Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (1909)

Pamphlet Review from the December 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser S.D.P.)

“By common consent, Socialists agree that the control of the National Executive by the working class must precede the use of land and the instruments of production for the common good. Conflicts between the classes in society are but struggles to secure possession of the central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding. Control of politics means control of property.”

Thus Mr. Fairchild opens. But he is incorrect. Politics is the science of government, or, the contests for power of government. Our author means neither the control of the science nor of the contests, but the control of political power. Then Control of political power is political power. Henceforth we shall transcribe the sentence : “Political power means control of property.”

The palliator then deals with his subject under sectional headings. We will do the same, using his headings.

The Principle Common to Socialists

“We cannot escape restraints upon our freedom imposed by our life in the past. Custom and tradition weigh as heavily in politics as in other departments of human activity.”

Is this the language of regret ? It seems so, for as a consequence :

“The political party that appealed to electors upon a statement of object only, would soon find the average man so far rational that he wished to know the means by which the object would be realised.”

Exactly. Were it otherwise Socialists, optimists as they are, might deem the fight hopeless. But reformers dread the question, and for fear of it will not appeal to the electors upon a statement of object only. We read:

“For this reason, the Socialist Party in every country has formulated a number of proposals, variously known as palliatives, platforms, or stepping-stones.”

The object of Socialists, reduced to the utmost limits of brevity, is—Socialism. Not so sententiously, but with more information, the S.P.G.B. states its object as “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.”

The “rational” man at once asks “Is present society so based ?” No. Then how is the property change to be effected ? Mr. Fairchild himself supplies our answer to the dread question.

“Control of the National Executive by the working class must precede the use of land and the instruments of production for the common good.” 

Then we must get control of the National Executive, or, to lift ourselves above the S.D.P. loose verbiage, must capture the political machinery. Why ? Because it is “the central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding.” Because, to use a less questionable phrase, “control of the National Executive” means political power, and “political power means control of property.”

The answer is clear and easy. Why then, does the reformer try to put ‘”the electors” off asking the question by giving them “a number of proposals” which are not Socialism to think about?

Of course, the reform defender has the alternative that his language is as loose in this passage as elsewhere, that these “proposals” are not formulated to avoid the question, but to answer it—and the use of the term “stepping-stones” would bear him out. But to submit these “palliatives” as the answer to the question “how is Socialism to be attained?” is to claim that they are indeed stepping-stones to Socialism ; that they are revolutionary, and undermine the capitalist basis of society. Perhaps we shall see later if he dare take up this position.

Concerning the proposals we read :

“While the private possession of land and capital continued, these proposals could be applied by a government representing the interests of the capitalist class, or by a government acting on behalf of the workers and having Socialism as its aim.”

So we are asked to imagine that the working class have obtained that “control of the National Executive” which “must precede the use of land .and the instruments of production for the common good” ; have captured that political power which means “control of property” ; are installed (in the persons of their “Socialist” representatives) as the “central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding.” And this “Socialist” Government, with its control of property, its power of “changing the conditions of property holding”—what does it do? Does it announce the fructescence, the fruit-time longed for by the tired labourers of “myriad meetings” ? Does it, having attained all that is needful for the purpose—control of the armed forces and the other instruments of government—change the property condition from private to common ownership, and so establish Socialism and free humanity from the curse of wage labour and all its concomitant evils ? Oh no ! At the moment when exploitation should cease for ever it begins to dabble with Eight Hours Days and Minimum Wages !

But this seeming idiocy can be easily accounted for. The palliator puts forward “palliatives” in order to catch votes. When we are invited to suppose a government “having Socialism as its aim” installed at Westminster, we are really asked to imagine the most complete realisation of the “get there at any price” policy. The pseudo-Socialists have captured the seats, but, as our author knows well enough, they have not captured one shred or vestige of political power. As a matter of fact, as far as essentials go, the position remains unchanged. The working class have control of the “National Executive,” but only in the sense that they had it previously. Formerly, in their ignorance, they elected their masters ; now, in their ignorance, they elect men of their own class who are not honest enough, or intelligent enough, or brave enough, to come before them with the plain statement of Socialist object only, but have formulated a number of proposals which were perhaps intended to carry them into power, but have only carried them into place. The minds of those who elected these misleaders have undergone no change, and since it is the mind of the electorate which controls the National Executive, the control of this “central” authority means exactly what it did before—the perpetuation of capitalist control of property, decreed by working-class ignorance.

The “government having Socialism for its aim” occupies a false position. Seated on fraudulent pretensions, it is utterly impotent. The most honest of it members thought to snatch a victory for Socialism on the votes of those opposed to the revolutionary principle, and now they find that, true as it is that “political power means control of property,” it by no means follows that political power and political place are synonymous, or that property is controlled in the interests of those who have control of the “central authority.” That depends upon their consciousness of those interests.

In order to have obtained political power for working-class interests it was necessary for the working-class representatives to draw their strength from an electorate cognisant of those interests, instead of which, in the case we are invited to imagine, they are upheld by a working-class electorate with the capitalist mind, who have given them no mandate for revolution, no authority for changing “the conditions of property holding.” If it is true, then, that “conflicts between the classes in society are but struggles to secure possession of the central authority that decrees the law which changes the conditions of property holding,” then the recognition that this “Socialist” government which has become the “central authority,” is powerless to interfere with the property condition of present society is a confession that the palliator’s vote-catching policy is fighting the battle on wrong lines.

Without political power, and therefore without control of property, our “government having Socialism as its aim,” is reduced to its Minimum Wage bill, its Eight Hour act, and so on. But whether these things are “applied by a government representing the interests of the capitalist class, or by a government acting on behalf of the workers,” the result must be the same. “Political power means control of property,” but, given the property conditions, the economic laws which arise out of them are beyond its reach. Political power may sweep away private ownership of the means of production, but so long as that property condition continues, the exact degree of misery of the workers as a class will be determined by industrial development, and will be unamenable to palliatives.

Concerning the central idea of the section, that “the principle common to Socialists” which our palliator observes “beneath, or running through,” the various proposals, is “the extension of collective or communal action for the general well-being, in place of the use of national resources for private gain,” this implies “control of property,” which only political power can give the workers. To say that they have this political power is to say that they have the power to abolish private property in the means of life and to establish Socialism; to say that they have it not is to say, on our opponent’s own showing, that they cannot extend “collective or communal action for the general well-being,” or, as he earlier put it, use “land and the instruments of production for the common good.” To maintain that they have that political power which should accompany political place (and which is only important to the workers because it confers the power to change the property conditions of society) and yet allow “the private possession of land and capital” to continue while they apply their “palliative” is to rebuke the lie that they have Socialism as their aim, and expose themselves as willful perpetuators of capitalism.

Further, so far from true is it that there is any “principle common to Socialists” running through these proposals, that the principle common to capitalists—exploitation—is implied by and writ large over most of them, for example the Eight Hours Day and the Minimum Wage.

The Socialist in Politics.

There is little in this section that Mr. Fairchild has not touched upon in the previous one. He claims that “the items of the Socialist (!) programme are a recognition that the claims of society are greater than the rights of private property in land and capital.”

Are they, indeed ! It seems to the present penman that if anything could have denoted the utter abandonment of all and any rights, claims or hopes by the workers, it is to hear “Socialists” talking of the application by “a government acting on behalf of the workers, and having Socialism as its aim,” of Eight Hour Days, Minimum Wages, feeding necessitous children, and (p. 2) “public control of those agencies which supply public needs, on lines that will secure release from the burdens imposed by the payment of interest to idle money-lenders.”

