The Meaning of Life. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Probably ever since men have possessed the faculty of reasoning they have, each one of them, at some time or another, asked themselves what life means to them. Most men have conceived of life in its direct relation to themselves. A few, however, with a wider knowledge and a greater power of concentrated thought, have attempted to discover some

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

in life which shall apply, not only to themselves individually, but to the whole of humanity as they know it. How unsuccessful they have been in this attempt a study of the history of philosophy clearly shows. From the philosophy of Thales in the 6th century B.C. to the Bergsonian cult of the 20th century A.D. is a far cry. Yet if we smile at the conclusion arrived at by Thales that the principle of all things is water, it may well be asked whether the theory of Bergson that “life is nothing more than consciousness using matter for its purpose” is very much more satisfying to the ordinary man or woman.

No. Though abstract ideas (or ideas as abstract as they can be conceived) may possibly be a source of a certain amount of intellectual pleasure to idle dreamers and philosophic doubters, yet how little do such ideas come within the scope of the man or woman

STRUGGLING FOR EXISTENCE

in the seething whirlpool of modern capitalist society ! One can imagine what would be the outcome, for instance, if such a man as Bergson, instead of addressing himself to a well-fed, well-clothed, more or less well-educated “upper class” audience, were to turn his attention, say, to a meeting of miners striking for a minimum wage of 5s. per day, or a crowd of sweated East-end tailors and tailoreeses, and try to talk to them about the “identity of contraries” or the “joy of creative evolution.”

It is the same with philosophy as with art and literature, as with culture in general. Such things are only for the rich, for those who, neither toiling nor spinning, live on the labour of the uncultured working class. Even if any “culture” manages to filter down to the great mass of the people (the working population) it usually reaches them in such a

VILE AND EMASCULATED FORM

as to be worse than nothing at all. The workers’ business in the world (so our pastors and masters tell us) is to work, to work hard, to work contentedly, leaving to their “betters” the philosophical, the literary, the artistic knowledge. But they do not tell us that philosophy and art are, actually, the gift of past and present society to the philosophers, and should, in turn, be offered with a free hand back to society.

What does life mean to the working class today ? What is the working-class outlook on the world ? Ask the alkali worker of Widnes or St. Helens and he will tell you that to him it means working for twelve or more hours a day in return for the sum of perhaps twenty shillings a week, a dragging out of existence, with teeth rapidly rotting away, half-blind and asthmatical, liable at any moment during his period of employment to inhale sufficient poisonous gas to make speculation on life, or on anything else, evermore impossible for him.

What does life mean to the men and women in the white-lead factories ? A period between birth and death, wherein they work for a miserable pittance in an atmosphere laden with death-dealing dust, becoming paralysed, purblind and insane at the time when they should be in the fulness of health and strength; it means for the women the agony of bearing

STILL-BORN CHILDREN

or children literally soaked in the poisonous fumes among which the mother is obliged to work. What does life mean to the railwaymen, to the miners, to the industrial workers in general ? Hard and unremitting toil; the contemplation of the killing and maiming of their comrades, with the fear of the same happening to themselves ; and perpetually hanging over them the possibility of unemployment, slow-starvation, an early and wretched death.

The majority of men are totally unable to realise what life could be made. Even if a few have a vague idea of what existence should be and the strength of will to put such idea into practice, yet the environment in which they find themselves, the circumstances surrounding them, very soon crush out this vitality, leaving them disillusioned and bitter, doggedly going through their day’s work

WITHOUT HOPE OF REWARD

or the possibility of change (except for the worse) ; or, in despair, blindly smashing themselves against the forces that enslave and degrade them.

Surely life holds for us something more than this if we could only understand it. The Socialist, at any rate, with his knowledge of the forces working in society and his further knowledge of the way in which these forces could be used, could be diverted, in his own and his fellow’s interest, sees life as something different, something greater, than a continual round of hard and degrading work, of sordid sorrows and still more sordid pleasures. If philosophy is of any use at all it is to teach men how to live. And the Socialist philosophy does this. It speaks to the only people in society who are now worth speaking to—the people of the working class—adjuring them to work out their destinies in spite of the almost overwhelming powers of capitalism that are arrayed against them. Learn, it says in effect, that no man is fit to be your master any more than you are fit to be the master of any man ;

ANALYSE SOCIETY

with all its evils and miseries, find the cause of these evils and miseries, and then act in such a way as to abolish, once and for all time, the root-evil that makes life a curse. While you have two classes in society, while there is a dominant class and a class dominated, while there are masters and slaves, you must have brutality on one hand and cringing servility on the other, and undying hatred on both sides. With such a state of things what chance is there to evolve any other form of life but one that can only be compared to the ape and the tiger stage.

Life is movement. Nothing living can ever become stagnate. If the human race is not going forward to something higher than itself then it ie certainly going back to some lower form of life. It rests with the working class to say whether we shall sink back into a state of barbaric chaos, whether we shall, perhaps (it is possible), perish in our entirety ; or whether we shall move upward to a form of life undreamt of to-day.

THERE IS THE TASK,

a hard task admittedly, but worth the doing. Life to the Socialist means unremitting toil in the cause of Socialism, perseverance in spite of all discouragement, the marching onward in the face of all doubts and difficulties. Even if we of this generation do not see and taste the fruits of our sowing, yet even then we shall have our reward—in the knowledge that we have fought on the side of energy against apathy, of youth against the decrepit, of life itself against death.

F. J. Webb

A Socialist Survey. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

How this “industrial unrest” does spread !

If the said unrest is due to those “beastly agitators” it would seem that capitalism breeds agitators faster than it does contented slaves.

A report from Tokyo, Japan (“Daily Chronicle” 4.5.12) says :—

“It is practically impossible for the lower classes to earn sufficient for their bare needs.”

And that: —

“The number of convicts has increased from 20,000 to 80,000 in the last five years.”

Here we have cause and effect.

* * *

The staple diet of the Japanese worker is rice. So abnormally high is the price of rice that the income of the average family (Y.17 per month or 1s. ½d. per day) is not sufficient to meet the increased expenditure (quoted at Y.25 per month). Consequently :—

“There is a great amount of industrial unrest in the country, which is causing economists a lot of thought.”

Again cause and effect.

* * *

The price of the labourer in Japan, as elsewhere, is determined by the cost of his food and other necessaries. But the capitalist in Japan is exploiting fresh fields, and, like the early industrial capitalists in this country, will squeeze surplus value from the toilers until they die off like flies.

The unemployed, army in Japan will allow it. Cheap labour is plentiful, and so our capitalist can ignore the fact that to keep a slave class it is necessary to replace energy with energy.

The slave, however, is beginning to revolt—which fact, doubtless, is responsible for “a lot of thought.”

“It is a matter of serious consideration for the authorities,” goes on the report, “whether this unrest can best be allayed by the reduction ef the taxes on food or by religious congresses or charitable collections.”

The religious influence is on the wane even in far-off Japan, and a Mr. Izawa is endeavouring to found a new religious body, whose plan is to “gather a religious community around the Emperor, who is the direct descendant of the creator of the world, for the purpose of cultivating loyalty toward the Emperor and of elevating their moral ideas.”

* * *

When the religious bluff fails they will fall back on the “reduction of taxes” and by removing the tax upon rice enable the workers to live more cheaply, and so obviate the necessity of raising wages.

It is merely a repetition of the “bible and the big loaf.” The development of capitalism in Japan is so rapid that the whole list of reforms and “revolutionary” measures over which the workers fought for years in this country will be passed in as many months.

* * *

That the influence of the Church in England is rapidly declining is seen from the following figures anent the “largest individual church in Nonconformity” (vide “Morning Leader”).

