Letter: Not Standard terminology? (2008)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not Standard terminology?

I have long been impressed by the range and quality of writing in the Socialist Standard, but in “The Irish No” (September) Declan Ganley is described as a ‘self-made millionaire’ and reference is made to ‘former Communist countries’. Unqualified use of such terms, repeated ad nauseam in the capitalist media, is surely something to be avoided in a socialist journal..

Robert Stafford,

Norway

Reply: 

You’re right of course. No millionaire is “self-made” as they get rich by exploiting workers. And the so-called “Communist” countries were not communist but state-capitalist. Apologies for the missing inverted commas.– Editors

Self-made! (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent signing himself A Listener writes :

“Having participated as a humble listener in many discussions on Socialism, I have frequently heard your speakers say that no man can make his own fortune by himself alone. Would you kindly answer through the columns of your paper, the undermentioned questions?

“Now I know a man (a friend of mine) who went abroad, took a piece of land, his object being to discover gold, and fortunately it proved a success. Now this land was worked up by himself alone. 

“Do you not consider him to be a man that has made his own fortune by himself alone ?”

No, good “Listener,” your friend did not make his fortune “by himself alone.” By a fortune we understand such an accumulation of wealth as, through the control of other men’s labour that it gives, enables its owner to live without labouring himself.

In the first place there is the outstanding fact, that apart from property-founded society, wherein wealth monopoly gives some men control and mastery over the labour of other men, there can exist no fortune. Its main characteristic, the power of dominion that it imparts, is obviously conditional upon the existence of other men (and producers at that). Without these there can be no fortune.

In the second place, your friend had to be carried to the gold-bearing land, and so required the help of the steamship and railway workers and all the craftsmen and labourers who contribute to the construction of the means of transportation. He needed tools to work the land and, not less, the knowledge of where and how to get out the gold.

Thirdly, so soon as your gold-mining fortune-hunter had won a surplus over and above the amount required to purchase his means of subsistence, he doubtless, being wise in his generation, banked or otherwise invested it. That is to say, he put it to such use as entailed the exploitation of the wage workers. In the normal course of commerce, then, his property would grow by the accumulation of rent, interest or dividends, regardless of any exertion upon his part.

And so it stands demonstrated, that even in the exceptional case of your friend, the acquiring of his fortune was assisted and alone made possible, not only by the very existence and labour of countless other men, but by the accumulations of knowledge and implements made by the numberless generations of men who have preceded us. In other words, wealth accumulates to-day as a result of social activity without which the individual is utterly impotent. This is more easily seen than ever in modern industrial society, with which the Socialist is more particularly concerned when he says that no man makes (creates) his own fortune.

John H. Halls

Jottings. (1913)

The Jottings Column from the April 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

What an ungrateful world this is ! Bearing in mind the fact that it is the workers who provide the capitalists with the wealth they batten upon, one would almost suppose that the capitalists would, in a measure, be grateful for the service rendered to them, if only to the extent of giving them a decent wage in return. And so they would, no doubt, did they not know that the workers as a class are not yet wise to the game. As it is, knowing that they hold full possession of the power (again provided by the workers) whereby they can keep the workers in subjection, they are prepared to exercise it to any extent in order to maintain it. Not only do they grind their victims down to the uttermost limit of degradation, but they seek to make it appear that they are doing them (the workers) a service in allowing them to live at all !

We, as wealth producers, are expected to be grateful to them for the privilege of producing wealth, in order to hand it over to them !

And how particular they are, too ! They will insist on having the best even in buying labour power. They are connoisseurs, too, in the art of picking and choosing. Whenever a job is to be given, members of our class are paraded and eyed up and down, just for all the world like a lot of prize cattle. Those of us who are lucky (!) enough to have a job lose our personality (if we ever had any) immediately we get it, and respond to a number or a section the same as convicts.

* * *

One of the latest devices for improving this system has just come to light. It is used for particularising applicants for employment at the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges and is in connection with the working of Part 2 of the Insurance Act. This, by the way, is only one feature of the Insurance Act.

When a man presents himself to sign the unemployed register, it is said a clerk surveys him up and down and jots down by the side of his name a capital letter in accordance with a code they possess, the key to which is herewith furnished.

A.—Greyhaired.

B.—Slightly deaf.

C.—Very deaf.

D.—Tidily dressed.

E.—Untidily dressed.

F.—Down at heel.

G.—Generally unfit.

H.—Fringe at bottom of trousers.

I.—Insolent bearing.

J.—Slouchy gait.

K.—Over garrulous.

L.—Seedy appearance.

M.—Unkempt appearance.

N.—Smart appearance.

O.—Intelligent face.

No sign of gratitude here to the wealth producers—rather one of shameless cunning and insult. No sign here of the repeated promise of the Liberal tricksters to end the misery of unemployment. No ! When it comes to the process of still further weeding out the poor devils who have once before been weeded out, it is an indication that the struggle between the producers and the non producers is reaching its most acute stage. Factors such as these sound an ominous note. There are rumblings in the air. A little longer and then—Mr. Capitalist, look out !

* * *

Another “self-made” man has gone over. According to the effulgences which have lately appeared in the Press, Sir William Arrol “was essentially a self made man, owing nothing to patronage, and conquered by his own sheer indomitable will, which raised him from the humblest ranks to the most exalted position in the profession of engineering.”

Dear, dear ! Just mark what this most wonderful man accomplished. “The chief triumphs of Sir Wm. Arrol’s genius were the construction of the second Tay Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Tower Bridge, and the Nile bridges near Cairo.”

As he “owed nothing to patronage” we must assume that he did it all himself—for sport. There is no mention made of anyone giving him a lift with the job, except in the case of the Forth Bridge, when King Edward drove home the last of 6 million rivets.

Perhaps he was a magician !

* * *

In these days of capitalist sorcery one has to be prepared for anything. If someone comes along with an invention that will do away with the necessity for eating it will not be in the least surprising. As it is we are getting on that way now. If report speaks truly it will shortly be possible for the worker to remain at his task for an indefinite period. A Doctor Morton, of the State Psychopathic Hospital, Mass., has invented a substitute for sleep which permits the brain to work 24 hours a day !

The invention consists of a scientifically constructed chair in which one can rest while following his occupation (if a seated one), and in which all mental and bodily vigour is maintained. A professor who has experimented on it over a number of years has never found it necessary to close his eyes !

Phew ! Once get this going and the jig’s up ! However, it’s an ill wind that blows good to nobody. Apply the invention to our industrial system and the eight hours question is solved right away. There won’t be any !

* * *

Following upon the agitation some time ago for better conditions in the Postal Service, a Committee of Enquiry was appointed to enquire into and report upon the existing conditions of the various services in connection with the Post Office. Prominent among those who gave evidence was Sir Alexander King, the Secretary to the Post Office and Head of the Department. Obviously his purpose was to gloss over the bad conditions, and also to rebut any evidence that might damage the Department.

Now, mark ! Quite recently the Postmen’s Federation held a social at Beckenham at which their Parliamentary Secretary and Labour candidate, Mr. G. H. Stuart, presided. The honoured guest of the evening, who was received with loud applause, was—Sir Alexander King !

* * *

In connection with the recent bye-election at Houghton, the Liberal Press a few days prior thereto pointed out the farcical position of a Liberal and a Labour candidate fighting in the same contest when both stood for the same thing. It certainly is very funny, though not surprising.

The Labour candidate (Ald. House) says : “The Labour Party agrees with every item in the programme of the Liberal Party.”

The “Manchester Guardian” (12.3.13) says : “Mr. House is taking his stand at this election on the same ground as the Liberal candidate,” and goes on to complain that the Labour candidate is altering his political dress more and more to match the Liberal pattern !

Of course it must be aggravating when a chap comes along and queers the pitch. After all, though, haven’t the Liberals the best of the game ? Have they not two representatives to the Tories’ one ?

* * *

The “Labour Leader” is now mildly protesting against the too frequent appearance of Labour M.P.s on Liberal platforms. It has been quite the fashion, lately. “Everybody’s doing it.” It’s all right once in a way, but don’t over do it, you know ! Gives the game away.

Mr. W. Johnson has been unusually busy. He supported the Liberals at Coventry on the occasion of a demonstration on January 24 and on March 1 he opened a Liberal club. On March 6 he attended the annual dinner of the Bolton Liberal Club, where he informed his pals that he had given the Government his loyal support. “I am not going to be dictated to as to where I shall go,” he said, “and I would not refrain from being amongst you to-night.” There is nothing like candour !

Both Mr. Crooks and Mr. Bowerman supported the “Progressive” candidates in various wards last month, despite the fact that candidates were running under the auspices of the B.S.P., and who had, in Bow and Bromley, the support of the Gasworkers’ Union. Thus we find them in opposition to their own kind !

