The Trade Union Congress. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the “function whose chief value lies in its fraternisings and picnickings” to quote a prominent Labour journalist, has been held. Once again long resolutions, tending to obscure the issue, have been proposed, seconded and carried by the representatives of 1,700,000 organised workers, which organised workers will think no more about those resolutions until some of them read of the doings of the next Congress twelve months hence.

The usual course of procedure was followed. The Congress was officially opened on Monday, when addresses of welcome were delivered by the Mayor and Councillors of Bath. “The speeches were excellently suited to the occasion.” Had the worthy city fathers anticipated that the deliberations of the delegates would in any way affect the foundations of that society in which they play the part of oppressors, sages and circus performers at different times, they would have been otherwise engaged. After the lions had welcomed the lambs and the lambs had dutifully bleated their thanks, Congress proceeded to appoint tellers and other temporary officials at a guinea or so a nob, and after the usual scramble for these jobs the delegates adjourned for a garden party !

On the previous day the S.D.F. trio, Lady Warwick, Mrs. Bridges Adams and Will Thorne, assisted by other Gas Workers, held an education meeting at which they advocated the usual palliatives concerning which that other S.D.F. star turn, Mr. Hyndman, once remarked, “The crushing law of competition would decree that those educated, well-fed children should, on reaching maturity, be only better wage-slaves for capitalists.” The gospel-temperance wing of the Liberal Party also secured Mr. W. Crooks for a temperance meeting.

Tuesday the delegates assembled to hear the address of the president, Mr. A. H. Gill, M.P., who, like Mr. Shackleton, would lose his seat if he advocated the abolition of child labour in the factories. Of course the address referred to the victories Labour has already secured because of the presence of a Labour Party in the House of Commons. The Trades Disputes Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act were especially mentioned, although, as we have several times shown, these Acts are not worth the paper they are printed on. Even this was partly admitted at the Congress. Mr. Parker, of the National Enginemen’s Society, pointed out that insurance companies declined to effect policies in the case of older workers, with the consequence that these were thrown out of employment. It may interest Mr. Parker to know that the Manchester Unemployed Committee have just issued a report in which they state that their efforts have been greatly hampered because employers, owing to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, decline to employ other than young men, and that the Bodmin Guardians have resolved “that the fact that insurance companies are declining to accept the risks’ incurred by the employment of semi-incapacitated workmen will tend to seriously increase the cost of out-relief, as many who are now able to earn a partial livelihood will be debarred from employment altogether, and will thus be thrown entirely on the rates. The Board therefore urges that the Workmen’s Compensation Acts should be amended either by a system of contracting-out in such cases or otherwise, so as to obviate the difficulties which may arise when employes through age or infirmity become uninsurable at the ordinary rates of premium.” And after this Congress passed the usual resolution in favour of a pension of 5s. per week for all workers over 60 years of age. What is to happen to them between 40 and 60 ?

The president’s utterances concerning Machinery and Unemployment were interesting, and showed that whilst he has somewhat of a grasp of the cause of unemployment he does not see that that cause is inherent in the capitalist system. He pointed out that owing to machinery and speeding up “the productive capacity in the various departments has increased (during the last 30 years) by fully 25 per cent. with the same number of workmen in the same time.” And as a remedy he urged an Eight Hours Day and concentrated effort to secure the “best possible wages on working the machine.” It has time after time been demonstrated that a reduction of hours means at least as great productivity, and it does not occur to Mr. Gill that the working class should organise to take over and control the machinery which is throwing them out of employment.

The debate on Labour “Unity” was interesting in that it showed that the majority of the “independent” Labour members have never really believed that the Liberal Party stand for the master class as against the working class. They desire to form a “United Labour Party” by working with men whose Liberalism cannot be questioned, and who, if the “independent” attitude of the L.R.C. men is the correct one, are enemies to their class. In the end the Congress instructed the Parliamentary Committee to continue its efforts in the direction of “Unity.”