“Including the whole of the 35 districts under the control of the English Wesleyan Conference, the total membership is 482,889. As compared with last year the decrease is 2,646. The total decreases for the past six years are as follows : 1907, 2,034 ; 1908, 4,424 ; 1909, 1,144 ; 1910, 2,299 ; 1911, 3,028; 1912, 2,646—total decrease in six years, 15,575.”

Says the editor of the “Methodist Recorder” (again vide “Morning Leader”):—

“We know the explanation that will be forthcoming—that other Churches are in like case, that figures are misleading, that our activities were never greater, that our energies are organised and systematised beyond all precedent, that social unrest is partly responsible, that we are suffering from wearisome discussion of the membership question, that we have more chapels than ever, and more workers, too, and so on.

But all these put together can no more alter the painful facts than any one of them by itself ; and all of them are unsatisfying.”

* * *

The religious communities are fast realising that their flocks are no longer so docile or so faithful as they were, and they are compelled to offer some better inducement than a short shirt and a tin trumpet after decease.

The Rev. Thomas Phillips at the Baptist Union Congress (25.4.1912) said :—

“Eighteen thousand men receive 12s. a week or less ; 50,000 men receive 18s. a week or less. Out of every fourteen workmen in London one is, or has been, a pauper at some period in his career ; one in every five dies in a workhouse, a hospital, or an asylum. One million of our men receive £1 a week or less, and toil at tasks which give them neither security nor comfort. We are here enjoying ourselves, but within 300 yards of this place thirty to forty families are living in two houses. Seven per cent. of our population are in chronic want.

“These things stagger a man’s faith in God and man. I wish that London was not representative of England, but Mr. Rowntree has told the same story of York, and two clergymen have said that, in some respects, Edinburgh is even worse than London.

“The villages are no better off. A writer in a recent number of the ‘Sociological Review’ stated that he had found that, out of 300 people living in the villages, 193 did not get sufficient food to keep body and soul together.”

* * *

“These things” staggered our faith in God long since, and working-class faith in the power of parsons is by no means firmly rooted.

Mr. Phillips wants “Christian business men to devote their energy and power of organisation to settling this tremendous social difficulty.” The Christian business men will support the Christian business when they can see that it pays them, and the churches to-day are not the chloroforming agency that they once were. As Mr. Fleming Williams said at the Congregational Congress (9.5.12):—

“The people are developing a social conscience in the exact ratio in which the Churches are neglecting to cultivate it. The inevitable result will be our Churches will be left high and dry. The world will go on forgetting our existence. They will leave us to discuss our little theological conundrums which hardly affect the great needs and wants of the world.”

* * *

What the “Christian business men” want is a meek and docile wage-slave, and when the Churches cease to assist in supplying their demand they will take their “energy and power of organisation” and their contributions to a more productive agency.

The empty churches (and small contributions) are worrying the clergy to a far greater extent than the “labour unrest,” and as the Bishop of London said when presiding at a meeting at Grosvenor House (6.5.12):—

“Many were breaking down, not from their work, but from the anxiety of keeping their churches going.”

* * *

The following advertisement in the “Daily Chronicle” (4.5.12) is significant of the uses for which the Church is needed :—

“THE LONDON CITY MISSION

is engaged daily in working for the improvement of the moral and spiritual life of

LONDON’S TEEMING POPULATION

By the blessing of God the work is a potent factor for the upbuilding of sterling character, for the lessening of crime, and for the prevention of the outbreak of anarchism. 400 missionaries at work all the year round. Your help in this effort to spread the Gospel among the poor and artisan non-Church-goers of the Metropolis is earnestly solicited.”

* * *

“I am the last person to underrate all these questions of what is called distribution—the distribution of the produce of the world. But speaking for myself, I do most seriously hold there is a yet greater problem to be dealt with, and that is the amount you produce. The progress of mankind must fundamentally turn on the amount it produces, upon its growing control over the forces of Nature, upon all that science, invention, and industrial organisation enable it to do, to add to the daily produce and daily consumed wealth of the world. And important, vital if you please, as is the question of how what we make is to be distributed over the whole community, or among those who make it, behind all that there lies the yet more fundamental problem of how much you can make, and how you can increase the amount you are already making.”

The above statement was made by Mr. A. J. Balfour at a meeting on “Syndicalism and Industrial Problems,” held under the auspices of the Sociological Society (30.4.12).

It is typical of Balfour to spin long sentences meaning nothing on the subject under discussion and then to tail off with some definite (?) statement quite apart from the point.

The problem is not one of production but of ownership, and none knows that better than the ex-leader of the Tory party.

That there is sufficient wealth to-day to provide for all is undeniable, and even were it not so the enormous amount of raw material ready to hand, the vast tracts of uncultivated land, the over-supply of labour-power ready to be applied to that raw material and uncultivated land to produce more wealth, dispose at once of the absurd notion that the population has outgrown the resources of nature.

With the growing command by man over natural forces no fear need be entertained that the civilised, world will ever know famine again. Man’s struggle with nature for the means of life is over—and man has won. The struggle to-day is between man and man, between master and slave, between the plutocratic parasite and the propertyless producer.

* * *

While one section of the community are struggling to exist on from 5s. per head per week, another section can squander and waste an enormous amount of wealth at some silly freak show. The two following cuttings, both from the “Daily Chronicle,” show clearly who waste the “wealth we produce,” and how unevenly such wealth is distributed :—

“A letter has been received by the Russian Famine Committee in London from the members of the Famine Committee of the Free Economic Society, one of the oldest institutions of the kind in Russia, appealing for help.

“‘There has been an almost complete failure of crops (it says) in twenty provinces of Russia, covering the whole region from Nizhny-Novgorod to Astrakhan, as well as South Ural and Western Siberia. At least one half of the 40 million inhabitants of those provinces were doomed to starvation, for few of them could hope to find employment in other parts of Russia in the winter.

‘The population have been brought to ruin and despair. Many become insane and commit suicide. Some among the Mohammedans sell their children to harems, that they may not see them suffer and hear them cry for bread.

‘Typhus and scurvy are rapidly doing their deadly work among them.'”

“Daily Chronicle,” 13.5.12.

“The latest freak entertainment was given here to-day at the Hotel Vanderbilt in the shape of a dog banquet. The idea was originated by Mrs. A. L. Holland, the wife of a multi-millionaire, who gave the banquet in honour of her Pekinese dog, and sent out invitations to eight other Pekinese canines of the ‘smart set.’

“Without exception the dogs turned up, accompanied by their mistresses, and the nine ladies and nine dogs sat together at a table gorgeously decorated in the Chinese fashion, while a Chinese orchestra rendered weird selections of native music.

“Luncheon was served for the ladies, while special attendants catered for the wants of the principal guests, who had silver basins of bread and milk set before them, followed by cut-up biscuit and choice morsels of chicken. Only the breasts of chicken were served to these pampered animals.

“The dinner was voted a great success, and as a souvenir of the affair each dog guest was presented with a silver collar with his name engraved on it. Nothing like to-day’s freak entertainment has been seen since the pony banquet, or the dinner given in honour of Consul, the intelligent baboon.”

“Daily Chronicle,” 18 5.12.

* * *

Were there anything like an equal distribution of the world’s wealth there would be no difficulty in satisfying the needs of those who were for the time being deprived of the means of life by some failure of crops, or disaster of any kind. It is quite possible that the dividend of the multi-millionaire which provided the dog feast was wrung from the labour of the Russian workers who are suffering, quite unnecessarily, the pangs of starvation.

Quite recently the strikers of the Lena gold-fields were mowed down in hundreds for demanding better conditions, because to grant better conditions to those Russian workmen would mean lower dividends for some cosmopolitan financiers and inferior chicken for their Pekinese pups.