What touching solicitude for the property owners’ welfare !

“The Socialist in politics,” it seems, is bound to formulate a palliative programme. We take the opposite view.

We hold that only by the change of the property basis of society from private to common ownership can the workers’ position be improved. “Political power means control of property.” To have political power we must have political place, but we may have political place without having political power. But since it is not political place which controls property, that alone is useless to us, and its attainment would prove calamitous for working-class interests. For in such a case the “Socialist” government must be on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they would be pushed in the direction of revolution (the direction of changing the property conditions of society) by the “Social-Democrats” and others who believed they had won power for Socialism, on the other hand they would be expected by the vast majority of their constituents, who had elected them upon reforms and for reforms, to institute those reforms they had promised.

Mr. Fairchild’s statement that, “while the private possession of land and capital continued” the reforms “could be applied by a government having Socialism as its aim” indicates the direction he anticipates they would be forced to move in. But we shall show presently that these “palliatives” will not palliate, that all the economic laws which govern commodities are against the “palliatives,” and must inevitably render them powerless to affect the economic condition, of working-class existence. If we are correct in this; if, being applied the “palliatives” prove to be inoperative, what will be the result ? They will be detected for the misleaders they are and incontinently thrown overboard. Should they, on the other hand, attempt the revolutionary property change, they will quickly find out what it means to be without political power. Their political castle, built upon the rotten foundation of a non-Socialist electorate, will collapse at the first blast of their own trumpets, crumble beneath the tramp of their own feet.

Whichever course the “government having Socialism as its aim” should follow, the result must be the utter waste of all the precious working-class enthusiasm and weary effort—blood and treasure in the very essence—and consequent apathy and loss of confidence in themselves among the workers.

In order to avoid this misfortune, the Socialist Party of Great Britain takes the field without palliatives or other vote-catching devices. Holding that the duty of “the Socialist in politics” is to build up a position upon a thoroughly sound, revolutionary foundation, it discourages support from those who do not hold its principles. It is with this object it has framed a rule (31) to the effect that all or none of the vacant seats in any particular ward or constituency must be contested and that all must be elected or none allowed to take their seats. Our political place must be the measure of our political power.

A. E. Jacomb.

To be Continued.

Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (Part 2) (1910)

Pamphlet Review from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser, S.D.P.)

(Continued from the previous issue.)

Something Less than Socialism.

The first objection, says Mr. Fairchild, “to the adoption of a programme of proposals to palliate or diminish the evils of capitalism, is the doctrine that anything less than the realisation of complete Socialism would be valueless to the working-class.” He goes on to declare that

“The argument that Socialism only can remove the artificial inequalities of to-day, restore the social produce to the social workers, and abolish all forms of actual poverty is perverted. That argument is held to mean that the condition of the workers is a fixture, and that poverty cannot be diminished under the capitalist state.”

This statement is untrue. The so-called impossibilists do not pervert the argument to any such meaning. On the contrary, so far are they from regarding the condition of the workers as a fixture, that they continually point out that it is ever becoming worse—a verity the reform champion himself subscribes to when he says (p. 4) “In all capitalist countries the share of the total wealth production taken by the working class is falling.”

The “Social-Democracy,” ill-grounded in social science, and, therefore, groping like blind Samson for that which they cannot see, imagine that they have their arms about the pillars of capitalist society when they grasp their “palliative programme.” But they cry “palliation” without knowing what palliation is, and think they have palliated the system when they have helped to do that which the system forces the capitalists to undertake in their own interests.

Out of such ignorance as this comes the puerile statement that “the system has been palliated to provide magnificence and great wealth for the few.” Magnificence and great wealth for the few, however, were inherent in the system, and not provided by any imaginable “palliation” Mr. Fairchild can instance. And when the term “palliation” can be applied to such opposites as the depression of the multitude in order to “provide magnificence and great wealth for the few,” and, the wrenching from these few, of the means of lessening the misery of the toiling many, then it behoves us to look to our anchors, lest we drag and drift on to the rocks of lunatic chaos.

What, after all, is a palliative ? In sociology, surely, some betterment of the social conditions, given or obtained apart from the decree of economic law and the necessities of the social system.

Thus, trade union effort to advance wages is not palliative effort, but simply the exercise of that power of resistance necessary to arrive at and assert the value of labour power. The law of exchange in accordance with which wages are determined by the cost of production of labour-power, presupposes resistance on both sides of the market. The same resistance between buyer and seller exists in all commodity exchange. It takes the place of that theoretically presumed exact knowledge of values, which no buyer or seller ever yet possessed. The man has not been born who could trace the cost of production (in units of socially necessary labour time) of two commodities through all its intricities and say of them “in such and such quantities these goods are equivalent values.” The question of values must be referred to the competitive market, where the appeal is to force and the only gauge the mean of prices over extended periods.

Similarly, as the struggle for higher wages is not a palliative straggle, since it is a necessary and presupposed part and parcel of the wages system, so there are many measures of a seemingly ameliorative nature, which, since they are necessary to the continued working of the capitalist system itself, are not in any sane sense palliatives.

What possibility, for instance, would there be of the existence in a state of profit-producing efficiency, of several millions of persons within the London area, under the sanitary conditions of the middle ages ? In these days when gardens are on the roofs, and tube underlies tube in the bowels of the earth, surface area is far too valuable for open sewers and cesspools. The night-soil man has become an impossible person, and the earth closet an insupportable expense. In addition, black plagues (and consequent scarcity of labour-power) and high profits do not go well together. Capitalism, and not the sentimental tear of the palliator, demanded cheaper and more efficient sanitary arrangements, and that demand was met by, among other things, that “liberal water supply” and “modern drainage” which the S.D.P. champion (pp. 4-5) declares have “modified the original structure of the capitalist system in the interest of the workers,” (!) and are, therefore, palliatives.

The poultry farmer who runs ten to twelve hens to the acre need not worry greatly about sanitary arrangements for his stock, but when he multiplies the number of birds by four or five, he immediately has to face and deal with the problem of sanitation. To say, however, that he does so for the hens’ sake is ridiculous. Yet it is a parallel case with the claim that modern drainage and the liberal water supply are palliatives of the capitalist system.

They are nothing of the sort. They are necessities of the capitalist system, without which the process of profit production would be hampered at every turn. They are perpetuators, not palliators, of capitalism. Is it imaginable, highly developed capitalist transport, expressed in the latest phrase—motor haulage—on the old feudal bridal paths, or even the roads and bridges that were good enough for our grandfathers’ stage-coaches ? Is it thinkable, the modern industrial and business world with the illiterate working class of the “hungry forties ?”

We all know that the constant wail of representative British manufacturers is that German education has been allowed to get so far in advance of English, and one of their number who recently said “I do not fear Germany’s competition, but I fear her technical schools,” spoke volumes as to the motive underlying the educational palliative.

Again, during the last 35 years the birth rate has steadily fallen from 36 to 26, to the horror of the patriotic pulpit and the uneasiness of the exploiting class—who can see only less honey from fewer bees. But with fewer births has come the desire to keep more of the children alive, and so we find “the amenities of the worker’s lives” (as our author puts it) by the provision of municipal sterilised milk supplies, maternal training, free meals for school children, and such “palliatives.”

