Against Technocracy (Part 2) (2026)

From the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

According to Jason Crawford:

‘The 19th century was dominated by a belief in the power of human reason and its ability to advance science and technology for the betterment of life. But after World War I and the Great Depression, it got harder to believe in the rationality of humanity or in the predictability and controllability of the world’ (The lure of technocracy).

As Crawford notes, in the 1920s, a ‘democratic realist’ school of thought emerged, exemplified by individuals like Walter Lippmann. The masses were viewed as fundamentally irrational and uninformed. Their role in public life should be limited, with fundamental decisions affecting the future of society being entrusted to a tiny, informed elite. Democracy should be redefined as ‘rule for the people but not by the people’.

The elitist assumptions behind such thinking found expression in the 1930s in such forms as Stalinism, the growth of fascism, and the rise of the Technocracy Movement itself.

During the early post war boom, increasing living standards and low unemployment shaped the optimism conveyed in books like Galbraith’s The Affluent Society (1958). In his subsequent work, The New Industrial State (1967), sometimes called a ‘blueprint for technocracy,’ Galbraith argued that a corporate ‘technostructure’ of experts and managers had come to dominate businesses, eclipsing owners and shareholders – an argument anticipated by James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1941).

In this ‘affluent society,’ Galbraith argued, the ‘technostructure’ should shift its focus from just economic growth to broader social goals, including more public investment and reducing inequality. His position overlapped with elements of the pre war Technocracy Movement, particularly its emphasis on scientific, centralised economic management.

However, there were also differences in that the latter opposed the capitalist market and money. The existence of money was deemed incompatible with abundance because of the way the price system worked.

Paradoxically, the growing prosperity that many workers experienced in the early post-war years provided the conditions out of which a broad counterculture movement emerged. This called into question the idea of top-down, expert-led coordination of society, as well as the basic direction in which technological development was heading. The hippies of the 1960s were perhaps the vivid example of this, representing a confluence of tendencies opposed to militarism, environmental destruction in the name of progress and the threat to individual freedom posed by an increasingly oppressive and intrusive technology.

As post war prosperity faded and capitalism entered recession in the 1970s, these conditions that had sustained the counterculture weakened. The downturn exposed the limits of Keynesian demand management, whose reliance on deficit spending failed to overcome the built-in capitalist trade cycle of boom and slump. In response, Keynesianism gave way to a more market oriented policy framework –monetarism – the cornerstone of the emerging neoliberal order.

The Technocracy Movement, having peaked in the 1930s, declined sharply thereafter. Some of its core ideas were simply absorbed into wartime economic planning, making the movement somewhat redundant. Later, in the context of the Cold War, its anti market and central planning orientation fell out of favour because of the perceived resemblance to Soviet state planning. At the same time, the technocratic approach to problem-solving was subjected to mounting criticism from a countercultural (and particularly environmentalist) perspective.

For technocracy as a concept to survive, it had to adapt. One interesting example of this was the Venus Project (TVP).

The Venus Project

TVP´s origins can be traced back to the 1970s, though it officially began life in 1995. Its founders were Jacque Fresco, a structural engineer, industrial designer and futurist author who had been involved in the Technocracy Movement in the 1930s, and Roxanne Meadows, an illustrator, designer and architect. They established a research centre at a place called Venus in Florida (hence the name) and published material promoting their ideas.

From a socialist standpoint, TVP unquestionably represented an advance over the old Technocracy Movement. Whereas the latter proposed a system of rationing in the form of ‘energy certificates,’ TVP advocated, instead, a ‘free access’ model for the distribution of goods and services. This required making the industrial and natural resources of the planet the common heritage of all humanity. All forms of sectional or private ownership (including state property) of the means of production would cease to exist.

Thus, a resource-based economy (RBE) would mean goods and services being freely available to individuals to take for themselves, with cybernetic feedback and automated resource management working to ensure adequate real-time availability.

Another breakthrough was TVP´s rejection of the concept of a single universal unit of accounting (money, labour-time or energy units). The need for this only arises in a system based on quid pro quo exchange, where you have to ensure that what is being exchanged is equivalent. This requires commensurability.

However, commensurability becomes irrelevant in a non-exchange, free-access model. Accounting, according to TVP, would be based on purely physical metrics, dubbed ‘resource-based accounting.’ This resembles the socialist idea of calculation-in-kind, but the emphasis is more on resource flows and biophysical limits (an example of technocracy´s adaptation to environmental criticism).

However, there are also serious flaws in TVP´s outlook. One is its attitude towards democratic decision-making. Fresco´s approach differed from that of the top-down approach of the Technocracy Movement. He was wary of entrusting scientists with excessive power to make decisions affecting others. He preferred a decentralised system based on collaborative design and making extensive use of automated AI-optimised feedback systems.

In fact, the socialist principle of free access endorsed by TVP is precisely what would pre-empt the possibility of concentrated or asymmetrical power emerging in a post-capitalist society. It removes any leverage that any group or individual could exercise over any other, and thus, is the ultimate guarantor of any truly ‘free’ society.

However, to go further and assert, as TVP does on its own website, that ‘it is doubtful that, in the latter part of the twenty-first century, people will play any significant role in decision-making’ is absurd.

As individuals, we will continue to play a decisive role in the choices we make concerning what we consume and what we contribute. This is implicit in the old socialist slogan, ‘from each according to ability to each according to need.’ An algorithm in a computer programme may facilitate (even anticipate) our choices, but they will still be ours to make. Otherwise, we are looking at some anti-humanistic dystopia where the machines have taken over.

Importantly, there will also be joint decisions to be made that, by their very nature, (inevitably) impact multiple individuals who, accordingly, should have a say in making them. Joint decisions will need to be made at different spatial levels – local, regional and even global – examples of which are literally countless.

You cannot depend on a machine, however sophisticated, to make these decisions for you. This is because they involve human values and human interests. The sociological naiveté of the technological determinists, in that respect, is truly remarkable.

Fresco himself argued ‘Democracy is a con game. It’s a word invented to placate people to make them accept a given institution’ (2002). Democracy may well be a ‘con game’ in a plutocratic capitalist society, but that is definitely not because there is too much of it but rather, too little!