I don’t know that Mr. Crooks is to be blamed altogether, for he has always displayed a cringing servility toward his “betters.” Politically he is blind. As a platform orator he has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth every time he opens it, as, for instance, when he was seeing Mr. J. Ramsay McDonald off to India he admitted that “sometimes in looking up to heaven we stumble over the log that is at our feet and come a cropper because we don’t see where we are going !”

Tom Sala

Where Did They Get Their Wealth ? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is an extract from a pamphlet, “The Origin of Great Private Fortunes,” by Gustavus Myers, published by Charles H. Kerr and Co., Chicago. It is summarised from the larger work, “History of the Great American Fortunes,” by the same author.

Many fanciful descriptions have been written of the origin of these great fortunes. Usually these narratives are so much alike, so consistent in their alluring and gorgeous colouring, that the suspicion naturally occurs that well-regulated press agencies are doing their effective work. Always it is skilfully explained how these great magnates amassed their immense fortunes by industry, thrift and ability. It is further glibly explained how they created wealth and were, therefore, signal benefactors of the human race. If, incidentally, some hundreds of millions of dollars adhered to their hands, that was only the just reward of their prodigious labours.

Flowery phrases, of course, explain nothing. It is facts that count, and facts alone; and somehow it is to be invariably noted that facts are lacking in these seductive eulogies. No explanation is ever offered as to how the magnate’s got their first millions. After a man gets a few millions, it is comparatively easy, as the present system goes, to get more. But—and this is the crucial point—how does he contrive to gather in his first millions ? It does not suffice, also, to say airily that on such and such a date he acquired this railroad or that plant. What we want to know is how he obtained the resources with which to do it, and what methods he used. None of the eulogies tell us this.

To indulge in glittering statements is easy, but they leave us no more informed than we were before. They simply inebriate us with words, while all the time we are hungering for the actual facts.

If we stop to reason a moment it becomes evident that the exercise of industry, thrift and ability does not produce fortunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of millions of people work very hard, save money (when they can) and lead temperate and useful lives. But they have no fortune, except bad fortune. Vast numbers literally live from hand to mouth; they begin life in poverty, and after a lifetime of toil, end it in poverty. Others manage to acquire a little competence which is always precariously threatened by being out of work, sickness or business disaster. Obviously, if industry, thrift and ability produced great wealth, America’s working people would all have multi-millionaire fortunes.

This explanation, it is clear, does not hold, and cannot, for a second, stand the test of reason and experience.

Even, however, if one does not give serious thought to the matter, a striking circumstance is of itself sufficient to make him suspicious of the usual run of explanations. If our magnates are so honest and honourable and such pure and lofty patriots and philanthropists, why should they be so sensitive to criticism ? Why should they be so eager to purchase eulogy by contributions to charities and colleges and universities, and by owning or subsidising so many newspapers, periodicals and magazines ?

Hero Worship: A Conversation With a Visitor from Mars. (Part 2) (1927)

From the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

(Continued from last month.)

“However, Marty, I think Wells hits the right nail on the head when he explains Napoleon’s amazing popularity with his troops by the fact that they never saw him save on a few theatrical and emotional occasions, and that his soldiers idolised not Napoleon, but 'a carefully fostered legend of a little pet of a man, who was devoted to France and to them all.’ Napoleon, it seems to me, was both 'the child of the Revolution’ and the embodiment of the reaction against it. Society in the 18th and 19th century was crying aloud for 'reform,’ but was not ready for a system of society based on common ownership. Napoleon represents the rejection of the theories of Anacharsis Cloots and the beginnings of the Capitalistic State; whilst the French bank, the University and the 'Code Napoleon' were the result not so much of his 'original genius,’ as of the evident social and economic need for them.”

"There must have been, I suppose, in your planet’s history,” remarked the Martian, “many 'great men’ who have attempted to change the course of social or economic development. Have any succeeded?” "Well,” I replied, "I do not know of any individual who has changed the course, but a few have stemmed it for a while. In Roman history, Sulla attempted to re-establish the lost power of the Senate and to crush the rising Equestrian order, which consisted of wealthy traders. To effect this he framed a constitution. In a few years, however, his constitution was practically disregarded, and all that remained of his labours were his administrative and judicial reforms, which, although secondary considerations with Sulla, yet satisfied the social need for better organisation, and thus endured. Strangely enough, Marty, a comic-operatic 'Sulla,’ is operating in Rome to-day, and with the puffed-up pride mediocrity fondly hopes to achieve the success denied to his more illustrious predecessor. How truly Marx interpreted history when he wrote, 'Great historicaL facts and personages appear twice—once as tragedy and again- as farce.” (From 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.)

Many more examples, however, could be given, Marty, of men whose desire and aims have been thwarted by economic conditions, but time prevents me from doing anything save naming a few, such as Cromwell, Charles XII of Sweden, and (possibly) Lenin of Russia. Spencer has ably summarised the conclusions just arrived at in his essay, "The Social Organism,” portions of which, with your permission, I will “inflict” upon you:—

  “It is not by the 'hero as king’ any more than by collective wisdom that men have been segregated into producers, wholesale distributors, and retail distributors. The whole of our industrial organisation, from its main outlines down to its minutest details has become what it is not simply without legislative guidance but, to a considerable extent in spite of legislative hindrances. . . .  By steps so small that year after year the industrial arrangements have seemed to men just what they were before—by changes as insensible as those through which a seed passes into a tree; society has become the complex body of mutually-dependent workers we now see.  . . . The failure of Cromwell permanently to establish a new social condition and the rapid revival of suppressed institutions and practices after his death show how powerless is a monarch to change the type of a society he governs. He may disturb, he may retard, or he may aid the natural process of organisation; but the general course of this process is beyond his control. . . . Thus, that which is obviously true of the industrial structure of society, is true of its whole structure. The fact that constitutions are not made but grow is simply a fragment of the much larger fact that under all its aspects and through all its ramifications, society is a growth, and not a manufacture.”

“Well,” said the Martian, I have learned a great deal from your discourse; in the first place my conviction that human societies are not jig-saw puzzles, the parts of which have been contributed by 'great men,' but are living and ever-changing organisms in which both 'great' and 'little' men play their respective parts, has been doubly strengthened, whilst it seems evident that 'hero worship’ varies in its form and function according to the state of the community in which it exists. Thus, I gather that, early man was too self-occupied and practical to be carried away by sentimental personal idolatry, and individual control was sanctioned simply because it was the only positive control known. Later, with the evolution of abstract ideas and ideals, moral civilization came into being with the resultant glamour that attached itself to the governing members of society. In the past, my friend, ‘hero worship' seemed to have fulfilled at least one useful purpose—it provided a control over what would be, I assume (compared with your present machines for mass production), crude and strangely miscellaneous instruments of production; that is to say, society, fearing anarchy, submitted to the subordination of efficient individuals. But what of the utility of 'hero worship' at the present time?”

W. J.

(To be continued.)

Hero Worship: A Conversation With a Visitor from Mars. (Part 1) (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The first Friday in every month, I receive in my small suburban house a distinguished and eminently intellectual visitor from Mars. Where I met this worthy gentleman, in what contrivance he effects his journey to Earth, and how he mastered the English tongue, I must not divulge for I am bound to secrecy on all these points. Yet I cannot forbear from recording the conversations which have taken place between us. My friend’s remarkable criticisms of worldly institutions concerning which his mind is free from prejudices and accepted opinions, his sage interpellations and remarks, and, above all, his insatiable curiosity which has prompted me to explore and examine many aspects and phases of human life, have changed me from a meek peruser of a daily paper (the name of which rhymes with “Wail") to an eager and regular reader of a certain Socialist monthly journal.

However, on Friday, August —, the Martian entered my study, and after inquiring as to the state of my feet (in the usual Martian way), proceeded to make himself comfortable in my best arm-chair, and fixed me with his relentless inquisitive gaze. I groaned inwardly for I realised that I was doomed to the usual merciless inquisition; nevertheless, batting him playfully over the bean, I exclaimed, “Marty, old son, your little top-knot must be full of vague wonderings and misgivings again; pray unload them to your kind uncle.” He did so to the following effect—

"Esteemed and respected friend, in the course of my peregrinations and observations here below, I have noticed with astonishment that there are always various and differing individuals exalted above their fellows, and that these individuals either through accident of birth, ridiculous actions, criminal deeds or (occasionally) illustrious achievements, are regarded with almost divine reverence by their fellow-men. Now I plainly see that the conditions on this wretched planet foster and nourish this primitive "hero-worship"; ignorance, of course, induces men to believe in the superhuman powers of others higher up in the social scale, and the ignorant, aware of their own pitiful mental condition and limitations, behold with awe and amazement the petty achievements of a slightly more developed brain, moreover, 'hero-worship' is certainly aroused and nourished by your noxious newspapers. Sir, in a solitary issue of one of your vile dope-sheets I read glowing eulogies of individuals dubbed ‘princes,’ ‘duchesses,’ and 'ladies,’ sticky journalese accounts of ‘the world’s greatest cricketer,’ ‘the greatest soldier of to-day,’ ‘Hollywood’s daintiest actress,’ and even longer accounts of poor miserable wretches, who, warped by environment and damned by heredity, have committed atrocious crimes.

