Are Politicians Honest? (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does anybody expect politicians and other leaders to be honest? To keep their promises? To admit their mistakes and if necessary make way for somebody who can do better than they? The history of capitalism is crowded with examples of leaders who have never done anything of the kind. Of men who have persisted in policies and actions which were obviously harmful—and have lied to justify their mistakes.

Older people will remember the stubbornness of the European politicians in the 1914-18 war, who persisted in futile campaigns which were often costing thousands of lives every day, without achieving even the objects which the generals had set out for them. There as a story that, when the terrible battle at Passchendaele was at last over, a high ranking British officer went up to the battlefield and wept at what he saw there. But Douglas Haig, the man who had planned and defended the whole campaign, did not weep. He was given an earldom. None of the politicians suggested that the war was one great, bitter futility. None of them, when it was over, balanced the dead against what was settled at the so-called peace conferences. They simply rearranged the frontiers of Europe, threw the Germans out of Africa and waited for the next war to start. And when that happened, one of the excuses for it was a dispute over a part of the post-1918 settlement — the Polish Corridor. The treaties of 1945 have had the same effect—they have not pacified, but have irritated and provoked more sore spots in the world.

These are only some of the instances when, although direct and vital human interests were at stake, the leaders of capitalism have been less than honest .They are still at the same game. Last March, President Eisenhower spoke to some American-Chilean organisations in Santiago de Chile. He had this to say:

The suggestion that America supports dictators is ridiculous. Surely no nation loves liberty more. . . . We repudiate dictatorship in any form right or left. Our role . . . stands as a beacon to all who love freedom.

Fine words. They ignore the fact that, in the past few years, the U.S.A. has supported, financially and militarily, dictators like Franco, Syngman Rhee, and Batista. And, of course, they have helped one of the most ruthless of the lot—Stalin, who was sustained in his pitiless rule by the aid which America poured into his country during the war. At the time, the American and Russian ruling classes had common cause against Germany—and when capitalist interests are at stake, principles of freedom and human rights are left to take care of themselves.

Nearer home, we find other examples of political inconsistency. The Manchester Guardian of 15th June. 1959, reporting on the Whitehaven by-election, drew attention to two statements which had been made by the Conservative candidate. One, in February. 1950. when he was standing as a Liberal, called the Conservative Party ". . . a class party . . . which desires to keep power and privilege m the hands of a particular section of the community". The other, in October. 1951, when he had joined the Tories, described them as standing ". . . not for one section of the community, but for all.”

This latter can be a winning line. Most workers deny the existence of a class struggle and vote against a party which they think stands for the interests of any class. The majority of them harbour the delusion that everybody’s interests are the same—and woe betide the "rabble rouser" who talks about the class war. This goes down especially well with the hire-purchasers of television sets and the deferred buyers of cars. So, to win votes and influence people, a party must often claim that it is above class, and that its opponents dabble in the fields of narrow self-interest.

A lot of money can be spent to put over this sort of idea. The recently published The British General Election of 1959, by David Butler and Richard Rose, reveals that between July, 1957, and October, 1959, the Conservative Party lashed out £468,000 on press advertising and posters alone. All of this—and what was spent at the same time by the other parties and by the various industries threatened with nationalisation—to convince workers that capitalism could be better organised by one set of leaders rather than the other. Are the voters flattered? Apparently so; change as they might between Labour, Tory, Liberal or what have you, their support for capitalism is unwavering.

Here is the very centre of the whirlwind. They trust their leaders Field Marshal Lord Montgomery summed it up when he said, on the anniversary of D-Day:

. . . a way can be found by which the East and the West can live together in spite of different ideas and social systems, but the finding of that way is not for you and me—it is for our political leaders.

This surprisingly is not one of the Field Marshal's least sensible statements. The problems of capitalist society can be left to "our political leaders." But workers—the people who make and build, who manage and organise—and who die in capitalisms wars—have a different task. They must realise that the leaders themselves show the wretchedness and brutality of the system. That, even without the mistakes and dishonesty which we have seen, capitalism would still make one hell of a world. That the future is not in putting blind faith in leaders, but in widespread understanding and socially conscious action.

Ivan

Correction (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the May 1960 Socialist Standard we gave an extract from the Socialist Standard of May 1910, which was in fact corrected in the June, 1910, issue. The first three sentences, as corrected, should have read: "The Social Democratic Party in Germany occupies a similar position to the party similarly named here. Its programme (the Erfurter Programme), according to their own statement, consists of the theoretical part, based on the teachings of Marx—the materialist conception of history, the surplus value theory and the class struggle—and the practical, consisting of reforms and 'palliatives: and we allege that the whole existence of the German SDP has been spent in the advocacy of these reforms, to the detriment of Socialist propaganda. We do not hold the erroneous view . . . that the German workers must obtain certain reforms because the revolution from feudalism to Capitalism was not complete.”

We apologise for overlooking this correction.

50 Years Ago: Married Women in the Factory (1960)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

From an article by a Factory Inspector

Married women in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in addition to bearing the children and caring for the home, are often compelled partly and sometimes wholly to support their family. In a number of cases which come under our notice the wives work all day in the mill and on their return, tidy the home, baking and washing for the family. Many do not retire till midnight, rising again early in order to provide for a midday meal before going to work. In the dinner hour they quickly return, prepare the meal, serve the husband and children, swallowing their food far too hurriedly and again hasten back to work. Their lives often appear to be little better than those of slaves, and many at 45 are broken-down women prematurely aged. If a community is to be judged by the status of its women, here certainly the condition of the working women reminds one of coolie women in India, or those of many of the African tribes where women are more or less beasts of burden.