Another serious flaw in TVP´s approach is its repudiation of economic classes and class struggle. On its website, it states, ‘In no way does The Venus Project advocate this approach to social change. In contrast, The Venus Project approaches social change as a process of guided evolution and a problem of engineering to produce a working alternative.’

This immediately prompts the question – if TVP advocates for the common ownership of the industrial and natural resources by humanity as the material basis of the moneyless post-capitalist world it desires, how is this to be realised without first removing the possibility for a tiny owning class to monopolise these resources at the expense of the rest of humanity? In short, how can you possibly avoid ‘class’? ‘Classlessness’ is implicit in the very way TVP frames its vision of a post-capitalist society, so achieving it, almost by definition, has to involve confronting this vexed question of class.

Broligarchy

Technology is not neutral; it is fundamentally conditioned by today´s class ownership and control of the means of production. This is becoming increasingly apparent in the light of recent developments.

There has been much talk recently about the rise of ‘techno-fascism,’ a dangerous new force, particularly visible in American politics, representing a ‘broligarchy’ of far-right tech billionaires bent on seizing power and reshaping the body politic to suit their interests and ideological inclinations, technology being the means by which they aspire to realise this elitist vision.

In truth, American politics has always been deeply plutocratic, with only the merest paper-thin claim to being a functioning ‘democracy,’ while being constantly subjected to the enormous power of lobby groups and political donations (bribes). Indeed, some argue that the Founding Fathers themselves framed the Constitution precisely this way to guarantee this outcome – ensuring that the interests of the rich and powerful would be perpetually protected.

However, recent developments, particularly since Donald Trump’s return to office in 2025, suggest a turn for the worse. It has prompted some to ask whether, given the inordinate influence now being exercised by people like Peter Thiel (aided and abetted by the far-right blogger, Curtis Yarvin), Elon Musk and others, this does indeed represent an attempt on the part of these tech billionaires to ‘seize power’ and dismantle what little there is of democracy in America.

Some commentators suggest that these people see themselves as some kind of Übermensch, superior to everyone else. They resent any barrier in their path or any constraint that would rein in their wealth or power. An example is Thiel, a venture capitalist with a current (2025) personal worth of approximately $22 billion:

‘In a 2009 Cato Unbound essay, Thiel wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” That wasn’t just a provocation, it was a programmatic declaration that aligns him with authoritarians both abroad and at home — culminating in a second Trump administration that daily tests the limits of US constitutional democracy. Climate change, racial justice, and economic inequality all become “distractions” in this framework as they demand collective effort and overlapping interests’ (Christopher Marquis, Jacobin, 6 Oct 2025).

If nothing else, this should serve as a salutary reminder of the risk of relying too much on ‘techno-fixes’ that can sometimes have unintended, and even runaway, negative consequences. Of course, there should always be scope for technological innovation and progress. But innovation should be adapted to, and informed by, the needs and concerns of society in general, and that is simply not possible in a society based on minority class ownership of the means of production.

This is what fundamentally obstructs the implementation of a resource-based economy. Failure to acknowledge this in a bid to appear less ‘partisan’ condemns TVP to promoting an approach that can only depict a future that might be called a ‘nice idea’ but one incapable of being realised.

The Zeitgeist Movement

TVP gave rise to a spin-off called the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM), dubbed the ‘activist arm’ of TVP. It was founded in 2008 by Peter Joseph, a filmmaker, and rapidly expanded to the point of having up to 250 local chapters worldwide, attracting many thousands of supporters. Whereas TVP focused more on blueprints and designing sustainable structures, such as ‘circular cities,’ TZM emphasised grassroots activism and cultural transformation. Underlying tensions arising from these differences in approach resulted in TVP and TZM drifting apart in 2011.

As with TVP, there is much in what TZM says that socialists can endorse, but there are also fundamental, even irreconcilable, differences, particularly over the question of class and the need for democracy.

Nevertheless, any attempt to transcend the rigid barriers a money-based mindset imposes on our thinking is welcome and a step forward. The point is, surely, to take serious steps further in that direction.

Robin Cox

The Plot to Educate. Why the Capitalist wants Brains. (1916)

From the September 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The clerk and the school-teacher boast that they live by their brains. The mechanic smiles in derision and claims that the real thing worth knowing is, how to do something useful. The capitalist and the slacker regard all kinds of education as worthless that do not help them to dodge work. These are personal view-points and much twaddle has been spoken and written on each, which is responsible for much of the confusion that exists on the subject of education.

The capitalist himself does not want to be troubled with education, as he understands it ; he pays someone else to acquire and use it in his interest. He does not object to some pains to obtain a smattering of general knowledge and that neurotic polish known and worshipped as culture. Some capitalists even pose as business men and indulge in vague generalities about “technical knowledge” and “the qualities that make for success.” These are the merchant princes and the qualities they laud were precisely the ones that made them such. The capitalist who soils his hands, or worries his brains over technicalities, it is almost needless to add, is the man who cannot afford to buy brains and must, perforce, use his own.

Science has become an adjunct of industry. Educated brains are as necessary to the capitalist as skilled hands and muscular are. Industry (read capitalists) needs both. Muscular energy and mechanical skill multiplies itself without much watering and manuring from the owners of capital. But the science of the business laboratory, and the knowledge necessary to organization on a large scale can only be acquired under special circumstances not attainable by the average worker.

There is no question of intelligence involved. The lad of average intellect given the opportunity to qualify could fill any post in the field of industry. There is no genius in evidence, nor is it required. High salaries are paid to the chemist and the organiser because their skill or ability is the product of many workers concentrated in one person. The opportunities to acquire this concentrated knowledge are rare, consequently those who possess it are scarce, their price on the labour market is high and their heads are swollen, not with the exercise of their brains, but with the idea that they are worth more than the mechanic or laboiner—to the capitalist.

And the latter, well, he wants more. Not like the worker who “wants more work in order to get less of it.” The capitalist wants more brain workers to get more—for less money. Hence the agitation in the Press. One writer says: “Germany did not sweep to such triumphs in the chemical world simply on the brains of one or two super-skilled men. She had armies of such men.” The capitalist wants to be quit of the Ramseys, Wallaces and Lodges who flirt with spooks and try to analyse ether. When they condescend to notice him from the heights of the Milky Way, the astral world, or a Park Lane drawing-room, their information was, to say the least, costly.