* * *

The labour unrest will continue while these conditions are allowed to remain. The demand of labour, the world over, is merely the demand for a living. To quote Jerome K. Jerome, speaking at the Cambridge University Liberal Club .—

“The human labourer in 1912 is, after all, only demanding what has been acceded to without question in the case of the ox and the ass since prehistoric times. I never heard a farmer suggest that the price of corn being what it is, he is quite unable to give his horse more than half its proper rations. The horse has a very effective way of insisting on his minimum wage. The horse does not go out on strike, he just lies down and dies ; and the farmer finds it cheaper—whatever may be the state of the agricultural market—to accede to his demands.

“Practically speaking, the farm labourer does get his minimum wage. He can’t live on 12s. 6d. a week and bring up a wife and six children. It can’t be done. Charity has to step in and make good the difference. Where the minimum wage is not paid—the wage that enables a man and his family to live—the charitable public has to make good the difference. It is a good thing for the charitable public ; it is a good thing for their morals, it is good for their hope of a future reward.

“But it is bad for the labourer ; it turns him into a pauper, it robs him of his self-respect. It is bad for the employer ; it makes him also nothing else than a pauper, going round to the charitable public, cap in hand, whining, ‘Help me to pay my wages. Have pity, kind gentlemen, on a poor employer of labour.’ It makes the employer also a pauper ; and, if it doesn’t, it ought to rob him of his self respect.”

* * *

The employer, as an employer, has no self-respect. He has but one object—to obtain a profit, to get dividends ; and he will struggle to the last to prevent the workers from reducing that profit. Just as the worker, in factory and in field, is but a machine with but one purpose of existence, so the employer, the financier, and the capitalist generally, are sponges absorbing the wealth the worker produces. There is no self-respect in a sponge, just as there should be no desire in a machine. But the worker will not always remain a machine. He will soon want to be a man and to take a man’s part in the enjoyment, as well as in the production, of the world’s wealth. He will, in time, give intelligent purpose to his growing dissatisfaction, and when he does—well, the occupation of the sponge will be gone.

TWEL.

Answers to Correspondents. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

S. J. Cresswick.—(Kennington). We do not, by using every point of vantage in the class struggle “support any section of the capitalist class”. The organised Socialist forces will be used, not to “perpetuate the present system,” but to change it as speedily as possible. Whether a measure would be supported would depend upon the views of the Socialist electorate and its bearing on our object.

J.J.S. (Kensington.)—Full address must accompany all communications.

E J. H. (Philadelphia), F. Goole (Watford), “Constant Reader” (Moss Side), F. S. (Queensland), L. S. (Nottingham). Replies held over.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For June. (1912)

Party News from the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party in Perspective by M. Blum. (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leon Blum, whose death was announced recently, was a Social Democrat—that is, a reformist of the Labour type who, while using the name “Socialist,” took part in the administration of capitalism whenever allowed to, holding ministerial posts at times. However, he seems to have understood the position of such reformists far more clearly than the British Labour Party; for in a fraternal “Letter to British Socialists” published in Tribune during the election (17/2/50) he made the following observations, which must have perturbed even readers of Tribune (who are accustomed to regard themselves as the lonely conscience of the Labour Party): —

“ My comrades of the British Labour Party . . .

“[In France] the Socialists have maintained all the essential economic and social reforms which have been introduced since the liberation, despite a counterattack by capitalist reaction.” (Our italics.)

He sympathises with the British Labour Party in office:—

“There is perhaps no more difficult task than that of a government working within the framework of a capitalist society and having neither the power nor the mandate to transform it completely at one blow." “ It must defend at the same time both the special interests of the workers and the general interest of the nation —which are not always identical.” This surely is only possible if the interest of the nation is equated to that of a minority, for those same workers are also the overwhelming majority of the nation.

“The Labour Government has . . . achieved a number of economic and social reforms . . . without changing the existing class structure . .. [The Conservatives] will interfere with scarcely any of its striking achievements.”

This certainly makes clear the considerable common ground the Labour Party shares with its opponents, and this worries Tribune quite enough as it is. But before his British comrades have risen from their gloom he goes on:—

“European capitalism . . . no longer maintains free competition, but moves towards monopoly capitalism, which is concerned above all with securing legal protection for its profits. It is incapable of offering a solution which will conform to its principles for to-day’s weighty problems.”

Ah, this is more what we are used to—general attacks on the idea of profit. One simply does not attack the Labour Party, old man. Recognise the difficulties, and all that. But Blum is not yet done with his unwitting wounding of his British friends—he deals a blow at the Labour Party’s belief that State control and/or ownership can be equated to Socialism in the following paragraph.

“The history of Soviet Russia proves another truth which no Marxist could have predicted fifty years ago and which I myself should have rejected outright in my youth. It is evident now that even a complete and revolutionary transformation of all property rights does not automatically lead to the true emancipation of the worker. In Soviet Russia the capitalist system of property has been completely destroyed. Yet a régime of wage labour persists, the material conditions of the workers remain miserable, and elementary liberties are pitilessly crushed.” (In point of fact of course only the private capitalist system of property has been abolished.)

The attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain has from its foundation been quite clear about the feasibility or otherwise of Socialism either “in one country” or in any society in which production and education are not at a high level and which has not developed the habit of democracy. Articles from The Socialist Standard on the Bolshevik regime from its inception are collected in our pamphlet, “Russia Since 1917,” and will be seen to be perfectly consistent about its oppressive and non-Socialist character. There is nothing particularly clever or clairvoyant in this, merely an absence of the self-delusion afflicting the Communist Party. In any case, it is regrettable M. Blum never picked up a Socialist Standard, if not fifty then forty-six years ago, for he would not have had to confess such disappointment.

In his closing remarks M. Blum says: “ [In] Britain under the influence of the Labour Government . . . the capitalist system of property has not yet been abolished,” thus nailing the Labour lie “Five years of Socialism have brought us, etc.” And having completely undermined the morale of the Labour Party, who thought they were after something different, he finally wishes them luck at the hands of the fickle workers, who as events have turned out cannot be relied upon to know when they are well off, and awaits the poll “ with great excitement.”

Before the war Mr. Attlee wrote a pot-boiler called “The Labour Party in Perspective.” Now the Labour Party really has been put in perspective, but by Mr. Attlee’s Gallic counterpart. Whether M. Blum was actually trying to educate his British comrades (he would keep calling them that, and it must have upset them), or whether he took it for granted that any party with pretensions to being Socialist would at least have read “all that Marx stuff, you know,” we can only guess. If an attempt at education, it seems doomed to failure when it is remembered that the Labour Party thinks of Tribune as its black sheep, edited by people who don't go into division as they are told and have nothing better to do than to spill inconvenient beans about Seretse and the (Unilever) East Africa Co. monopoly. In the issue of 31/3/50 Ian Mikardo opines that Harold Laski died heartbroken by the last five years of Labour government. It will be interesting to watch the fate of the Tribune group in the mighty democratic party which (also says Mikardo) expelled Zilliacus unheard. Yes, the Labour Party is indeed coming into perspective at last

OPIFEX.

More election reflections (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

In February the workers of Britain voted. Whether Labour, Conservative, Liberal or Communist, by and large they all voted for the continuance of Capitalism. Whether they know it or not—and for the most part they do not—they once again acquiesced in the continuance of the system which condemns them to servitude for life in the interests of the beneficiaries of that system, the capitalist class. Wittingly or otherwise, the toiling millions gave their masters another vote of confidence.

The issue, of course, was never in doubt—that is, to the Socialist. It was never in doubt for the simple reason that, generally speaking, from Land's End to John O’Groats there was, in that General Election, no possible alternative to capitalist exploitation for which the worker could vote. This lack of alternative to the capitalist candidates (avowed or disguised) was itself a reflection and measure, judged by socialist standards, of the workers’ political immaturity.