From the Socialist Standard, July 1910.

The Passing Show: South African Realities (1960)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

South African Realities

Anyone who doubts the validity of the Socialist interpretation of events in South Africa — that what we are seeing is the emergence of a new capitalist class, together with the corresponding proletariat, in a country still ruled by the landowners — would do well to look at The Times Supplement on South Africa, which appeared on May 31st. Valuable figurcs are given to back up the verdict that “during the 50 years of the Union, South Africa has developed from a pastoral country into a modern industrial state,” and that the last two decades have witnessed “unprecedented industrial growth.” Steel production, for example, has increased a hundredfold in twenty-five years. The total gross value of the output of South Africa's manufacturing industries has gone up from £40 million in 1915-16 to £1,424 million in 1955-56, thirty-five times as much. Even allowing for inflation, there is still obviously a gigantic increase here.

As the Supplement puts it, “it has become clear that new policies and fundamental changes in attitude are necessary if rapid industrial growth is to be continued into the next half century.” This means, of course, that the policies of the capitalists will have to replace the policies of the landowners. The justification for this is to be found in that favourite phrase of the capitalists, “economic realities.” The Supplement says:

At this time political issues completely overshadow economics in any assessment of the future—the key question being whether government policies will be in harmony with economic realities (industry’s complete reliance on a stable, settled, urban non-white labour force) or whether there will be further attempts to impose on industry racial policies that will increasingly undermine productivity and progress. . . . It has now become quite clear to industrialists that South Africa can realize its great potential and its ambitions to become the “workshop of Africa” only if a contented and stable labour force is built up and if existing barriers to productivity are removed. . . . Industry itself is now beginning to recognize what this means in terms of housing, social welfare and minimum wages, and the need to encourage the emergence of a property-owning African middle class with a stake in maintaining social stability.

It would be hard to improve on these quotations as a statement of the aims and ambitions of the South African capitalist class at the present time. The capitalists now dominate the South African economy: how long will it be before they dominate South Africa politically?—especially since capitalism dominates all the other “civilized” countries of the world. Well, they themselves are optimistic. As the Supplement sums up: “South African industrialists are confident that economic realities will prevail and that a new and constructive approach to the problems of growth in a multi-racial society will emerge.”

Race Hate

The fascist British Union Movement has been distinguishing itself again, this time when some of its members followed an American Negro comedian along the street, shouting abuse at him from a loudspeaker van. There have been some indignant comments on the incident from those who consider themselves left-wingers. No doubt these protests are sincere, but they are illogical. For the capitalist system breeds race hatred. Only in the last twenty years we have seen the ruling classes of various countries, whenever it was in their own interests, whipping up hatred of the Jews, the Germans, the British, the Russians, the Americans, and many more. From time to time every capitalist country goes to war, and needs the working class to kill and be killed in defence of its masters’ profits. The official propagation of race hatred is one of the means inevitably used to lash the workers into the necessary frame of mind. So that people who oppose racialism and at the same time support capitalism (private or state) are merely defeating their own ends.

In the meantime Mosley’s fascists demonstrate the gentlemanly standards of the “white civilisation” they claim to be defending, by hurling insults at a foreign visitor in the open street.

Mutual Help Society

From The Times (9-6-60):

The Institute of Directors have accepted an invitation from the State Scientific and Technical Committee of the U.S.S.R. to send a goodwill and fact-finding mission to Russia to study problems of Soviet industrial management.

Sir Richard Powell, Director-General of the Institute of Directors, said that the mission is “an attempt to get an overall picture of top Russian management policy in industry and commerce. . . . It should prove a unique opportunity for high ranking British businessmen to see their Russian counterparts at work.” 

Without question the ruling class of Russia and the ruling class of Britain could help each other a great deal by showing each other how they run their respective businesses, and keep their respective working classes in order. Although capitalism in Britain is still largely private, while in Russia it is state-run, nevertheless the two economic systems are the same in every important respect. The “high-ranking British business men” and their “Russian counterparts” will have a great deal in common. We look forward to the day when the British and Russian working classes will co-operate in the establishment of Socialism, just as today our masters collaborate for the better running of capitalism.

Alwyn Edgar

Voice From The Back: Poisoned, not bombed (2000)

The Voice From The Back Column from the February 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poisoned, not bombed 

For the first time, more people are leaving their homes because of environmental factors than because of war. The world now has 25 million environmental refugees, compared with 21 million war-related refugees. The crisis is largely the result of more than half of the world’s rivers drying up or becoming seriously polluted, according to a report from the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The Amazon and the Congo are the two healthiest of the world’s 500 major rivers—probably because they have few industrial centres near their banks, the commission suggests. It blames abuse of land and water resources and poor management by regional authorities for the problem. Guardian, Science, 2 December.