What the capitalist wants is to instal the brain-worker under his factory roof, with the rest of his workers, where he can see that his brain works—by the results. The first step to this end is to train the men. Supply of brain-workers must overtake demand. As was the case with school-teachers and clerks, competition will assert itself and the capitalist will get what he wants—cheap scientists and brain-workers.

The first move is a move in Parliament—the executive of the capitalists. Two committees are appointed, one for science, the other for languages. The terms of reference and constitution of the first are :

“To enquire into the position occupied by natural science in the educational system of Great Britain, especially in secondary schools and universities ; and to advise what measures are needed to promote its study, regard being had to the requirements of a liberal education, to the advancement of pure science, and to the interests of the trades, industries and professions which particularly depend upon applied science.”

The terms of the second are :

“To enquire into the position occupied by the study of modern languages in the educational system of Great Britain, especially in secondary schools and universities, and to advise what measures are required to promote their study, regard being had to the requirements of a liberal education, including an appreciation of the history, literature and civilisation of other countries and to the interests of commerce and public service”.

The unthinking one who reads the above will see nothing in it but the intention of Parliament to give facilities to the children of the poor to qualify for better jobs ; it entirely escapes his notice that the wholesale manufacture of applicants quickly robs the better job of its advantages. Capitalism by these very methods tends to reduce all workers to one dead level. Mechanical inventions eliminate skilled workers; ; lightning calculators scrap the clerk, and the man of muscle is superseded by magnetic cranes, etc.

Division of labour reduces the knowledge and skill required by each person to a minimum. Every man and woman specialises in one direction only ; and in that direction, because of the competition, must devote all his or her energies. To what end ? “The interests of trade, industry, and commerce.” All the educational roads lead to the same goal—the commercial interests of the capitalist class. If the worker wants to live he must get into one of the ruts provided, where his senses will be sharpened and his very thoughts moulded and curbed in the interest of commerce. Whether he works with his brain or his hands, or with, a combination of both—as, indeed, all forms of labour really are—he is subservient to commerce. Production and distribution, instead of being the means to satisfy his wants, enslaves him, plants him in a niche and keeps him busy with the routine of a department or the feeding of a machine.

Life for the average worker has no meaning outside the interests of commerce. The wonders of the universe, the beauties of nature, real knowledge and culture, are outside his ken : he is a mere cog in the machinery of wealth production—and remains poor. The accumulated knowledge of society built up by successive generations of workers has made possible a full and glorious life for all. Yet the life that comes to each of us but once is forced into a rut of toil that an idle class may flourish and revel in excessive luxury.

We Socialists are often accused of using strong language, but it is difficult to frame language that will convey an adequate idea of the hideous poverty of the great mass of the workers, according even to capitalist evidence. The cupidity and greed of the capitalist and the ignominy of the wage-slave have become ingrained in their respective natures. We Socialists, while not relinquishing the task of presenting to the workers a true perspective of their position, gladly welcome any capitalist writer of ability who contributes anything that will support our position, or help remove seme of the confusion prevalent on the subject of education.

The instructions given to the committee that is to investigate education reform are sufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy of the capitalist class. They plot to make all workers subservient to the interests of commerce, i.e., their interests, to prune knowledge—our common inheritance—till it, too, only serves their interests. Here, Mr. Donald Ross comes to our aid. He anticipated the Shylock character of education reform and exposed the whole plot.

According to Mr. Ross there are three aspects of education. “First,” he says,

“do we want to give our people greater culture ? Do we want to educate them in those things that make for greater personal charm and greater personal achievement purely in a social sense? I mean without any regard to utility. Naturally, we do. Culture is always worth while.”

Secondly he deals with education as it effects efficiency—the view-point of the capitalist. He says:

“In manufacture to-day the best brains directing the most capable hands will win to distinction. If we can educate all our workers in the technical sciences we shall undoubtedly produce better than our rivals and sweep the commercial field.”

But Mr. Ross does not finish there. He goes on to describe how the workers of Germany linked themselves up in association and enthusiastically set themselves to further the ends of industry by discussion and experiment.

Then he says :

“But you will notice that this did not make any difference to them financially. They improved the the machinery, increased production, took an absorbing interest in their work, and made vast profits for the manufacturer who employed them. That is one flaw in the argument for greater technical efficiency of craftsmen. Under the present system the craftsman turns round and says in effect, why should I spend time and trouble on becoming a more efficient machine to produce greater wealth for another ? That is his problem. Admittedly a worker here and there may “get on” because of his knowledge, but this is simply because the others have not the same knowledge.”

Next, Mr Ross states the problem, in language almost identical to our own :

“We all know that the production of wealth in manufacturing countries is enormous. It could be enormously increased. The trouble is that it is not properly distributed. The men who make it, the men in the factory, the forge and the field, get least of it. Their first problem, then, is not how to make more, but to get more of what they already make.”

Lastly, in bold language Mr. Ross outlines the solution of the problem.

“They need education in economics. They need to learn what are the forces at work in the modern world which help a small number of men to take the largest share of wealth. They require an education that will enable them to unravel the tangled skein of modern economics ; to review industry as a whole ; to find out why there are classes and masses, and then, understanding, to apply their knowledge to the refashioning of society, so that the worker shall get a greater share of the wealth he produces. It is often objected that this would be “class” education. It would ; and it is needed, and organised labour should see that the workers get it. So the three steps in labour education should be : First, class education, which will give labour ultimate control of industry; second, technical education which will allow it to produce more wealth ; third, cultural education which will allow them to enjoy it.”

In places, Mr. Ross lays himself open to misconstruction, but there is little doubt that he points to Socialism as the only remedy. In other places he has been responsible for some confusion, but the above quotations from an article appearing in “Reynolds’s Newspaper,” Aug. 13th, shows that he is capable of independent thought ; and what is more gratifying to the Socialist, when he exercises it honestly, he finds himself admitting and asserting the principles for which we have stood so long.