The Government were urged to abolish the House of Lords ! It was claimed that it was an “obstacle to the efficient carrying into effect of the declared expression of the people’s will through their elected representatives.” And yet we are also told that the presence of only 30 Labour members in the Commons has resulted in the passing of many important measures for the benefit of the working class. Why, then, worry about the Lords ?

The proposal for a minimum wage of 30s. per week of 48 hours for adult workers in the London district gave Mr. D. C. Cummings and Mr. Shackleton, M.P., the opportunity to warn the delegates that they were really going too fast and ought to slow down ! Poor old David will have to “stand from under” when the workers do commence to go fast.

By 1,239,000 votes to 126,000 Congress carried a long resolution on Education, which included a demand for purely secular instruction. What effect this has upon Trade Unionists may be gathered from Mr. John Hill’s election address and speeches.

Many other resolutions were passed and ultimately the delegates went their several ways. What has been accomplished for the working class ? Nothing, simply nothing. If all the reforms which were demanded were passed would the relative position of the master class and the working class be altered? No. Even if the 1,700,000 “organised workers” were prepared to support, on the industrial field, the efforts of the Parliamentary Committee to secure reforms from Parliament (which, of course, they are not) the inevitable march of capitalist development would nullify the effect of any reforms ao secured, as it has done even with the much vaunted results of Labour Party activity. The Congress provides a jovial interlude in the yearly life of prominent Trade Unionists, and that is the only justification for its continuance. Does any delegate, from Thorne and other S.D.F. men down to the respectable nonconformists who proposed the resolution commencing “recognising that great and permanent principles which are essential to the well-being of human Society underlie the ancient institution of the Sabbath” honestly believe that they can moralize a capitalist government into passing into law all the “demands” formulated at the Congress ? And if not, if they must wait until we have a class-conscious proletariat, do they think a class-conscious proletariat will concern itself with such matters as these ? Assuredly not: it will take over the means of life and organise industry in the interest of all. Reforms such as those demanded by the Congress may and probably will be carried into effect by a capitalist Government to stave off the final overthrow of Capitalism, but even then it is clear that the surest way to secure reform is to organise for Socialism.

T. R. EASURER.

The Proletariat (The Working Class). By Karl Kautsky (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Specially translated for The Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

2.—Wages.

Wages cannot be so high as to make it impossible for the capitalist to carry on his business and to live from it. For under these circumstances it would be more advantageous for the capitalist to give up business altogether. Hence the wages of the worker can never rise high enough to equal the value of his product. They must always leave a margin, a surplus value, for only the prospect of this margin induces the capitalist to buy labour-power. Thus in capitalist society wages can never rise so high that the exploitation of the worker comes to an end.

But the margin, the surplus value, is greater than is generally supposed. It consists not only of the profit of the manufacturer, but also much that is reckoned as cost of production and sale, viz., ground rent, interest on invested capital, discount for the merchant who disposes of the goods produced by the industrialist, taxes, rates, etc. All this comes out of the surplus value which the product of the worker yields above his wages. This margin must consequently be considerable if an undertaking is to prove profitable. Wages can, therefore, never rise sufficiently high to enable the worker to receive in his wages anything approaching the value he has created. The capitalist wage system means under all circumstances exploitation of the worker. It is impossible to abolish exploitation so long as that system exists, and even where high wages are being paid the exploitation of the worker must be extensive.

But wages hardly ever reach the highest possible point, more often, however, they fall to the very lowest. That point is reached when the wages of the worker cease to purchase his very necessaries of life. If the worker not only starves but starves quickly, his work ceases altogether.

Between these two limits wages fluctuate, becoming lower as the customary wants of life of the workers decrease, as the supply of labour-power in the labour market increases, and as the power of resistance on the part of the workers decreases.

Generally wages must, of course, be high enough to keep the worker in a fit state to work, or better said, wages must be so high as to ensure to the capitalist the measure of labour-power needed by him. Wages must hence be high enough to make it possible for the worker not only to maintain himself in a fit state to work but also to reproduce children fit to work.

The economic development shows the tendency—so favourable to the capitalist—of reducing the cost of maintenance of the workers and of thereby decreasing wages.

