From time to time the traditional meeting spots in London are enlivened by the appearance of a character answering to the name of Bulbrook. He is the Conservative Party candidate for a Kensington constituency, calling himself a Conservative Trade Unionist. In the summer he is a frequent visitor to the historic Whitestone Pond, on the heights of Hampstead Heath.
Thus it came to pass, on a wet and windy Sunday evening in June, that Mr. B., with a crony, was to be observed making rather strenuous efforts to get somebody to listen to him there. After some time local members of the Socialist Party arrived and proceeded, perhaps unwisely, to attempt to succeed where Mr. B. had failed.
The S.P.G.B. member who opened this meeting, studiously avoiding any mention of his opponent's platform, or even existence, launched straight off, rather austerely, into a description of the difference between the interests and the wishes of the working class,
The effect on “Old Bob” can best be described as catastrophic. With reckless abandon he poured forth everything he could think of (which, admittedly, isn't much) at the S.P.G.B. The only just way to reproduce this tirade would be by tape recorder. As it boils down, shorn of the abuse, trivial personalities, and shallow street-corner gossip, to about two real points, there is no need to. Master Robert’s objections to Socialism amount to these
(1) Nobody would work.(2) Everybody would take what they want.
The members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are a lot of “silly boys,” he thinks. For which one member, at least, thanks him; it being so long since he was mistaken for a boy. “They are alright, of course, and they mean well” and “Socialism would be alright if we all 'ad 'alos rahnd our 'eads, but we ain’t!”
These “silly little boys” don’t know that nobody does “anythink for nothink.” “Where,” asked our critic, “would we get coal?” “Who would go down the mines ?” “Who would work at the docks?” if they got no money for doing it ?” “Who would work at all if they could just go and take what they want ?”
Now we must admit that Mr. B. has a point when he says people would not work for money if they could get their needs without it. But of that, more anon!
When Mr. Bullbrook, the Conservatives' nominee for Parliament, says that the only reason that anybody does anything is to get money he is starting something.
Incidentally, we could help him in his choice of examples. We should have thought the last places to get money were the mines and the docks. So do the miners and the dockers. In both cases, in recent years, the powers-that-be have complained that men were not going there because they could get more money elsewhere.
Just by way of a change, we will accept Old Bob’s case and see where it leads us. Not because Bob says it. Quite the contrary, what Mr. B. said on that Sunday is essentially what every opponent of Socialism, from Churchill to Pollitt and Sir Herbert Read would say. Even to the emphatic insistence when challenged afterwards personally “that he does understand Socialism.” “Yes! I do.” He is typical, not exceptional.
A number of cases occur to us immediately we start thinking about Mr. B.'s contention. These are but a few. Among the institutions Mr. Bullbrook's Party maintains are those of the Monarchy and the Clergy. Do we rightly understand Mir. Robert to mean that the only reason that Queen Elizabeth II went through all that ackamarackus with the Archbishops and the Peers at Westminster Abbey was to get money ?. We thought she had enough already, before starting.
Wealthy members of Mr. Bullbrook's Party published a statement by the Queen that she wished to “dedicate herself to the service of her people.” Does Mr. B. really mean that she omitted to add “for money”?
The prize-winning ditty in the News of the World competition declared that the Queen has a “heart of gold,” but we suggest that Mr. B. goes a little too far if he accepts this literally.
But what about the Clergy ? Can it really be true that Dr. Fisher and all those other thousands of men only minister to their flocks for money? Well! according to Mr. B., “Yes!” because “nobody does anythink for nothink.”
Some time ago this contributor was the somewhat surprised recipient of a communication from the Conservative Mayor of Hampstead, inviting him to become a voluntary member of the Civil Defence Service. In this letter, the Mayor said that volunteers would receive no money, but would derive great satisfaction from the thought that they were helping their neighbours, and maintaining the spirit of comradeship which grew up during the war. Whatever is the good of a Conservative asking people to join something they will not be paid for—when another one, Mr. Bullbrook, knows quite well they will not do so. It’s a waste of the Council's money, and the postman’s time. Why the Conservative candidate for N. Kensington has not told the Tory Mayor of Hampstead, we cannot say.
But then, we must also ask whether Mr. Bullbrook’s rule applies to Mr. Bullbrook himself. It may well be that he is a Conservative candidate, as he says himself, “to get money.” For this unique honesty we thank him. We’ve never heard any other Tory say it. What the electors will think is their business, since the basis of democracy can only be the willingness of candidates to carry out the mandate of constituents.
Socialists completely deny Mr. B.’s assertion, which stems from ignorance of the function of money. Money is not the power-plant of Society—it is the pipe-line. It is not an end—but a means of acquiring other things.
The amount of money which things cost is not in the things themselves—but the amount of Labour they contain. Labour is the driving force of Society.
It is evident that even in that form of society where money is the keystone. Capitalism, society would not hang together without the basic social characteristics of the human animal, which has to co-operate to live. Thus, for example, poor people continue to rear children even under the threat of war or poverty. Why, if Bullbrook is right, Churchill was wrong! He only offered ’em blood and sweat, toil and tears,” but no money, for winning the war. Incidentally, is Churchill also Prime Minister only to get money ?
How can we explain the people who have so much money that it nearly drives them barmy ? Do they want more money ?
Poor old Bob! Under Socialism men will go to the docks and the mines not to do the least they can for the money, but the most they can for their fellow-men, which, socially speaking, means themselves. The better they work the more social approval they will get. In Socialist society men (and women) will be appreciated for what they ARE, not what their fathers were. These people will not " ’ave ’alos rahnd their ’eads,” but knowledge inside them. This knowledge will show them that the best way for the individual to prosper is to co-operate generously with others. They will produce goods by their labour, and consume them in the leisure they find most agreeable.
Therefore, our opponent is right in one thing at least. When he says that people will not work for money—when they can get the things which money buys to-day, without it.
They will make Mr. Bullbrook Curator of the Mint. He can go round collecting up all the odd coins which careless people may have left lying about.
Horatio.