The truth is that the gradual development of the productive system demands and necessitates an unceasing adaptation of social conditions, but these are not palliatives of the system, but the mere adjustment to the needs of an industrial machinery whose one motive force is the production of the greatest possible profit. They leave the workers’ position untouched. These “amenities of the workers’ lives” have not kept pace with their steady degradation. The “liberal water supply” of the water company may not altogether compensate for the loss of the sweet air that moved about the well, nor could the site of the Thames Embankment have been, as a low-lying muddy waste, a picture of more utter and hopeless despair, than now when it offers its proud, granite bosom to be the dreary, comfortless bed of scores upon scores of poor wretches that once were men, and women—and children.

No, Mr. Palliator, the position of the worker is not a fixture. Their exploitation increases, their unemployment increases, their insecurity and anxious misery increases, in spite of those “amenities of the workers’ lives,” “a liberal water supply, modern drainage, and the extension of public open spaces.”

The position of the Socialist Party is, not that the condition of the workers is a fixture, but that it is constantly being adjusted to the requirements of the capitalist system, and that this adjustment is not palliation of working-class conditions. For the working class, they hold, there is no palliation—there is only emancipation. This is why “something less than Socialism” would be valueless to the proletariat.

The Distribution of Wealth.

In the brief confines of this chapter we are treated to several curious statements. We are are told, for instance, that “the productive capacity of labour is subject to continuous change. It will rise or fall with every application of knowledge to industrial functions.” This piece of owlish wisdom, of course, flies in the face of all experience, and it would be interesting to learn when the application of knowledge causes the productive capacity of human energy to fall.

In one breath our author declares that the “proportion or amount of the requirements of life which fall to the share of the respective classes” is not “fixed by economic or political laws,” and prescribes a political law for the fixing of a minimum wage !

The Socialist Party holds, not that “the proportion or amount of the requirements of life which fall to the share of the respective classes” is fixed by economic or political laws, but that, in capitalist society, the “return to labour” is determined by the cost of producing labour-power.

This is an economic law. It operates through competition. Therefore, if the statement of the law is true, the only way to increase the “return to labour” is either by raising the cost of producing labour-power or by restricting competition.

If the reformer started out to induce the people to “waste their substance in riotous living,” to become more drunken and to burn a loaf for every one they ate, he would be derided for his pains, but he would be logical. He would be trying to raise the “return to labour” by increasing the cost of producing labour-power which governs it. But to propose to raise the cost of producing labour by increasing that which it determines (wages in the long run) is madness.

If, on the other hand, the reformer aspired to so completely organise the workers for resistance in the economic field that competition was effectually strangled, again, in spite of the hopeless magnitude of his task, he would be logical. He would be trying to defeat the economic law of exchange by eliminating the mainspring of its operation—competition.

Now the law as stated above is a law of capitalism—not of other social systems. Capitalism presupposes and hangs upon competition. To eliminate competition in the labour market (of all markets) is to eliminate capitalism. Hence every force of the existing system is arrayed against any attempt to tamper with the freedom of competition. But our would-be palliators, who say that labour’s share of the wealth produced is not fixed by economic or political laws, are going to tilt against the windmill. They are going to match a political law against an economic law. They are going to set up their Minimum Wage Act against the whole world of masters interested in paying the least possible wages they can, and the whole seething mass of hunger-driven workers, striving for employment at any wage.

Later Mr. Fairchild gives us “a little history.” Let us have little history now.

The Black Plague in the 14th century made labour-power very scarce. The Statute of Labourers was enacted to prevent the payment or reception of higher wages than had ruled prior to the outbreak. What was the result ? Many on both sides were imprisoned, but labour was not made one whit more redundant. Hence the labourers continued to get the best of the competitive straggle, and wages rose 50 or even 100%. So we have it on record that complaint was continually made in Parliament that the Statute of Labourers was utterly inoperative (see “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” Thorold Rogers, p. 226 on).

If wages could not be kept down by law then, when labourers were not free, as they are now, to seek other masters, and when the masters, who controlled the political power, were interested in supporting the law and keeping them down, how much less can the law enforce a minimum wage now, when the masters, controlling the political power, are interested in evading such a law, and the workers themselves are forced by the awful competition for work, to cast every artificial barrier to their degradation into oblivion ?

A. E. Jacomb

(To be Continued.)

Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (Part 3) (1910)

From the February 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser, S.D.P.)

(Continued from previous issue)

Those who talk so glibly of Minimum Wage enactments cannot, surely, have paid due attention to the manifold ramifications of the competitive mainspring of capitalist production. Even if such an act could, in spite of all the powers against it, be carried into effect, still the be all and end all of capitalist production—profit—would not consent to defeat.

Stronger than Parliaments and the laws of Parliaments, than the colossal armed forces of nations in the hands of Parliaments, are the economic laws. So, if political law affects to limit the degradation of wages, the economic law of machinery under capitalism comes into operation and restores the degree of exploitation.

The law may be stated thus: Every increase in the cost of labour-power tends to the increase and development of machinery.

Many who are not ignorant of this law refuse to accept it because they do not thoroughly grasp its meaning. They argue that Necessity is not so much the mother of Invention that every need of the capitalist class is at once productive of the inventive genius to satisfy it. But such an argument shows a wrong interpretation of the law.

Machinery exists and plays its part in every productive field. But it is in no trade or industry of even perfection throughout. Its development at any given date is a matter of innumerable gradations and degrees. To take an example—the newspaper printing trade. Not every newspaper is printed on the latest “Hoe” machine flashing off 40,000 copies folded and counted in an hour. From this the means in use tail away, through numberless shades of backwardness, into comparative antiquity. But everywhere the means are being used which the individual proprietor judges are most profitable to him, in his circumstances. Thus though the latest “Hoe” marvel is of undoubted value, the machine of fifty years ago still clanks on its way to the scrap-heap.

Each improvement in machinery may be likened to the effect of a stone thrown into a lake. Its circle of profitableness gradually enlarges with time while the degree of its profitableness decreases until it has become too obsolete to yield profit to anyone. In one circle the invention of the hour is eagerly seized upon, in another circle the means of yesterday are most profitable, while yet a third circle of exploiters are limited to the machinery of five years ago, and so on. And everywhere there are owners debating with themselves the question, of whether it would pay them to throw out certain machinery and replace it with something more up-to-date.

Now—to revert to our example—what will be the result of an increase in the cost of labour-power in the case of the newspaper printing trade ? Wages having advanced, the arguments in favour of the further adoption of wage-saving machinery are at once increased. The waverers become decided and the fringe of doubt takes a larger circumference. Each stage of perfection in machinery experiences a rapid extension of its sphere of profitable exploitation, and throughout the whole industry, without the aid of a single new invention, machine development takes a step forward. At the same time at the top of the tree the capitalists are more receptive of new inventions, while at the bottom those who have been struggling to hold their own with antiquated means, are plunged into ruin by the fresh handicap of dearer labour-power, their machines find their way to the scrap-heap, and the work which those machines had been doing with extravagant expenditure of labour-power is transferred to more economic machinery, to the enhancement of the army of out-of-works.

Thus together with the introduction of improved machinery we get displacement of workers and an increased army of unemployed to struggle against any artificial restriction of wages, to defy every penalty with which the most sincere advocates can hedge about the Minimum Wage or any other limitation of the starving multitude’s liberty to compete for work at any price.

It is a fruitless argument to say that the advance of wages demanded by such a “palliative” as the Minimum Wage would be too small to have this general effect. Such a claim cuts against its user, for a reform does not become more worthy on account of insignificance. Moreover, the measure of its extent is the measure of its effect.

And in those trades in which such an Act would most apply—the so-called sweated industries (as if there are any industries which are not sweated) ; the industries which lend themselves to being carried on in the homes of the workers—the law of machine development would operate with two-fold force. In such fields machinery and the factory system are only kept at bay because labour-power is so terribly cheap. Yet, awful as it appears to say it, any legislative attempt to raise the wages of these poor creatures can only, as far as it is effective at all, result in handicapping them against their merciless competitor, machinery.