True he speaks of giving “labour ultimate control of industry,” and the worker getting “a greater share” of the wealth he produces, which is no doubt due to his own limited knowledge of economics, But once a man recognises the need for education of the workers on class lines, he has surmounted the worst obstacle. The rest is easy. For what purpose education unless it is to bind the working class in an organization to take and use the means of wealth production and distribution in their own interests ? The education needed by the working class is Socialist education, that includes economics. An education that explains to them how they are robbed, why they must organise on the basis of their class, capture the political machinery of the capitalist State and establish a system wherein wealth will be produced for use, and not for profit. Then technical education will mean greater production of wealth with less expenditure of labour power, and efficiency will no longer enrich a small class of idlers. Every invention that aids in the production of wealth, instead of being a curse, because it increases unemployment, will be welcomed because it gives more leisure to enjoy the good things of life. The instruments of production, instead of enchaining those who operate them, physically and mentally, will serve them as the means to satisfy their wants.

F. Foan

Letter: Justification — No ! (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Justification — No !

I heard one of your speakers answer the question of “who would do the more important tasks if within a socialist society there were no wage systems to provide an incentive” by stating that the wage difference between a road sweeper and a skilled technician is justifiable within the present system, etc.

I have got news for that speaker. No socialist will ever take that point of view, simply because if the inequality of wealth and privilege that capitalism produces can be to any extent justifiable then so can the system. Socialism is out to abolish capitalism not compliment it on certain aspects of the wages system — or make such a miserable compromise in order to win a pair of attentive ears.

J. W. Pitt

Worthing

Reply:

The speaker may not have made himself clear, or the listener may have misunderstood what he heard. Either way, the explanation of the point you raise is as follows.

Wage differences exist in capitalism because everything is a commodity — that is, an article produced for sale — including labour-power. There are cheap and dear commodity-versions of all articles: cars, houses, clothes, furniture, whatever you care to name. The price of each is basically the monetary expression of its value; that is, it reflects the amount of labour that went into the commodity. Expensive houses and cars have more in them and are more carefully made than cheap ones. The same applies to labour-power, and this is why a skilled technician’s wages (the price of his labour-power) are higher than a road-sweeper’s.

We may add that the wage represents not only what it took to produce a particular kind of labour- power, but what it takes to reproduce it. The road-sweeper is not expected to be well housed, dress smartly, be equipped for up-to-date technical discourse, and raise his children ambitiously. The technician or manager is: like the road-sweeper he has to go to the limits of his income because that is what his income is for. That is what puts all workers, regardless of their particular wages, in the same boat. Justification does not come into the matter. It is the way capitalism works.

The idea of “important tasks”, as against others winch presumably don’t matter much, belongs to class- divided society and is capitalism’s justification for inequality. All useful jobs matter as much as one another. Socialism, the creation of a world of plenty, will be an incentive in itself.

Editors.

Finance and Industry: The experts are fallible (1962)

The Finance and Industry Column from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The experts are fallible

The economic experts of capitalism—the City Editors, the economists, the financial seers—sit on something of a pedestal. Whatever twists and turns the economy may take, they are never caught without a remedy. Their readers, political parties, even governments, hang upon their words.

Which makes it very embarrassing for everybody, if the experts are shown to be as fallible as the rest.

Mr. Samuel Brittan is the Economic Editor of The Observer and last year, like all men in his position, he was expected to comment on the Selwyn Lloyd “pay pause” Budget. This is what he wrote, on September 3rd last:

I have a feeling that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd is going to surprise many people by his success in carrying out his economic policies . . . many of the people who are now most vociferous in denouncing him may be loudest in his praise a year from now.

Mr. Brittan went on to point out that in some ways the Lloyd policy was following behind events and then gave his reasons for thinking that ". . . Mr. Lloyd has been so much luckier than his predecessors . . ." 

Now—almost a year after—what does Mr. Brittan think of the Lloyd policies? Is he loud in his praise? He is not. He has been doing his homework in The Economist and has been impressed by an article in the 12th May issue of that weekly which drew some striking comparisons between the Lloyd squeeze, and what has followed it, and the Butler squeeze of 1957 and what followed that. This is what Mr. Brittan wrote in The Observer of 10th June this year:

On both occasions the same kind of arguments have led to the same mistakes. Mr. Selwyn Lloyd too often gives the impression of believing that history began in July, 1961, and has not devoted enough time to studying the mistakes of his predecessors.

And later in the same article:

Government financial measures have in recent years actually accentuated the trade fluctuations that they were supposed to control. 

If Mr. Brittan was wrong, a year ago, when he expected the Lloyd policies would be lucky enough to succeed, he could of course equally be wrong now that he is criticising the Chancellor. Capitalism is a baffling system which can catch out the experts. But if that is going to happen, there is no point in basing experts, is there?

By a few shares

A new campaign is announced by the Wider Share Ownership Committee, aimed as its name suggests to encourage more people to buy shares. It would seem to have timed its effort rather badly. After the recent Wall Street debacle we would imagine that many a small investor has gone back to his account in the Savings Bank or the old sock under the bed.

The number of shareholders in the U.K. has apparently increased over the past ten years from about a million to 3½ million. Much of this increase is presumably accounted for by firms like ICI distributing shares to their workers and to lots of small men being persuaded on to the stock exchange band-wagon by tales that capitalist inflation and prosperity were here to stay.

It will be interesting to see what success the campaign has and we hope the Committee will oblige us in due course with details of the number of shareholders in say six or twelve months time. They should make interesting reading, especially if there have been a few more stock exchange shocks in the interim.

At the same time, an analysis of how many hold how much would be useful as well as instructive. We have an idea that the greater part of those 3½  millions hardly matter when it comes to working out who really own stocks and shares.

Do they know?

Our editorial this month deals with the recent stock exchange shake-ups and makes the point that they basically reflect the general unease amongst capitalists concerning present economic prospects.

This unease has spread to most sectors of the economy and is obviously causing our politicians and their advisers some real headaches. Nor, in spite of the long words they like to use and their knowing looks, do they seem to have much idea of what to do about it all.