Asking dangerous questions 

The only way to judge the success of an agent of change would be to ask: is it affecting the human condition? Does the internet move food and supplies around the world to the people who need them? Does it relieve human suffering, make us more aware of political prisoners, change the plight of refugees? The role of computers as agents of change is to administer the planet properly, and help us figure out, for example, why farmers in some countries are paid to burn food while people in others starve to death. Or to co-ordinate human effort around the globe in a way that hasn’t been achieved before. Guardian online, 2 December.

Capitalist art 

It isn’t just the bitchiness which, judging by her book, is endemic in ballet. The pain is no joke either: like her fellow ballerinas, [Darcey] Bussell hates giving in to injury partly because ballet is such a short career, and will dance on if humanly possible, smiling through the pain . . . There is also the mental pressure. Criticism in ballet is unrelenting, intense emphasis is placed on the body, and at every stage girls are weeded out and dumped. No doubt this is why, as Bussell observes, “dancers are neurotically unsure of themselves”. Add to this the internecine competition for roles or just to retain a three-month contract, and you have a very nasty environment. But, as Bussell explains, “we can’t be too nice because it’s the rivalry that keeps us hungry and drives our careers”. Night & Day, 21 November.

Where can it go? 

“Capitalism is a force that moves, but it does not know where it is going.” Lionel Jospin, Prime Minister of France, Yorkshire Post, 20 November.

It goes this way 

As the world enters a new millennium, children are continuing to be killed and exposed to abuse in flagrant violation of their rights, according to the executive director of Unicef, Ms Carol Bellamy . . . Despite unprecedented wealth in the global economy, where currency markets exchange $1.5 trillion a day, more than 1.2 billion people struggle to survive on less than $1 a day and more than 600 million are children. Per capita income, adjusted for inflation, is lower today in 80 countries than it was a decade ago. Herald, 13 December.

So much for rights! 

A year after the UN approved a declaration to protect human rights activists, repression has increased throughout the world, according to findings published in Paris today. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders said more than 200 activists had been executed, tortured or arbitrarily arrested since the UN vote. But the picture was incomplete as nearly a dozen countries made it impossible for independent associations to operate, while a further 30 states systematically obstructed investigations. Guardian, 8 December.

Games 

America is taking the threat of terrorism at the Olympic Games in Sydney next year so seriously that a US navy battlegroup, with an aircraft carrier, destroyer and submarine will be on stand-by off the Australian coast throughout the games. They will be in international waters ready to respond to any attack with force, including biological and chemical warfare units. Times, 15 December.

Class war casualties 

Up to 55 cases of corporate manslaughter a year should be brought against companies and directors where employees have been killed in the workplace, according to new research. Gary Slapper, director of the law programme at the Open University, said the law needed to be changed and a tougher approach taken to fatal safety lapses in the workplace . . . “When a reckless company kills, the legal system usually just yawns and turns away. There is virtually no deterrent,” he said . . . Since 1965, 25,000 people have been killed at work or in major commercial disasters. Health and Safety Executive reports suggest that 70 percent of these deaths resulted from a management failure. Dr Slapper’s research also shows that 60 percent of deaths were attributable to economic factors, cutting corners to save money as opposed to simple ignorance about safety. Independent, 29 November.

Hard times 

The Duke of Westminster’s nine-year-old heir, the Earl Grosvenor, has been named on a High Court writ. The reason? The lad’s £1 billion inheritance. Thankfully, young Hugh is not about to be cut out of his father’s will. The move, says Jeremy Newsum, the chief executive of Grosvenor Estate Holdings, is “a bit of housekeeping”. This has been made necessary because of dramatic changes in the way the family’s assets, estimated at £1.75 billion, now have to be managed. Times, 15 December. 

Correct language (2000)

Book Review from the February 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Socialism and Communication: Reflections on language and left politics’. By Omar Swartz, (Avebury, 1999)

This short book, by an American self-styled communication professional, will prove both encouraging and frustrating to socialists. On the positive side, Swartz says a number of things that we say, or at least with which we don’t disagree. But on the negative side he says much that represents confusion about what socialism is as opposed to capitalism, much that is calculated to deter the growth of socialism rather than promote it.

The good news first. In the order in which they appear in the book, Swartz makes the following statements:

    * Socialism … can be usefully understood here as the system by which human beings—once their essential needs are taken care of—are motivated to work and create by considerations other than monetary profit.

    * The communist party cannot be hierarchical. It cannot be authoritarian.

    * The task of socialism is the battle against alienation.

    * Class conflict transcends racial or religious conflict, and is the root of all conflict.

    * The true socialist must reject the “beneficence” and “wisdom” of the so-called “vanguard parties”.

    * Socialism is about the abolition of all masters.

    * There are many different socialisms, some preferable to others.

    * [The communist party] cannot be anything more than a loose coalition of various leftist perspectives.

    * The left believes . . . that political decisions must be based on the active involvement of the people being governed.

    * In a very real sense, the world is crying out for a strong left leadership.

    * The choices before us are not between “socialism” and “capitalism’, but between better or worse forms of government and economics.

    * There is too much fragmentation and divisiveness in the ranks of the political left. This divisiveness must be transcended.

The basic trouble with Swartz’s position, and those who think like him, is that they are desperate to be part of a big movement, and are willing to sacrifice any long-term goals they may have for the sake of short-term expediency. The divisiveness that Swartz deplores is not between groups that share the same goal and differ only about how to achieve it. It is between a presently small group of convinced socialists who are organised to achieve their goal and a presently much larger group, some of whom pay lip service to the socialist movement and all of whom prevent the growth of that movement by supporting various reforms of capitalism.