Skill and strength were in times gone by indispensable to the worker. The period of apprenticeship of the handicraftsman was a very long one, and the cost of his maintenance was considerable. Progress in the division of labour and in machine construction caused special skill and strength in production to become superfluous. This progress makes it possible to replace skilled by unskilled—that is cheaper— labour-power; it makes it also possible to replace the labour of men by that of weak women, and even children. Even in manufacture this tendency was perceptible; but only with the introduction of machinery begins wholesale exploitation of women and of children of tender age, exploitation of the most helpless of the helpless who fall victims to revolting ill-treatment and spoliation. Here we get acquainted with a new characteristic of the machine in the hands of Capital.

The wage-worker who did not belong to the family of the employer had originally to receive in his wages not only the cost of his own maintenance but also that of his family if he were to be in a position to reproduce his species, to regenerate his labour-power. Without this reproduction of labour-power the heirs of the capitalist would find no proletariat to exploit. But if the wife, and, from early childhood, also the children of the worker are in a position to provide for themselves, the wages of the male worker can almost entirely he reduced to the cost of maintenance of his own person without the slightest danger to the reproduction of labour-power. And the labour of women and children has the further advantage of their being less capable of resistance than men. Moreover, through their entering the ranks of labour the supply of labour-power in the labour market is tremendously increased.

The labour of women and children does not only lower the cost of maintaining the worker, it reduces also his power of resistance and increases the supply of labour-power—in short, it has the effect under any of these circumstances of causing the wages of the worker to fall.

3.—The Dissolution of the Proletarian Family. 

The industrial labour of woman in capitalist society means the entire destruction of the worker’s family life without substituting a higher form of family. The capitalist mode of production, in most cases, does not dissolve the individual working-class household, but it deprives it of all its brightness, leaving only its dark side with the waste of woman’s energy and her exclusion from public life. The industrial labour of woman to-day does not mean her relief from household duties, it means adding a fresh burden to those she already bears. But one cannot serve two masters. The household of the worker goes to wreck and ruin if his wife has to assist in earning subsistence for the family ; but what present society puts in place of the individual household and the individual family is miserable refuse: the soup-kitchen and the day-nursery in which the leavings of the physical and mental nourishment of the rich are thrown to the lower classes.

Socialism is accused of aiming at the destruction of the family. Well, we know that each particular mode of production has its particular form of household to which corresponds a particular form of family. We do not consider the present form of family to be the last, and expect that a new form of Society will also develop a new form of family. But such expectation is something altogether different to an endeavour to dissolve all family ties. Those who destroy the family —who not merely want to do, but actually DO destroy it before our eyes—are not the Socialists but the capitalists. Many a slave-owner in the past has torn husband from wife, parents from children able to work : but capitalist methods surpass the abominations of slavery ; they tear the suckling from the mother, forcing her to entrust her infant to the care of strangers. And a society in which that occurs daily in hundreds and thousands of cases, a society that has specially founded “charitable institutions patronised by the ‘nobility'” for the purpose of making it easier for the mother to part from her child—such a society has the audacity to reproach us with intending to dissolve the family, because we are convinced that household-work will develop into a special branch of industry, thereby transforming the character of the household and of family life.

4. Prostitution.

Besides being reproached with the intention of dissolving the family we are accused of aiming at community of women. This reproach is as void of foundation as the other. We assert on the contrary that the very opposite of community of women, of sexual compulsion and immorality, namely, ideal love, will form the basis of all marital relations in the Socialist Commonwealth, and such love can generally prevail only in such a state of Society. But what do we see to-day ? The want of resistance on the part of women who have hitherto been confined to their households and have mostly but a faint conception of public life and the power of organisation—is so great, that the capitalist employer dare pay them wages which do not suffice for their sustenance, and incite them to prostitution as a means of augmenting their wages. An increase in the industrial employment of women has everywhere the tendency of causing au increase in prostitution. In the modern state of the fear of God and pious morals there exist entire “flourishing” branches of industry in which the women workers are so badly paid that they would have to starve to death were they not to stoop to prostitution. And the employers declare that just upon these low wages depends the possibility of their successful competition, and that higher wages would rain them.