In a later section Mr. Fairchild talks of initiating measures to deal with the consequences of the “initial proposals.” The consequences of the “introduction of a law of minimum wage,” supposing that it could be effectually enforced, will be the extension of machinery and increased unemployment. When our reformer convinces us that he has a measure capable of dealing with this obliterating “consequence” it will be time enough to agree with him that the share of the total wealth production taken by the working class can be caused to rise by wage legislation.

The Position of the Working Class.

In the next four sections our author abandons all serious effort to deal with his subject, and indulges in a little quiet fun at the expense of his readers. He tells us, for instance, that “we do not know the things we cannot see.” The blind man, then, doesn’t know when he is hungry. Can it be also, that our reformer knows nothing of economic laws because he cannot see them ? Then an exuberance of spirits leads our opponent to have a fling at those who argue that the enactment of the palliative proposals retards the realisation of Socialism. And this is how he proves his case:

“The outcast may complain in whining minor tones while he stands shivering on the wind-swept Embankment, but a basin of soup, shared with cabinet ministers in court dress, is enough to make him suspend criticism of the social system.”

He gets a good hold and swings his opponent clean off his feet, yet when the fall is consummated our S.D.P. champion is underneath. For the starving wretch at least complained until they shut his mouth with the palliative basin of soup, after which the social system was above criticism and, presumably, Socialism was retarded.

But the greatest joke of all is that Mr. Fairchild deludes his readers with the section heading ,”The Position of the Working Class,” and then, fails to give them any information upon the subject. As a proper understanding of the position of the working class is essential to the intelligent consideration of the “palliative” question, the omission must be rectified.

The working class is the class which works for wages. Wages represent food, clothing and shelter, therefore, it may be said that the working class is the class which works for food, clothing and shelter. To give this definition is to imply that there is a class which does not work for these things. Now as a man may not always be able to work, while he must always have the necessaries of life or he must die, it is obviously of advantage to him that work, and food, clothing and shelter should not hang together, in other words that his living should not depend upon his working.

While it is true that man, as a natural order, cannot live without labour, that very truth tells us that if one class does not work for its living, it must subsist upon the product of the class which does work. So we get the first two conditions of the working-class position—it is the class which works for its own living in the first place ; it is the class which works for the living of the non-working class in the second place. What is the reason of this double disadvantage ?

If it is disadvantageous for a man’s livelihood to depend upon his working it is doubly so for him to have to labour to support others. Why does the worker do it, then ? Why, in the first place, does he not do as the non-worker does—live without labour? Why, in the second place, does he not produce food, clothing and shelter for himself alone ? Why, in the third place, does not the non-worker do the same as the member of the working class—work for his living ?

Those things which we indicate by the term livelihood, all come in the category “economic wealth.” Wealth (we must be understood to use the term in the economic sense) is natural objects which have been changed in form or rendered accessible to man by the expenditure of human labour-power. The fish of the sea is not wealth until it is caught—it is not caught without labour. Therefore the two essentials in wealth production are the natural objects and human labour-power.

No man or class, then, can produce wealth without command of or access to these two factors. Have the workers this access to the means of wealth production ? We know that (save through permission) they have not, for though they have one essential—labour-power—the source of the other essential—the natural object—is the land (or water) and the land belongs to others. We find the answer to our second question first. The working class cannot produce wealth except upon terms, because the land and—what are quite as necessary to the process in these days—the machinery of production and distribution, are held by a class.

We now learn concerning the position of the working class, that it is one of subservience to the class which hold the means of life ; and this further—that as the question of the terms upon which the workers can get access to the means of production must be referred to continuous struggle, their position must necessarily be one of opposite interests to that of the possessing class, and therefore of antagonism. In other words, their position is clearly that of one party to a class struggle, which must continue as long as there are opposing class interests, as long as one class stand between another class and their means of living, as long, finally, as private ownership in the land, factories, machinery, mines, railways, and the like shall exist.

Now what are the terms upon which the workers are permitted to use the machinery of production ? Common experience, that fount of all our knowledge, teaches us that the terms are the surrender of their labour-power in return for wages. With the product of their toil they have nothing to do—that remains with the purchaser of their labour-power. So far the worker has obtained his living, but how has the non-worker materially benefitted ? If the value of the product of labour which is left in his hands is no greater than his expenditure upon it has been, it is very clear that he has had no material gain from the fact of his dominance of the means of life, and upon such result he cannot maintain his position as a non-worker. We must therefore look for increased value in the product of the worker’s toil.

Working-class economics teach us that what really happens is this. The master or capitalist purchases labour-power and raw material (natural objects to which labour-power has been applied), and expends the former upon the latter. The labour-power, once expended, has ceased to exist: it has been transformed into labour, stored up in the material upon which it has been expended. To say that its value has entered into the latter is not the whole truth. It has undergone change, and this fact is of vital importance. When the capitalist purchased raw material he really only paid for the stored up labour within it. The actual substance of it did not count. He therefore purchased on the one hand labour (stored up in the raw material) and labour-power (stored up in the body of the labourer). Now that the labourer has expended his strength or labour-power, neither he nor the capitalist longer possesses it, but the latter possesses an increased volume of human labour accumulated in the material of the natural object.

The only difference, then, in the position of the capitalist at the time of purchasing labour and labour-power and now when the power has been expended, is, then he owned two factors—labour and labour-power—while now he owns but one—congealed labour. Yet if he is any better off, any richer or more able to live without working, the why and the wherefore must be sought in this conversion of labour-power into labour.

If a labourer by consuming one loaf of bread could gain therefrom only sufficient labour-power to produce another and equal loaf of bread, there could be no increase of value. It is quite imaginable that given sufficiently primitive means of production, no better result could attend human effort. In that case there could be no non-working class. But if the means of production improve so that the labourer by consuming one loaf generates sufficient power to produce two loaves, then an increase of value becomes possible.

Herein is the whole secret of the source of capitalist wealth. Labour-power is purchased for what it costs to produce. The energy produced by a loaf of bread is bought for wages equalling a loaf of bread (we must take broad averages, of course). It cannot be bought for less, for the labourer must have the cost of production of his labour-power in order to reproduce it and continue in working efficiency. It will not (in the long run) sell for more because machinery provides an unemployed army and the competition of these keeps wages down to this level. But the labour-power created by one loaf produces other loaves in number according to the development of the machinery of production.

If then, the consumption of a loaf by the labourer results in labour-power sufficient to produce two loaves, which the capitalist buys for one loaf, the exploitation of that labour-power leaves the latter with two loaves instead of one. He has succeeded in getting the means of life without working for them—simply by virtue of his power of keeping the worker away from the productive machinery save upon terms. These terms give to the capitalist all the difference between the value of the labour-power and the value of its product—between the one loaf which it cost the labourer to produce his energy and the two or more loaves which that energy in turn produces.

The cost (reckoned in amount of sustenance) of producing labour-power remains pretty constant. A pound of wheat generated very much the same quantity of physical force a century ago as to-day. The value created by labour remains exactly constant, for labour is the measure of value and, notwithstanding the improvement in machinery, the product of an hour’s work a hundred years ago was the same value as the product of an hour’s work to-day—in each case the value is an hour’s labour. The difference, however, between the cost of producing labour-power and the productive capacity of labour-power increases with the development of machinery, and this increase has an important influence upon the position of the working class.