Stan Parker

The Futility of Reformism (2000)

Book Review from the February 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Labour in Crisis – The Second Labour Government, 1929-31’. By Neil Riddell. (Manchester University Press)

The Labour Party, they used to say, was a broad church. Tony Blair, though he has sanctimoniousness in buckets, has spent much of the last five years trying to narrow it down a little. But he has not always found this easy. The strength of Riddell’s book is to show clearly just how much of a compromise the Labour Party always was.

First the facts of the second Labour government. It was elected as a minority in 1929 under the clouds of the impending crash. It imploded in 1931 amid squabbles over a cut in the dole, and after the desertion of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to form the National Government (a Tory-dominated coalition).

This much is well known. What Riddell does that is new is to trace relationships between different sections of the Labour movement (the part, that is, which constituted the Labour Party) as capitalism’s latest crisis left the politicians gasping. Except “relationships” isn’t always the right word. “Hatreds” might sometimes be better. Senior trade unionists (who Sidney Webb called “pigs”) and politicians came close to blows at least once. A broad church maybe, but saintly it was not.

What were the aims of different parts of the movement, which Riddell maintains never could have been reconciled? The TUC wanted a government answerable to them, committed to removing the anti-union laws passed after the general strike. MacDonald, of course, had no intention of giving it them.

Local Labour parties with union backing agreed with the TUC. The rest, always broke because of union resistance to pooled funds, just tried to stay afloat. Union-sponsored MPs generally went along with the TUC line too. Other MPs split, some supporting the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in its quest for “a living wage”. This was proposed first as a remedy for under-consumption, later as a “transitional demand” by which capitalism would be bankrupted. Some for a while were sympathetic to Mosley. Most could only hope that their seats would be safe when the fiasco ended.

Riddell devotes much space to what he calls “the intellectuals”. Looking at what they supported, now and later, this is surely to flatter them. Generally, they plumped for some sort of nationalisation as the way ahead.

Different again was MacDonald himself, a keen proponent of “the inevitability of gradualness”. He believed that meaningful change could come about through piecemeal reforms of capitalism. Snowden, his chancellor, was firmly committed to balanced budgets, free trade and the gold standard. Both craved respectability. (Sound familiar, anyone?).

No wonder R. H. Tawney could call their 1929 manifesto “a glittering forest of Christmas trees, with presents for everyone”. And it was undeliverable. As for the alternative, propagated in the pages of this paper then as now, there was not a whisper from anyone.

Disappointments were inevitable, and MacDonald’s non-spin doctored public relations only made things worse for him. What really knocked the apple from the tree though was capitalism’s slump. When the government did crash, it was spectacular.

The movement, of course, resolved that such a thing must never happen again. Webb went off to look for a different dream, and found it in the USSR. (Soviet Communism: a new civilisation? was published in 1935, but reprinted two years later without the question mark). Generally, the party took up a different brand of reformism in the 1930s and 1940s, looking ever more to nationalisation, finance controls and management by “experts” working through a benign state. “Gradualism” was too slow; and the next Labour government was quicker off the mark.

But what difference would it make? It wasn’t just MacDonald’s leadership which was found wanting in 1931. It was the whole idea that capitalism could be reformed into something kindly and user-friendly. It couldn’t and it can’t. Blair is the face of a Labour Party that accepts this basic truth.

Toby Crowe

Housing reform examined. An illustration from Vienna. (1927)

From the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The housing problem is—for the workers —neither new, nor limited to any one country.

It existed before the War and exists still, despite the much-advertised efforts which have been made by the post-war Governments all over Europe. In essence the problem is simple. The workers cannot afford to pay rents high enough to make the building of houses a profitable undertaking for the capitalist building concerns, and even when the municipalities or the Government step in they are faced with the choice either to let their houses at rents less than sufficient to meet the cost, have them unoccupied, or else overcrowded with two or more families. In the “New Leader” (October 21st) there appeared an article by an Austrian writer, Olga Misar, bestowing high praise upon the Austrian Labour Party for the housing policy which they have carried out on the Municipal Council of Vienna. They have built some 25,000 working-class dwellings and have thereby greatly reduced the pressure on accommodation which immediately after the War was probably worse than in any other European city.

The writer points out that whereas in pre-war days the Viennese worker had to pay away about 25 per cent. of his wages as rent, the present proportion is only about 2 or 3 per cent. A man with £1 per week wages, instead of paying 10s. rent, now pays only about 1s.

If this is true, does not the Austrian Labour Party fully deserve the praise which Olga Misar showers on them?

In fact, however, this is only part of the story. Other information is contained in an Austrian Labour Party pamphlet, “Die Wohnungspolitik der Gemeinde Wien (1926)” (Housing Policy of the Vienna Municipality), which very admirably illustrates the soundness of the Socialist opposition to the advocacy of reforms.

True, rents are proportionally less, but SO ARE WAGES. What has happened is as follows :

Seventy per cent. of the production of the Austrian factories is for export, but as Austria has few sources of raw materials or fuel, she must import them at world prices. Faced with the problem of exporting manufactured goods in competition with big and better equipped German, English and American industries, and lacking the capital to re-equip their factories on modern up-to-date lines, the only solution for the Austrian capitalists was to lower wages, and at the same time, if possible, increase the efficiency of their workers.