“But —” here the Martian jumped to his feet in his excitement and indignation, “I hear not a word except of detraction or abuse about the great masses of manual and brain workers by whose labour alone the social machinery is kept going, and I laugh aloud when I hear the results of economic conditions attributed to the ‘energy’ or the ‘wisdom' of great men. Now, sir," continued the Martian, looking at me dubiously. "I assume you know something concerning the origin, development, and effects of this hero-worship cult—pray enlighten me.”

Gracefully placing a lozenge in my mouth and coughing importantly, I spoke as follows :—

“Mankind, Marty, until quite recently, was in the main unaware of the quantitative or qualitative laws of physical causation, and natural phenomena were invariably attributed to supernatural agencies: and, sad to relate, even in the year A.D. 1927, very few mortals can interpret sociological phenomena scientifically. Thus it is not strange that the course of civilisation is considered as little else than a mere story of remarkable individuals and their actions. Last century, a rhetorical wind-bag by the name of Thomas Carlyle, expressed this opinion in the following words:—

  “ ‘As I take it, universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the history of the^great men who have lived here.'

“Marty, old boy, pass me Spencer’s 'Study of Sociology’.”

The Martian did so, and I read aloud the following:—

"Round the camp-fires assembled savages tell the events of the day’s chase; and he among them who has done some feat of skill or agility is duly lauded. On a return from the war-path the sagacity of the chief and the strength or courage of this or that warrior, are the all-absorbing themes. When the day or the immediate past affords no remarkable deed, the topic is the achievement of some noted leader recently dead . . .”

"That is a rather vague idea of the origin of ‘hero-worship,' ” remarked the Martian ; "would you favour me with a more detailed account?”

  

“In primitive human societies of the ‘totemistic ’ or ‘savage' type,” I began, “private property, except for small personal belongings, was, in the main, unknown, and land, boats, fishing-nets,, tents, etc., were generally the property of the tribe in common. Such societies provided little scope for 'heroes’; nevertheless, the germ of ‘hero-worship' was in being, as is shown by the fact that among the aborigines of Australia at certain times, ceremonial dances and songs are indulged in (under the direction of the 'Biraark' or witch-doctor), in which great events in the 'Alcheringa’ or distant past are commemorated, and ancient heroes are extolled. Moreover, the witchdoctor in these savage organisations often encourages hero-worship and plays upon the supernatural dreads of the tribesmen.”

At this juncture, I noticed that Marty seemed to be dozing.

“Are you asleep?” I exclaimed peevishly. “Not at all,” rejoined the Martian, blandly. “I can always think better with my eyes closed.”

I continued:—

"The second stage of social development is called the Patriarchal society, and in this social organisation ‘hero-worship' was much practised and encouraged. In the Patriarchal stage, paternity is the leading fact, and men are counted relatives because they are descended from the same male ancestor. This fact led to the adoration of, and the glamour of, romance, which gradually enveloped the ancestors of the different tribes; in fact, Marty, even now, in the East, ancestor-worship is the basis of religion. In the Patriarchal stage, hero-worship is essentially the common root of music, of drama, of poetry, and other miscellaneous types of literature. This is evident whether you scan the Bible, the Iliad, or the old Keltic legends. The Old Testament, Marty, is a wonderful galaxy of personalities—many of whom, incidentally, are not the patterns of virtue so regularly assumed. We are told how Abraham (after the necessary precaution of girding up his loins) journeyed to such and such a place according to the Master’s orders, and how Daniel (without the aid of a saucer of milk) showed his prowess as a lion-tamer. Jewish institutions and customs on the whole merely creep in to add colour to the biographies of the 'great men.' The old heroes were certainly revered and scoffers at the 'great men' were summarily dealt with. In Homer’s ‘Iliad,’ one Thersites, addicted to the dangerous habit of thinking for himself, foolishly questions the orders and opinions of the chiefs — his answer comes in the form of a lusty swipe from the sceptre of Ulysses.”

“But,” asked the Martian, "were there no writers or thinkers who saw that the 'worship’ of the heroes was due to the accumulation of false and supernatural tales?”

I pondered for a moment, and then answered—

"Yes, much later in the early 2nd century A.D., Lucian held up to ridicule the gods and the old heroes in witty little burlesques, in which Jupiter, Hercules and the like, become little more than buffoons. But the voice of Lucian was 'drowned in the hubbub of the book market,’ where the hero, boosting works of Pausanias, Ovid, Pindar and Euhemerus held undisputed sway encouraged by the ruling class and their literary sycophants.”

"By the way, my friend,” said the Martian, "here’s a little thought about these 'great men’ of your world. The origin of a 'great man’ is, I suppose, natural, and thus I submit he should be placed with the other phenomena which brought him forth, as the product of environment and heredity, that is the product of conditions. The offspring of two Chinese is never a Red Indian, and the son of a black reared in darkest Africa is hardly likely; to become a great philosopher or dramatist. I mean, my friend, that the 'great man’ only arrives under conditions favourable to his appearance. But please continue about the development of hero-worship after the Patriarchal stage.”

I did so.

"Sad to say, Marty, the origin of the State or Political Society coincides with the development of the art of warfare. Centuries before the decline of the Roman Empire, the drying-up of the lakes and rivers in Central Asia compelled the inhabitants of N.W. Mongolia and E. Turkestan to press westward into the broad valleys and push forward the original inhabitants of the plains; thus stems upon stems were thrown into Europe. Later, the increase of population and the desire to plunder the riches of the husbandman and the craftsman led these numerous Germanic tribes to wage war upon the more civilised societies. Thus a society dependent on great war-lords arose, and the fighting units of the society became bound by bonds of loyalty and obedience to their chief. This form of society gave a great impetus to 'Hero-worship,’ because the examples of former warriors were cited in order to stir the spirits of the youths, the adventurous life itself gave abundant opportunities for mighty deeds of valour, and, moreover, after a time, the causes of the wars seemed in the eyes of the wagers to be romantic and noble rather than economic. Then, when the host-leaders obtained permanent control of a definite territory, states evolved, while the life of the community remained essentially one of military allegiance. This is the age of Chivalric Romance. The alleged deeds of the great warlords in the earlier period were made into songs which were sung at the courts of great nobles by wandering minstrels.”

Then, taking "Romance and Legend of Chivalry,” by Hope Moncrieff, from my book-case, I read aloud the following:—

  

"Chivalry which found an organisation in the feudal system and a consecration in the wars of the Crusade, had its origin in the robust Teuton stock that mainly overspread the downfall of the Roman Empire. Tales of chivalry abounded everywhere,” I continued, "and in particular the legends connected with Arthur and Charlemagne increased and spread all over Europe. It was Cervantes in 'Don Quixote’ who gave the death-blow to the last lingering regard for romances of heroes which had become truly pitiful in their total disregard for worldly possibilities.”

"Surely they were never so ridiculously idealistic and false to worldly life as are the ‘best-sellers ’ of to-day?” interposed the Martian.

"More so, Marty, my lad. Our Ethel M. Dell’s could learn much from these later romances! However, the 'hero cult’ thus fostered by literature and encouraged at the courts became enveloped in innumerable conventions, and not a few hypocrisies, and thus the Middle Ages became the epoch of chivalry. The 'ennobling’ hero-worship and theoretical condescending regard for women ('high-born’) which were the two leading features of chivalry, did not prevent the scions of 'noble’ families from dealing with insubordinate peasants in the way Ullyses dealt with Thersites, and in France particularly, the 'chivalrous'  nobles maintained this attitude towards their providers till the Revolution of 1789. In the 'epoch of Chivalry,' also, Marty, occurred what is popularly assumed to be an essentially romantic and 'heroic’ war—the Hundred Years’ War. But this war was fought primarily not because of the heroic qualities of Edward III, the Black Prince, Henry V or Joan of Arc, but owed its origin to economic reasons. In short, the Hundred Years’ War was the struggle of England to prevent Flanders from falling under French domination, and thus ruining England’s wool trade with the Flemish manufacturing towns; as Thorold Rogers says, "From the 13th to the 16th century, wool was King." (From 'Economic Interpretation of History.)