For example, hardly had Mr. Selwyn Lloyd finished warning us that he might have to lake fresh steps to tighten up demand than he calmly goes and cuts the minimum H.P. deposit from 20 to 10 per cent. Only a little while before, he had eased some of the restrictions on the banks. When it is remembered that he was apparently worried only a few weeks ago about a hire purchase boom, it all seems rather strange.

Some cynics have tried to explain the quick turn round as a by-election gimmick to help the Tories in their present political troubles. Perhaps so. But we have the shrewd suspicion that it only requires capitalism to go into the faintest suggestion of a spin for all the politicians and their economic experts to lose their balance. To be quite frank, we don't think really they have a clue.

The Gold Rush

One further thing we have heard for several years past from our experts is that with the new theories about money, credit, and the general control over capitalism, the importance of gold has become a thing of the past. Some of them have even gone so far as to regard it as a myth, a hoax that has been shown for what it really is by the new economic theory.

Unfortunately, our capitalists only seem to think there may be something in these theories when there is little chance of their being put to the test. Immediately things begin to get uncertain, they forget all about the theories and rush us quickly as they can into gold. Which explains the present sudden interest in gold mining shares and the heavy buying of the metal itself.

This is the classic way the capitalists have always acted in times of stress. Not currency, not stocks and shares; but lovely, shiny, golden, gold. As for economic theory, they will come back to that after the crisis has blown over.

Karl Marx, over a hundred years ago, would have found it a quite natural thing for the capitalists to do. He for one was under no delusion about the importance of gold to the capitalist system. The universal equivalent he called it, and universal equivalent it still is.

Stan Hampson

The Capitalists’ “Directive Ability”. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Lessons from recent happenings.

The Need for the Parasite.

One of the stock arguments of the anti-Socialist is that the worker will be unable to control industry under Socialism, as, in order to enable affairs to run smoothly, men are required with some weird, mysterious and miracle-working power called “directive ability.” The “anties” contend that we could not get along without these powerful individuals, and that (grande finale) these men are the ones who to-day possess wealth and position, i.e., the Rockefellers, Liptons, Devonports, and so on.

Let us just test this contention with a few facts and see how the miracle-workers run this system.

During the last few months a case has been attracting much attention in the courts. In this case certain civilians (past or present employees of Liptons, Ltd.) and some Army officers have been accused under the Bribery and Corruption Acts. In the evidence it transpired that Liptons have been in the habit of giving inducements to Army officers to secure Army canteen contracts. One of the defendants, Col. Whitaker, had received £540 from a firm of brewers, who supplied the beer to Col. Whitaker’s regiment at Malta. The Colonel said that he received the greater part of the money for using his influence to secure a contract from a colonel of a regiment at Crete. It also turned in the evidence that a member of the Government, Lord Saye and Sele, had written advising Col. Whitaker to take a holiday and go to Crete to “smooth a ruffled bird” (Col. Bird) for a consideration !

In summing up the case the judge said : “I am bound to say that the evidence before the Court satisfies me that these defendants, employed by Lipton’s, in so far as they made payments for the bribery of persons capable of influencing contracts in favour of Lipton’s, were acting on a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, after there had been consideration given as to whether to stop that system or not.” (“Times,” 28.5.14.)

Now is this the way the capitalists run the show ? Is this the way they pile up their fortunes ? Is this the line “Directive Ability” takes ? When the capitalists themselves are faced with these facts and called to account, what do they answer ? Just what Lipton would have answered : “We do not know anything about it ; we did not attend to the business. You must blame our managers.'”

Tarred with the Same Brush.

Those who have memories a little longer than the usual working-class memory will recollect that when the directors of the company con­cerned in the Putumayo rubber atrocities were brought before the commission, four of them admitted that they did not even know the lan­guage in which the business at board meetings was conducted !

Let us now turn to another recent instance of “Directive Ability.”

The coalfields of Colorado have lately been drenched with the blood of miners who struck against the conditions obtaining in the mines of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co. A condition of affairs was in operation out there similar to what existed in England before the factory legislation began. The miners were compelled to trade at the company’s store, paying 25 to 50 per cent. more than outside prices, to buy coal off the company, pay the company’s doctor, and live in the company’s shacks.

When the miners struck on September 3rd last wholesale evictions followed, and men, women, and children were turned into the streets with their few belongings, to go where they could in the rain and snow that kept falling through the next two days.

A Heroic (Rocke)feller.

During the strike the mine-owners, following their usual custom, imported as mine guards riff-raff of every description—armed thugs who could be depended upon to commit without hesitation the most cold-blooded of murders. “No authentic account,” says the “New York World” in a candid moment, “of anything that has happened in Mexico compares in cold-blooded brutality with what took place at Ludlow, Colorado. Dr. A. S. Harvey, a physician who testified at the inquest, said that while the “women and children lay in the safety pits which had been dug under the tents, the militiamen applied torches to the canvas and burned the structure over the heads of the terrified refugees. He declared that one ranch-house, in which dozens of women and children had taken refuge, was under fire from the militiamen the whole day.” The militia mounted machine guns and swept the strikers’ quarters with bullets. Over 200 lives were lost in this mine war.

We now come to the “directive ability” side of the matter. As a result of the allegation that the rioting was caused by agents provocateur, and that the troops acted with great brutality in charging and shooting down men, women, and children indiscriminately, a Congressional inquiry into the matter was ordered. When John D. Rockefeller, Jun., who is a director of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co., was questioned he “blandly professed entire ignorance as to the details of the rioting and causes of the strike. He admitted that his father owned 40 per cent. of the company’s stock, but declared that neither of them interfered with the management of affairs, and they knew very little about the matter. ‘We have so many interests that it is impossible for us to supervise personally everything.'”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

An Obliging Conscience.

How they get out of it when anything is brought up against them ! Capitalists, say our opponents, supervise industry, therefore deserve their profits. Charge Rockefeller with the murder of the Colorado miners, however, and he immediately begins to squirm, and says he knows nothing about the matter. He does not “supervise personally” when the butcheries have to be accounted for, but only when the “swag” is divided.