Prostitution is as old as the contradiction between poverty and riches. But in ages gone by prostitutes occupied in the social scale a position falling between those of beggars and scamps, constituting a luxury in which Society could afford to indulge, and the loss of which would by no means have endangered the very existence of that society. To-day it is not only the women of the loafing proletariat but working women, who are compelled to sell their bodies for money. This selling of their bodies is no longer only a matter of luxury, no, it has become the basis of industrial development. In the capitalist system of production prostitution becomes one of the pillars of Society. The defenders of this society themselves practise community of women, the vice of which they accuse us; of course, community with women of the Proletariat. And this method of community of women has taken root so deeply in present society that its representatives declare prostitution to be a necessity. They cannot conceive that the abolition of the Proletariat must mean the abolition of prostitution, because they cannot possibly conceive a society without community of women.

The community of women of to-day is an invention of the “higher” grades of Society, not of the Proletariat. This community of women is one of the ways of exploiting the Proletariat. It is not Socialism, but its very opposite.

Blogger's Note:

It was the German SPGBer, Hans Neumann, who translated Kautsky's writings from the German into English for the Socialist Standard.

Party Notes. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

We understand that some members of the S.D.F. are elated because the Star of September 12th referred to this Party as “a small secession from the S.D.F. and about as worthy of this blaze of public attention as the tailors of Tooley St.” Well, let them elate. It used to be a dictum in the S.D.F. that when any section of the capitalist Press attacked it or its members, it was evidence that those attacked were doing good work, and vice versa. But things have altered considerably, hence the “small secession.”

* * *

The occasion of the Star’s wrath was a letter in the Daily Telegraph from Mr. L. P. Sidney, secretary of the Middle Classes Defence Organisation, in which he pointed out that the S.P.G.B. was “even more explicit” than either the S.D.F. or the Communist Manifesto in declaring “war to the knife against the classes !”

* * *

Of course, Mr. Sidney’s letter misrepresented the position. We do not preach war “against the classes.” We recognise but two classes, the master class and the working class. Between these two there is war, war which can only be ended by the abolition of classes.

* * *

Mr. Sidney quotes the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. and draws special attention to its references to the Fabian Society. But it also states our reasons for opposing the S.D.F., I.L.P., S.L.P., Labour Party, etc. Send 1½d. for a copy to Head Office, 22, Great James Street, W.C.

* * *

In the Clarion of August 30th, Mr. Gavan Duffy reports the presentation to him of a “Socialist Unity” pen, and claims that S.P.G.B’-ers contributed to it. Enquiries amongst our local branches enable us to state definitely that his statement is untrue.

* * *

Nos. 1 to 36 of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD (September, 1904 to August, 1907) are now bound together as one volume and the E.C. has decided to offer a limited number of these at 5/6 each, post free. The volume is a unique record of the work of the Party, and should be secured by all students of working-class politics. Orders, accompanied by postal order, should be sent to Head Office.

* * *

An interesting article, describing Mr. Fred Bramley’s encounter with the Socialists in Finsbury Park will appear in our next issue.

* * *

There is a good prospect of forming a branch in Walthamstow, where the Tottenham branch are holding good meetings every Saturday evening, outside Hoe Street Station. Those wishing to join should communicate with the secretary of the Tottenham branch. See last page.

* * *

A branch has been started in Manchester. Why does Burnley wait ?

* * *

The new pamphlet “Art, Labour and Socialism,” by William Morris, is now ready. Usual terms to branches.

Adolph Kohn

[Comments]. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Riotous living for sailors.

Another great reform has been carried out by the Liberal Government. In future the value of the total messing allowance for sailors will remain at 10d., but they will have a smaller ration, equivalent to 6d., and will be allowed to spend the remaining 4d. in luxuries as they please. We may now expect them to participate in banquets at frequent intervals, just as if they were “Labour” M.P’s.

___________

How Will Thorne fought. 

Addressing the Forest Gate Ratepayers’ Association on September 2nd, Councillor Duncan Best, of West Ham, declared that Mr. Will Thorne, “in order to obtain the salary given by the L.R.C., was quite willing at the general election to furl the red flag—quite willing to tuck it away and appear purely as Labour man.” But Councillor Best is late—we pointed this out long ago.