"Now in modern times, Marty, a very curious conception of a 'hero’ has arisen. In the chivalric period, the 'hero’ was necessarily a man of 'renowned’ and 'noble’ stock, with 100 per cent. blue blood in his veins, and a son of the soil, who took it into his head to perform deeds of valour, would never be regarded as more than a 'good common soldier.’ Traces of the adoration of the 'high-born hero’ can still be seen in the enthusiasm awakened in childish minds by the movements of ’aristocratic’ nonentities, whilst in rubbishy literature, the story of the brave penniless youth who turns out to be the heir of a piffling kingdom, of which the geographical locality is not specified, still has a considerable though declining popularity; But, Marty, the rise of the bourgeois state gave birth to a 'hero’ of a different type. He is the man who is 'master of his fate'; he is the man who sweeps aside all obstacles that stand in his way to success; he scoffs at prejudices and customs; often he performs his 'wonders’ by proxy, but in that case his is the 'organising brain’; always he emerges victorious from the fight with circumstances: in short, Marty, the 'hero’ of our time is the 'self-made man.’ By far the greatest of this modern type of 'hero’ is Napoleon Bonaparte. H. G. Wells, with his typical bourgeios self-satisfaction, pours wholesale contempt upon the mental and social qualities of Bonaparte. He points out that his notebooks, crammed full with miscellaneous and unconnected observations, show little of a great brain; he states that Napoleon is not known to have had a single genuine friend, and he asserts (with considerable justification) that historical evidence points to the fact that all his actions primarily sprung from egotistical impulses. The very success of Napoleon’s career, however, gives the answer to Wells' unwritten insinuation that Bonaparte compared with the talented writer of 'The Outline of History' would cut a very insignificant intellectual figure. Also we must distrust Wells’ valuations of the abilities of others, when we consider his condescending attitude towards Lenin in an interview generously granted by the Russian in the busy time of the winter of 1920-21. (See Trotsky's "Lenin," chapter 8.) 

W. J.

To be continued.

Link to Part 2.

The Art of Getting On. (1919)

From the July 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are two comments on the present economic system, by H. de Vere Stacpoole in his book "The Children of the Sea" which deserve consideration and criticism from a Socialist's point of view. Let us see what he says.

On page 106 we read that he "has noticed that the men who get on in life are not the men who work, but the men who make others work for them."

Exactly ! Under the present system of production—which is simply production for profit —the one idea of the profit-mongers is to amass wealth by using the workers as their wealth producers, at the same time abstaining from labour themselves. The lot of the workers is to toil for the class that own the essential means of life. The working class, being landless and propertyless, are dispossessed of the basic means of wealth production, therefore they are completely at the mercy of the master class, and are compelled to accept the conditions imposed on them by their exploiters.

All the wealth in the world has been, and is, made by the workers, and all the marvellous wealth-producing machinery also. Yet the capitalist class appropriate all that is produced by their wage slaves, paying them back in wages only sufficient in the long run to maintain themselves and their families as efficient wealth-producers, and to reproduce their own class as potential wage slaves for the future benefit of the capitalist class.

This fact is abundantly proved by the fact that the workers as a class live and die in poverty.

"The men who work," as a general rule, do not "get on in life." They are so occupied with their enforced task of getting on with the work that produces their masters' profits that they do not live, in the real sense, at all: they only exist as profit-making machines. They sell their labour-power, their very vitality, daily; men and women and children, under the present system, have to sell themselves as commodities in the labour market in the same way as other commodities, like matches or margarine, are sold in the commercial market.

And the capitalists live only by their robbery of the working class. Vampire-like, they are sustained only by sapping the energy and life of their wage slaves.

In consequence dire misfortune is the toilers' lot, e.g., unemployment, care and anxiety, want, overwork, disease, and premature death—all arising from the wages system.

The functions of the master class—"the men who get on in life"—are to rob the workers of the greater part of the wealth alone produced by the latter, to devise all kinds of cunning schemes to increase the exploitation of the workers, and at the same time to delude them as to their real interests, and make them docile, contented, and industrious.

The political machine being completely controlled by the capitalist class, all legislation is, naturally, for their interests alone, and directed toward their continued dominance. As a class they thus get stronger and stronger, possessing the twin powers of political supremacy and the fundamental means of life.

The rich thus grow richer and the poor ever poorer in relation.

Yes, the art of "getting on" is that of making others work for one, and to use wealth for the purpose of further robbing the only class producing it: the working class.

Now for a consideration of Mr. Stacpoole's other comment. On page 198 we read—

  "In this little, tiny industry you might have observed the fact, ignored by trade unions and labour leaders the world over, that success in business is not born of men, but of a man, that the outcome of the fight between business and business, like the fight between battleship and battleship, rests on the tactics developed by a single mind."

What is success in business but a victory in "the fight between business and business"—the driving of competitors from the market; buying labour-power as cheaply as possible with the one idea of extracting from its activities as much surplus-value, or profit, as one can ?

"Success in business" is often the result of utter unscrupulousness, cunning, and astute "twisting." Fraud, misrepresentation, and the quintessence of greed and exploitation are frequently the allies of "sound business methods." Underselling, "rigging" the markets, raising false mercantile reports, and "cornering"— these are some of the "tactics developed by a single mind" as phrased by Mr. Stacpoole.

But surely he does not consider that the successful business man is so perfectly self-sufficing and "brainy" that he is independent of the contributory help of others ?

Let us deal with actuality. As a class the capitalists do nothing at all toward actual production. The great capitalists generally employ men to be organisers and overseers, exploiting their initiativs, push, directive ability, and hustle in order to obtain the utmost amount of productivity from the labour-power embodied in the bodies and minds of the exploited wage slaves.

The capitalist and "big business man" is not the great god Mr. Stacpoole supposes him to be. If predatory instincts and a fully-developed avaricious and scheming nature are prime virtues, then the capitalists, as a class, are the embodiment of sterling worth.

The truth is that no man stands alone ; no man is absolutely independent of society, or not indebted to the accumulated advantages and knowledge long since derived— the result of the historical development of society. Heredity and environment, experience and the utilisation of ideas and suggestions from all kinds of sources, all these things go to secure a superior position in the fight for business supremacy. The gifts and their development are the outcome of social environment.

The invention of a labour-saving device often results in the actual inventor having to sell his invention because he cannot afford to patent it. Or it may be infringed upon, or perhaps his idea may be brazenly stolen. The workers (usually considered by their exploiters as mere mechanical "hands"), being practical men, do the inventing, and generally speaking, the capitalist class reap the fruits of the former's creative ability and industry.

Instances innumerable can be cited to prove the parasitic and thievish nature of our exploiters. These "merchant princes," these 'captains of industry," of what social use are they ? What is their function but to exploit ? Generally they have not brains enough to do that efficiently, but depend on their hirelings to superintend and organise, while they themselves are immune from the necessity of working even for a single day's bread. Their thieves' opulence enables them to waste untold wealth, in every way.

Shameless vampires ! they have yet the effrontery to claim that "success in business" is the outcome of their own "directive ability."

If Mr. Stacpoole harbours any hazy economic opinions and pro-capitalist ideas, let him rid himself of them by studying the facts of capitalist production and its results, and understanding the fundamental truths of Marxian economics. Part truth and part falsity, like oil and water, will not mix. When half-truths go the truth arrives.

In conclusion, let me ask Mr. Stacpoole one question. He is a successful author. Let him think deeply. Does he understand the debt he owes to the writers of the past and present, and what he owes to favourable circumstances that have made him what he is, and also the advantages that are his through his position in contemporary society ?

Let Mr. Stacpoole think over this, and he will begin to understand that, in a very real sense, the term "a self-made man" is a misnomer. As regards Commerce and Industry, he will also understand that, under a ruthless, sordid system like the present, one man's gain is often achieved at the price of many men's loss ! and that the "tactics developed by a single mind" are often sought, bought, and paid for by the very worst enemies of society as we know it to day—the unscrupulous, plundering capitalist class—who do not hesitate to plunge the world into a colossal war when their interests demand it.

To them, in "peace" or in war, no sacrifice (of the workers' lives) is too great when capitalist interests are at stake.

Graham May

Political Notebook: Jack Cohen is dead — Long live Jack Cohen (1979)

The Political Notebook Column from the May 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The apologists for capitalism are not known for their high principles. Profits come first under their system. This month’s Notebook takes a look at what a few of the twisting hypocrites have been up to lately and comes to the not surprising conclusion that the sooner the working class stops supporting the lot of them the better it will be for us all.

Jack Cohen is dead — Long live Jack Cohen

Sir John Cohen—described in one obituary as ‘the golden barrowboy who became the supermarket king'—died last month at the age of 80. According to the press reports, Cohen's was a 'rags to riches’ story of a man who pushed his way up the capitalist ladder until, at the time of his death, his Tesco stores' annual turnover is breaking the £1,000,000,000 barrier. The reason for this success was, according to The Jewish Chronicle, that

 Sir John was a redoubtable entrepreneur renowned for his aggressive salesmanship . . .