If the wages of the labourer equal one loaf and his product two,, he will be able to buy back one loaf, while his master may presumably consume the other. In such case the services of the former are needed to produce bread the next day. But if by the improvement of machinery the worker is able to add to existing value (raw material) not only the loaf represented by his wages and the loaf consumed by his master, but an additional loaf, then his services can be dispensed with until that loaf is disposed of ; in other words he has produced too much and may become-unemployed. Apply this to the whole field of industry, and it is seen that every advance of the productive machinery heaps up against the workers a greater burden of “surplus” wealth to “slump” the market and throw them out of work ; that the increasing fertility of human labour renders more precarious and more hopeless the position of the working class.

From what has been said it is apparent that the development of the industrial process, ever rendering human labour more productive, ever increasing the difference between the cost of producing the workers’ efficiency and the productive capacity of that efficiency, ever heaping up against the worker a larger share of his own products which wages will not enable him to consume, draws ever clearer and firmer the line between the two classes. The development of productive instruments means increased wealth for their owners and increased poverty for those who, as a class, operate them. Here is antagonism of interests. Here is war to the knife. ]t shows itself in the banding together in trade unions, in myriad strikes and lock-outs, and in the universal endeavour of the workers to-limit output.

The position, then, of the working class is, on the economic field, fundamently one of opposition to the master class. As material interests must be fought for or surrendered, there must necessarily eventuate from these opposing class interests a class struggle. Such a class struggle, we affirm, exists. It cannot remain a struggle on the economic field for terms, for the laws arising from the productive system prescribe those terms and decrees such a struggle hopeless to the workers. Their only hope, then, is in a new system—the Socialist system. Towards this end the class struggle must be directed.

And the recognition of this class struggle is the first essential to its intelligent and successful prosecution.

A. E. Jacomb

(To be Continued.)

Islington Branch (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Though the spelling is different in the advert, I'm pretty sure the SLP speaker, 'Budgeon', was Frank Budgen. I suggest that you click on Budgen's wiki page. He was an interesting man who lived a full life.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

For more information on some of the SPGB speakers listed above, click on these posts for more background.

• December 1910
• December 1912

Venezuela: what has really happened and what may lie ahead (2026)

From the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Venezuela has once again been making headlines around the world. Explosions, military movements, international pressure, mutual accusations and a great deal of confusion. To understand what has happened so far, it is necessary to look beyond the propaganda, both from the Venezuelan government and the US, and from those who defend one gang or the other.

It’s nothing to do with democracy or freedom

The first thing that needs to be made clear is this: the US is not acting out of a desire to defend the Venezuelan people, nor out of love for democracy or human rights. We have seen this many times before in other countries. When a major power intervenes, directly or indirectly, it does so to defend its own economic and strategic interests.

Talk of fighting drug trafficking or restoring democracy serves to justify actions that, at heart, are about political control, natural resources and regional power.

Nor is it about defending ‘sovereignty’

On the other hand, the Venezuelan government and its allies present what has happened as an imperialist attack on national sovereignty. But here is another uncomfortable truth: the Venezuelan state does not represent the interests of the majority of the working class.

For years, millions of people have suffered from inflation, low wages, forced emigration, deteriorating services and repression. All this happened without direct foreign intervention, under a government that claimed to rule on behalf of the people.

Will there be any real change?

There is much talk of ‘regime change’, but in reality what is happening is, at most, a change of administrators within the same system.

As long as there is:

• wage labour,
• production for the market,
• social inequality,
• a state that protects the property and power of a minority,

the lives of the majority will not fundamentally change. Changing a president or a ruling group does not change the system that produces poverty and insecurity.

Will there be more attacks or more pressure?

No one can predict exactly what will happen, but there is a clear logic: as long as Venezuela remains a strategic country because of its oil and geographical position, the pressure will continue, whether military, economic or diplomatic.

This does not depend on whether a government is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but on how states function in a capitalist world in constant competition.

The role of China and other powers

Some believe that China or Russia are a fairer alternative to the United States. But these powers do not act out of solidarity, but out of their own interests. China invests, lends money and negotiates to secure access to resources, economic benefits and international influence.

It is not a struggle between good and evil, but a dispute between great powers, where the workers get caught in the middle.

Internal betrayal?

There is much talk of betrayal, but such language tends to confuse more than it clarifies.

High-ranking officials, the generals and politicians do not betray the people, because they have never governed on their behalf, but rather in accordance with their own interests and privileges. When they switch sides or negotiate, they do so to protect their position, not to improve the lives of the majority.

Who loses out in all this?

The answer is clear: the working class in Venezuela, as well as in the United States and other countries.

Workers do not decide on wars, they do not benefit from sanctions, they do not control resources, and they always pay the price with more insecurity and less of a future.

An uncomfortable but necessary conclusion

What is happening in Venezuela will not be resolved by choosing between Maduro or the US, nor between Washington or Beijing. They all operate within the same system, a system that puts profit and power above human needs. As long as that system remains intact, crises will repeat themselves, with different names and different countries, but with the same losers.

The real solution will not come from leaders, armies or foreign powers, but from the conscious organisation of ordinary people, here and around the world, to build a society where production and wealth are at the service of all and not just a few.

SOCIALISTA MUNDIAL

(Translated from a contribution to a discussion on our Spanish-language Facebook page)

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In almost all regions of the world, the top 1% of the population is richer than the combined 90%. Wealth inequality increases further with each passing day, mostly due to the lack of political will to stop it.

[Popular Resistance]

In China, inequality remains high… The top 10% of earners capture about 43% of national income, while the bottom 50% receive just 14%. Wealth disparities are particularly large, with the richest 10% holding nearly 68% of total wealth and the top 1% about 30%. 

[World Inequality Report]

Nearly half of Kenyans live in extreme poverty, i.e., on less than KES 130 [£0.75] per day. Yet a few have amassed enormous wealth. The richest 125 Kenyans have more wealth than more than three-quarters of Kenyans, about 43 million people. 

[Oxfam]

We celebrate the ‘recovery’ of fish populations that are stabilized at 5% or 10% of their historical population, mistaking the management of ruins for conservation. To understand the magnitude of what has been stolen, we must look back before the industrial age. In the 17th century, the ocean was a different planet. When Christopher Columbus sailed through the Caribbean in the late 15th century, he described the seas near Cuba as being ‘thick with turtles’, so numerous that it seemed his ships would run aground on them… in numbers estimated between 33 and 39 million adults in the Caribbean alone. They were a biological dominance that defined the seascape. Today, those populations are a shadow of the ‘mother sea’ that once existed. This report is an autopsy of the decline. It is an investigation into the specific species that the fishing industry has sacrificed on the altar of commerce. 

[Sea Piracy]

As both the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) monitor and Reuters noted, Poland is among multiple state parties in the process of ditching the Mine Ban Treaty. Citing the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the news agency reported that “antipersonnel mine production could begin once the treaty’s six month withdrawal period is completed on February 20, 2026”. 

[Common Dreams]

Greenpeace is a strong example, having emerged from ecological protest movements in the 1970s and 1980s, but having eased into largely cooperating with capitalist corporations and governments over time and giving legitimacy to their propaganda about individual lifestyle choices being the way to solve climate change.

[Counterfire]

The Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, which has previously slammed vaccine skeptic Kennedy as a ‘paranoid kook’ whose ‘tinfoil hat is blocking out all sense’, tore into the Trump Cabinet member for his war on what it called ‘one of the biggest public health wins of the last century: the widespread use of disease-eradicating vaccines’. 

