On Co-operators and “Divi”. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “In Focus” paragraphist of the Co-operators monthly, The Wheatsheaf, deplores in the March issue the fact that “Some co-operators care nothing about . . beauty and fragrance and expansion of life” which, it seems, are as nothing beside a 3s. “divi.” “What” be goes on deprecatingly “if quality is reduced or prices advanced or wages kept low or depreciations and reserve funds neglected, or stocks inflated or expenses carried forward,or educational committees thwarted, or the poor kept out of the movement ?—dazzling ‘divi’ makes amends for all.”

Why, certainly. If the Wheatsheaf writer thought to find it otherwise he is very much out of focus. What does he suppose co-operators take up their shares for?—”beauty and fragrance and expansion of life” ? Not much—not, that is, unless “beauty and fragrance and expansion of life” are secured for the individual co-operators through their dividends. They are in the business for precisely the same reason that the shareholder is in any other joint-stock concern—for what they can get out of it.

If it were asserted that 99 per cent. of co-operators were such first and foremost for dividends, it would probably be an understatement. I am not, of course, concerned to deny that “beauty and fragrance” and a few other odds and ends are tucked away in the. lumber rooms of their co-operative being. And I doubt not that upon show days the contemplation of these musty virtues and worm-eaten ideals is most grateful and comforting. But that any of these qualities enter into the effective every-day calculations of the average co-operator no one who knows the average co-operator on his every-day side will be prepared to assert.

What is the attraction held out by the average society—by every society of my knowledge—to induce outsiders to take up shares ? High dividends. What the bait in which the hook is imbedded ? Large profits. What is the virtue extolled above all other virtues by the great men of the co-operative movement like Holyoake ? Self-help and thrift and a house of your own out of the profits of the store, and so on. In the circumstances the really surprising thing to me is that anybody professing knowledge of the real inwardness of the movement should give expression to such hopelessly antiquated views as those of the “In Focus” writer.

I say hopelessly antiquated because at one time it was the correct thing to emphasize the idealistic side of the movement. But that was many moons agone. To-day co-operation is frankly a business, and the only ideal known to business is larger profits. Of course there is nothing against the “co-op” working its way to any success possible as a business, in the same way that any other capitalist concern works. The objection I raise is against the attempt of some of its apologists to cant about its moral effects as a progressive, enlightening, uplifting force as against the immoral effects of profit-mongering capitalism, while all the time they prate their societies are dangling “large profits” carrot-wise in front of the noses of the proletariat.

I suppose the soft and gentle co-operator—if he is very soft—believes that there is some special virtue in his business which relieves his “divi” of the coarse and vulgar stigma of robbery which attaches to all other forms of profit. I suppose it is inconceivable to him that his quarterly or annual “share-out” is derived from precisely that same method of exploitation of the working-class producer which he deplores on special occasions with such lachrymose lamentation. I suppose he lays the flattering unction to his soul that the mere fact of being employed in the elevating atmosphere of a co-operative store is sufficient compensation for the happy shop assistant he employs, whose conditions in other respects differ in no material degree from those of most other shop-assistants. Or is it because our co-operator has to pay in excess of outside prices for so many things of inferior quality that he thinks he has made sufficient sacrifice for the movement, and cannot be expected to pay high wages or provide better conditions, particularly when his employees are receiving as good a wage as he (the co-operator) is himself getting from his own capitalist employer.

However that may be, the outstanding fact remains that the co-operative movement is a business dependent for its success upon its ability to enter the capitalist arena in effective competition with capitalist, undertakings for trade. It may provide for the workers employed slightly better conditions in some respects than obtain in some other capitalist concerns. But it will do this, as capitalist Cadbury has done it, primarily because it has been shown to pay and only afterwards, and only then perhaps, for the sake of “beauty and fragrance and expansion of life.” But it will always, because it must maintain its essentially capitalist basis—there is no such thing as a Socialistic oasis in a capitalistic desert. Its dividends will always represent labour exploitation—there is no such thing as profits dissociated from robbery. And altho’ perchance it may exude a little something recognisable to its members as “beauty and fragrance and expansion of life,” there is no hope in it at all for the working-class until they have attained that level of mental development by which alone they will be able to appreciate their position and their power and give expression to that appreciation by taking over in their own interests as producers the whole of the means by which they are able to create and distribute the wealth of the world.

To that end it is merely folly to allege present day co-operative societies contribute. All they do is to bring into existence a class of petty capitalists whose interests as such, clashing with their interests as members of the working class, must tend to maintain that condition of muddled thought upon which the continued domination of the capitalist absolutely depends. For the reasons, therefore, (1) that the co-operative movement enlists its membership largely from the wage-earning class upon an anti-working class appeal; because (2) the ignorance manifested in the response is, so far as possible, maintained inside the movement; because (3) working-class ignorance is the one barrier which we as a Socialist party have to break down before we, in common with, the rest of our class, can move forward to our freedom; for briefly these three reasons we are and must always be opposed to the co-operative movement.