In fact, Sir John, just like any capitalist businessman made his profits by exploiting the working class. His own level of education or intelligence was, fortunately for him. another matter. But there is one thing that might puzzle the readers of Cohen’s sycophantic obituaries. If you go into any Tesco store you will observe that, despite the death of the owner, things are carrying on just as usual. It’s almost as if the dull, witless workers are able to organise things without the capitalists to tell them how to do it.

People's Democratic Prisons

It is a well known fact that China is a People's Democracy. And just like the other People’s Democracies, if workers have the audacity to complain that rich leaders are living it up at the expense of the poor toilers, they're locked away in a democratic people’s prison to punish them for their cheek. Increasingly in recent times, wall posters in Peking have criticised the undemocratic character of the Chinese State. The first reaction of the Communist Party was to lock up these bolshie proletarians for having the nerve to try and dictate to them, but more recently, according to The Guardian (14 March)

  China’s wall-poster protestors have won a major victory with the release from prison of a group of students who were the first to call for the establishment of ‘socialist democracy’ and a proper legal system. The leader of the group, Li Zhengtia, spent nearly four years doing forced labour in the mines or in prison or in the southern province of Guangdong. Posters on 'Democracy Wall’ in Peking have claimed that as many as seven hundred people were punished for their connection with the group.

Chinese workers are correct to doubt the value of their ‘People’s Democracy’. But under Chinese capitalism the liberty of the commodity comes before that of the people.

Exploitation without discrimination 

When apartheid is overturned it will not be because of the whining of trendy liberals like Peter Hain, but because the capitalist class who have interests in South Africa will see the profitability of the equal exploitation of all colours. An item in Boxing News (9 February) shows that South African fight promoters have discovered that mixed fights pull in larger audiences and so make them more money. So, these principled gentlemen who sincerely believe in the good sense of racial separation drop their high principles before the temple of Profitability. The situation now is that

   Blacks can manage and train whites. Whites are permitted to manage and train blacks. Blacks can promote major tournaments and whites have gone out of their way to assist blacks with better training facilities and financial support. Several major South African companies have come to the aid of boxing and Alan Proctor, a director of Sanyo, is looked upon by many as a godfather. Sanyo have poured thousands upon thousand of Rand into boxing and have just completed a Sanyo Boxing Academy in Soweto.

Other companies to invest in South African boxing since mixed fights started have been Old Buck Gin, Nashua. King Korn and Datsun. The spread of anti-racist liberalism? No bloody fear! All that’s happened is that the capitalists have seen the value of exploiting without discriminating against colour. Which must make liberals like Peter Hain terribly, terribly happy.

The Moronic Martyr

Robert Relf is a racist clown who has been on a hunger strike in gaol after being convicted under the Race Relations Act for posting up stickers saying that black people spread diseases and should live in the trees. Relf’s opinions can only be treated seriously in a psychiatric sense, but it is worthy of note that when he appeared at the Court of Appeal on 12 March to threaten the Court with his imminent martyrdom Lord Justice Lawton declared that

  if Relf wants to commit suicide that’s up to him. We are not going to be blackmailed . . . the sooner that is appreciated by him and others like him the better it will be for law and order in this country.

Readers may like to consider the fact that this great believer in law and order was himself a member of, and candidate for, Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. The main difference between Relf and Lawton is that the former is a moronic lout who is willing to act as a stooge for the sinister ambitions of his National Front leaders, while the latter is a professional hypocrite who is willing to act as a stooge to a rather wider section of the ruling class.

Steve Coleman

The "Wisdom" of a "Captain of Industry." (1921)

From the September 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Happening to glance through an old copy (1.6.21) of the "Daily News," the writer came across an article by H. Gordon Selfridge entitled "The Fixed Price Fiction." As one or two of the points raised in the article are an interesting example of the lack of knowledge, or the deliberate perversion of the truth, of a leading capitalist, a column will be usefully occupied with a few comments on them.

Mr. Selfridge sets out with the following statement:

  "The present condition of things exists because the buying abilities of the peoples of the world has been diminished. . . It is a phase, and a phase which can be overcome by time and hard work."

How fond is the capitalist of preaching "hard work" ! Mr. Selfridge's alleged solution to the problem will not be very satisfying to those hundreds of thousands who are tramping, far and wide over this country, looking for the hard work that eludes them like a will-o'-the-wisp. A week or two ago hundreds of unemployed waited all night outside a London timber yard to answer an advertisement for a few porters; some of them had walked many miles (one was reported to have walked from Portsmouth, and others from a still greater distance !), on the chance of getting work. Only the other day about four thousand workless lined up, and waited for hours, in Holborn, on the same errand. All over the country "short time" and the discharging of workmen is the order of the day. The fact is there are many slowly dying at the present moment on account of the lack of the hard work that Mr. Selfridge advocates. 

The tragic side of the situation is that, from one point of view, hard work has had much to do with the bringing about of the present state of affairs. Hard work on the part of the working class in the past has been the means of devising and building the stupendous machinery and methods of production which render so many workless today. Wealth is turned out so rapidly, and so prolifically, that all effective demands are met almost immediately they are known, and factories and shops are overflowing with the goods for which there is no customer with the wherewithal to buy. At the same time would-be workers are walking about starving, ill-clad, and badly sheltered for want of the very goods for which the owners can find no buyer; and (the irony of it !) these unemployed workers have been thrown out of employment because too much wealth has been produced! Instead of hard work solving the problem it has brought about the problem itself.

A little farther on in his article Mr. Selfridge makes a statement that is often heard by the Socialist; a statement that is becoming hoary with age. It is usually put forward as a clinching argument to prove that the existing method of producing wealth has always been in operation, and must go on to the end of time. The statement referred to is as follows :—

  "Production for one's own individual use is both made possible and limited by one's own individual requirements. But production for the use of other people can be based on nothing else than the profits of the one who goes out of his way to so produce. We should very soon find that no profit meant no production, for there must be an incentive to work of that kind."

With minor exceptions the whole of the work involved in the production and distribution of wealth under capitalism is performed by the working class. The working class performs this work in return for wages that, on the average, barely allow the members of that class to live, and to reproduce their kind. Consequently "the one who goes out of his way to so produce" does not do so for a profit; he works in order to live. The profit incentive only concerns the capitalist; the individual who does not take part in wealth production.

A sufficient refutation of Mr. Selfridge's contention is contained in the record of the numberless inventors, artists, and scientists of all types, who underwent years of drudgery in following the path that attracted them, with no other hope or reward than life-long poverty and a pauper's grave. Here and there we have the illustration of more fortunate individuals, placed outside the necessity of working for a livelihood (for example, Darwin, and Robert Owen for the greater part of his life), who have occupied almost the whole of their lives with arduous labour that not only brought no return in the shape of profit, but actually used up a considerable portion of the wealth they already possessed.

Finally, let it be borne in mind that, in the past, wealth was produced and distributed for thousands of years under different forms of communism before the conditions that developed the idea of profit existed.

Gilmac.

Jottings. (1921)

The Jottings Column from the July 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reading the Press from day to day we are kept fally informed of the plots that are hourly discovered and which are intended—so we are usually told—to undermine the edifice of the British Constitution and to bring to ruin and decay the civilisation upon which rests our "glorious Empire." Full details have been collected of Sinn Fein plots in England, Irish plots in Russia, German plots in Palestine, Jewish plots in Germany, Communist plots in Timbuctoo, and so on without end.

Lord Birkenhead (famous for his connection with the Ulster plot) was telling the Cotton Conference at Manchester the other day what he knew about the plot of the Bolsheviks to extend the coal strike in England to a general stoppage. After referring to the source of information as "detected intercepted documents," he went on to pay a tribute to the "traditional commonsense of the British people," and to say that owing to the "sanity and sobriety of the British working man" the sinister plot had been shattered, and, he hoped, shattered beyond recall. "However misguided the miners may have been, their loyalty to their leaders and endurance typified the spirit of loyalty and determination which enabled Great Britain to make such a special contribution to the winning of the war." ("Manchester Guardian," June 23, 1921.)

The reader will at once conclude that this sounds fishy, and that there must be something behind it all. Of course there is. Turning to another part of the same paper we find in the political correspondent's report that a conspiracy had been revealed which was led by Lord Birkenhead and included Churchill, Lord Beaverbrook, and others, the purpose of which was the overthrow of the Prime Minister in order to alter the basis of the Coalition. In this case also the plot was shattered—not because of the "traditional common sense of the British people," but because Churchill did not see his way clear to success.

The connection between the two instances is obvious. Everything depends upon being able to secure the support of the working-class population of the country by means of their votes, hence the talk at Manchester and the Press reports.

Which is bluff, purely and simply. For their own purposes they have other methods, also, which are not supposed to be the concern of those outside. The British workers may possess those qualities attributed to them by Lord Birkenhead, but they will certainly have to be applied in a different direction if they are ever going to come into their own.