[HuffPost]

Therefore, we do not offer any support to wars waged by any capitalist state or any faction aimed at creating or strengthening a new state, whether aggressor or aggressed, whether or not they describe themselves as ‘socialist’ or ‘democratic’. 

[Internationalist Perspective]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

The Socialist Party's 2026 Summer School: Populism

Party News from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

If ‘populism’ is taken to mean politics popular with the majority pitched against an élite minority, should socialists aim to make socialism ‘populist’? Certainly socialists work to make socialism popular globally with the majority, but without pandering to notions that would negate its revolutionary goal. This means being opposed to ideas that might attract wide support in the short term while actively undermining the socialist case. Because ‘populism’ remains ill-defined, it gets applied to a right wing group such as Reform UK, or a left wing organisation like Your Party. In the USA, Donald Trump’s Republican Party can be termed ‘populist’ as might Bernie Sanders’ variety of leftism, and similar examples are found in Europe and elsewhere. Is ‘populism’ simply st reformism repackaged for the 21 century?

The Socialist Party’s weekend of talks and discussion will explore how the concept of ‘populism’ has developed, why it attracts support and what this tells us about capitalist society.

Our venue is the University of Worcester, St John's Campus, Henwick Grove, St John's, Worcester, WR2 6AJ.

Full residential cost (including accommodation and meals Friday evening to Sunday afternoon) is £150; the concessionary rate is £80. Book online at spgb.net/ summer-school-2026 or send a cheque (payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain) with your contact details to Summer School, The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN. Day visitors are welcome, but please e-mail for details in advance. E-mail enquiries to spgbschool@yahoo.co.uk.

Coping with losing (2026)

Book Review from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Burnout: the Emotional Experience of Political Defeat. By Hannah Proctor. Verso £14.99.

In May 1871 the Paris Commune was brutally repressed, with many people executed and over four thousand of its supporters exiled to New Caledonia, a French territory in the Pacific Ocean, 750 miles east of Australia. Unsurprisingly, many of those exiled experienced feelings of hopelessness and despair. These were examples of what the author terms ‘pathological nostalgia’, which she contrasts with ‘political nostalgia’, which ‘looks to the future rather than the past’.

Nostalgia is one example of the different emotions identified here, the others being melancholia, depression, burnout, exhaustion, bitterness, trauma and mourning, though the distinctions among these are not always clear. The focus is on left-wing movements, where prolonged activity, with little achieved, can lead to exhaustion and disillusion. One woman, who had campaigned in the US on abortion issues, found herself in the 1980s with no partner, children or secure job, and wondered if it had all been a waste of time. On the other hand, many women who played an active role in supporting the UK miners’ strike felt really changed by it, meeting new people and becoming aware of the unjust nature of the British state. One woman (wife and mother of miners) found that contributing at the local soup kitchen helped combat her agoraphobia, saying, ‘I know that I’ve got to keep active after the strike.’

There is an interesting if somewhat unclear discussion of the impact of the Bolshevik takeover of 1917 (about which Proctor says ‘the October Revolution was not defeated’). The ensuing civil war, coupled with pre-1917 events, meant years of violence and famine, which ‘took a heavy physical and mental toll’. Many former activists became exhausted, in some cases this was due to ‘despair over the course the new society was taking’ (some more detail here would have been helpful). In 1921–2 over fourteen thousand people voluntarily left the Bolshevik party, and ‘there was a spate of suicides among the membership.’

Some left-wing groups go in for abuse and bullying (sometimes of close friends), while criticism and self-criticism sessions among the Weathermen in the US in the 1960s and 70s could inflict serious psychological damage on members. In the US ‘Communist’ Party, those who left could find themselves simply ignored in the street by those who had stayed on.

Proctor quotes Rosa Luxemburg as saying that revolutionary struggle involves thunderous defeats but will lead inexorably to final victory. Perhaps more realistic is her comment on the famous last words of Joe Hill: better to both mourn and organise.

Paul Bennett

Material World: A Socialist Future: How it works and how society is organised (2026)

The Material World column from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is not a reform of capitalism nor a system of state management exercised by a minority. It is a fundamentally different form of society based on common ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth, democratic control by the whole community, and production carried out directly for use rather than for sale and profit.

At the centre of this vision is the principle articulated by Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875): ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’. This is not an ethical command enforced by authority, but a description of how social relations can function once class divisions, markets, and material insecurity have been overcome.

How the socialist system functions

In a socialist society, land, industry, transport, and infrastructure are held in common by society as a whole. No individual, corporation, or state body owns productive resources as private property. As a result, the wages system disappears, along with money, buying and selling, and the accumulation of profit.

Production is organised solely to meet human needs. The immense productive powers already developed under capitalism—science, technology, automation, and global logistics—can be consciously redirected toward ensuring that everyone has free access to food, housing, healthcare, education, and cultural resources. Freed from the constraints of profit, production becomes rational, sustainable, and humane.

Individuals contribute according to their abilities and inclinations. Work is no longer forced by economic necessity but becomes a cooperative social activity. Distribution is based on need rather than purchasing power, reflecting the real material requirements of human life.

Democratic organisation and coordination

Socialist society is organised democratically from the bottom up. Communities and workplaces collectively decide priorities and communicate their needs and capacities. These decisions are coordinated at wider levels to ensure efficient use of resources and to avoid duplication or waste.

This is not rule by planners standing above society. It is society consciously planning itself. Modern information systems already demonstrate the technical feasibility of coordinating complex production on a global scale. In socialism, such coordination is transparent and accountable, serving human needs rather than profit or power.

Political structure and the end of class rule

Because socialism abolishes class ownership, it also abolishes the political structures designed to maintain class power. The state, understood as an instrument of coercion and domination, becomes unnecessary. What remains are administrative and coordinating bodies tasked with carrying out collectively agreed decisions.

Delegates are elected, mandated, and recallable. They do not rule; they serve. There is no permanent political elite, no professional governing class, and no separation between those who make decisions and those who live with the consequences. Political activity becomes an aspect of everyday social life rather than a specialised career.

The Paris Commune: A historical example

A glimpse of this kind of organisation was seen in the Paris Commune of 1871. For a brief period, working people took collective control of the city and replaced the existing state machinery with directly accountable institutions. Officials were elected and recallable, paid workers’ wages, and combined legislative and administrative functions rather than standing above society as a separate authority.

Although the Commune existed under extreme conditions and did not abolish capitalism, it demonstrated essential socialist principles in practice: popular control, the dismantling of hierarchical state power, and the replacement of rule by administration. Its significance lies not in its limitations, but in showing that ordinary people can organise society themselves without a ruling class.

Freedom, equality, and human development

Socialism expands freedom by removing the economic compulsion that dominates life under capitalism. With secure access to the means of life, individuals are free to develop their abilities, participate meaningfully in social decision-making, and shape their own lives. Equality means equal access to resources and equal standing in society, not enforced uniformity.

In such a society, politics and economics are no longer separate spheres. Society consciously regulates its productive activity, its relationship with nature, and its social priorities. Cooperation replaces competition, and production for use replaces production for profit.

Socialism, understood in this way, is not imposed by leaders or institutions. It can only be created by a conscious majority acting in its own interests. It represents the collective self-emancipation of humanity and the practical realisation of a society guided by the principle: ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

Jake Ambrose, 

Australia

Socialist Sonnet No. 219: Security (2026)

    From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Security

 

More guns, bigger bombs, longer range missiles,

Thicker armour, smarter drones, firm allies,

Control of the land, the oceans, the skies,

Compliant nation of bellumophiles,

A leader blessed with infallibility,

Martialled prelates to assure the laity

That they have conscripted the deity;

Add political instability.