Transport House (and King St) “Reds” would doubtless find this very difficult to swallow. To so-called “Socialists” and “Communists,” the limit of whose political horizon is Nationalisation, who dupe the workers with this obnoxious form of Capitalism by calling it Socialism, who dupe themselves by thinking State Capitalism can operate in the interests of the workers—to these fake “ Socialists ” the political maturity of the working class is not an important factor. It just doesn’t arise as the crux of the matter because, for these pseudo-socialists, the working class cannot be its own agent of emancipation.

These self-proclaimed “progressives,” “leading elements” and “vanguard” of the working class, these “down-to-earth, bread-and-butter ” merchants and pedlars of “working class politics” actually separate themselves from the workers, representing themselves as the agents of working class emancipation—being, no doubt, naturally or supernaturally endowed to administer just that right percentage of Nationalisation which shall deliver the workers from their chains.

“You support us” was the burden of the candidates’ appeals, “and we will give you . . .” And what they would give “you” differed according to how much they considered themselves “Right” or “Left” —in fact, they differed as much as this:

The Tories, Liberals and other avowedly capitalist agents would give us No More Nationalisation (unless absolutely necessary, of course, for the smooth running of Capitalism); on the other hand the Labourites, the Communists, some independent “Socialists” and other cross-breeds promised us More Nationalisation, varying among themselves only as to the size of the dose.

So under the Tories “we” would have what amount of Nationalisation we’ve already got. That, at least, is some. Under Labour we would have more. The Communists would have given us the fatal dose. We could take our pick: Some, More or Most —the positive, comparative and superlative of Nationalised Capitalism!

Thus the workers went to the polls not even to make the momentous choice between (true) Blue Capitalism and Red (State) Capitalism i.e., between private monopoly and state monopoly, but merely to decide their favourite combination of the two—their favourite shade of purple!

This farce was played out only because of working class ignorance of the real causes of present social problems. It will be played out again and again for as long as the workers look to others to do their political thinking for them. Socialists know this as surely as they know the world is round; and, just as surely, they know the simple facts which, when the workers of the world once get on the track of them and decide to become their own political agents will enable those workers to act consciously together for the complete overthrow of all class exploitation, oppression and privilege.

They will uproot the private property institution from the very foundations of society and the whole rotten superstructure will fall and crumble to dust.

They will perform this self-liberating act knowing full well that it is the key to their own emancipation and that of all mankind. Having painfully and slowly won their way through many grinding years of mistakes and errors to full political maturity, having exhausted all other apparent means of solving their problems and found themselves betrayed time and again by capitalist reforms which still left them in the same old position, they will at last begin to challenge the very basis of the system itself. They will be brought face to face with the very fact of class exploitation itself.

They will know that this fact, and all its attendant social evils, rests upon one foundation: the private ownership by the capitalist class—either directly or through the medium of state control—of all the means of producing and distributing the man-made things required to live.

They will know that the complete abolition of this foundation means at the same time the abolition of the whole capitalist fabric to which it gives rise. Everything specifically capitalist goes—lock, stock and barrel.

They will know that it means the end of poverty and riches, of economic classes, the end of exploitation of man by man for good and all; they will know it will put an end to the State, and therefore, of state “ownership” and control; that it will end profits and selling and the wages system; that capital and money, banking and buying will be no more; that unemployment and employers and employees and, yes. “employment” will no longer exist; that racialism, nationalism, wars, treaties, alliances and power-politics and armies will become nightmares of the past; that morality based on private property will disappear, as likewise, will its necessary concomitants immorality and crime, prostitu-tion, etc., they-will know that all these things (and many more besides) will be swept away for ever.

In short, they will understand that the whole complicated, neurotic and burdensome pattern of capitalist life will give way to a freer mode of living based on the democratic control and ownership of the means of life by all humanity.

Only the workers have a primary and vital interest in acquiring this knowledge. And because of this vital interest no impediment will prevent them eventually from learning the facts.

Knowledge confers power. Once the workers, the vast majority of society, are in possession of this knowledge they will organise and constitute the most powerful political combination in human history. Against this mighty host of determined workers, understanding their position and knowing full well what is at stake, thinking and acting for themselves and electing their own agents—against this organisation no combination of charlatans, pseudo-socialists, agents and hirelings of capitalism can prevail.

Capitalism will be brought to its end because the overwhelming majority of mankind will have decided, irrevocably and finally, that it shall go. The huge decrepit structure will be brought crashing to the ground.

When the social air is clear again and the mortar and muck of centuries of exploitation have been swept away, the recent General Election will have faded into the limbo of forgotten things.

For the workers it will then be their own triumph not, as now, that of spurious agents. The day of self-deliverance may be far away; we do not know. But this we do know: Nothing is eternal—not even Capitalism.

Until the workers think and act for themselves there is no permanent solution to the problem of Capitalism. To rephrase an old text (often used, in its original form, to dope working people) “ No Salvation without the Workers—No deliverance without Self-Deliverance.” There is no other way.

Hydrogen bombs and capitalist propaganda notwithstanding, so long as there be human beings, that day will surely come.

H. W. S. Bee.

Puzzle corner (1950)

A Short Story from the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our problem this month is adapted from a chapter in Edward Bellamy’s book, “Equality,” entitled, “The parable of the Water Tank.” Through a certain land there flowed a clear and pleasant stream and to this stream the people came to draw their water as and when they desired. There came amongst these people those who suggested that this state of affairs was far from good. They hinted that one day the stream might dry up and, as a precaution against this possibility, they proposed the building of a water tank to hold a reserve supply. This was agreed to by the people and the proposers took charge of the operations and also control of the tank. They arranged, and enforced, a plan whereby the people should draw water from the stream in buckets and pour it into the tank. For this they were to receive one half-penny per bucket. When the people required water they would not go to the stream but to the tank where they would be supplied at the price of one penny per bucket. Those who owned and controlled the tank would be exempt from the need to assist with the filling operations but would have access to the water in store. This arrangement went on until the tank became full, when the owners cried "Halt.” The next day the people came for water with their buckets but the owners asked first for the price of one penny. The people pointed out that as they were not now allowed to put water into the tank because it was full they earned no half-pennies and, in consequence, they had no pennies to pay. But the owners sneered and turned them away without water. To protect the tank and its contents from the thirsty people, the owners engaged men to act as policemen and soldiers, they engaged economists and soothsayers to explain to the people and to pacify them, they engaged clerks and officials to measure the water and keep accounts, they engaged servants and slaves to help them to enjoy the privilege and luxury that their position entailed. They bathed in the water, they drank it, they wasted it, until the level fell. Then they cried out to the people to come with their buckets to the stream to get more water to refill the tank. So the process started over again. ½d. a bucket put in and 1d. a bucket taken out. Soon the tank was again full and the people were once more turned away thirsty because they were not allowed to earn the pennies per two buckets that would entitle them to draw one bucket out. This is the state of affairs now. The stream still flows through the land, the tank is rapidly filling again, and hundreds of people are talking, questioning and seeking a solution to the problem of a land with plenty of water and plenty of thirsty people. There is a solution, a very simple solution. We do not intend to give it here. We think the workers are wide awake enough to see it. At least, those who read the Socialist Standard should be.

W. Waters

Party News Briefs (1950)

Party News from the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Provincial Propaganda was a matter of concern to the delegates at our Annual Conference last Easter. They recommended the Executive Committee to find two or more part-time propagandists who would be prepared to speak in the Provinces for a period of three months during the 1950 summer propaganda season. Acting upon this recommendation the Executive Committee has appointed Comrades D. Verity and D. Moss to make a propaganda tour of selected provincial centres. On May 8th these two speakers left London for Manchester where they will operate for approximately one month. Whilst they are in the Manchester area a programme of activity will be drawn up by the Executive Committee for these Comrades to follow during the remainder of their tour. Bradford and Sheffield are two of the towns that have been suggested as possible centres for their future activities.