--0--

The dishing of the Communists by the Labour Party over the question of affiliation to that body will certainly rile them. In seeking affiliation they not only prove that, stripped of all their pseudo-revolutionary trappings, they are nothing but a party of opportunist reformers, but also that they haven't a platform strong enough to stand on. Their understanding of Socialism is certainly in need of a tonic when they claim that by joining forces with the anti-Socialist left wing of Liberalism they can better serve the interests of the workers. That exhortation to the trade unionists to "watch your leaders" is really funny.

--0--

Lever Brothers, Ltd. report a profit of £3,270,091 in 1920, after providing for depreciation, insurance, etc. This compares with £2,439,067 in 1919. The fixed dividends on the preference and the prefered ordinary shares are to be paid, and the ordinary, held by the Lever family, will have 20 per cent. paid on them, absorbing £456,000. This is 2¼ more than in 1919. Not very bad considering these rotten times.

--0--

Some little time ago the Editor of "John o' London" invited well-known people to state in his journal what particular book they would place in the hands of a young man of 21 in the belief that it would tend to form both his mind and character to his life-long advantage. Lord Leverhulme was one of those who was invited to have a shot. He replied—you've guessed it—Smiles's "Self Help"!

Tom Sala

By The Way. (1920)

The By The Way Column from the April 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the days of long ago we were accustomed to hear that "Socialism would break up the family life," but with the world war raging it soon became manifest that the sending of working men to participate in the masters' quarrel was a more potent factor for achieving that object. While the men of England were "crushing the German military menace" and making the world safe for democracy and "our women" later results would seem to show that there are Huns in other places than Germany. A study of the Press would soon clinch the point.

With the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia the antis here soon got to work and a new cry was taken up by them. For the benefit of those folk who put their thinking out to be done for them, like they do their dirty linen, the story was told and re-told of how the Bolsheviks "nationalised" their women, and other lying statements were made in order to throw dust in the eyes of the working people here. Yet at the same time in Christian England we speak of "public women" and on contents bills of local newspapers the line "The Social Evil" meets our eye week after week. Verily our masters are a gang of hypocrites.

Now we read of an astounding proposition emanating from the land of "our gallant ally," France. I will quote the announcement in full. Here it is:

   "A daring proposal for increasing the birth-rate in France is made in the "Paris Medical,"  by M. Paul Carnot, Professor of Therapeutics at the Faculty of Medicine at Paris University. He says that if the birthrate in France is not considerably increased in a few years France's losses of 2,000,000 men in the war will have been quadrupled.
   Discussing the methods by which maternity could be made a remunerative career for women, he asks whether society should not confide the mission of increasing the population to a large number of "volunteers of maternity," the community bearing the expense of rearing children and giving bonuses in respect of healthy offspring. " —"Daily News," March 26th, 1920.

Doubtless the master class have it in mind that, in order to maintain their system, wage-slaves and an armed force are necessary, and though the war just terminated was to be the last war, signs are not wanting that those who uttered such puerile twaddle so short a while ago were gravely in error or deliberately "kidding" the simple ones. Hence the necessity for preparedness for future eventualities thus the need for "volunteers of maternity." What will the antis say now ?

#    #    #    #

We have all heard at some time or other that if we were careful, industrious, thrifty, god-fearing, and abstained from Bacchanalian orgies the ladder was clear and easy of access for every one of us to climb to fame and wealth. Have we not heard of this man and that who started life in humble surroundings and, by practising the virtues enumerated above, ultimately became what our false teachers call "self made men" ? Most workers now realise that to be born in the ranks of the working class means being doomed to remain there until the end of their days.

For the benefit of those who accept the dictum that we all have an equal opportunity of rising to the pinnacle portrayed by these misleaders, the following taken from the Inland Revenue Department and quoted in an article in "Reynolds's Newspaper" (28.3.20.) should afford some enlightenment:

(1) 340,000 persons added £2,846,000,000 to their fortunes.
(2) 280 persons added an average of £700,000 to their fortunes (total wealth) between the outbreak of war and June 30th, 1919.
(3) 200 persons added an average increase of £330,000 each to their fortunes.
(4) 564 added an average of £230,000 each to their fortunes.
(5) The remaining 44,500,000 being all those who were worth less than £5,000 on June 30, 1919, added £1,334,000,000 to their fortunes. Just less than one-half of the increase of wealth belonging to the favoured half-million.

No, the road to affluence and power is not through grinding toil.

#    #    #    #

The oneness of the international master class has just recently been illustrated. How beautifully humane they are in their treatment of their slaves. From a report dealing with the revolt on the part of the German workers take the following extract:

  "Fighting continues in most of the thickly populated areas, and has been particularly severe in the Rhineland and at Leipzig, where the workers shot down a military aeroplane after bombs had been dropped on the city.—-"Daily News," March 20th, 1920.

It matters not what part of the capitalist world one looks at to observe the fact that whenever a revolt on the part of the workers takes place it is always met with the armed forces of capitalist society. When will the workers learn the lesson from the past and understand their position in society, then organise to overthrow the system that robs them of the fruit of their labours. "Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to win !"

#    #    #    #

On more than one occasion lately Mr. Lloyd George has told those who read his speeches that there is growing up in this country a movement which means to put an end to the capitalist system. To counteract this movement he desires a fusion of the different political parties he thinks that by this method he can give an extended lease of life to his capitalist paymasters. The puny efforts of this political mountebank are only to be likened to Mrs. Partington endeavouring with her broom to stay the incoming tide.

Strange, is it not, that this individual who was so loud in his condemnation of capitalist society from 1906 to 1910 should now be so keen in endeavouring to maintain that system, which he said at Swansea on October 1st, 1908, "No one can really honestly defend."

#    #    #    #

Perhaps in view of the foregoing paragraph a few extracts from that speech would not be amiss, Indeed, it may be helpful to those who as yet only see as through a glass darkly. In that speech Lld. George himself states part of the indictment against capitalism and furnishes the Socialist with ammunition to help him in storming the capitalist citadel. Let me quote:

  "There are 43 millions of people in this country. They are not here of their own choice. Whether they are here by accident or by the direct decree of Providence, at any rate they have had no control or voice in the selection of the land of their birth. If hundreds and thousands of them either starved, or were on the brink of starvation, we must not blame Providence for this misfortune. There are abundant material resources in this country to feed, clothe, and shelter them all—yea, and if properly husbanded and managed to do the same for many millions more."

Speaking of the callous indifference of the capitalist class he says :

  "We are still confronted with the more gigantic task of dealing with the rest—the sick, the infirm, the unemployed, the widows, and the orphans. No country can lay any real claim to civilisation that allows them to starve. Starvation is a punishment that society has ceased to inflict for centuries on its worst criminals, and at its most barbarous stage humanity never starved the children of the criminal.
   But what happens to-day. . . A workman breaks down in his prime, and permanently loses his power of earning a livelihood. . . . Why should he be allowed to starve and his children to die of hunger in this land of superabundant plenty ?"

Another quotation from the same source taken from the right honourable gentleman's speech at Newcastle, on October 9th, 1909, is particularly appropriate at this juncture. In fact, were he to refresh his memory once again and give utterance to his former speeches, one could imagine the cry of "Bolshevik" escaping from the lips of his patriotic supporters. In the speech referred to he asked a series of questions, as follows:

  "Who ordained that a few should have the land of Britain as a perquisite ? Who made ten thousand people owners of the soil, and the rest of us trespassers in the land of our birth ? Who is it who is responsible for the scheme of things whereby one man is engaged through life in grinding labour to win a bare and precarious existence for himself . . . and another man who does not toil receives every hour of the day, every hour of the night, whilst he slumbers, more than his poor neighbour receives in a whole year of toil ? " (Extracts from "Better Times," by D. Ld. George.)

Now this was the position of the workers fourteen years ago when Lld. George and the Liberal Party came into office — then he was going to lead us to the "fields of waving corn." At that period he stated — "If at the end of an average term of office it were found that a Liberal Parliament had done nothing to cope seriously with the social condition of the people, to remove the national degradation of slums and wide-spread poverty and destitution in a land glittering with wealth. . . then would a real cry arise in this land for a new party."

Fourteen months ago the same gentleman, having won the war, came along with his Coalition Party and his "New World"' stunt. A gain he glibly talked about a "land fit for heroes," and his reform-mongering panacea for all our social ills. Surely the time has arrived when he should be judged by the test he himself laid down fourteen years ago. Let the workers themselves ask and answer the question —Has Lloyd George and his Governments done anything to cope seriously with the social condition of the people, the poverty and destitution? Then, I think, they will bring in a verdict that capitalism has been found guilty, and that the next thing to do is to pronounce sentence of death and usher in the Socialist Commonwealth.

#    #    #    #

It is extremely interesting to read the pronouncements of the men of God. Just recently Cardinal Bourne, in his Lenten pastoral, declared, according to the "Illustrated Sunday Herald" (15.2.1920), that "through the terrible scourge of the war God has wrought a real improvement in His People. Evils such as prodigal expenditure and unrestrained luxury were the outcome of the unreasoning restlessness which has always followed a terrible conflict. But deeper down one saw a more genuine desire in all classes to see justice done to those who in the past had been exposed to poverty, pauperism, and desolate old age."

Really the follower of the lowly Nazarene must have had his rose-coloured spectacles on to observe the things he portrays. Where, might I ask, is the "real improvement to be found? True we have read of the millionaire who has found "real improvement," and who exclaimed "What is the use of having a war if you do not make anything out of it ?" But generally speaking, from a working-class point of view, no improvement is discernible.

As to the statement that "deeper down one saw a more genuine desire to see justice done to those who had been exposed to poverty, pauperism, and desolate old age," that, to put it mildly, is a terminological inexactitude. The bitter struggle which ensues when these people endeavour to obtain an increase of wages or pension to keep pace with the ever-increasing cost of living gives the lie direct to these Holy Joes who prate about "genuine desires."

#    #    #    #

In the days long ago when I used to attend Divine Worship one heard a great deal about the gospel of Christ being a gospel of peace and goodwill towards men. Maybe this was a good stunt for Sunday, intended to be put away in the drawer with the Sunday clothes. During the war period we are all aware that notwithstanding the lip-service given to this glorious gospel of "peace" by the ambassadors of Christ, they were, in the main, whole-hearted supporters of war to the bitter end, aye, to the last drop of somebody else's blood. Even now that our masters have arranged a kind of patched-up peace they want to be preparing for the next war. Witness the following :

  "At the morning and evening services at the Waltham Abbey Baptist Church yesterday the congregations passed resolutions declaring that the closing of the Royal Gunpowder Factory would have a disastrous effect upon the town and neighbourhood, and calling upon the Prime Minister to intervene to save the factory and thus avert the spread of unemployment. "—"Daily News," March 1st, 1920.

Here you have the glories of Christianity and capitalism. On Sunday you have the local tin-Bethelites forgathering ostensibly for worship and preparation for the "next world," but the uncertainty of an existence in this apparently troubles them more. They have their eyes firmly fixed on the main chance. What damned hypocrisy!

#    #    #    #

At one time we heard a lot about the lofty ideals of the Allies—that they did not enter the war for self-aggrandisement or gain; no, simply to crush Prussian militarism and make the world safe for democracy. How successful they have been even an individual with one eye can perceive. From time to time quite a number of little differences have arisen among these would-be saviours of the universe over the division of the spoils. Take this as a recent example:

  "In shipping circles the decision of the Supreme Council with regard to the allocation of German tonnage among the Allies is being awaited with some anxiety. The council is to deal with the thorny question this week. France is going to fight against the plan that each Ally should be allowed to retain all the ships captured or interned in that Ally's ports during the war. Under this plan America would retain 50 per cent. more German tonnage than she lost. France would suffer in comparison, but so would this country, although much bitter French criticism is directed against us. France, it is asserted, will decline to hand back the 250,000 tons allocated provisionally for her use, in addition to her final share in the restricted pool, so that an amicable solution seems difficult of attainment. "— "Reynolds's," March 21st, 1920.

Another interesting piece of information was vouchsafed to us by the daily Press a few days ago. It concerns the question of "our mandate'' for Mesopotamia, and it runs thus :

  "Mr. Lloyd George has stated that the reason why we are extending our frontiers to include the distant province of Mosul is that ‘Mosul is a country with great possibilities. It has rich oil deposits.’"— "Daily News," March 29th, 1920.

Of course we are not told who are going to work these rich oil-fields or who will receive the dividends arising therefrom. But it is perfectly obvious that all the benefits to be derived therefrom will accrue to Lloyd George's paymasters, the capitalists. Working men laid down their lives to make this secure for their masters.

#    #    #    #

While we are exhorted to work, and work harder, to increase production, I note that a "vote as a grant-in-aid of the mission of the Prince of Wales to Australia and New Zealand is fixed so as not to exceed £20,000." A holiday for the parasites of society while the only useful class toils on to maintain them in luxury. When will the workers awake and end the system which robs them of the fruits of their toil ? 

The Scout

Getting it made (1985)

From the July 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thump. The morning post drops on the doormat. Over breakfast I begin my inspection. A glossy mail order catalogue. Another invitation to play bingo in "your super Sun". A second reminder about the electricity bill. And then — a brochure glowingly advertising a book that could revolutionise my whole way of life. Intrigued. I read on, a spoonful of cornflakes posed in mid-air.

The book is called The Science of Getting Rich, modestly described as the "single best source book ever written on the subject", but curiously "not available in bookstores". It is intended for those "whose most pressing need is for money — who wish to get rich first and philosophise afterwards" — presumably the sort of person not prone to frequenting bookstores.

How to get rich, the brochure tells me. is the "noblest and most necessary of all studies":

 Whatever may be said in praise of poverty, the fact remains that it is not possible to live a really complete or successful life unless one is rich. We develop in mind, soul and body by making use of things and society is so organised that we must have money in order to possess things.

At last, good news for those of us accustomed to fretting over electricity bills — we need not philosophically resign ourselves to poverty much longer:

  There is a Science of Getting Rich and it is an exact science like algebra or arithmetic. There are certain laws which govern the process of acquiring riches. Once these laws are learned and obeyed by anyone, he will get rich with mathematical certainty.
  Many people will scoff at the idea that there is an exact Science at Getting Rich. Holding the impression that the supply of wealth is limited. they will insist that social and governmental institutions must be changed before considerable numbers of people can acquire wealth. This is not true. Existing governments keep the masses in poverty only because the average person does not act in a Certain Way.

In 1980. according to the Inland Revenue. the richest one per cent of the population owned 23 per cent of the total marketable wealth in Britain, which amounted to £566,000 million. The poorest 50 per cent, on the other hand, owned less than six per cent of this wealth. Translating these figures into pounds and pence, the average person among the richest one per cent of the population held £315,000 in private wealth while the average for the poorest half of the population works out at roughly £1,600 each. In fact, this probably understates the degree of wealth concentration because of the greater ease with which the wealthy can withhold information about their assets for taxation purposes.

Is there any indication that this marked inequality is becoming less so in the long run? In his famous work, Equality, first published in 1931, the historian R.H. Tawney wrote trenchantly of the tremendous inequalities that existed then in Britain. But by the time the fourth edition of his book appeared in 1952, Tawney had come to the view that under the post-war Labour government there had been a discernible move "towards the conversion of a class-ridden society into a community in fact as well as name". The subsequent three decades were cruelly to expose this for the wishful thinking it was.

While the share of the marketable wealth held by the richest one per cent has indeed plunged dramatically from 60 per cent in 1923 to 47 per cent in 1950 to its present level of 23 per cent, this has not been reflected in any significant increase in the proportion of wealth held by the great majority. Instead, as A. B. Atkinson has pointed out in his Unequal Shares, "what distribution there has been is not between the rich and the poor but between the rich and the rich", with the lesser rich gaining in relative terms. The bottom 80 per cent of the population still own less of the total wealth than the richest one per cent.

As for Denis Healey's boast that he would "squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked", that richest one per cent actually increased its share of the wealth in the first few years of the last Labour government. In contrast, the share of the wealth held by the poorest 50 per cent marginally declined between 1974 and 1980 (Guardian, 18 March 1984). Apparently, "it happens quite regularly that the rich get richer under Labour governments and poorer under Tory governments because of the strong influence of house and share prices" (Guardian, 18 October 1983). Clearly, in the politics of the market-place, egalitarian sentiments count for little.

But what about the claim made in the brochure? Is it realistic still to hope, in the face of this chronic inequality, that "considerable numbers of people can acquire wealth"? Before examining why this is simply not possible, we need to dispose of one or two false arguments.

The first is that however unequal our society is today we are all of us, better off than our grandparents were. We eat better, live longer, travel far more widely and even the poorest have access to the sort of technology undreamed of by our forebears. Broadly speaking this is quite true, although there is a danger here in confining our observations along too parochial lines. Taking a wider perspective this argument is by no means as clear cut and convincing as it may seem. Certainly in some parts of the world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, it is highly questionable whether in absolute terms the majority are better off than they were, say, two or three decades ago. Per capita food production in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen continuously and, irrespective of drought, by no less than 20 per cent in as many years as subsistence farmers have found themselves increasingly squeezed by commercial pressures.

But in any case the argument itself is not relevant to the central issue at stake. This is how Marx saw it:

  A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all demands for a dwelling. But let a palace arise beside the little house, and it shrinks from a little house to a hut. The little house shows now that its owner has only very slight or no demands to make; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilisation, if the neighbouring palace grows an equal or even greater extent, the occupant of the relatively small house will feel more and more uncomfortable. dissatisfied and cramped within its four walls.
  A noticeable increase in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. The rapid growth of productive capital brings about an equally rapid growth of wealth, luxury, social wants, social enjoyments. Thus, although the enjoyments of the worker have risen the social satisfaction that they give has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the state of development of society in general. Our desires and pleasures spring from society; we measure them by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature. (Wage Labour and Capital)

A second is the myth of the "self-made man". The presumption is that if one person has been able to rise from rags to riches, then so too can others. All they lack is the necessary drive and initiative. It must be said firstly that the so-called self made man is something of a rarity, an exception to the rule that wealth, by and large, gravitates to those who already have it;

  Research by historians does show that the rich are not, on the whole, self-made men like, say, the publishers. Robert Maxwell, or the computer tycoon. Sir Clive Sinclair.
  This has been demonstrated by Professor C D Harbury. who compared the wills of men leaving large sums in selected years from the 1950s to the 1970s with those of their fathers, traced through probate and birth registration records at Somerset House. Harbury found that 60 per cent of men leaving £100,000 or more since the 1950s had rich fathers. And some three quarters of these had fathers whose fortunes were ten times the amount that would have included them amongst the richest 10 per cent of the population.

(New Society, 6 October 1983)

The millionaire Malcolm Forbes, when asked how he came to be so rich replied that it was all due to "sheer industry and ability — you spell those words i-n-h-e-r-i-t- a-n-c-e". The case of one Gerald Grosvenor illustrates this particularly well. Otherwise known as the sixth Duke of Westminster. Grosvenor is reputedly the richest man in Britain with a personal fortune estimated as "somewhere between £1,000 and £2,000 million" (Sunday Mirror, 9 January 1983). This stupendous wealth derives chiefly from extensive landholdings both in this country and abroad. Contrary to what the more politically crass defenders of the status quo would suggest, it is not "superior intellect" or some other such personal attribute that has enabled the duke to amass this wealth. If anything, by the standards which these defenders would judge "intellect", Grosvenor rates as a nondescript — he has two O levels to his name. Where he differs from his intellectual peers is in having had the right ancestors:

  Unwitting founder of the fortune was Mary Davies, who in 1677 married Sir Thomas Grosvenor and brought with her as dowry some damp and sub standard farmland. It is unlikely that the recipients thought much of this until the expansion of London made that land valuable. Mary Davies' marsh land is now 300 acres of swishest London covering Mayfair and Belgravia.

(New Internationalist, July 1984)

But whether the fortunes of the rich are inherited, or acquired within their lifetime, is really beside the point. What matters is the source of that wealth. To understand why the rich are rich is to understand why the poor are poor. The plain fact of the matter, as the American social scientist Michael Parenti points out. is that "Hard work seldom makes anyone rich . . .  the secret to wealth is to have others work hard for you". He might have added that the secret to getting others to work hard for you is to ensure that they have no alternative. In short, to ensure that they remain in a state of relative poverty.

In the more forthright language of marxism. present-day society is fundamentally split into classes. The division between rich and poor does not simply reflect a disparity in the amount of wealth at a person's disposal. In a more important sense it reflects a difference in their economic relationship to the means of wealth production. The rich are rich because they possess capital — that is, wealth that is used to produce more wealth. The small minority of the population who provide the bulk of the capital invested in industry (the richest 3.2 per cent of the population in Britain account for 84 per cent of all listed shares) — in other words, effectively own and control the means of wealth production — are called the capitalist class. If rich individuals did not utilise some of their wealth as capital they would sooner or later sink into a state of poverty depending on the size of their fortune and the rate at which it was consumed.

The poor, on the other hand, possess little or no capital to speak of. As a result they are effectively divorced from ownership and control of the means of wealth production and are compelled to sell their working abilities to the capitalist class in return for a wage or salary — the cost of maintaining themselves in reasonable working order. This great majority of the population — called the working class — produces all the wealth in society. The value of this wealth, however, far exceeds the value of the wages and salaries the working class receives — the difference between these two values being known as surplus value.

Here in fact is the source of the wealth of the capitalists. Some of this wealth is consumed in a conspicuously affluent lifestyle; some of it is reinvested as capital, perpetuating the economic stranglehold of the capitalist class over the lives of the great majority. At any point in time it is in the interests of the capitalists that the amount of profit accruing to them should be as large as possible, while competition between capitalists makes doubly certain that they pursue their interests by bankrupting those who do not. The drive to maximise profits is expressed as a constant tendency to depress wages and salaries, for the relationship between them, as Marx pointed out, is antagonistic:

 What, then, is the general law which determines the rise and fall of wages and profit in their reciprocal relation? They stand in inverse ratio to each other. Capital's share, profit, rises in the same proportion as labour's share, wages, falls, and vice versa. Profit rises to the extent that wages fall: it falls to the extent that wages rise.

(Wage Labour and Capital)

At the very heart of capitalism is a self-regulating process that works to ensure that the way is firmly blocked for "considerable numbers of people" becoming rich in a relative sense. This is why Thatcher was, for once, quite correct to assert in a famous speech she made in 1975 that "the pursuit of equality is a mirage" In her opinion, "what is more desirable and practicable than the pursuit of equality is the pursuit of equality of opportunity". Just how the pursuit of equality of opportunity is at all "practicable" in an unequal society in which the opportunities expand in proportion to the wealth at one's disposal, she did not explain. But if the pursuit of equality is a mirage in capitalism it is because it simply focusses on the pattern of wealth distribution. It overlooks the underlying economic relationships that inevitably generate that pattern.

Some have argued that the answer lies in the nationalisation of industry because "public ownership" must pave the way for greater equality. Practical experience tells a very different story. The following excerpt from a statement (reproduced in the Observer, 16 August 1981) by Mykola Pohyba, who was imprisoned for campaigning for workers' rights in a country in which industry is largely in the hands of the state, needs no elaboration:

  As a worker relegated to the lowest rung of the Soviet social ladder, I personally have experienced economic, socio-political and national oppression. Understandably, I could not help but give thought to and consider the real reasons for this oppression With time I realised that my fellow workers were also victims of exploitation and that this exploitation was greater the lower one found oneself on the social ladder.
  I came to the conclusion that ultimately it is the state which is the exploiter along with the State-party bourgeoisie which is in its service and which is the one wielding the real power in the country. The socialism and internationalism of which one so often speaks in the Soviet Union is nothing more than a smokescreen for a means of production and distribution of material goods which is not in the least socialist.
  In short, I have come to the conclusion that our country is actually a State capitalist society with a totalitarian form of government.
  In informal conversations with fellow workers, I expressed some of my views regarding Soviet reality. I saw nothing wrong in doing so. Specifically, I noted that the real causes for our impoverished condition are to be found not in mistakes committed by the administrative apparatus but in the very system of production which, in actual fact, is capitalist. 

There are those who say that socialism is about the "politics of envy". The views of an Australian multi-millionaire, Lang Hancock, say all that needs to be said about that:

  Riches to more riches is the story: wealthy pastoralist finds mountains of ore. Hancock may not be free with his money but he showers the nation with advice and his own brand of "philosophy". He was the original owner of Whitenoom asbestos mine which has been linked to more than 200 asbestos disease cases, including 45 deaths: "Some people have to suffer so that the majority can benefit from asbestos". He declines to contribute to a trust set up to help victims: "I believe I have saved millions of lives by producing asbestos".
  He is aware, however, of the problems facing "half-caste" aborigines and suggests a solution: ". . . dope the water up so they were sterile and breed themselves out" thus "curing people who are in a miserable situation to stop them bringing more unfortunate people into their misery".
  He is for . . . a White Australia policy and for the Ludwigs and Henry Fords: they create jobs for millions "but from the point of view of contributing something to the general welfare of the human race, well the average run-of- the-mill bloke would not make much difference if he were on the earth or not, would he?

(New Internationalist, July 1984) 

Socialism is about the politics of indignation. Were it not, it would be hardly worth the name. The disgusting conceit of a parasite like Hancock who owes all his wealth to the very class of people he contemptuously maligns, is not important in itself. Its significance lies in the fact that it consciously reflects the very nature of a social system that adds insult to injury as it legally robs the useful majority of the fruits of its labour. To describe socialism as the politics of envy is cynically to obscure this reality. It is to overlook what socialism is actually about.

Socialism is not about the ceaseless pursuit of more commodities on a treadmill of keeping-up-with-Joneses. It is not about levelling down the rich so that the living standards of the poor might rise. It is about a fundamental change in social relationships that will make the very concept of the "standard of living" superfluous. It is about a new type of society in which the "politics of envy" will be a meaningless term from a bygone age; an age which judged a person's worth by the amount of wealth they could command yet hypocritically condemned as "envious" those who wished for a world that would conform to their material self interest.

Robin Cox