Meanwhile the bottom-liners try to gauge

Where the rarest rare earth minerals lie,

The cost/benefit of those who will die

And the profits to be made from carnage.

Behind rhetoric, where’s the surety?

Only real change can secure security.

 D. A.

Editorial: The Strike in Belgium (1961)

Editorial from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Belgian strike is an attempt on the part of some of the Belgian workers to force the Government to resign or change its method of dealing with the economic crisis. The Government, a coalition of Christian Democrats and Liberals, has precipitated this situation by its austerity measures. These consist of cuts in the social services such as the Belgian equivalent of the National Health Service, in the education programme, in unemployment pay, and in coal subsidies, along with the introduction of a Means Test and what is called “additional temporary taxation.” The Belgian local authorities are also to be empowered to impose additional income taxes of their own. The Belgian opposition party which calls itself “Socialist” claims that workers will suffer a loss of £21 to £28 a year.

The popular reason given for these austerity measures is the need to meet the trade and finance deficit caused by the loss of the Congo. But to accept this one has to accept the view that the Belgian capitalist class subsidised its workers out of the proceeds of exploitation of the Congolese: and that wealth which might have bought continued support for Belgian rule in the Congo was diverted to Belgian working class pay packets out of sheer generosity on the part of the Belgian capitalists.

A correspondent in The Guardian (28/12/60) gives a more reasoned view of the situation:

“Even before the Congo crisis, plans were being made to face the unpleasant fact that Belgium’s period of peak prosperity is over, and that her industrial production is growing very slowly in comparison with that of her Common Market partners. By economies in state spending, by increased taxation and by attracting foreign capital, M. Eyskens’ austerity programme was designed to achieve a vast investment drive to modernise Belgian industry and make Belgian products competitive in world markets. The most uneconomic of Belgian products is her coal, a chronic problem since the thirties. In recent months Belgium has launched on a serious programme of reform of uneconomic mines including a number of closures. Closure of mines, however, means social disruption; alternative jobs for discharged mineworkers are not yet available in mining areas and the Socialist Party has seized On the consequent unemployment and unrest to find support for its present frontal attacks on the austerity programme and the present Government.”

Socialists feel deep sympathy for the Belgian workers on strike. But they realise that their action is futile as a means to achieve anything but temporary respite from the encroachments of their masters on their standard of living, and that they are jeopardising their chances of achieving even that by using the strike weapon against the State, instead of using it to back up wage demands with which to offset the effect of the Government’s policy.

The lessons of this situation should be taken to heart. The strike weapon has a very limited usefulness and at its best can only deal with effects and not causes. To use this weapon against the might of the State is to invite disaster. If at election times the workers give their votes to the parties of capitalism, it ensures that the present type of situation will occur again.

The “Socialist” Party in Belgium is similar to the Labour Party in this country. It is these so-called “Socialists” who foist such wage-pruning schemes as National Health services, unemployment pay, family allowances, and so on, on to politically ignorant workers as bits of Socialism. And it is the same political charlatans who seek to make capital from the present situation by using the strike as a means to achieve government office themselves.

Governments do not develop reforms or pruning schemes because their attitude to the working class is necessarily either sympathetic or antagonistic. Governments administer the affairs of a capitalist economy in the interests of the national capitalist class. The Belgian workers would be well advised to consider this fact in relation to the present situation, recognising that a change of government is merely a change of label.

A more fundamental change is needed. Austerity, in a world of potential plenty, is always the lot of the working class under capitalism. It is not enough to demonstrate against one type of capitalist government. The workers must organise consciously to abolish the present economic system and establish in its place their own system of society—Socialism.

News in Review: Mr & Mrs Average (1961)

The News in Review column from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr & Mrs Average

According to a new Stationery Office publication—Britain, 1961 Edition— “ Mr. and Mrs. Average " are described as having a TV set, vacuum cleaner and occasionally a washing machine and a 'fridge. The acquisition of these goods is equated by advertisements, films and magazines to true, lasting happiness. We all know the phrases “No more washday fatigue with Blank's wonderful washing machine", etc. The mere fact of possessing these goods, however, does not produce happiness as soon as the gadget is installed. On the contrary, they often produce problems, mainly financial, and occasionally their "happy" possessors are driven to desperation, as in the case of a young couple in Birmingham, who clearly were "Mr. and Mrs. Average". The husband was the envy of the neighbourhood. He had bought a five-piece living room suite, washing machine, bedroom suite and TV set on hire purchase, and had redecorated his 15/- a week house from top to bottom. On 28th December I960, with the Christmas decorations still hanging gaily, the husband, wife and their 2 year old daughter were found dead in their gleaming, gas-filled kitchen. The wife was expecting her second child the following week. A note said that they worried about their hire purchase debts.

Never had it so good . . .

Airways Strike

The maintenance staff of BOAC and BEA staged a four-hour stoppage on Wednesday, January 2nd, in support of a wage claim that has been going through the laborious negotiating machinery. This, of course, caused some dislocation of airline schedules. This undoubtedly caused a lot of hardship to some passengers, but the unfortunate fact is that for the aircraft workers one of the few ways in which the employers and their own union officials can be gingered up is by resort to a strike. This was bound to be unpopular: remember how the press and the Government castigated the railwaymen and the busmen in the past for their strike action that "inconvenienced the public"?

But what happened when the strikers at the airport reported for duty after the four-hour stoppage? BEA immediately suspended them for a further 24 hours, causing six times as much inconvenience to the public. 

One would have thought that this would have brought howls of protest from the press and Government. But the only newspaper comment was typified by the Daily Mail of January 6th, which said that BEA was determined to push home the lesson to the strikers. It seems that what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

On the Brink

Both Russia and the United States waxed indignant about each other's interference in the Laos disturbances. Sheer hypocrisy of course, because they had both been dabbling their fingers in that particular pie.

The Russians have supplied arms to Captain Kong Lae's army. Since 1954, the United States has pumped between forty and fifty million dollars into Laos. Washington wants value for its money: in 1958, it played its part in the dismissal of Prince Souvanha Phouma's government, after the elections in May of that year had returned a lot of communist members.

China is probably interested in the strategic potential of Laos, as a buffer between her and SEATO member Thailand. The Americans, notoriously trigger-neurotic in the Far East, seem to want the country more firmly under their control, and not simply neutralist.

The Laos dispute may be small in itself, but it is a miniature of the clashing interests of two giant power blocs. It could be another Korea. Or even a Sarajevo or a Danzig.

This must be the fear which overhangs every minor upheaval in the world. We are as far away from peace as ever.

Yes to De Gaulle

General de Gaulle came to power to joyful motor horns tooting the rhythm of Algerie francaise in the streets of Paris. This was an exuberant indication of the hopes of the general's supporters, that he would ruthlessly crush the FLN and maintain French rule over Algeria.

In the event de Gaulle, by resolving to come to terms with Algerian nationalism, has shown the more realistic assessment of the interests of French capitalism. In this, like many other politicians, he has disappointed a lot of his former supporters.

Last month's affirmative vote for the general's proposals gave the go-ahead to the organisation of another referendum, to be held in Algeria alone. This could express a preference for an independent country.

The second referendum will be held if security conditions in Algeria allow. This could mean that there will soon be further talks between the French government and the FLN, and that the end of the present fighting in Algeria may be in sight.

Evidently de Gaulle was determined to get his way. The questions in the referendum were loaded, the government hogged most of the propaganda and left the French army in no doubt as to how it should vote.