Propaganda Research was another matter that received Conference consideration. The Executive Committee has now issued a report on this matter. Subject to the necessary office equipment being available, the material already in the hands of the Propaganda Research Bureau is to be made available. It will comprise 8 to 10 pages of duplicated notes arranged from the material supplied to the Bureau during the Autumn of 1949. The report points out that many speakers do considerable research in preparation for their lectures and the results of this research should be made available to all Party propagandists. Future issues of these research notes could, in addition to those covering general information, be devoted to special subjects. An instance is given of such a special issue dealing entirely with “China” and compiled largely from the material collected by a Party speaker who has specialised in this subject. The report concludes:

“What has to be remembered is that the best results can be achieved only with the full co-operation of those in the Party who read, write and speak. The Propaganda Research Bureau must come largely from outside the bureau itself.”

Members for Full-Time Posts are to receive special training. The Examination Committee has reported to the Executive Committee presenting a list of subjects on which they propose to examine the members whose names have been submitted for training. The list, which has been approved as a basis for the Examination Committee’s work is as follows:—Communistic Society, Slave Society (Greek, Roman and Egyptian) and Feudal Society; migrations of culture. The English Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Revolt for Independence, the Peasant Rebellions (English, French and German), the Industrial Revolution, the Corn Law Movement, the 1848 movements. History of Working Class Movements, the Utopians, the Materialist Conception of History, Trade Unionism (old and new). Development of Parliaments, the American Civil War, Reformism and Reform Movements, Geography—its effect upon History, Evolution, Progress, etc.. Trusts and Nationalisation, Party History (S.P.G.B.), Currency (Credit) Malthus, Henry George, Crises, and Economics (General).

The secretary of Ealing Branch informs us that seaside propaganda trips to Southsea are being organised for Sunday 2 July, Sunday 13 August and Sunday 24 September. Southsea is a good spot for propaganda. Seats are 12s. for each trip and can be booked by writing to W. Critchfield at 48, Balfour Road, West Ealing, W.13. Comrades who are interested and want further information are urged to make early application.

Members of the Swansea Discussion and Study Group report on their efforts to get the Party case stated in the local Press.

A correspondent to the South Wales Evening Post recently mentioned that he was mystified as to the meaning of Socialism. He drew attention to the fact that the Labour Party, I.L.P., Communist Party, S.P.G.B. and others, contested the Election as Socialists, yet were all in opposition to one another.

In reply to this, a Swansea member of the S.P.G.B. wrote to the South Wales Evening Post stating that the S.P.G.B. was, in fact, the only party that contested the Election with a mandate for Socialism. The Editor added a footnote to this quoting the Concise Oxford Dictionary meaning of Socialism: i.e.

“Principle that individual freedom should be completely subordinated to interests of community with any deductions that may be correctly or incorrectly drawn from it: e.g. substitution of co-operation for competitive production, national ownership of land and capital, state distribution of produce, free education and feeding of children and abolition of inheritance.”

Our member replied to this giving our full objective: i.e.

“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."

This letter was published by the South Wales Evening Post. In reply, another reader wrote agreeing that the S.P.G.B. is the only Socialist Party, and challenged members of the other so called “Socialist” parties to state their case in opposition to the S.P.G.B.

If any reply was given, it was not published. Are these parties so confused that they do not feel qualified to reply?

The Socialist Party of New Zealand writes that, “Our pamphlet, (Introducing the S.P.N.Z.) did not bring a rush of inquirers into the Party and its activities. It did bring forth a statement per medium of the official organ of the Communists, the 'Peoples Voice.’ Needless to say the article contained the usual Communist distortions, stupid assertions and, if they are as well informed as they claim to be, deliberate lies. However, we wrote the manager of the ‘Peoples Voice’ pointing out the errors and distortions. At the same time we challenged them to debate. Which Party should the Workers support, the C.P. of N.Z. or the S.P. of N.Z. Our answer to this letter has not been received up to the time of writing.”

Our Belfast Comrades are anxious to receive visits from S.P.G.B. speakers. They extol the virtues of Northern Ireland as a holiday venue as an inducement to get some of our members across the dividing channel. Arrangements for accommodation in Belfast will be made for any intending visitor, particularly if he or she will speak on the S.P.I. platform. If there are any Party speakers who are intrigued by the idea, early contact with the Overseas Secretary, S.P.G.B. is urged.

Newport Branch has been in difficulties for some time. It has now been decided to dissolve the branch and transfer its members to Central Branch.

Lewisham Branch sought to renew permission to hold meetings in Greenwich Park but has been refused. It is, in consequence, intended to re-open the propaganda station at Romer Avenue on Saturday evenings.

W. Waters.

Coventry 

Members and sympathisers in Coventry and district who are interested in forming a Discussion and Study Group are asked to get in touch with F. Morton, 64, Gretna Road, Coventry.

Editorial: War—But With Whom? (1950)

Editorial from the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a popular theme with writers on war to discuss after the event how each war could have been avoided if only the government had taken action to stop the aggressor in time. Thus Sir Duff Cooper in an article in the Daily Mail (16/5/50) tells the British people that “had they been willing to listen to Lord Roberts before 1914 or Mr. Churchill before 1939, it is possible that two world wars might have been avoided.” His present theme is that Russia is not the only danger to world peace for within a short time Germany may again have recovered sufficiently to become an equal or greater menace. The fact that he recognises the existence of more than one potential enemy reveals the fallacy of the whole of his case for stopping war by timely action; for it must be obvious that a government cannot take a decision unless it knows with which Power it may be at war and with which Power it may then be in alliance. Sir Duff Cooper's list of warning voices is not complete; to it should be added those who expected war with Russia in 1919, or with France in 1923, or with America at various times of tension. Where all such arguments go astray is that they fail to see that while the world remains capitalist all Powers are potential enemies. From which it follows that the capitalists and the capitalist politicians are always divided in their judgment about which rival Power is the greatest menace. Before 1914 there were influential British groups which favoured an alliance, or at least a “deal,” with expansionist German capitalism and it was a similar division of opinion that produced the Chamberlain policy towards Hitler.

At the present moment most British and American Statesmen see Russia as "the only militaristic and aggressive Power in the world,” but others, like Sir Duff Cooper, taking a longer view, see a renascent Germany as “the enemy,” and in truth nobody can be certain that these discords may not be overshadowed by others in the course of a few years. Under the Russian threat France, Britain and Holland now welcome American Military Aid to hold colonies in Asia, and the investment of American capital in colonies in Africa but if and when the Russian threat diminishes the encroachment of American capitalism may appear as the more dangerous menace.

Each school of thought can produce supporting arguments. While the People (7/5/50) featured the threat to British exports from “the growing menace of cheap goods made in Germany and Japan” the Sunday Empire News of the same date was warning its readers that “countries behind the Iron Curtain are flooding world markets" with all sorts of goods at cut-throat prices.”

The British Government, through the Foreign Under-Secretary, Mr. E. Davies, declares its view that at present German exports do not constitute a serious menace to British export trade (Daily Telegraph 16/5/50); but Mr. Davies' further statement that German exports would have to be increased many times before they represented “a threat equivalent to the German pre-war export rate” shows that he has not forgotten the alarm British exporters felt in the years immediately before the second world war. What happened then may happen again as German production increases.

