining the mother £1 the Mayor remarked : “£8 a week ! £400 a year ! It sounds like a fairy tale from the ‘Arabian Nights.’ “—”Daily Telegraph,” 13.9.1917.
No mention is made in the report as to whether the learned gentleman passed any criticism on the state of society which tolerates the employment of children (in this case a boy of 13 years of age) on munition work when they ought to be at school. The condemnation being reserved only for the mother. Such are the methods of those who rule over us.
During the past three years great prominence has been given to a few cases where members of the working class have been the recipients of increased money wages. So extraordinary is it for those who toil and spin to be able to count their fabulous income by the hundred pound per annum method that our capitalist masters and their henchmen are screaming themselves into hysterics. Members of Parliament may receive anything from £400 to £5,000 per annum, others may be appointed insurance commisiioners with correspondingly high salaries and emoluments, and such things pass unnoticed. But when the merry wage-slave gets an increase in his or her salary as a result of capitalist anarchy, then it is a fit subject for our “superiors” to wax eloquent on.
* * *
Three years and three months of what our masters are pleased to call the “war of liberation” have rolled by. And the time is fast approaching when the priest and his satellites will be chanting their hymns of praise to the “Prince of Peace” the while they urge their fellow humans on to the slaughter of each other! After all this time further signs are not wanting to confirm the correctness of our Manifesto issued in the early days of the war. Many stood aghast after reading our pronouncement, but at long last we are coming into our own. Those who then differed from us are having the scales removed from their eyes, and are beginning to see the position from a different view-point, which corresponds more nearly with our own.
Concerning the class to which we belong and the sacrifices that class has been called upon to make, another interesting admission recently saw the light of day in a weekly newspaper. Dealing with the Representation of the People Bill much adulation was being dispensed to the hard-working (and long-suffering) men and women who compose the bulk of the inhabitants of this isle. Then occurs the following notable passage :
“Such a measure of this kind could never have been passed by any Parliament in the days when Peace presided over the land. But there has been given to us all a new perspective of national things. The great burden of this vast war has fallen on the common people, who have had to make the highest efforts and to sorrow under the heaviest sacrifices. It is only in the hour of supreme danger that large numbers of the comfortable classes have learned how little relatively they have borne of the labours necessary towards victory in the bloody conflict on which the future of our Empire depends.”—”Reynolds’s,” Oct. 21st, 1917.
We have said similar things ourselves over and over again.
* * *
Turning to another phase of the same article one reads that “In every land the labouring man and the labouring woman have had the value of their efforts recognised at long last ;” and “the foundations are being laid for the political edifice of the future.” Passing on we observe that “so far all our electoral law has been so full of obstacles both to voters without property and candidates without wealth that numberless constituencies were safely set down as the preserves of the rich and the influential.” Having thus been taken to Pisgah’s heights we view the promised land, for the writer informs his readers that: “The new Bill changes all—or nearly all—this state of things. For the first time, the Democracy will be able to determine the course of legislation in this country in full degree, if it wants to do so.” Then follows a very significant observation, and one which we have had occasion to refer to in the past. It continues ;
“If it wants to do so. There, indeed, lies the pith of the whole matter. A people without vision, that does not know what it wants, can always be tricked by political charlatans, and set in conflict over petty things, while the graver issues are settled over its head.”
All this on the part of our contemporary is “much ado about nothing” and avails us little. Before the war the working class had all the essentials ready to hand. The one thing lacking was Socialist education. Given an understanding of the conflict of interest between capitalist and labourer, the class struggle and its necessary culmination, they could not be “tricked by political charlatans” nor “set in conflict over petty things.” Neither could they be hoodwinked by radical rag-time journals dangling the red-herring of an extended franchise before them.
* * *
Reference was recently made to Sir Auckland Geddes’ schemes for using available man-power in the country and the case of the conscientious objector. The concluding portion of the paragraph was as follows :
“One man, engaged before his arrest on income tax and excess profits work, is now making mail-bags in Wormwood Scrubs. I suppose there are scores of similar instances of the eminently intelligent way in which our national labour resources are being husbanded.”—”Daily News,” Oct. i8th, 1917.
Such is the wisdom of our masters’ agents.
* * *
At the beginning of the war, when “voluntary” enlistment was the order of the day, we used to read of young ladies shouting to the men to “join up,” and even going so far as to present white feathers to the men who were in civilian clothes and minus an armlet. To-day we read that —
“Of the 13,000 volunteers 3,460 did not respond to their call to the Selection Board.An official of the Ministry of Labour suggested to-day that girls should get the conditions of service from an employment exchange and ask the officials all the questions they are anxious about before filling in the form and wasting everybody’s time.“The numbers of volunteers are not anything like what we need,” said an official to-day, “although the women are coming along steadily. The middle-class girls are still holding back.”
This appears to suggest the question : “Who are the slackers now ? Is it a case of when they are asked to join up they lack the courage, or have gained discretion ?
* * *
One has often wondered why some imperialistic capitalists have gone into hysterics over the utterances of Ramsay MacDonald. More amazing still does it become after reading the following.
“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, speaking at Loughborough on Saturday night, said they wanted no patched up peace, or peace at any price, which would bring war in ten years. They wanted to remove the causes of war.”—”Daily News,” Oct. 11th, 1917.
Perhaps he will inform us how this result is to be obtained.
The Scout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)