If this is the beginning of the road to peace in Algeria, there is no cause for another joyful tooting of horns. We all know that there will be other Algerias, with their own bloodshed and misery.

Canadian Illusion

It was not so very long ago that some of the air and sea lines in this country were working hectic overtime to accommodate all the people who were clamouring to emigrate to Canada.

These people must have gone with great expectations of a country full of good things, where everybody was happy. How has it turned out?

It is now expected that this month, Canada’s unemployment will reach ten per cent, of its working population, which is the highest since the war, and several times higher than in Great Britain.

The solutions which have been recommended for Canada's slump are not new. Some economists favour higher import tariffs and a strong effort to replace imported goods with home products. Others advocate a freer economy, with fewer fiscal restrictions.

Perhaps these are the same economists who were telling us, only yesterday, that the days of boom and slump belonged to an old era of ignorance and were gone for ever.

The emigrants must know differently. But there is little hope that they will lose the illusions which they took west with them.

Some may return to this country, or travel on to other lands. Others will stay in Canada. But wherever they go capitalism, and its problems, will be waiting to greet them.

Battle of the Roads

Despite the reduction in road deaths over the recent Christmas period as compared with that of 1959, the Ministry of Transport and the various road safety organisations are still faced with the task of exhorting the restless tide of humanity, to walk and drive carefully. Each year hundreds of proposals for road safety are considered. One of the main difficulties is that of the separation of pedestrians and traffic, but since this can only be accomplished at enormous cost, it is not considered practical, and consequently palliatives and not remedies are preferred.

There is a mistaken belief among some people that these road problems are only a recent phenomenon, but as long ago as 1846 the daily newspapers were complaining of the inadequacies of the principal thoroughfares and of the fact that all that could be done was to patch up and mend. In today’s battle of the roads one can see all the contradictory nature of capitalist society. Whilst Mr. Marples is making his appeal, we are being told about the super-petrols which are supposed to make cars go faster, not to mention the prestige value of the bigger and faster car.

But big problems are often solved by simple remedies. The question of cost in relation to profit is at the root not only of the road problem, but of most of the major problems facing society today. The road problem is aggravated by the thousands of commercial and business vehicles which congest the highways and bye-ways, taking back and forth goods which have covered the same ground several times before. There are also thousands of small, medium, and large size shops selling identical goods to the people in the already overcrowded towns and cities. We can only wonder that the accident rate is not higher than the statistics show.

Appeals for less density of commerce and industry in the larger cities have failed. London, for instance, seems to be going the same way as New York and this fact alone should dispel any illusions the long suffering travelling public have of ever avoiding the “ peak hour ” chaos—a battle of the roads with no holds barred.

Excuses and Admissions (1961)

From the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

When he was Prime Minister, and a plain Mister, Earl Attlee made something of a name for himself as a calm, quiet, pipe smoking, doodling, ruthless chief. Now that he is in retirement, his views are much sought after by the newspapers, radio and so on, who presumably think that there is nothing so sage and objective as the opinion of the elder statesman. A few months back, Earl Attlee went to a meeting of the World Association of World Federalists in Bonn and there made the sort of speech which was expected of him. In the course of that speech he said, as an indication of the urgency of resolving international disputes, that there were “… not more than ten years in which to find the road to peace.”

Now this was something of an admission. If there was one thing for which the last war was suppose to have been fought, it was to ensure a peaceful world. Earl Attlee, as Deputy Prime Minister in the wartime coalition, played his part in promoting that idea in the minds of war-weary workers. Yet here we are, fifteen years after, still apparently looking for the road to peace.

Of course, Earl Attlee’s statement is by no means exceptional. Many politicians have a seemingly infinite capacity for explaining away, and promising to remedy, the malfeasances of capitalism. Whatever the strife and poverty which may be evident at any time, there is never a shortage of smooth politicos, each with his solution to the world’s problems and the hope of better times to come, when we have found the road to peace or prosperity or some other paradise.

Take, for example, the recent trouble in Laos, over which the State Department displayed its famous trigger-neurosis. A popularly touted solution to this flare up was the recall of the 1954 Geneva Conference. This, we were invited to believe, would do something to settle the Laos disturbance. But this is what the 1954 conference was supposed to have already done; remember the knighthood which Anthony Eden received for the part which he played in it? Now we have evidence that the disputes in Indo-China are as rife as ever. The new trouble spot—Laos—was, in fact, established as an independent state by the Geneva Conference as part of its supposed peace making. What reason is there to assume that another conference would have any more lasting effect than its predecessor? None whatever. Nevertheless, this is all that capitalism’s representatives have to offer.

It is true that these conferences sometimes seem to bear fruit. But this is only a superficial impression; actually, they can only ever manage to suppress one aspect of a particular problem, which is simultaneously in evidence, or about to emerge, somewhere else. Consider the case of Cyprus. For years, the Greek Cypriot nationalists fought the British forces on the island, taking occasional time off to kill Turkish Cypriots or their own traitors. Then came the Zurich Pact which, when the various disagreements had been hammered out, seemed to have put an end to the fighting in Cyprus. Now, apart from the odd settling of a score which was made during the emergency, all is peaceful on the island. What about the rest of the world? We have already mentioned Laos; the war in Algeria goes on; the Belgium Congo is still in bloody confusion. And we know that, if an international conference were to settle these conflicts, similar problems would spring out somewhere else. Perhaps, even, in Cyprus again. This may make the conference look pretty sick as a pacifying instrument, but we can depend on it that it will not prevent the politicians from offering it as a remedy when the world’s next sore spot breaks out.

This is not peculiar to the international scene of capitalism. At home, the working class are familiar with—and, sadly, receptive to—the excuses and nostrums which flood from the organs of capitalist opinion as fast as the events which provoke them. Sometimes, directly opposite solutions are proposed for the same problem. The government has stated that, to stabilise the British economy, they must impose some strict controls over hire purchase facilities. In contrast, there are many spokesmen for the industries which thrive on H. P. who take the view that the way to stabilise the economy is to remove, or at any rate to relax, those restrictions. Neither side has any interest in pointing out that the H.P. boom, and the recession which followed, is an example of the fundamental anarchy of capitalist society. At least one firm in the domestic appliance industry felt the H.P. cuts extra keenly because, when the restrictions were off, they invested in a lot of extra productive capacity to enable them to exploit the market which had opened before them. When the squeeze came, this production—and a lot of workers— became redundant.

Is it too much to hope that the redundant workers will reflect that they have been caught in something which, we were assured, could never happen again? Some capitalist economists are fond of blaming the 1929 crash onto the fact that, in the excitement of the preceding boom, there was a lot of reckless investment which was bound to collapse sooner or later. This was supposed to have taught everyone a lesson. Yet some of the stories which have gone the rounds in the City about the recent collapse of a couple of H.P. finance companies almost recall the days of the South Sea Bubble (although admittedly no company has again reached the blissful state of raising capital to finance “an enterprise the nature of which is to be divulged”.) In their eagerness to exploit the boom the financiers trusted their weight to as creaky limbs as their forebears did in the twenties. Whatever other changes there have been, the basis of capitalism—production for sale—remains. And with it remain the anomalies and upheavals, try as the politicians may to explain them away.

What is to be done about this? Should we look for better politicians, with better excuses? Self evidently, this is futile. Wars, uneasy peace, booms, slumps, poverty are part of capitalism because they spring from the roots of that society. No politician, however smooth, can change that. This, strangely, must be done by the working class over the world. These are the people who produce our wealth, suffer capitalism’s wars and its insecurity. Now, they accept their leaders’ excuses and apologies. As easily, they could reject them.

Ivan