___________

Labour members sold again.

An example of the extent to which the Government is being “forced” by the existence of a ”powerful Labour party” may be gleaned from some notes by J. Ramsay MacDonald in the Belper News of August 23rd. He claims that the Fair Wages Committee was appointed on the initiative of the Labour party. After many months “pressing” the Government and “negotiating” with them, a Committee was appointed consisting of those officials whom the Labour party had accused of making the Fair Wages Clause a dead letter.

What else could he expect ? When the Labour members fight the Government instead of being so anxious to dine and drink expensive wines with its members something different may happen.

___________

Birds of a Feather.

The first number of The Woman Worker has appeared. It contains letters wishing success from many Labour M.P.s, and also from H. G. Wells, George Cadbury, Chiozza Money, H. Quelch, Herbert Gladstone and other reformers.

Tooting Branch Report. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past six months the Tooting Branch has made greater progress than ever before in its history. Formed three years ago by a little band of six, possessing no speaker of their own and having only one member capable of efficiently acting as chairman, it has in its ranks today five members able to place the principles of Socialism before their fellow workers, in addition to another three who can take the chair.

The result of this development has been, of course, more meetings, and the past six months has seen 63 in and around Tooting; about 45 of which have been carried through by local members without assistance from other branches. So persistent and telling has the propaganda been that the Tories have come out “to expose the fallacies of Socialism.” A correspondence in the local Boro News has been carried on for several weeks between Mr. Daw, the Conservative agent for Wandsworth, and one of our members on the aforesaid “fallacies,” with what result may be judged from Mr. Daw’s closing argument here quoted : He states that our comrade “asks for evidence to prove that there is some other factor in wealth production than labour-power. My answer is, there is to be an exhibition of machinery at Olympia soon: let him go there and use his eyes and powers of observation. He will then perhaps realise the source of the rapid increase in the wealth of labour and capital.” A debate has been arranged between Mr. Daw and Comrade Jackson on “Is Socialism Practicable.” We have no fear of the result. A debate took place in June between Mr. Bell, a Tariff Reform lecturer, and Comrade Fitzgerald on the respective theories of value of Prof. Jevons and Karl Marx. We do not think that Mr. Bell is anxious for such another gruelling. At Streatham a Malthusian was also met and disposed of in an impromptu debate.

A record increase of Membership was almost inevitable in face of the amount of work done during the past quarter. We are running now, and shall continue to run as long as the weather permits, five meetings a week, two in Tooting and one each in Earlsfield, Streatham and Brockwell Park. A pleasing feature is the increased sale of literature. Both July and August saw the branch dispose of 30 per cent. more SOCIALIST STANDARDS than ever before, and September has sent the percentage up to 100. The work being done in Earlsfield, Streatham and Brockwell Park will soon show very material results unless we are greatly mistaken.

The Tooting Scribe.

New SPGB Pamphlets. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

To be exact, the 'new' SPGB pamphlet was the William Morris pamphlet. Both the Kautsky pamphlet and the second edition of the Party Manifesto had been out for a few months. 

What's interesting about the Morris pamphlet is that after this early approval of Morris in pamphlet form (and the earlier serialisations of the text in the Socialist Standard), there was little or no mention of Morris in the pages of the Socialist Standard for the next two decades. It's sometimes implied that the Party always claimed Morris as 'one of us' - some opponents have made that charge in the past - but the boosting of Morris in the Standard ebbs and flows depending on the mood (and writers) in the pages of the journal.

What's further interesting is that, arguably, the first substantive article on the politics of Morris in the pages of the Standard, by Stella Jackson ('Stella Stewart' in the Standard) in 1934, was much more critical of the political legacy of Morris.

Sadly, there isn't a copy of the 1907 edition of the Morris pamphlet in the SPGB Head Office library, but there is a copy of the 1911 reprint. The pamphlet was further reprinted in 1962, and more recently in the 21st century.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, October, 1907. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard