More Fabian Notes. With Some Fabian Notions. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter from a gentleman who suggests that our regard for common honesty will move us to the desired point of publication has been passed to me. If he had appealed to our regard for an uncommon honesty it would have been more to the point. However, here is the communication : —

Dear Comrade,

I am a regular reader of the “Standard” (the monthly, not the daily), and in the current issue I see that one of the features of the March issue is to be an interesting letter on “Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B.”

In part the answer is supplied by some of the writings in the Party’s official organ—your own paper. I admire unfettered thinking, and clear, incisive writing, but I wish to lodge a respectful protest against the column-and-a-half entitled “Fabian Notes” in the February issue. It embodies either a ridiculous misapprehension of a sentence used by Mr. H. Snell (and quoted), or a wilful distortion of his obvious meaning—for the purpose of discrediting the Fabians in general. Even if an individual member did entertain the ideas attributed to Snell, it is grossly unfair to brand the whole society on such evidence.

The quotation from Snell’s speech was as follows : “The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts.” In this sentence, “we” most certainly means Socialists generally, and not members of the Fabian Society in particular. Under the Socialist State (unless people should revert to a very simple life—which is unlikely), it is certain that experts will be needed—in manufacture, in the arts, and even in distribution. There will be no government in any sense approximating to the present class government. And during the transitional stage, which has now commenced (with the growth of trusts on the one hand, and of municipal enterprises on the other), it is equally certain that experts are needed ; and it was to this aspect that Snell’s remark had special reference, for if one thing seems specially obvious in this matter, it is that the workers—the real producers—will receive a nearer approximation to justice under a Socialist than under an individualist; but, just as obviously, the Socialist expert is likely to be passed over, if his principles are known and put into practice. The implication is, that the experts must be converted to Socialism, just as the workers must be : and in this direction the Fabian Society is doing sound work (although its work covers much ground in other directions also).

Whether, under Socialism, the expert would be paid at a higher rate than the “ordinary” worker, is a question which is really not raised by Mr. Snell. I would give my own answer to the question by asking another: Why should he be ? That his abilities are of a less common kind than those of the men who work under his direction, supplies no ethical claim for special treatment. Generally speaking, the work of the expert (as of the artist) is agreeable : he is impelled to do it: and he will give his best howsoever he be rewarded. I, and many who think like me, would have a high reward accorded to the scavenger rather than to the expert.

Your leading article, “The Quintessence of Socialism,” gets to the root of the matter. Until all industries are socialised, and their control won by the workers, the nationalisation (or municipalisation) of isolated industries will be of little service. The best to be hoped of the latter is that conditions shall be somewhat superior to those in the corresponding privately-owned industries—and even that is too seldom attained. The moral is : Unite, for Socialism and Democracy; accept all palliatives offered, but be sparing of thanks, for the most that will be conceded falls far short of the just claims of the workers.

Nevertheless, to preach hatred of the bourgeoisie or the so-called “upper” classes or to foster misunderstandings or “bad feeling” between class and class is both impolitic and immoral. All classes include Socialists—genuine Socialists. So far as the well-to-do are concerned—the people who stand to gain nothing tangible from the victory of Socialism—I ask, why decry those who adhere to the cause “for righteousness sake,” and for no other reason ?

Yet another, and a practical reason for preaching class-consciousness rather than class-hatred, is the immense numbers of “hangers-on” of the wealthy—those who produce useless luxuries for the “upper” classes or who minister directly to their comfort. These, too, are underpaid and oppressed : and the serious part of it is that they are rapidly increasing (in consequence of the growing aggregation of wealth in capitalistic hands). Yet their apparent interest, in the immediate future at any rate, lies in perpetuating existing conditions. These also need to be converted—must be converted, if Socialism is to be won ; for they are too numerous to be disregarded. At present they appear to be about the most impermeable classes of the whole community : they are unlikely to be moved by mere rancorous abuse of their “masters,” but in the long run they must be amenable to reason. (As my letter has dealt largely with an attack on the Fabian Society, I may say—to anticipate a possible gibe—that I do not think the Society either tries or expects to make much impression on the classes in question—though ultimately, perhaps, the impression may be made through their masters).

Whilst preaching the Class War, then, it is imperative that the constructive and idealistic side of Socialism should also be emphasised. In the Socialist State, none (save the shirkers) will be worse off than at present—in all that really makes the happiness of existence : but it will uplift the toilers almost beyond their most daring visions.

I plead, therefore, for union and co-operation within the movement—with free but not ill-natured criticism of each other when differences arise.

Yours fraternally,

Fabian Free.

Reply:

As the blushing author of the article referred to I beg to thank “Fabian Free” for his “free but not ill-natured criticism,” the more so because with almost overwhelming magnanimity he gives me the choice of two labels, I am, it seems, either a liar or a fool—whichever I please. (As a lover of “clear, incisive writing” “Fabian Free” will appreciate the merit these easily understood terms possess over “ridiculous misapprehension” and “wilful distortion.”) And that is very sweet and comradely in my good-natured critic. There have been gentle Fabians who have given me no such freedom of selection.

But notwithstanding this much appreciated concession for the sake of “union and co-operation within the movement,” (which the gods forbid that I should attempt to disturb), I will venture a free and not ill-natured rejoinder in the hope that I may be successful in making my “grossly unfair” conduct appear a little less reprehensible. I hope “Fabian Free” will bear with me.

Now it seems that when Mr. Snell said “we naturally want to be the experts” who will govern in the future, he most certainly meant Socialists generally and not Fabians in particular. Did he ? And how does “Fabian Free” know that ? Will he be greatly surprised to learn that Mr. Snell “most certainly” meant nothing of the sort ?

When Mr. Snell made the statement he was describing the special function of the Fabian Society as distinguished from all other Socialist and pseudo-Socialist parties whose origin and work he was at the moment outlining. If his words had any meaning at all they made it emphatically clear that Mr. Snell was of the opinion that the particular duty laid upon the Fabian Society on whose behalf he was speaking, was that of the training of the expert who was, he thought, to govern in the future.

This may, of course, be a wilful distortion or a ridiculous misapprehension of the function of, and grossly unfair to, the Fabian Society, but that is not my affair. “Fabian Free” had better take the matter up with his Executive Committee, who will then probably restrain their unhappy fugleman. But I think it more likely that “Fabian Free” will receive the shocking intimation that the Executive of his Party share Mr. Snell’s view. In which case “Fabian Free” will perhaps apologise to Mr. Snell and withdraw from the Fabian Society—and perhaps not. However that may be, I trust he will not trouble to apologise to me. I don’t matter. Besides, I’m used to being called names—especially by good-natured comrades of other parties. It’s their little way of ensuring union and cooperation in the movement.

For the rest, “Fabian Free” does not appear to have profited by his regular reading of this paper, and therefore fails to realise that “clear and incisive” style which is his admiration and our normal method. His meaning is often, if he will allow me to say so, obscure, and is not made more apparent by repeated use of the word “obviously” or its equivalent. It is a little—may I say—ludicrous, to keep on making the strenuous assertion that obviously it is so-and-so when obviously it isn’t. It is like crying peace when there is no peace. But I will try my ‘prentice hand at digging his argument out.

Let us assume Mr. Snell meant what “Fabian Free” says he meant. So. “The government of the future” applies only to the transition stage. It is for this stage that the Socialist expert is required. Yet in this stage “Fabian Free” agrees the working class can be little if anything better off. Why ? Because while capitalism holds the causes of poverty and working-class unhappiness remain. Therefore your Socialist expert under capitalist conditions, because he can do no more than administer capitalist laws, is of no more use than a non-Socialist expert. And as under Socialism “there will be no government in any sense approximating to the present,” the Socialist governmental expert of the transition period will then find himself without visible means of subsistence !

It seems to a plain person like myself a dreadful waste of effort to labour in the conversion and training of Socialist governmental experts who are useless to day and for ever. They had far better take my advice and apply themselves to the acquisition of some useful trade.

And I cannot allow “Fabian Free” for one purpose to limit Mr. Snell’s statement to a certain machinery in a certain stage and for another to apply it in a broader sense to a different stage. I am quite ready to have at him with a free and not ill-natured criticism on any question of working-class interest he likes to raise, but he must keep to his premise or definitely relinquish it. If Mr. Snell’s statement referred, as I believe it did, to government under Socialism,—that at any rate was the impression left not with myself alone, by Mr. Snell’s clear and incisive oratory,—”Fabian Free” may deal with my article from that standpoint, and I will deal with him—very happy for the chance, I’m sure. (And then perhaps I shall be able to get him to explain what the Dickens he means by his Socialist expert under Socialism being overlooked because his principles were known.) If the statement referred to the ante-Socialist period, as “Fabian Free” asserts, then the question of the remuneration of the governmental bureaucrat does not arise. The industrial expert under Socialism is a different person from the governmental expert. The first, adequately defined, may be allowed. The second is the person we are talking about. If “Fabian Free” desires to drub me on him, let him wade in. I’ve still got an old pencil stump and a piece of paper left to me by the friendly broker’s man.