By the almost complete elimination of rent from the expenditure of working-class households wages could be and have been reduced without sacrificing the indispensable minimum of food, clothing, etc., necessary to maintain their working powers.

That this is a correct view of the situation is confirmed by a report published by the International Labour Office of the League of Nations. The report says :—

“The item of expenditure on rent in working-class budgets was reduced to practically nothing ; in July, 1923, it was barely 1 per cent. of the total expenditure of a working-class family, whereas before the war it might be estimated at about 20 per cent.

The change, however, directly benefited certain classes of workers only. But this applied only to unskilled wage earners in a few industries. Most of the workers were in the same position as those of Germany; they had practically no liabilities under the heading of rent, but the corresponding amount was not included in their wages. The actual gain was thus nil.

Industry, on the other hand, benefited, as in Germany, by the reduction in the cost of most labour by the full amount which rent represented in wages before the war.” (The Workers’ Standard of Life in countries with depreciated currency. International Labour Office, Geneva, 1925 P. 97.)

The nett result is that the efficiency of the workers has been maintained or increased by the added comfort and contentedness promoted by better and less-crowded housing accommodation than would have been supplied by private capitalist builders. And since this could not be carried through as a financially self-supporting scheme it has been financed at the expense of the Austrian landlords, by means of heavy house and rent taxes levied on landlords money was raised by the Municipality to build and subsidise working-class dwellings.

In short, the landlords have been plundered by the Labour Party in order to subsidise the export trade of the Austrian factory owners. The workers pay less rent, receive wages which are correspondingly less than before, and give better service.

The “successful” Labour housing policy is then just part of the sectional struggle between exporting and landowning capitalists.

Even so, there remains the question of the better housing accommodation. It will be said that this at least is a gain to the workers. True, but did it need a “Labour” majority to secure that incidental gain, and is the securing of it a justification for the policy of fighting for reforms of the capitalist system ?

It was in the interest of the manufacturers to have their employees well housed, contented and efficient. Henry Ford, Bournville, and Port Sunlight are instances of the care taken by more progressive capitalists to ensure that the home conditions of their workers do not militate against their efficiency as wealth producers ; and the activities of almost every government (including the Austrian Central Government) in the direction of restricting rents or of building or subsidising houses, show that they will not neglect their own interests as an employing class. Instead of allowing themselves to be used as the instruments of a section of the capitalist class, the party of the workers should concentrate on the very necessary and at present largely neglected task of demonstrating the impossibility of solving the poverty problem inside the capitalist system.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Money and price. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A Criticism and a Reply.

Sir,

I am of the opinion that A. E. Jacomb, writing under the heading of “Should we Produce More” (S.S., Oct. 1927) makes serious blunders in his economics. He says :

“Let us take the employed workmen in a community as one thousand, let us reduce their varied products to a common form, which we call ‘wares,’ and finally let us suppose that the price of each of those wares is £l, and it is the product of one man’s labour for a day. We have the following condition of affairs as the result of the day’s effort :—

Workers 1,000; Wares, 1,000; Price, £1,000. Now suppose that from some cause each worker doubles his day’s output, the figures then would be :—

Workers, 1,000; Wares, 2,000; Price £2,000.”


Now I have always understood since I became acquainted with Marxian political economy that
 price is the monetary expression of exchange value. That goods exchange for goods and that
 price was merely an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold 
contained in the £1 sterling. Gold does not determine the price any more than a ruler determines the length of the object measured. Like other commodities, gold has value also price, and is subject to the same laws that apply to them. In fact one might as logically say that wheat determines the price of other goods. The reason why gold is adopted as a standard is its portability, the fact that it does not deteriorate in storage, and that on the average it is less subject to market fluctuations. The Labour Power necessary to produce a given quantity of gold is pretty constant from one year to another; Certainly the discovery of fresh deposits and the introduction of the cyanide process and modern crushing plant has reduced the value of gold which coupled with the fact that it no longer functions as coinage brings supply in excess of demand and a consequent fall in price. But to take A. E. Jacomb’s analogy we must accept the notion that inflation of the currency was responsible for the rise in prices during the war period and since.

I will now take Value and Price (Marx). Value is determined by the amount of socially necessary Labour Power embodied. Price equals Exchange Value, i.e., the relative amount of socially necessary labour power embodied plus the factor of supply and demand. Therefore it follows that if I have 2,000 wares the value of which, assuming that fixed capital is halved as well as variable capital in their production, is just that of 1,000 produced under the old conditions. Of a necessity they must ultimately saturate the market and price will fall below value and will actually exchange at an adverse price. Assuming that the process of production is extended to every other commodity the exchange, i.e., Price remains at par.

Foreign exchange will show how A. E. Jacomb falls. For instance, say, the £1 is quoted at 4.86 to the dollar, it has nothing to do with the amount of gold in either, but the amount of goods that each will buy in their own country. Gold is a mere detail compared to other values created. The amount held by the Banks only fractionally covers the paper in circulation, i.e., Treasury and Bank Notes. Commerce operates by Cheque, Bill or Draft—a mere book transaction. It could not be done by a transference of gold, without half of the population being engaged in gold extraction. Bullion transactions are but adjustments. In the short compass of a letter I cannot deal with every detail of A. E. Jacomb’s article, but may do so later, if allowed.—Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.