A more understanding view used to be expressed by Sir Stafford Cripps who told an audience of co- operators at Ilkeston, Derby, on 17 September, 1944: “A return to open competition between the nations will inevitably lead to another and even more disastrous war” (Daily Express 18/9/44). Having now forgotten what he once knew Sir Stafford Cripps has in recent years been the Minister primarily responsible for the drive to flood world markets with British exports at prices below those of foreign competitors. He was responsible for the devaluation of the pound in September, 1949, with the specific object of lowering British export prices but now he cannot see that in the eyes of foreign capitalists this is “economic aggression" which will in due course produce its harvest of international enmity, retaliatory action and eventual threats of war.

The former Sir Stafford had a better grasp of the relationship between capitalism and war but at that time he was not finally committed to the effort of the Labour Government to put British capitalism on its feet again. He still cherished the utopian notion of a world capitalism pruned of aggression through the now moribund United Nations.

More about children and crime (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over the past few months, popular newspapers have been giving a great deal of space to articles on crime, juvenile delinquency and more especially to crimes of violence. Some newspapers in fact, have been accused of giving “cosh cases” prominence in order to canalise public opinion in such a way as to make people demand the return of flogging. Although it is not the purpose of this article to either justify or oppose flogging, it is interesting to note that even so-called “experts” are divided as to whether this form of punishment is a deterrent. It is even more interesting, however, to read these “expert” opinions on the cause and cure of crime.

The Daily Express (April 25th, 1950) displayed on page 3 the following headline:—

“Glittering Toys Blamed for Theft” 

and reported the Mayor of Acton, Mr. A. E. Mitchell, when addressing a conference on juvenile crime at the Middlesex Guildhall, as saying:—

“Multiple stores are responsible for much of the petty thieving today. Glittering toys in easy reach are great temptation to children. . . . The Stores should co-operate by putting them out of reach.”

We may well ask Mr. Mitchell what sort of a world it is that can produce glittering toys in superabundance merely to lie in windows and on shelves out of reach. Is it so surprising that children unable to buy them, will take them?

What then of the older child? The child who is old enough to know that the taking of toys is forbidden and old enough to know that toys are not to play with, but only things at which to look and covet; the child who wants to amuse himself, who has no playroom, playground, or nearby woods in which to roam?

At the same conference Mr. A. T. Pike, Chairman of the Highgate Juvenile Court has something to say of this very child. He asks:—

“What causes children to trample down allotments, ill-treat old ladies, and do things of that kind?”

and then answers:—

“It is downright wickedness!”

It is evident that Mr. Pike has a remarkable insight and is aptly fitted to deal with the cases that come before him. No doubt he is a source of inspiration and guidance to those children whose misfortune it is to visit his Court. His suggestion for the cure, however, is one which is no less brilliant than his analysis of the cause, and must have been the result of painstaking research.

He says:—

“The sooner we get back to old-fashioned terms and remedies the better.”

We may also ask Mr. Pike what he expects in a world where Commando thugs and Dick Barton are the heroes, where violence, atom bombs and mass murder are the order of the day. Is it not to be expected that some children will react accordingly, emulate their heroes and become little toughs.

In speaking to the Annual Conference of probation officers at Cheltenham, Sir Hartley Shawcross seemed to be getting on the right track when he said, (Sunday Observer, 23/4/50):—

“In these days of economic uncertainty and, still more, of the fear and threat of war, many of us are tempted to a get-rich-quick attitude. . . . 'Let us live while we are alive; let us get what we can while we can.' Too often that is the modern philosophy ”

He goes on to say: —

“The basic factor is that the suppression of crime by adults consists primarily in preventing juvenile crime. Not only are virtually all habitual offenders people who committed their first offences when children; no less than a third of those convicted of indictable offences are children under seventeen. . . . The number of criminals to each 100,000 of the population is greater at the age of sixteen than at any other age. What an indictment of us! We may not be able to do much about those who have established themselves in a life of crime, except to keep them out of mischief. But we must stop the rot at the beginning."

If Sir Hartley Shawcross appears to be on the right track in his earlier remarks as to the cause, we are sadly disappointed later on, when he says of the cure: —

“I wish we could build up . . .  a uniformed youth organisation in the social services of the nation. Young people love uniforms.”

Then, to forestall any accusation of suggesting the building of a “Hitler Jugend,” he says:—

“That was the secret of the “Hitler Youth” a damnable organisation. But that love of uniforms and of the idea that they are doing something important can be developed for good ends, as well as base ones.”

It is difficult to see exactly where Sir Hartley’s youth organisation would differ from the “Hitler Youth” in either means or ends, but no doubt, being an “ expert ” he must be right when he asserts that there is a difference.

He goes on to say: —

“Just fancy, if you could enrol those over school leaving age in a junior section of the special constabulary, you might divert a lot of the spirit of adventure into stopping crime instead of creating it."

Just fancy, if only children would grow up with a spirit of adventure, law-abiding enough to be honest and conscientious workers in peacetime and ruthless enough to be cold and efficient killers in war. Unfortunately for Sir Hartley and his whole tribe of “experts” he can't have it both ways, and all the psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, child guidance clinics and other “specialists” can rack their brains and hold conferences from now until the cows come home but until the economic system that causes crime is fundamentally changed, they might just as well knock their heads against the wall.

It may be argued, of course, that all children do not react in the same way to the same conditions, but let us compare the country child with the slum child. It is generally accepted that there is less “delinquency” among the former as compared with the latter. But the former has many more facilities for occupying his spare time in a “ law-abiding ” manner—open spaces, trees to climb, and the thousand and one things the country can offer—but the slum child, hemmed in with brick walls, in most cases unwanted in the house all day because of lack of space, has to play in the streets and in finding an outlet for his energies often resorts to destructive behaviour.

What conclusions are to be drawn then? The workers the world over produce those very toys and all the other goods that they and their children want. The development of science in production has proceeded far enough for all their demands to be satisfied providing the world were run in a sane manner. As things are however most people are unable to buy everything they want and are, in fact, often unable to obtain all the basic necessities of life. Some therefore take what appears to be the easy way out and resort to what is known as “dishonest ways” of obtaining those things. The number who succeed in this way and stay unapprehended is probably small. Those who do succeed most likely spend their time wondering how long it will be before they are caught. There is one way in which robbery can be successfully carried out and yet at the same time be legal. This is what is generally known as robbing the workers of the fruits of their labour, and to do this only one condition is required—that of being an employer or capitalist. As, however, this is impossible for most of us, we are back where we started. The solution to the problem, however, does exist.

Seeing then, that the mass of the people produce those goods they need, why can’t they have them? This is what our comrades in America probably call the sixty-four dollar question.

The Socialist solution is one that would remove crime, poverty and slums in one fell swoop. We hold that all the evils of the modern world including war, are a result of that very way in which the world’s wealth is produced and distributed, and of the fact that approximately one-tenth of the people own nine-tenths of that wealth. We do not call for the equal distribution of that wealth, but for the abolition of private or State ownership of the means of life and the making of production and distribution and making them the common property of every man, woman and child on the earth. Everybody who is able will work to produce the things that we need and everybody will have equal access to those things.

We argue that the need to “cosh” a man on the head for his watch or his wallet would no longer exist because watches would be freely available to all who needed them, and money would be a thing of the past. Even today, who would bother to steal water from another man’s tap? Nobody dreams of doing so because water is freely available to everybody.

Under Socialism the same condition would apply to all our needs—they would be freely available to all.

Those who prattle about “human nature” being the cause of crime and making Socialism impossible, should be reminded of a few facts. According to the calculations of scientists like Gordon Child and Julian Huxley, man has probably existed on this planet for a period of at least 500,000 years. Of that period the greater part was lived in primitive communism, where money was unknown, where such property as existed was commonly owned and where the distribution of the wealth produced was in accordance with the needs of the community. A fine example is given by De Poncins in his book “Kabloona.” During his stay among the Eskimo untouched by civilisation he was amazed to find that in spite of the severity of the climate and the consequent scarcity of the means of life, stealing was unknown and that there was no word for stealing in the Eskimo language. He found, in fact, that in this condition of rude communism crime was virtually iron-existent.

Let those who talk so glibly about “human nature,” appear in the dock and plead like the German War Criminals that “human nature” is the cause of their crimes. The court that passes sentence will be no more lenient and the rope that hangs them will be no less deadly.

In conclusion; when the working class decides to solve its own problems instead of leaving it to the “experts,” society will no longer need prisons, nor indeed will it need “experts” on the cause and cure of crime.

S. J. Burton.

A Glance at Christianity (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was recently reported in the Press that a clergyman held a special religious service before the F.A. Cup Final in order to offer up prayers for an Arsenal victory. At least one national newspaper ridiculed the whole affair and accused the unfortunate clergyman of reducing religion to a cheap commercial level. It is worth pointing out that although the Almighty has been called upon to perform some peculiar deeds in the past, it is the first requested intervention into league football.

Most people dismiss such irresponsible episodes as sheer nonsense, but there is no doubt that many of the working class still harbour a feeling of awe towards the Church and its teachings. Few people understand how Christianity originated, least of all those who profess to practice it.

Christianity was born during the period when the great Roman Empire commenced its decline. To understand the reason for this phenomenon appearing at this time it is necessary to delve into Roman history to discover the conditions that were peculiar to this period. A very suitable book that deals exhaustively with this subject is “The Foundation of Christianity” by Kautsky.

The early Christians were mostly recruited from the oppressed and property-less classes, slaves, etc. Hence the vehement hatred towards the rich that is expressed in the early Christian writing. This attitude was modified as the cult grew and rich and influential members became an obvious advantage to further expansion and power. By the time that Christianity was adopted as the state religion by the Roman Emperor Constantine little remained of the early ethical teachings of the followers of primitive Christianity. The whole religion had undergone a very efficient watering down process with certain necessary modifications that made it more palatable to the ruling class of that period.

As society has changed so we find that Christian teachings have also changed to keep pace with the intelligence and aspirations of the congregation. But there is one sermon that the organised Church has always preached—the sanctity of private property and the necessity and justification of a ruling class.

Under Feudalism the church would attempt to frighten the simple serf into accepting the unquestionable rule of the Aristocracy with spine chilling accounts of the fate that would befall wrongdoers and rebels deep in the fiery bowels of the earth. Most churches at this time made a practice of displaying, in a prominent position, a picture of Hell showing vividly what ghastly tortures might be expected, just in case the verbal description did not penetrate and produce the desired results.

Of course modern wage slaves would scoff at such amateurish and obvious attempts to encourage acceptance of their lot, and the church is astute enough to realise it. The church these days will emphasise the other side of the picture and teaches the working class that the rewards of after-life will amply repay them for a miserable existence on earth. They offer no solutions to the problems of this world; accept war, poverty and want as “inevitable,” indeed they are not concerned with causes only the effects. In the event of war the churches support the cause of their respective masters. We had the spectacle during the last war of the churches in all countries praying to their God for victory. The only consolation that the Church can offer after the wholesale butchering of millions of people is that it is “Gods Will.” Perhaps this God emulates the Roman Emperors of bygone days and regards the earth as a vast arena, gloating with sadistic delight at the sight of human beings torn limb from limb and workers’ bayonets ripping open each others bellies. The socialist recognises that the Church under capitalism, as under previous forms of society, offers support to the ruling class and opposition to any change that would endanger the supremacy of this class.

Workers will one day realise that the remedies to their problems lie in their own hands and that no supreme being is concerned with their welfare, the outcome of wars, football matches or any other earthly pursuits. They will learn that it is the present arrangement of the machinery of production and distribution for sale that lies at the root of their problems. Once these conditions have been swept away and production for use replaces them, there will be no need for religion, sky pilots, supreme beings or any of the other unintelligible jargon.

G. L.

The Welfare State (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

All the major political parties applaud the Welfare State. They vied with each other, during the election campaign, to claim credit for bringing it into existence. The Conservatives made the most of the fact that the government which set up the commission to inquire into the problem of reorganising the social services was a coalition Government predominantly Tory. The Liberals claimed their share of the glory because Sir William Beveridge, who gave his name to the report, was chairman of the Commission, and a Liberal. To the Labour Government was left the triumph of passing the legislation.

The truth about it all was that the so-called “Welfare State” arose not through the good will of any political party but because of the need to adapt the social services to the changing condition of capitalism. The need to allay any possible working class discontent after the war. Of course, it was a benefit to the health of the working class. That was another reason. To take advantage of post-war conditions and capture as many foreign markets as possible it was necessary to increase production. To do this a healthy efficient working class was needed.

But the capitalist class give with one hand and take back with the other.

The New Statesman and Nation, criticizing the Daily Mail's handling of the figures which led to the headline “Father Pays £34 9s. a year to Put Family of Four on the Panel,” makes some calculations of its own and comments:—

“This would make ‘fathers' payment for health services (Daily Mail calculation) around £23. or almost equal to the estimated benefit (Marshal Aid calculation) which a family receives under the scheme.”—(April 1st. 1950).

From these figures, as far as the health services are concerned, the working class are just getting what they pay for. The Economist in an article deals with the total social expenditure, and it quotes from the report of the E.C.A. Mission to the United Kingdom, “Facts about the British Economy.” Publishing a.table giving the Mission’s estimates The Economist writes: —

“The left-hand side of the table puts the total social expenditure for an average family—on the assumption that the population can be divided into families of four persons—at 57 shillings a week, including expenditure from the local rates and from the national insurance funds. The right-hand side of the table gives estimates of taxes paid by lower income families in 1948, taken as those with an income of under £500 in 1947. The total taxes estimated to be paid by such families who make up about 80 per cent. of the population, were larger than the whole of current social expenditure.” (The Economist, 1/4/50).

The socialist view is that the Welfare State won't abolish the poverty problem which confronts the working class out is just the best method the capitalist class have devised to distribute wages from the point of view of efficiency. When the Beveridge Report, the blue print of the Welfare State, was published, the Communist Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and some sections of the Tories were in favour of it. The Socialist Party of Great Britain thought fit to publish a pamphlet putting forward the socialist view. It had the title “Beveridge Re-organises Poverty.” How right it was! The Economist thinks that way too. It later continues: —

“Since it is the lower income groups which benefit mainly from social expenditure the report says ‘the social expenditures are chiefly financed by transfers of income within the lower income group, in accordance with variations in the patterns of consumption, family size, etc., rather than by transfers between different income levels.’ ” (The Economist, I /4/50).

J. T.

The Class Struggle (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is likely that more nonsense has been talked and written about the class-struggle than about any other part of the Socialist case. Propagandists of the parties which support the capitalist system always refer to the class-struggle as if it were something which Marx invented and which Socialists are in favour of, just as, for example, the Liberal Party is in favour of Proportional Representation. Tories accuse the Labour Party of fostering antagonism between classes. Is it possible, asks Captain Gammans, Conservative M.P. for Hornsey, for the Labour Party “ to maintain itself solely on a policy of class hatred?” (Everybody's, 25-3-50). The Labour Party indignantly rebuts the charge that it believes in the class-struggle, and claims itself to be a party of the nation as a whole, devoted to furthering the interests of every section of the population. The Liberal and Conservative Parties say that they, too, want harmony among classes. Everybody's (leading article, 11-3-50) thinks that if Britain were “rid of extremists, all classes could work together in tolerance.” One of the most explicit of articles putting this view which have appeared recently is “ How to Lick Class Struggle ’ by W. W. Cenerazzo, in the Reader's Digest for October, 1949. Here is a quotation.