When one of the committee very pertinently pointed out that Rockefeller found plenty of time for “social uplift” work and vice investigation, and asked him why he did not investigate the conditions in his own business, the canting, hypocritical scoundrel at once replied : “My conscience acquits me of any responsibility in the matter.”—(“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Rockefellers, by the way, seem to be rather accomplished hypocrites, and, incidentally, men after God’s own heart. The father of the aforementioned unctuous humbug, John D. Rockefeller, Sen., was referred to last June by Mr. Bustard, the pastor of the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, Cleveland (of the congregation of which Rockefeller is one of the oldest members) as “one of the rose bushes in God’s garden.” The same reverend soft-soap and chloroform dispenser also paid a tribute to those faithful followers in the church who, like Mr. Rockefeller, “have for years lead religious lives and been steadfast in the Lord’s work.” Comment on this is needless.

Before leaving for his father’s Pocantico Hills Estate young Rockefeller “issued a statement, in which he admitted that his investigations into the riots had disclosed conditions more terrible than have yet occurred in that or any other State.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 3.5.14.) In his concluding statement before the commission, however, he disclosed his true capitalistic soul, and showed himself as the advocate of free and unfettered sweating. “He got rather angry when it was pointed out that the newspapers had given plenty of details as to the working conditions in Trinidad, and that a word from his father would have stopped the bloodshed and ended the strike. He declined to agree to submit to arbitration, and declared that the company would rather sacrifice the whole of its property in Colorado than recognize the miners’ union if it hampered the company’s freedom.”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Company’s Freedom.

Well, what about “directive ability” now ? As a matter of fact, about the only directive ability the masters ever exercise is in employing managers, foremen, etc. to run their concerns for them while they are enjoying themselves, and if it large enough dividend is not regularly forthcoming they want to know the reason why ; if a sufficient reason is not given the official gets the sack. Owing to the contradictory nature of present society the workers are compelled to fight each other for jobs. The overlooker and manager are working men like the rest of us, dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and just as likely to get the sack at any moment. Their particular job consists in using every method they can to get the greatest possible amount of work out of their fellow-workers. Thus on the industrial field workers find themselves compelled to fight, not only their masters, but also each other in order to get a living. When the workers take over production then the “directive ability” of our fellow-workers (the absent bond-holding capitalist does no work in production at all), will be employed for the common good instead of, as to-day, for the misery of their fellows.

G. McClatchie

Born to it – or just up for it? (2001)

"Alex the Animal"

TV Review from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are you a born athlete? A born artist? Naturally intelligent? Or were you born with the wrong genes?

There is something depressing about the assumption that to be good at anything. you have to he born good at it. It’s depressing because it robs us of control over our own lives, and seeing as we give up most of the control we could exercise over out lives to our employers for the vast majority of our time, it’s a loss we can ill afford to make.

It’s all part of the ruling ideology, of course. We’re told that the reason we don’t have any power over our lives is because we don’t have it, and we don’t have it because that’s part of the natural order of things, and we wouldn’t know what to do with it if we did have it. You’re either a born leader – or an entrepreneur – or a natural follower or employee. Socialism is against human nature.

But this is in contradiction to another ruling idea, namely that if you want to get on in life and achieve something worthwhile, or become an entrepreneur, all you have to do is “put your mind to it”. Hard work (i.e. hard work for an employer), dedication and long hours are all that is required and, sooner or later, you shall surely succeed.

The fallacy of the first idea was exposed in an entertaining way in Faking It, a Channel 4 documentary showing until recently on Tuesday evenings. The idea of the show was to take Joe or Josephine Public, and see if they could perform a role other than that which capitalist society had assigned to them. They were given a month’s training by people with expert knowledge on the role they had to play. Then they were thrown in the deep end: they had to perform the role for real alongside those for who it is a “natural” job. The “experts” were asked if they could spot the “fake”.

For example, a painter and decorator was trained how to paint modern art, and successfully fooled the art critics who instead denounced a successful modern artist as a fake; a cellist was successfully trained to perform as a dance DJ; and, in my favourite episode, an effete, toff homosexual Oxford student was trained up to be a bouncer working the door on a busy London nightclub.

Having been bought up on a farm in the country, the Oxford student’s only previous experience seeing their housing estate, all his worst prejudices were confirmed. “Oh my god,” he said in horror as he passed a discarded mattress in his taxi. “Did you see that? There was a mattress on the pavement. That’s exactly what I was expecting. Oh my god.”

Given everything that we knew about this student, the chances of his making it as a bouncer on the door of a nightclub could not seem more unlikely. When he met and stood side by side with his trainers – towering doormen experienced in the martial arts and in real-life street-fighting – the physical and cultural differences between them seemed all the more startling. The doormen looked “naturally” big and imposing, and the idea of turning this slightly built, nervous student into one of them was comic – plain impossible.

But the show demanded the impossible. We followed him as he went through a metamorphosis – not exactly waking up one morning to find himself transformed into a gigantic fighting machine – but a gradual and hard process of training. He was put through his paces in martial art skills – including a few sessions in the ring so he would know what it feels like to get hit hard – and was given acting and voice training lessons so he looked and sounded the part – “y’aint caming in, y’ah daan’t meet the dress code”.

By the end, not only did he look and sound the part but, when he played for real on the door of a busy London nightclub, not one of the “real” bouncers identified him as the fake. Natural born bouncer?

Another essential part of the training process was a night of bonding with his new-found friends. He was taken on a piss-up, which rounded off the night in a strip club. When asked if he had enjoyed the night, the student came clean to the huge loud-mouthed cockney doormen, and told them he was gay.

The interesting thing about this was that the student assumed they would be horribly prejudiced, coming from the background that they did, and would turn against him – indeed, would feel dodgy about having rough and tumbled with a poof. As it turned out, it was the student’s prejudice about them that was unfounded. They couldn’t give a shite about his sexuality – and pointed out to the student that he was the one who was prejudiced for making assumptions about them based on their accents, their job, and their housing estate.

I loved the whole series because it showed that human beings are capable of a wide variety of behaviours and skills when given a favourable environment. It sent the mind reeling with what is possible when we assert our own needs.

Imagine what we could he and do if we participated fully in the creation of our own lives! Our social existence may determine our consciousness, but there is now no reason, other than the rule of capital, why we cannot actively create our own social existence, and therefore our own consciousness. This is real freedom – not just freedom from oppression or freedom to do what you want, nor even freedom to choose but a dynamic freedom to determine what the choices are in the first place

Stuart Watkins

Blogger's Note:

The Guardian's 'How We Made' column had a short piece on the "Alex the Animal" episode in September 2020.

Nationalization—a Professor’s Misconceptions (1973)

From the December 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the problems in expounding Socialism is the persistent myth of “clever” men whose endorsement of other views is impressive to many people. Eminent scientists have followed the zig-zag Communist line; philosophers and mathematicians are found to be Catholics, racists or advocates of capital punishment. The common sentiment is that these opinions are given authority by learned men’s holding them, because someone with all those letters after his name cannot be a fool.

Can he not? In fact the opposite is true remarkably often. To the degree that a person has specialized in some field, his ignorance of others can be so acute as to take away the sense of his specialist knowledge. A classic example is that of Sir James Jeans, the most eminent astronomer of his time, who held religious beliefs so crude as to be comical. The “clever” are not exempt from fear, petulance or prejudice, or the propensity for putting material interests first. Harold Nicolson’s diaries show how a scholarly man’s thoughts may go when he wants a peerage, or under pressure from people round him. The whole idea of learned men who are superiors to the rest of us is a fallacy, a meritocracy-version of “God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate”.

Higher Authority

In the October issue of The Freethinker, Professor Antony Flew lays down the law about Socialism. To give the background first, the September issue had an article by Professor Flew on the currently-fashionable Karl Popper. This was criticized in a letter by R. W. Morrell, who wrote:

Professor Flew seems to labour under the impression that nationalization has something to do with socialism, and that the criterion by which to judge the political colour of a party is its attitude to the issue. As a self-declared Popperian, he dislikes ‘sweeping’ social change; but is nationalization really ‘social change’, sweeping or other wise?

Professor Flew’s reply is as follows:

Mr. Morrell says: ‘Professor Flew seems to labour under the impression that nationalization has something to do with socialism . . .’ Yes, so I do. So clearly did those who wrote clause IV into the constitution of the British Labour Party. So clearly do all the Communist Parties, who make the implementation of Clause IV a first step after seizing power. So clearly do those who are now dominant in the Labour Party, and who disagree only on precisely how massive an extension of public ownership to propose in their next election programme.

If Mr. Morrell wishes to use the word ‘socialism’ in such a way that nationalization is not a necessary condition of socialism, that, indeed, it has nothing to do with it at all, then the very least he should have done was to indicate what sort of glory he wants to make the word refer to. It is hard to be condemned for not following Mr. Morrell’s eccentric usage when he does not even tell us what it is.

What has to be noted is how the conviction of learned authority works. Every “expert” believes there are other, higher experts — presumably, at the end, a supreme expert before whom nobody may speak. Professor Flew does not consider answering the point. Instead, he refers to the authority of the Labour Party’s Clause IV, the Communist Parties, and “those now dominant in the Labour Party”; to say anything different from them is mere “eccentric usage”. However, there is a much greater eccentricity in his own approach. In the September issue he attacked Marx and “socialism”. Yet Marx’s writings make abundantly clear what Socialism is, and that it is not nationalization. Are we to understand that the learned Professor criticizes what he has not read?

Where's this Better World ?

Professor Flew does speak of concern to “change the world for the better”. It is possible to look at nationalization in that light, without recourse to its economics. People get their definitions of Socialism wrong, but all associate it — however vaguely — with equality, freedom and production for social needs instead of profit. One ought first of all to ask if nationalization achieves any of those things, as a means to judge whether it has “something to do with socialism”.

On that basis, the policies of the Communist Parties can be dismissed immediately. In their model state, Russia, almost all industry is nationalized; personal and political freedom are minimal, the working class has a very poor standard of living and privileged sections have the fat of the land. Some industry was nationalized also in Nazi Germany, and that did not “change the world for the better”.

In this country, the same questions can be asked about the well-established models of nationalization: the Post Office, the railways, the coal industry, the .electricity and gas undertakings. Are workers better-off and more secure in these concerns? On the contrary, all pay poor wages and in recent years have got rid of large numbers of employees. An item in The Guardian on 27th September said:

At a recent Cabinet meeting, according to Field, Ministers were discussing the effects of Stage Three, and the low paid. Somebody asked who exactly were the low paid; nobody round the table knew. Lord Rothschild’s Think Tank was asked to find out, and present a paper on it within two or three days. Among other things that Rothschild came up with was the (fairly well worn) conclusion that it was the Government which was, directly or indirectly, the largest single employer of low paid workers.

Nor is there any benefit to the workers as “consumers”. Each enterprise is bound, as much as it would be in private hands, to compete in the market and try to make a profit. The prices of the commodities produced reflect the general level of prices. Is not Professor Flew ever curious as to why this “socialism” is indistinguishable from capitalism?

Control and Compensation

The purpose of nationalization and the public utility corporations is not to abolish or weaken capitalism but get it to function better as a whole. The last words have to be stressed, because they explain the arguments which take place over any project for State control. Generally, an industry is nationalized when its efficiency is vital to the rest of capitalism, and private groups either are an obstruction in themselves or cannot handle the costs of necessary developments. So far from seeing it as a threat, capitalists are always prepared to consider nationalization so long as their interests — that is, their property incomes — are acceptably arranged-for. What the capitalist loses is control, but not ownership.

Thus, every nationalization scheme includes “compensation”, the exchange of direct shareholdings for State bonds or the securities of whatever corporation is set up. This was done in the post-war Labour government’s nationalizations, and its necessity was reaffirmed in a Labour Party statement Industry and Society in 1957:

It may be that public participation in a private firm can be secured through State investment in it. Where public ownership is extended, full and fair compensation will of course be paid.

Of the present proposals by “those now dominant in the Labour Party”, the Fabian Society has published a pamphlet on housing nationalization called The End of the Private Landlord. The suggested financial arrangements are:

Instead of the standard practice of compensation at market rates, the group proposes the issue of irredeemable but marketable stock whereby landlords would receive the equivalent of a fair rent minus some deduction for management and repairs.

(“Guardian”, 10th September)

This would reproduce what happened in the nationalization of the railways in 1947, where the shareholders were relieved of huge capital expenditures they would have had to make to attain the “fair” level agreed in the compensation terms.

Ownership and Equality

But where do these incomes arise, to be paid to people who — it is said — have ceased to own? They can be provided only from the exploitation of the working class and the production of surplus-value. Nothing, in fact, is altered. The capitalist may have been removed from direct participation in industry and commerce, but he remains the effective owner in that they are conducted as before for profit and interest: which go to him. Professor Flew refers to “those who wrote Clause IV into the constitution of the British Labour Party”. They were more aware of what they were doing than he is. The 1918 statement Labour and the New Social Order spoke of “the progressive elimination from the control of industry of the private capitalist” (our emphasis); nothing about eliminating ownership.

So nationalization has nothing to do with Socialism, but is one form of capitalism. Reformers, attracted by inaccurate phrases like “public ownership”, have seen in it a means of obtaining more equitable distribution under capitalism. How unlucky they have been is shown by facts repeatedly given by Labour spokesmen, when they are in opposition. On 27th September Michael Meacher wrote in The Guardian:

. . . four out of every five households have less than the average income, and only one-fifth have more, largely because in the richest 1 per cent there are some exceedingly rich individuals. If we were as tall as our incomes, they would be 10 miles high whilst most people would be dwarfs.

And in September Lord Shinwell, asked in a television interview what had been achieved in his seventy years as a Labour politician, said: Nothing. There were still the rich and still the poor — just the same.

Socialism, unlike those Professor Flew cites as authorities on it, is concerned first and foremost with ownership, simply because that is the foundation and changing-point of every social system. Capitalism exists on the basis of private or limited ownership of the means of living. From that, all the apparently ineradicable problems of our present world arise. Socialists know, however, that they can be eradicated: by establishing common ownership as the basis of society. The obstruction to it is ignorance — including what a 19th-century essayist called “the ignorance of the learned”.

Robert Barltrop

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

Fabian Notes. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts.”

(H. Snell speaking for the Fabian Society.)

* * *

So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their “Socialism” is government by bureau, and “naturally” (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. “Naturally” they want the plums. “Naturally” they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing.

* * *

“Naturally” these producers will be unable of themselves to administer their own affairs. Because “naturally” such delicately intricate work as will “naturally” be involved in the manipulation of affairs of state, “naturally” demands a special type of mind, specially trained. And obviously, not to say “naturally” the working class qua working class,— the working class that is to say per se,—do not possess such necessary and entirely essential qualities. They must “naturally” look for their administrators, therefore, among the cultured class who, “naturally” endowed with imperial qualities have consecrated their lives to their development and with infinite pains have, rendered themselves fit to enter into the holy of holies from which will issue those inspired directions and words of good counsel without which the labourers in the vineyards (and other places) will be as sheep without a shepherd, as little children stumbling in the dark.

* * *

The members of the Fabian Society having quite clearly all the special equipment necessary, therefore quite “naturally” desire that the working class shall acclaim them the saviours of Society and signify implicit confidence in their capacity by unhesitatingly conceding them the right to govern.

* * *

But I think, I say I think, it will not work out quite like that. I think, mark, I think that there will be some little hesitancy before the working class admit the necessity for the creation of a bureaucratic staff, or a star chamber, or a holy of holies even to such fierce democrats as the Fabian Society. I think it not unlikely that the working class will look somewhat dubiously upon a method of government such as they have been somewhat painfully familiar with for several generations and may even conclude that, on the whole, they would prefer to try something else—a method, for example, by which they themselves would be the dictatorial authority expressing their requirements through administrators who would be mere delegates with their instructions in their pockets. The intellectual equipment of administrators in these circumstances need not necessarily be exceptional.

* * *

Of course the Fabian Society will unanimously agree that such a hypothesis is entirely grotesque. And as the Fabian Society are experts in the grotesque their view may quite properly be given the consideration it so well merits. But as this is my funeral, they need not distress themselves too severely even if I persist in pressing the probability of their super-excellent services being in small demand, and proceed to submit that their idea of government under Socialism is likely to be regarded as antiquated and fitting only to the conditions which obtained in the nightmare days of capitalism. However preposterous it may seem to them, I think it quite possible that as there will be no interests to administer except the interests of the working class, the present geographical unit of alleged representation, based as it is upon the private ownership of the means of life, will be superseded by representation of labour departments. The honourable member for East Loamshire will give way to Citizen Smith, the delegate of the Gasworkers and General Labourers’ Federation or some such labour organisation. As, so far as I have been able to observe, the Fabian Society’s idea of the government of the future rests upon the continuance of the present bureaucratic forms, such an alteration would tend to have the effect of knocking the Fabian Society’s heaven-sent powers somewhat acock.

* * *

Let me submit with becoming humility that the Labour organisations of the future being composed of moderately intelligent men (such intelligence being necessarily antecedent to the Socialist State) might understand almost, if not quite, as well as a Fabian expert—I am charitably assuming that the Fabian expert is not knocked acock as aforesaid—what they required for their own comfort and happiness and might (it’s a most outrageous proposition) even be in a better position than the inspired governmental Shavian to decide upon such changes in the machinery and methods of industry in their own department as would facilitate production and ensure them greater leisure and less arduous labour. And their conferences would instruct their delegate accordingly.

* * *

It’s an interesting subject and my vagrom speculations could, I am sure, be extended to cover several more columns at least. But the exigencies of space and pressure of many matters force me to an immediate closure. I will only add that in all my anticipations of the probable outworkings of the Socialist Society of tomorrow I can, without allowing my imagination to riot, easily conceive that there will be no overpowering necessity for any legislative holy of holies or for any administrative caste, or for any bureau of inspired experts. And however natural the longing of the “culchawed” Fabian may be for the seat of authority and the halo of beneficent superiority, it may well chance that he will not be appreciated at anything like his own estimated worth, and it may even happen in that event, that he will find himself in the unhappy position of being obliged to devote himself to the acquisition of some information likely to make of him a useful member of Society. I would therefore respectfully advise him to start trying to pick up the rudiments of a helpful calling—say woodchopping—lest the revolution overtake him while he is still endeavouring to articulate his vain regrets—his very vain regrets.

A. James