Reply to Rimington.

I showed that the result of all wares, including gold, being produced at half the labour cost would be that prices remain the same. My critic says I am wrong. Yet he himself states : “Assuming that the process of production is extended to every other commodity, the exchange, i.e., price, remains at par.” Notwithstanding, then, that I am wrong and my critic right, we both say the same thing, and are in entire agreement so far.

However, Mr. Rimington did not know when to stop. He was safe enough while he was repeating the present scribe, but when he let go of his hand he was soon floundering in the mud. “Gold,” he says, “has value, also price,” and later tells us that gold supply is in excess of demand, and there is a “consequent fall in price.”

Gold has price, has it ! Then how is it expressed? “Price,” my friend correctly states, “is the monetary expression of value.” What, then, is the monetary expression of money? To say that the price of 1,000 bricks is £3 is an intelligent statement ; but to say that the price of the gold in £3 is £3 is idiocy. It adds nothing to our knowledge. An ounce of gold is coined into money expressed by the figures £3 17s. 10½d. It does not matter how the value of gold fluctuates, the amount of gold expressed by those figures is always the same—one ounce. If, then, £3 17s. 10½ d. is the price of one ounce of gold, how is the fall in price to which my critic refers expressed? If the figures are not the price, what is?

Price is an endeavour to equate one kind of commodity to a different commodity (gold), not one to its like; and since all prices are in terms of gold, gold is the only commodity which has no price, and can have none. If silver was the standard of price, then gold could have a price.

Mr. Rimington’s statement that commerce could not operate “by a transference of gold, without half of the population being engaged in gold extraction,” is another ridiculous assertion. The idea is, of course, that for every commodity which is not gold the golden equivalent must exist in order to enable it to exchange. If every piece of gold that was exchanged for a commodity dropped out of circulation when the commodity did he might be correct. But what would become, will my critic tell us, of the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread when the latter were consumed? Would the gold be consumed also? Or would it be free to serve as the medium of further exchanges?

It is difficult to get to the back of Mr. Rimington’s mind, but he appears to imply that high general prices since the war are the result of the supply of gold being in excess of demand. Strangely enough, however, when prices were highest, gold was scarcest.

What Mr. Rimington has to tell us regarding foreign exchange is laughable. When “the £1 is quoted, say, at 4.86 to the $” (Gosh! nearly £5 to the dollar! what a come down for the British Lion !) it has nothing to do with the amount of goods each will buy in its own country. It simply means that the balance of payments is against the country whose money is at a premium. International debts (in commerce) are paid by a process of cancellation. The medium is Bills of Exchange. A in England owes B in America £100; C in America owes D in England £100. If A in England pays D in England £100 and C in America pays A in America £100, they are all square. B draws a bill on A for £100; this he sells to C, who, owing D £100, sends him the bill, and the latter presents it to A for payment upon the date of its maturity. All this is done actually through recognised agents, who buy and sell bills of exchange for a small commission. Now when payments due from England to America largely exceed those due from America to England there will not be sufficient bills on America offered to satisfy the requirements of all those requiring them to pay their debts to Americans. Clearly, then, gold will have to be sent to balance. As the cost of transporting gold has to be faced, the price of the bills advance to cover this. Should gold be very scarce in the country where the demand for bills exceeds the supply, then anticipation of difficulty in obtaining gold will send the price of bills up higher still. That, friend Rimington, is what “foreign exchange” amounts to.

Now let’s see where we stand. After the war prices were much higher than they are now. Also the rate of exchange as between England and America was much more unfavourable to England than it is now. According to Mr. Rimington this means that gold was in greater excess then than now; but according to what I have written above the reverse is indicated. Who is right? It is pretty clear that if gold had been so much in excess of demand in this country as to give us such high prices as prevailed after the war, the master class, instead of putting restrictions on its movement, would have been glad to send some of it to America, thus restoring the balance of exchange on the one hand, and lowering prices to their wage slaves on the other. The first would have meant that they could pay their debts more cheaply, and the second that they could have knocked down wages wholesale.

I have not space to deal with the other dud eggs in my critic’s mare’s nest, but if he is going to have another shot, he should try to be a little more careful.

A. E. Jacomb

Letter: Nationalisation and Socialism. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Below is a letter from a correspondent, together with our reply to his numbered questions.

To the Editor, Socialist Standard.

31/10/27.

Dear Sir, 

One or two questions and remarks about “The Nationalisation Fraud” in November issue of S.S.

(1) Regarding the Post Office, in which I have served. You say the workers “have no control, while the masters own.” Do they not have control through their votes?

(2) Does not any revenue made go to lighten the burden elsewhere? I know it is not Socialism, but it is an attempt in that direction, which is not bad considering it is surrounded by Capitalist conditions.

(3) You contend nationalisation would have a “worsening effect” on workers’ conditions. I do not think telephonists are worse off now than when the telephones were in the hands of the National Telephone Company.

(4) Your quotation of Ramsay MacDonald saying Nationalisation would not “get you out of your present difficulties” seems adroit, but possibly unfair. You neglect to mention to whom he was addressing his remarks. If to any particular body such as teachers, miners, or bakers it seems a perfectly legitimate statement to make. Nationalisation will not solve all difficulties when applied piecemeal, with the rest of society under capitalist methods of administration, but the trouble is that capitalism has put all our civil activities in such a slender balance that any sudden disturbance such as Socialism in a night would probably cause great distress at the outset, which would put back its realisation for a century. I am not in the councils of Labour, but it seems to me that they choose to attempt things gradually.