“Fabian Free’s sixth par is, I admit, a fair contribution to incisive writing and displays at once the unfortunate misapprehensions existing in the writer’s mind. To talk of hatred of the bourgeoisie being impolitic and immoral is piffle. The hatred is simply an expression, a natural and inevitable expression, of detestation of what “Fabian Free” admits is a wrong, viz., the subjugation and robbery of one class by another. To point this out and emphasize its purport is not immoral—if there be any meaning left in that ill-used word. Nor is it impolitic—unless “Fabian Free” desires to suggest that it is unwise to tell the truth. True all (read both) classes may prima facie, include Socialists, but members of the capitalist class are only Socialists to the extent that they vacate their class position and go over to the working class.

I will argue this point at greater length if “Fabian Free” wishes it, later, and will only say here that the number of people who are Socialists “for righteousness sake,” large though it appears to “Fabian Free,” will dwindle almost to a vanishing point under scrutiny, and come out from the ordeal mainly as a congregation of individuals who have decided that anyhow, to use “Fabian Free’s” own words, they will not be worse off under Socialism, but might be considerably better. Holding as we do that material interests are, in the final analysis, at the root of all human actions, we can quite understand the existence of men in the ranks of the bourgeoisie who can see the advantages of Socialism, and are prepared to fight their own class in order to realise it. Their help is not rejected, but it is not necessarily of more consequence than the help of a similar number of the working class. On the other hand, however, it must not be forgotten that men of the capitalist class have come out ostensibly to help but actually to wreck, if possible, the working-class movement. Therefore, recruits from that quarter should be dealt with circumspectly.

The important point to be remembered in this connection is, that the Socialist movement is absolutely and entirely a working-class movement. It expresses the struggle of the working class against the exploiting capitalist class, and must finally result in the triumph of the workers and the extermination of the capitalists.

Nor can we gild the Socialistic pill for the benefit of the flunkey class. Their material interests will probably keep them bound to their masters until pressure of economic forces, already perceptibly operating, compels them to see that their sole hope, also lies in Socialism. They will have to swallow the pill willy-nilly. And if they then discover, as they will, that there is nothing nauseating in the operation, so much the better.

For our part we will tell them the truth (when we can get at ’em) as straight and clear as we tell it to any other section of the people. That is our business—the only reason for our existence. And not even for “Fabian Free,” much though we should value his union and co-operation, will we depart from our habit of calling a spade a spade, or a labour misleader a fraud, or a Fabian a bureaucrat, or an I.L.P.-cum-L.R.C’er a man on the bounce, or an S.D.F. palliative-monger a confusionist.

And that, gentle “Fabian Free,” if you particularly want to know, is in brief the reason why every other party is opposed to the S.P.G.B. and the S.P.G.B. is opposed to every other party.

A. James

A Look Round. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Weekly Times and Echo is a Liberal newspaper. Between elections it plays to the Labour Gallery, prints articles from prominent Social-Democrats and Labour men. But at elections it supports the Liberal (which, of course, includes the Progressive) candidates, and should therefore be regarded as an enemy by those who claim to be Socialists.

***

“He that is not with us is against us,” used to be recognised as a truism by the S.D.F. But recently things have been altered. On the front page of the Weekly Times and Echo for March 17, 1907, appears an advertisement by the Edmonton Branch of the S.D.F., addressed to the Electors of Edmonton, and announcing a mass meeting in support of S.D.F. candidates for the District Council. In the advertisement the electors are advised not to blindly vote for “the man your landlord thinks the best, and who is selected by the landlords themselves.”

***

This denouncing of the landlord, while ignoring his companion, the capitalist, is an old Liberal dodge, but I hardly expected to find it in an S.D.F. Advt.

***

The advertisement concludes : “Take in this paper weekly. It is the best for all workers.”

***

So the S.D.F. are now reduced to urging the workers to be taken in by taking in a paper which appears several times during the week for the greater glorification of the Liberal section of the capitalist class !

***

What Judge Emden described as an extraordinary state of affairs was revealed at the Lambeth County Court on March 13, when a member of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners named Murphy sued the Society for £50 which he claimed as accident benefit. Counsel for the Union submitted to the Judge that as the Society was an illegal society for the purposes of restraining trade, the Court had no jurisdiction to try it, which was proved by section 4, subsection 3, of the Trade Union Act of 1871. This provided that members of the Society, or vice-versa, shall have no power to resort to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing any agreement between them.

***

After a lengthy legal argument the Judge decided favourably to the Union, dismissed the action, and at the request of the Union’s advocate, gave costs against the Union member.