Agra.

Watford Wobblers! (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article by Comrade F. Hesley in the last issue is to the point. It serves to emphasise statements we have often made in our local reports as to the condition of inextricable muddle and (to us) transparent make-believe in which our local opponents are floundering.

Such opponents ! List to the initials of some of the organisations in which they are enrolled : S.D.F., I.L.P., F.S., L.R.C., L.C., T. & L.G., S. & L.E.C., L.L., W. & D.P.A., W.H. & H.C.

I fear I have only given a few. But omissions are pardonable. They grow so rapidly. This week’s list will probably be incomplete next week.

They are all engaged in setting the working-class house in order, these opponents. And all of them have different notions of the way to do it. Because all of them have different ideas as to what the disorder is. Therefore it is hardly surprising if the working-class house remains untidy. Is it ?

But all of them have a common epithet for use against us. It is an epithet coined by their leaders to cover their lack of argument. It is their only argument against us. It is—impossiblist!

When we say, “dear friends, you are on the wrong track,” they say—impossiblists ! When we offer to prove they are making a confusion and calling it an order, they reply—impossiblists ! When we urge them to consider a more excellent way they cry out upon us—impossiblists !

It is the common tie that binds them together. Yet they are not grateful to us for providing them with it. Quite the contrary. I suppose they feel that it isn’t a very strong argument after all.

Hesley has reported the muddle at Hyndman’s meeting. He has indicated the confusion into which a simple question can throw them. This doesn’t surprise me. I know ’em. I’m only surprised that they didn’t call him “impossiblist.” Perhaps they were so confused that they couldn't even think of that.

Let me augment Hesley’s article by a further instance. This time it will be a case indicative of our opponents’ high standard of veracity. Or perhaps it is only a low standard of memory. The reader can judge.

Writing in the Watford Critic for April, G.T.H.K. refers to the results of the recent Urban District Council Elections thus : “Remember this is the first occasion of a Socialist candidature for the Urban District Council in either of these wards. Both Mr. Drew and Mr. Judge in the King’s Ward . . . ran as plain Labour candidates last year without mention of Socialism.”

Notice that “is.” The italics belong to G.T.H.K. He is quite certain about it. This is the first time.

And observe the Misters. They make assurance doubly sure. They were not Socialist candidates. Therefore they are not Comrades Drew and Judge. Only Misters. Surely this is the first time.

Let us see. And remember that, the Watford Critic is the local organ of the S.D.F.

This is from the Critic for March, 1906: “King’s Ward will be contested in the interests of Labour by two of its finest exponents. . . . They are consciously working hard and continuously in the sacred name of a down-trodden humanity. In this they have a fixed purpose and will be no trimmers.”

On this I will ask two questions. Can any but Socialists be among the finest exponents of the interests of Labour ? Can any but Socialists work hard for down-trodden humanity without, consciously or unconsciously, trimming? I pause for G.T.H.K’s reply.

The Critic again. April, 1906: Drew and Judge “are avowed Socialists and members of a militant Socialist organisation—the I.L.P.”

Now G.T.H.K. Is that true? If so, this is not the first occasion of a “Socialist” candidature. If not, where were you last year to allow the statement to pass unrepudiated ?

Shall I tell you where you were ? You were organising the election work of Drew and Judge. You, a member of the S.D.F. then, as now ! And you were introducing your comrades Drew and Judge at a public meeting as two able exponents of Socialism whom you were very happy to support !

Now, what’s your game? Yes ! yes ! I know I’m an “impossiblist,” but what’s your game ? Is it that you want to obscure the fact that as compared with last year’s results your party’s candidates were this year snowed under ? Or what ?

Is your point that although Judge and Drew were Socialists they did not run as such ? If so you stand confessed as the champion of fraudulent candidatures. And if your present view is that such candidatures are wrong and harmful, why are you associated with an organisation that is to-day working with the parties responsible for such candidatures ?

I pause for some more replies. When I get them I shall have a little more to say. If I don’t get them I may still have a little more to say. And I think G.T.H.K. will be interested in that little more.

Anyhow, this is the local position. It is synchronised in the case cited. A condition of mess, muddle, and make-believe. Of paltering piffle and prevarication. Of contortion and confusion confounded.

And when we say this sort of thing is stupid and stultifying we are “impossiblists.” When we say that in a multitude of organisations there is no virtue, we are “impossiblists.” When we say the truth must be spoken and not burked or blinked, we are “impossiblists.” When we say that Socialism is the only remedy for working-class ills, that to advocate less at any time is futile and disappointing and dangerous, we are “impossiblists.”

Well! well! we are the “impossiblists.” The S.D.F., I.L.P., F.S., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum are the “possiblists.” So must it be. But I should like to hear G.T.H.K’s explanations, I’m sure they would be helpful.

B.R.