(5) I know the lower grades in the Civil Service were sore because the millennium did not arrive with the Labour Government, but badly off as they are, there were many other workers in worse parlance, and it was to the condition of the latter that Labour gave prior consideration, viz., O.A.P. Act, 1924, which removed means enquiries. Wheatley Housing Bill. Not Socialism I know, but an effort in that direction.

(6) I imagine much of this will be read with impatience by you, but the fact remains, the electorate are not Socialist yet. The Labour party is a sign that they are turning that way. I say nothing of their leaders, but few things worth having come suddenly. The few successes, the failures and hard lessons learned it is to be hoped will turn the electorate by steps to Socialism.

(7) One more question, and a request. The S.P.G.B. write some very trenchant criticism of all parties in the S.S. This is comparatively easy, and with much of it hosts of people will agree. You publish a “Declaration of Principles,” but assume for a moment The Socialist Party in power with a majority in the Commons will you please indicate what steps it would take to put these principles into practice, and sketch a picture of the state of society after the first twelve months’ administration. There are many snags in putting principles into practice, and some idea of how you would start should prove interesting and instructive to your readers.

Yours faithfully,

G. E. Wright.

Reply:

(1) The workers at present vote Capitalist agents into control of the machinery of Government, thus placing control in the hands of the Capitalist class. We urge them to use their votes to place themselves in control of the machinery of Government.

(2) Yes, the Post Office surplus goes to relieve the Capitalist class of part of their burden of taxation. We fail to see how this is a step towards Socialism. Perhaps our correspondent will enlighten us.

(3) We do not believe, and did not say, that the State pays lower wages than out side industry. As was pointed out in the recent Post Office award of the Civil Service Arbitration Court, Civil Service wages are based on the wages and conditions in industry generally. The “worsening effect” referred to the greater dependency and more restricted position of the State employee who has only one potential employer, as compared with the outside worker who at least has some slight choice. We do not, however, suggest that the difference is great; all are wage-slaves.

(4) If Nationalisation will not solve present difficulties, and since it is not a step towards Socialism, we fail to see why the workers should support it.

(5) To know that there are other workers in a still worse condition may be a slight comfort to “lower grades in the Civil Service,” but it is unfortunately considerably outweighed by the knowledge that there are others, non-workers, who are considerably better off. The Wheatley Housing Bill, according to our correspondent, was “an effort” in the direction of Socialism. Mr. Wheatley, who presumably ought to know, declared in the House of Commons that his Bill was an attempt to “patch up Capitalism.”

(6) It is in order to convert the electorate to Socialism that we preach Socialism in stead of preaching the reform of Capitalism.

(7) Our correspondent shows by this last question that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of our aims. He writes as if we of the Socialist Party were offering to solve the problems of the workers if placed in power, and asking for our work to be judged after twelve months. Our reply is, that when the working class want to abolish the private ownership of the means of production and the right of any individual to live by owning, they will instruct their delegates to take whatever steps they (the working class) decide upon in the light of then existing conditions. Not knowing the time or the circumstances or the possibilities of resistance by the Capitalist minority, we obviously cannot say what precisely those steps will be, nor what progress will have been made in re-organising the basis of society in twelve months.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Socialism and “supermen”, (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A Criticism and our reply. 

The Editor of the Socialist Standard.

Sir,

When reading socialist literature I do not disagree with its claims that capitalism is based upon exploitation. But surely this does not constitute an exception ? It seems to me that all life is one immensity of desire to exploit and attain power and supremacy. Even in the obedience of the slave there is the ceaseless desire to take advantage of any weakness in the master. There is no equality or desire for equality to be found in alert and healthy organisms. But there is youth and decay, triumph and death. And it is when failing powers, frustration and consequently misery are paramount that the sentient creature begins to doubt the wisdom of the warlike nature of existence. It is in this condition that we get the following conceptions : (1) That robbery and exploitation are abominable ; (2) that equality is desirable ; (3) that one should sacrifice for one’s neighbour ; (4) that the base have been chosen to bring to naught the things that are; (5) that in the order of social evolution the emancipation of the slaves will involve the emancipation of all mankind; (6) that all souls are equal before God. Some of these are to be found in Christianity, others in Socialism. It appears to me that there is not a great deal of difference between either, allowing for phraseology and the periods when written. I contend that they are both emanations arising from revolting and submerged peoples or classes who have found means to present their case as if their conceptions and values of existence were worthy objects for all. Thus the vanquished can teach that the highest goodness is to sacrifice for one’s neighbour. This, if successful, would act powerfully in their favour. Or they could teach that democracy and equality are involved in the order of social evolution, and interpret history to that end. Both are ruses of the vanquished designed to turn the tide in their behalf. And both have met with partial success.