***

The plaintiff’s advocate described the Union as a “swindle” and was promptly reproved by the Judge. But the irony of it ! The workers are urged to join their Trade Unions, in order to make provision, amongst other things, for sickness, old age, accident, etc. And then the Union into which they have paid, week after week, a large proportion of their earnings, resists claims by its members and defeats them by the tactics detailed above.

***

The Liberal Government at home are mouthing threats against the House of Lords, mainly because they claim that “it thwarts the people’s will.” At the same moment they have established a second chamber in the Transvaal with the definite object of thwarting the wishes of the elected Assembly.

***

The scandal of the Upper House nominations, writes the Daily Chronicle’s Johannesburg correspondent, must be remembered in estimating the political outlook. The people elected a majority pledged to the repatriation of the Chinese, and Lord Selborne has nominated a Progressive Chinese majority in the Upper House. Consequently it is premature as a result of the elections to predict the peaceful elimination of the Chinese, since the power to precipitate a crisis and thwart the policy of the Assembly and the home Government by voting such legislation as is essential to repatriation is placed in the hands of the puppets of Lord Selborne and the mining houses, as, in case of a deadlock, the Governor can dissolve the Assembly without calling a joint sitting of both Houses.

***

“Improvements in administration, chiefly in the interest of the middle-class ratepayer, improvement even in the status of organised labour, does not take us far on the road to genuine Socialism. It is reform certainly, and it has, in some respects, a good effect in so far as it shows the way to better things. But, on the other hand, palliatives are likely to obscure the main issue and the idea itself of the maintenance of municipalities, and the raising the status of wage-earners, stunts the revolutionary intelligence and restricts the area of economic foresight.”

H. M. Hyndman, November, 1895.

***

“To get a little they must ask for the lot, if they ask for a little they will get nothing. As he was growing older he was beginning to feel the futility of crying for reforms when you find yourself face to face with a system which makes all reform impossible.”

H. M. Hyndman, March, 1904.

***

Those who will carefully read the above Hyndmanisms, and then read through the addresses issued by S.D.F. candidates at recent elections will not need to subscribe to the Daily News edition of Punch.

***

“Who aims a star, shoots higher far

Than he that aims a tree.”

***

On Saturday, London had spoken for the forces of reaction, and had played into the hands of the Harmsworth family once again, said our Lady of Warwick at the East Ham Town Hall on March 4. As London had to choose between a majority of “Progressives” and one of “Moderates,” both of whom serve the interests of the capitalist class, it is evident that her Ladyship would have hailed the victory of the former as a defeat of the forces of reaction.

***

According to the Burton Evening Gazette, something of a sensation has been caused by certain staff changes at Messrs. Allsopp & Sons’ Offices. A number of clerks, some of whom had given life service to the firm, were dismissed peremptorily, but with their salaries in advance, and the incident, although it is merely an elaboration of a policy which has unhappily long been in progress, caused much comment by reason of the position of the parties concerned and the length of their association with the brewery.

The lady clerk is to make her appearance at the desk, and she and her class will very largely take the place of those gentlemen who have been sent adrift. It is contended that the somewhat drastic changes which are now in progress in Messrs. Allsopp’s internal affairs are dictated by the demands for a strictly economical working plan. Whatever may be the verdict of the general public on the matter, it cannot be denied that much resentment is expressed locally at the continued dismissal of clerks, and this has especially made itself felt within the past few days.

A representative of the Gazette had an interview with Mr. C. J. Stewart, the chairman of the Board of Directors, who stated that the policy of economy had been going on generally since he commenced his tenure of office. “A considerable saving has,” he said, “been effected in the administrative staff in accordance with that policy.” He had had experience of lady clerks in other capacities, and he thought that they would be very suitable for the work it was proposed to give them. It would be merely a matter of figures, and what might be monotonous for men would not be so in the case of girls. In fact, it was really women’s work to do that sort of thing.

***

Of course, “it is really women’s work to do that sort of thing,” and any other sort of thing whereby the wages bill can be reduced.

***

As we have so often pointed out, the displacement of men by women and even by children is incidental to the capitalist system and must and does take place in offices as well as in mills and factories. The writers of some of the letters that have appeared in the Press concerning this particular case have made some extraordinary suggestions and have mostly shown a lamentable ignorance of things as they are. They have appealed to the “feelings” of the Directors, etc. In days gone by, when businesses were small, when they were personally superintended by the proprietors, there no doubt did exist some feeling of friendship between the employer and his employees, but since the advent of the large concerns, the joint stock corporations, where often the employees never see the actual proprietors, where the departmental managers are expected to make their respective departments “pay,” sentiment is entirely out of the question. Business is not carried on for philanthropy but for dividends.

***

It has also been suggested that the lesson, to be learnt by the clerk is that there is still room for him if he will make himself an all round competent man. But there are plenty of these today working for a mere pittance, and plenty even dossing nightly at Booth’s hotels. Moreover, the only practical school for acquiring efficiency in office routine is the office itself, and the conditions of modern offices render it impossible for the necessary experience to be obtained. The “From Powder Monkey to Admiral,” “Office Boy to Proprietor” fiction is long since exploded. In the small office, say with manager, cashier, clerk, junior and office boy, the “yob” certainly did have an opportunity, provided he were smart, of acquiring a general and particular knowledge of the office routine and of the business transacted, but as the small offices gave place to the mammoth concerns now so common in commercial centres, the work became departmentalised and all-round knowledge rendered unnecessary for the majority of the staff. The newcomer, however proficient he may have made himself at commercial schools and similar institutions for extracting fees out of would-be Pierpoint Morgans, finds himself set to work which, as Mr. Stewart says, is “merely a matter of figures.” Usually, his only hope of promotion is to become the head of the department, or one of that worthy’s ”coppers,” but between him and the coveted post intervenes an array of a score or more all anxious for advancement and all as little likely to secure it. His knowledge is useless because his only prospect is to remain at one particular job, at work which could be done by any other fairly correct person, male or female.

***

What the clerk has to do is to drop his cant of respectability and to recognise that economic development, which has reduced the skilled mechanic to a casual labourer, has also affected him. The growth of large concerns, the aggregation of capital, the increased use of mechanical appliances, in offices as elsewhere, the subdivision and departmentalisation now generally in vogue, have effected vast changes in the status of the wage and salary earner, of those who have to sell their abilities, physical or mental, to the master class. Under capitalism, production per head of the population tends to increase continually, but production per head of the actually employed workers also increases. Thus the army of the unemployed will be an evergrowing one and we ask our opponents to show how the problem can be dealt with, apart from a re-organisation of industry—apart from the substitution of Socialism for the present system.

J. Kay

Editorial: The New Hebrides and the Transvaal. (1907)

Editorial rom the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has repeatedly been pointed out in these columns that there is no essential difference between the Liberal and Tory parties. The way the Liberals have shuffled out of their promises to the electorate, particularly regarding the Chinese Labour Ordinance, is patent to all; and now we have them perpetrating a New Hebrides Convention that is in all ways worse than the Ordinance they were elected to overthrow. Out of their own mouths they stand condemned. Thus the Daily Chronicle says :

“Let us state the case at its worst, so that Liberals may appreciate the point which they have to meet. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Government have denounced the system of indentured Chinese labour in South Africa. By the New Hebrides Convention the same Government has set its seal upon a system of indentured labour which is, or may be, far more oppressive and objectionable. The indentured labour drawn from China is confined to adult males. From the New Hebrides, unmarried women may also be indentured, and children ‘if they are of a certain minimum height.’ The women or children may be employed between sunrise and sunset, with an interval of only one hour, and at rate of 10s. a month. There might also, in the case of labourers indentured from the New Hebrides, be no inspection during employment.

“Such are the facts, or rather such is that part of the facts about which on Opposition platforms we are likely to hear a good deal more. In the debate in the House last night, the party business was largely of the pot and kettle order. To the Opposition’s taunt, ‘With what face can you condemn the Chinese Labour Ordinance when you have sanctioned the New Hebrides Convention ?’ the Ministerial reply was ‘With what face can you condemn indentured labour in the New Hebrides when you introduced it into the Transvaal ?’ Each side in turn described the other as ‘Satan rebuking sin.'”

Herbert Spencer and Socialism. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reprinted from the Burton Evening Gazette

Sir,—In a recent issue of your paper there appeared a report of a lecture on “Herbert Spencer,” which was delivered by Mr. F. E. Lott, F.I.C., A.R.S.M. Being an ardent admirer of Mr. Spencer and his “Synthetic Philosophy,” as well as an enthusiastic Socialist, I may be permitted to crave your indulgence for the following remarks regarding your report.

The passage which engaged my attention is the following:—

“His principles of sociology showed that he was no believer in Socialism, though he had often been hailed as such. The principle of ethics was, perhaps, the most important part of his works, and in it he demonstrated that Socialism attempted to improve social life by breaking the fundamental law of social life.”

I presume that the fundamental law of social life referred to is the principle of every man being entitled to the fullest liberty so long as the like liberty of others is not infringed. With this principle as thus expressed in abstract terms I think few Socialists would disagree. The difficulty arises when we discuss what constitutes an infringement of the liberty of others. Spencer held that the State was an organism. But in applying his principles to man in his relation to the State he treated Society not as an organism but as an aggregation of individual units.

Another quotation may be allowed me from a letter from Spencer to John Stuart Mill—

“The view for which I contend is, that morality properly so called—the science of right conduct—has for its object to determine how or why certain modes of conduct are detrimental and certain other modes beneficial. These good and bad results cannot be accidental, but must be necessary consequences of the constitution of things, and I conceive it to be the business of moral science to deduce from the laws of life and the conditions of existence what kinds of action necessarily tend to produce happiness, and what kinds to produce unhappiness. Having done this, its deductions are to be recognised as laws of conduct, and are to be conformed to, irrespective of a direct estimation of happiness or misery.”

Now, how can Socialism be viewed as infringing those principles ? The Socialist looks upon Society as an organism of which human beings form the cells. Any disease of the cells of an organism is injurious to the organism. Anything depriving the cellular tissue of its proper nutrition causes a disease of the tissue, and the organism suffers. The Socialist viewing the present society, based upon the class ownership of wealth and the means of wealth production, sees that many millions of the human cells forming that society are deprived of the means of proper sustenance, whilst others of those human cells are fed to repletion. As one organ of the human organism may be a parasite seeking aggrandisement at the expense of the other organs, so in the body social we have a class of machine-owners living as parasites upon the labour of machine-minders.

View human society as it has been pictured by Mr. Charles Booth in his investigations into London poverty, by Mr. S. Rowntree in York, others at Egremont and elsewhere, as well as the conditions mentioned in the Interdepartmental Report on Physical Deterioration, and the more recent report on the condition of the working-class in Dundee. From these reports it is evident that at least 13,000,000 people in this country are living below the line of bare physical efficiency. And why ? Because Society to-day is organised in the interests of a class. That this is the inevitable result of a long process of evolution makes it none the better for the working class, though this knowledge affords a hope that the end of the evolutionary process is not yet.

The reason is that the worker to-day can live only by selling his labour power—his power of working—for such a remuneration as barely suffices to replace the energy expended on his work, together with rearing, in the cheapest possible manner, a family of future workers to replace him when he gets “too old at forty.” In return for this wage—this food, clothing, and shelter—the worker toils for a longer period than is necessary to replace its value. The surplus he creates in this surplus time forms a product which is divided into various parts. These parts are the profit, the rent, and the interest of the ruling class.

The Socialist, therefore, contends that profit, rent and interest are merely the various shapes which is taken by the unpaid labour of the worker. He further contends that every new improvement of machinery, each wage-saving contrivance, which speeds up the working-power of the individual worker, increases the wealth of the capitalist, while it further degrades the worker. The division between extreme wealth and extreme poverty has never been so great as it is to-day. Though the economic position of the worker is declining relatively to his powers over nature, his potential power of altering the structure of Society is ever increasing. The manufacturer, the merchant, producing in order that his capital may fructify, has to compete in the market with other men of similar aim. Each manufacturer seeks to augment his share of the market. In prosperous times, like the present, he works his machines at full pressure to meet the demands of the market. Unwitting his efforts, his rivals do likewise, and the market becomes glutted. Men are thrown out of work, thus reducing the “effective demand” for commodities. Amidst the plethora of wealth poverty increases. Under capitalism, says Charles Fourier, “poverty is born of superabundance.”

The capitalist, finding his warehouse glutted with merchandise, ofttimes perishable, and his machines idle, finds it difficult to meet his bills. The necessity of paying his creditors, of redeeming his bills of exchange, makes it imperative to sell at a loss. During such a period of commercial stress bankruptcies are many. On the other hand, those manufacturers with a larger capital who are better able to face those times find in them their most glorious harvest, and buy up their smaller rivals.

Thus the tendency of modern competition is towards the concentration of capital in fewer hands, and the growth of gigantic businesses. Competition must necessarily evolve monopoly. 

We see, then, that the evolution of modern industrial forms is towards the trust. No human effort can head back this movement. Under Free Trade or Protection, under Monarchy or Republic, the trust alike flourishes. To-day, then, it is evident that the evolution of industrial forces and of methods of production, upon which the social superstructure is erected, is in the direction of sameness of life, sameness of outlook, monotony in dwelling, monotony in work, monotony in every phase of our mental, physical and moral life, under which man must sell his labour as a merchandise, under which he is virtually a slave to a wage system.

Against this the Socialist makes a vigorous protest. The Socialist is an individual who wishes to introduce a system of society under which the highest individuality of every man could be developed. He claims, however, that in the necessary toil of Society in providing the means of satisfying human needs every healthy man and woman should bear their share. With the present power of man and the machinery at his disposal two hours work a day on the part of every adult member of the community, excluding the aged and the infirm, would more than meet the necessary demands of Society, and beyond that Society would not seek to restrict his efforts in any way.

Surely this would not constitute so great an interference with man’s individuality as does the social conditions of to-day with its overwork on insufficient wage. Socialism would be a system of Society in which the needs of the individual would be no longer antagonistic to, but harmonious with, the needs of Society. It would be a condition not of Man v. Society, but of Man and Society with identical interests. In such a society only would it be possible to properly “deduce from the laws of life and the conditions of existence what kinds of action necessarily tend to produce happiness and what kinds to produce unhappiness.”

To prepare for the establishment of such a society is the object of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, which recognises the need of propagating these principles, and building up a political organisation which will capture the forms of Government for the express purpose of taking command of the trusts and of the means of producing and distributing wealth. We are seeking to get rid, once and for all, of individual ownership of social forces, to the end that man’s individuality, health, comfort, and welfare may be secured.

I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

“Economicus.”

Blogger's Note:

There's a lot of references to Burton-on-Trent in this issue of the Socialist Standard. I initially got my hopes up - like you do - that “Economicus” writing to a local newspaper in Burton might mean that “Economicus” was the pen-name of a local SPGBer in Burton. A 'J. Blundell' is listed as the local contact in Burton in this issue of the Socialist Standard, but it turns out Blundell joined the SPGB in March 1906 and “Economicus” was appearing in the Standard as early as May 1905.

Correspondence: The Late Dispute in Islington. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the Editor of the Socialist Standard]

Sir, —Re your article in the February Socialist Standard : “The Late Islington Dispute,” wherein you make a statement that no delegate had instructions to vote “Islington’s expulsion,” which is not true, as I was present at the Tottenham Branch meeting, when the delegates got instructions to vote for the expulsion of Islington.

W. Innes.

Reply:

[Though it was evident that Mr. Innes was entirely in error, it was decided, in order that not the slightest doubt might remain, to request the secretary of the Tottenham Branch to forward a copy of all minutes containing instructions to delegates to the quarterly delegate meeting in question. These Comrade Lobb has sent and they make it abundantly clear that there is no truth in Mr. Innes’ allegation. The following is a copy of the Tottenham secretary’s letter:

Dear Comrade,—Re yours of Feb. 24th. The following is a copy of minutes from the minute book of the Tottenham Branch, dated respectively the 9th and 23rd of July, 1906:—

July 9th—”H. A. Young and E. Stevens were appointed delegates to Quarterly Delegate Meeting.

July 23rd—”Secretary read re Bexley Heath and Islington Branches. After considerable discussion, Kauter proposed and Dye seconded, ‘That delegates defend the action of the E.C. and condemn the action of the Islington Branch.’ Resolution carried. Young and Stevens being unable to attend, Rich and Stowe were appointed, and credentials handed to Stowe.”

The subject under discussion was the stopping of propaganda meetings of the Islington Branch and the instructions given were to condemn same and support the action of the E.C. re Bexley Branch.

Yours fraternally,

T. W. Lobb.

As was stated in the February issue of this journal, “no delegate of any branch had instructions to vote Islington’s expulsion.” The minutes in question are open to the inspection of Mr. Innes upon application.]

Blogger's Notes:

'R. Innes' might be a typo. A 'William Innes' was a member of Tottenham Branch — joining the SPGB in 1905 — and records state that he did resign from the SPGB, but it doesn't give the exact date. We just have to presume it was in the aftermath of the Islington Branch dispute.

The Advance of Machinery. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

There have been installed at the Shobnall maltings of Messrs. Samuel Allsopp & Sons two machines that are calculated to ultimately effect a saving of labour to the extent of 50 per cent. The machines, for which patents have been obtained, are the result of several experiments on the part of Mr. F. Griffiths, maltster at the works mentioned. The appliances are known as “the Burton automatic grain sacking apparatus” and “the Burton grain bulking machine.” The former has been working for some little time, but the latter has only just been perfected.

Formerly the unloading of grain from railway waggons and bulking it into heaps six feet deep has been entirely performed by manual labour, at a cost of between 6s. to 8s. per 100 qrs., and the total cost of removing 450 qrs. per day has been about 13s. 4d. This appliance, however, can put barley in bulk to a height of six feet at the rate of 400 qrs. per day from any distance in the granary, with the aid of the necessary number of boys, at a cost of 1s. 4d. per day per boy. Where grain requires moving from one part of the warehouse to another the sack-filling machine can be employed to lift it into sacks or tip barrows, and the bulking machine deposits it where it may be required. The method generally in use for putting grain into heaps on the arrival of a large consignment (though in some cases maltsters use their own particular system) is by means of men carrying the material in sacks, running up a plank and pitching it over. But in this way a lot of labour is entailed, and the work is arduous, seeing that each sack contains 16 stone weight.

The method of the new apparatus is simple. The contents of the sacks are shot into a receiver, and the grain being conveyed up an elevator in cups, is finally distributed where required from a shoot. In regard to the automatic sacking apparatus, the saving effected is placed at between 50 and 60 per cent. In the majority of granaries most of the grain is bushelled or otherwise lifted by hand into sacks. The machine under notice entirely obviates this, and is capable of “sacking up” from 500 to 650 quarters per day of nine hours, with the help of three boys. It is entirely automatic in its movement into the grain, and can be driven off any existing shafting by either a special rope drive or by a motor of any description fitted to the machine, thus making it entirely independent. This is an ingenious contrivance. It is placed at the side of a heap of grain, and in the front part there is a worm which works the grain to the centre. As in the other machine, the barley is then taken up over the elevator in cups on an endless belt, and thrown into the hopper, from which it passes through the slide and into sacks at the back in charge of lads.

The most intricate and vital part of the machine is, perhaps, the eccentric and ratchett arrangement, which pushes the machine forward into the grain. This part, when one bag is full, is automatically thrown out of gear by the contact of two buffers at the front with the grain. The lad then puts down the slide and stops the grain while he takes the full bag away and opens the slide at the mouth of the other bag. With this machine only one strong boy need be in attendance, to hang on sacks for filling. The cost depends somewhat on the distance the sacks have to be taken for loading into railway trucks. The total cost per day for filling 500 qrs. into sacks and loading them into railway trucks has been 15s. 8d., against 9s. or 10s. and upwards for every 100 qrs. by hand labour. The machines are in daily use at Messrs. Samuel Allsopp’s maltings, and it is claimed that they will in all probability revolutionise the method of dealing with grain at maltings in the course of time.

Burton Evening Gazette.

Mr. Dooley in “Capital and Labour.” (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Christmas time Capital gathered his happy fam’ly around him an’ in th’ prisince iv th’ ladies iv th’ neighbourhood gave thim a short oration. “Me brave la-ads,” said he, “we’ve had a good year (cheers). I have made a millyon dollars (sensation). I atthribute this to me supeeryor skill, aided by ye’r arnest efforts at th’ bench an’ at th’ forge (sobs). Ye have done so well that we wont need so manny iv ye as we did (long and continyous cheerin’). Those iv us who can do two men’s wurruk will remain, an’ if possible do four. Our other faithful servants” he says “can come back in th’ spring” he says “if alive” he says. An’ th’ bold artysans tossed their paper caps in th’ air an’ give three cheers f’r Capital.

They wurruked till ol’ age crept on thim, an’ thin retired to live on th’ wish-bones an’ kind wurruds they had accumylated.

Mr. Dooley in “Capital and Labour.”

A Lesson on Value. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

For the loss of a dog in a railway accident on the Midland, the owner has been awarded £300 damages. For the loss of her husband, an engine driver, also in a railway accident, a Mrs. Robbins has just been awarded £100. Don’t get married, ladies—take out a dog licence.

The Truth about Canada. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

I have been this last year engaged on railway work in Manitoba, miles away from big towns, and have seen something of what life farmers and others lead, besides leading a very rough life myself . . . Statistics are given showing the number of immigrants per annum, and as much “copy” as possible made out of it. But nothing is said of the hundreds who return to Europe, and I know as a fact that this is the case, and I know many more would do so if they had the money to pay their way. They are helped out to Canada, but then they have to make the best of it when once there, and they can, as a rule, only just manage to subsist. I have been inside many farm houses in Manitoba, and, as a rule, they contain nothing but the barest necessities, comforts being conspicuous by their absence.

Many people in Canada have expressed the opinion to me that immigration is being overdone. The country cannot absorb the thousands who enter, and owing to the very long and intensely severe winter, thousands are thrown out of employment during those months.

A Civil Engineer in “John Bull.”

Some Publications. (1907)

From the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Messrs. Watts & Co. are issuing, as one of the R.P.A. Cheap Reprints, Mr. Dennis Hird’s “An Easy Outline of Evolution,” which has passed through a large edition in a more expensive form. They are also issuing the popular edition of Professor Haeckel’s “The Evolution of Man,” complete in a shilling volume with stout paper covers. It consists of nearly 400 double-column, well-printed pages, and has more than 400 excellent illustrations—truly a remarkable publication at the low price mentioned.