“ I like to call the American system ‘ Co-operative Capitalism.’ To me this means investor, management and labour working together for these objectives: to make the company as prosperous as possible so that the investor can obtain a fair return on his money, management can obtain adequate payment for supplying direction, and labour can obtain a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work with the accompanying job security and pension plan that a prosperous company can guarantee.”

The idea that the Socialists are the originators and sole supporters of the class-struggle is of course entirely wrong. Marx did not invent it; he diagnosed it. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” The various classes in society, they said, have carried on “an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, fight; a fight that each time ended in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” They did not say that history ought to have been the record of class struggles; they said that it was the record of class struggles. Socialists do not support the class-struggle any more than they support war; but they realise that both are inevitable so long as the economic basis of society remains unchanged.

The present productive system is based upon the exploitation of the people who work by the people who own the land, the factories, the mines, and all the other instruments of production. It is worth reiterating this fact, because it is the reason for the existence of the class struggle. Goods are made by workers, operating machines constructed by workers, in factories built by workers. Other workers—managers and technicians— organise production and plan ahead. If at any time an owner takes part in the process of production (for example, the owner of a factory who manages it himself) he does it as a worker, not as an owner. Owners as such contribute nothing to the processes of production. Why then can they live, if they do not work? They can live, and live well, because they are able to hold the rest of the community to ransom if they do not receive a sufficient amount of rent, interest and profit. If a factory owner is not making enough profit, he closes his factory; and however much the workers want to operate the machines in the factory and produce the goods they need, they cannot force him to open it. In the long run, no goods are made or transported unless someone makes a profit out of it. This is true of every industry, whether the board of directors is appointed privately or by the state. Owners live, then, by exploiting (“robbing” is a more familiar term, and just as accurate) the workers. Only Socialists realise this; the Labour, Liberal, and Conservative parties think that “a fair profit” is justifiable. They remind one of the French lawyer who wanted crime to be reduced, but not abolished entirely. The Stalinists also think that dividends are not fundamentally wrong, provided that they can control the system which produces the dividends, as they do in Soviet Russia.

In this way capitalism divides society into two classes, one of which is made up of workers and the other of exploiters. Each class has its own interests, which are at variance with those of the other. By strikes and by lockouts, by the setting up or overthrow of political superstructures, the struggle among the classes proceeds. While the workers are being exploited, they have to fight against their exploiters as best they can, by forming unions on the industrial front, and by forming parties on the political front. Socialists join the fight on the industrial front, but they realise, and try to get their fellow-workers to realise, that the working-class can only permanently improve its position by the creation of a Socialist society.

Propagandists of the capitalist parties avoid admitting the existence of the class-struggle in one of two ways. Some of them deny that the workers are exploited, and thus argue, like Mr. Cenerazzo, that there is no great division of interest between owners and workers. Mr. T. Wilson, judging from his article in the Manchester Guardian (13-2-50) is one of these. It would be as well, he thinks, “to abandon all talk of 'class war,”’ since large incomes derived from the ownership of property form “too small a part of the total to matter much.” Only 20 per cent. of the owning classes have incomes of more than £2,000 a year, he reports; four-fifths of them have to make do with a gross income of £40 a week or less. He adds vaguely that of these incomes “ part will usually be earned ” without condescending to give facts and figures as to the amount and manner of the “ earning.” One seems to smell directors’ fees. But this evidence of poverty among the class who live on the fruits of other people’s labour, interesting though it is, will not convert Socialists.

Other propagandists ignore entirely the fact that some people live on rent, interest and profit. To quote Everybody's leader-writer again (11/3/50): “Planners may argue and the London School of Economics produce figures to prove topsy-turvydom, but when all is said, the only solution to our problems is hard work. Hard work never killed anyone. . ; . Longer hours and efficiency should have their just reward. Fair shares, when one man works harder than another, is ridiculous." The best comment on this is what Mr. Churchill once said. “Men sometimes stumble on the truth, but most of them get up and hurry away as if nothing had happened." It is not clear whether Mr. Churchill regards himself as one of those who hurried away, or just as one of those who never stumbled; but it is obvious that the leader-writer has here hit upon something which is profoundly true. Fair shares, when one man works harder than another, is certainly ridiculous according to the ideals which capitalist apologists proclaim, the ideals of a “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work." More ridiculous still is fair shares when one man works hard, and another doesn’t work at all. Most ridiculous of all is the system we have now, when the man who does no work, provided he owns enough property, gets a lot more for it than the man who works hard. But the leader-writer is not concerned with getting shareholders and landlords to take jobs in a factory or in a coalmine; he is merely exhorting those who already work to work harder. In this way he takes sides in the class-struggle without admitting its existence.

To say that classes fight for their own interests is not, however, the same thing as saying that classes always recognise exactly where their own interests lie. At the present time, an atom-war, which would probably destroy civilisation or a large part of it, seems to be approaching. This alone would surely provide sufficient reason for the working class to overthrow the system which makes war inevitable. But when Socialists try to spread Socialist ideas, they are brought up against the fact that the great instruments of mass-propaganda, the press, the cinema, the radio, are controlled by people who have done very well out of this system, and who therefore are favourable to it. Very few workers are yet convinced of the necessity for a radical change in our way of living. The mass of workers still vote for the party which holds out the longest list of promises.

At present, the three big parties each derive their chief support from certain clearly-defined sections. In the elections of 1945 and 1950, the lower-paid sections of the working class generally voted Labour, especially those in the heavy industries such as coal-mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel. The exploiting class, the landlords, shareholders and entrepreneurs, voted Conservative; so did farmers and shopkeepers, part of whose income comes from the exploitation of the workers they employ. The professional and salaried workers observed how poor, ignorant and ill-housed were the lower ranks of the working class, and sought to put a barrier between themselves and the poorer workers, and to emphasise their own superior standard of living, by voting Conservative; in any case, they had benefited from the low price of goods and services under Tory rule between the wars. There were also Conservatives lower down the social scale. Wage-workers who attend to the wants of the wealthy—hotel-workers, for example, in fashionable towns like Leamington Spa, Bath and Bournemouth—often feel that their livings depend on the continued patronage of people who have large incomes to spend and leisure to spend them in. “ In Bournemouth it seems that over 50 per cent. of the voting population work for a weekly wage" (Picture Post, 11/2/50); yet in the last election, both Bournemouth constituencies returned Conservative M.P.s with majorities of some 15,000 votes. It is more difficult to distinguish which groups voted Liberal; but the strength of the party in North Wales and North Scotland, which are roughly also the areas where peasant farmers exist in relatively the strongest numbers, would indicate that they are the staunchest bulwark of Liberalism.

The “white-collar workers’’ who live in the suburbs and work in the offices of the big cities, especially London, ‘broke away from the Conservatives in 1945. Under the influence of the propaganda of the Common Wealth Party and the Gollancz yellow booklets, they voted Labour. The big question of the 1950 election was whether or not Labour could hold this group, since although it might not be in a majority in any one constituency, its vote could determine the allegiance of much of suburbia. In the list of seats that the Labour Party won in 1945, but lost in 1950, the names that stand out are those like Croydon, Romford, Harrow, Hendon, Ilford, Mitcham, Wembley. These results show that the Conservatives were successful this time in securing the support of the white-collar workers.

The Tories now want to win over the upper sections of the manual workmen themselves. Captain Gammans, in the article already quoted, says: “It is from the skilled craftsmen that the Conservative Party may strengthen its ranks if it plays its cards properly." In other words, the big political parties, while in theory denying the existence of the class-struggle, in practice recognise it and make their plans with it in mind.

The Socialist Party believes that the interests of everyone who works, white-collar or no-collar, manual or professional, are directly opposed to the interests of everyone who lives by owning property, and that the workers must combine and put an end to the system which rests upon their exploitation.

Alwyn Edgar