For instance there is that phenomena the Christian capitalist, who is a monster of contradiction and falsehood, whose very existence depends upon a mode of conduct that is anti-Christian as well as anti-Socialist. But he is yet Christian enough to will vast sums to succour the miserable and unfortunate of life, he has a conscience that way ; and English philanthropy is perhaps one of the most amazing spectacles in existence. Further, he is democratic enough to enfranchise vast numbers of slaves, etc. That which separates me from Christian, Socialist and modern ideas is that they are wholly or in part attempts to exercise a paralysing effect upon enterprising and thoughtful men under cover of the lie of equality, and they hold up the ideas emanating from decline, envy, resentment and decay as the goal of human well-being and goodness.

The object of the Socialist Party is in opposition to the natural desires of extraordinary men, for they wish to further their ideas regardless of the indifferent and conforming multitude. But Socialism would have it that they must, before embarking on new ideas and therefore on new actions, consult by democratic means the opinion of the majority who are inhospitable to ideas, suspicious of anyone who is different, and who cling tenaciously to a few simple superstitions, hates, aversions and longings—most of them idiotic, and all of them coarse, blunt, cowish and stupid.

I am convinced that new civilisations proceed from the higher levels of the race. They are the work of men of exceptional energy, powers of thought and audacity. Both Socialism and Christianity are attempts to paralyse the free play of these men by means of the belief that the low, the ordinary and wretched have something sacred or worthy in them. At their best they are useful, and cannot be more than that. Socialism is the unification of the belief in the greatest good of the greatest number, government of the people by the people for the people, and similar products “in the interest of the whole community” emanating from mob and slave ideas. I claim that these ideas are opposed to the development of higher men, and therefore of a higher race, which can only proceed from its exceptional individuals who should be above responsibility to the general mass of ordinary men. And if among Socialists there happen to be working men of profound intellectual perceptions, they are surely jumping out of the frying pan into the fire in elevating the common man by means of revolt from below and equal rights for all.—I am, Yours, etc.,

Robert Hart.

Reply to Mr. Hart.

Mr. Hart’s letter consists almost entirely of baseless assumptions for whch he does not attempt to give the slightest evidence.

For instance, he uses the term “equality” on several occasions without defining it, and then tries to fix his term on us. In view of our published attitude in our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” Mr. Hart’s claim that we differ little with the statement that “all souls are equal before God,” is not merely absurd, it is a direct misrepresentation.. Moreover, we do not say that “the emancipation of the slave will involve the emancipation of all mankind,” but that the emancipation of the working class will involve this. The modern working class is a slave class, but it is only one in an historical series. What distinguishes it from previous slave classes in this connection is the fact that it is the last class in the series and there is no class below it. Hence its emancipation must mean the emancipation of humanity as a whole.

Neither does the Socialist talk about or advocate “sacrifice for one’s neighbour.” On the contrary, we distinctly point out that it is to the interest of each member of the working class to do his or her share in bringing about Socialism.

Mr. Hart’s ignorance of even elementary history is shown in his statement that “English philanthropy is perhaps one of the most amazing spectacles in existence.” At base English philanthrophy is no different from any other philanthropy, ancient or modern. The sort of philanthropy Mr. Hart mentions has its roots either in a fear of a hereafter, the belief in a heaven or a hell, or else in a desire to achieve notoriety or fame. There is nothing “amazing” about this.

When Mr. Hart says the object of the Socialist Party is in opposition to the natural ( !) desires of extraordinary men, he merely shows his ignorance of Socialism. Unless the men desire to be “extraordinary” thieves and murderers, there is nothing in Socialism to prevent them furthering their ideas unless this furtherance is to the injury of the community. To-day, so beloved by Mr. Hart, these people can only “further their ideas” if such ideas suit the ruling class. If they do not suit this class, the ideas are crushed at birth.

Mr. Hart summarises his views in the last paragraph of his letter when he says “new civilisations proceed from the higher levels of the race.”What are the “higher levels”? He does not say. Further on we are told that higher development “can only proceed from exceptional individuals who should be above responsibility to the general mass of ordinary men.” How charming! But are these “exceptional individuals” also going to “be above” using the services and abilities of this mass? If not—if, as happens to be the fact, they are utterly dependent upon these abilities of the “general mass,” even for their existence, then on what ground does Mr. Hart claim that the “exceptional individuals” should be above responsibility to those on whom they depend?

Apparently Mr. Hart has been reading some defender of Capitalist robbery, like Mr. Mallock, who argued that the Capitalist was entitled to the wealth he stole from the workers, because of his (the Capitalst’s) “exceptional abilities.” If—and when—Mr. Hart cares to give a little time to the study of historical development, he will find that “new civilisations” proceed from the changes in the material conditions of existence. That this development is due, not to the “higher levels of the race,” but to growth and changes in the instruments of production and distribution. When these 
changes reach a stage where they become fettered and hampered by the then system of Society, a struggle ensues between the class interested in the new forms of production, and the class wishing to retain the old system of Society. From the point of view of social status, the class interested in the
new forms is always a “lower” class, but from the wider point of view of social evolution, it is a “higher” class because it is endeavouring to establish a more developed, and therefore a “higher” system of Society. But these terms “higher” and “lower” are the cant and humbug of a ruling class and its dupes, who use them to try and hide the truth from their victims. Socialism is the next stage in the order of social evoluton, and when the growing knowledge of the working class in the truth of our case is extended over a majority of that class, they will take the necessary steps to establish that system despite all the squeals of the “exceptional individual ” who may try to sweep back the ocean with a broom.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

Mr. Hart further replied in the February 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard.