Socialism and Violence. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting question has been put to in by a reader; a question we have dealt with repeatedly during the past 25 years. He says, quite correctly, that we ”advocate getting to power by means of the vote and condemn the use of physical forced”. He asks what are our grounds for condemn the use of force : “Is it because you believe it to be morally wrong, or do you condemn it because you realise it to be futile ?”

Let us first deal with the question of morals. Any reader of the Socialist Standard who stops to compare our articles with those in the propaganda papers of other organizations must have been struck by the complete absence of articles based upon the accepted moral principles of present capitalist society. That absence is not accidental but deliberate and follows naturally from our Socialist view of economics and politics. Our approach to the problems of life is a scientific one based so far as is possible upon observed facts and verifiable general statements. We know what we want; we want something which is practicable and possible; and our methods are determined by the aim we have in view and the material watch is available for getting there. We have no need ourselves to gloss over our aims and actions with a “moral” justification based upon our opponent’s beliefs and prejudices. We are satisfied that nothing is to be gained in the long run by trying to get support for Socialism by appealing to the moral sentiments of people who do not understand and accept Socialism.

To get Socialism the working class must gain power, that is the control of the machinery of government. Our correspondent will perhaps be surprised to learn that we do not condemn the use of force. On the contrary we seek control of the machinery of government which (in the words of our Declaration of Principles) includes “the argued forces of the nation.” It is because the control of the armed forces of the nation is so important that we wish to control them. The vote is the method of attaining control of the machinery of government in the developed capitalist countries. The policy of bringing the unarmed workers out on to the streets against the armed forces controlled by the capitalist state is not condemned by us as a less effective method of gaining political control; we condemn it because it is not a method of gaining political control at all. It is just dangerous silliness (except when it is deliberately engineered by the ruling powers themselves).

Suppose the capitalists abolished the vote

Then our correspondent puts a further question. He asks if it has never occurred to us that the capitalists might one day abolish the vote.

In reply we must point out that the possibility of such action is a further reason for following the policy laid down by the Socialist Party. When the Socialists have shown, by means of the vote, that they are within short reach of becoming the majority, the abolition of the vote by the capitalists would do infinite harm, not to us, but to them.

For the “Constitutionalists” and “Democrats,” as the capitalist parties always boast of being, to destroy those two strong planks in their propaganda platform, would enormously weaken their hold on the allegiance of those workers still not convinced of the soundness of the Socialist case. A party which abandoned the claim to represent the majority would be committing political suicide. The capitalists (including the self-styled dictators, Mussolini and the rest) tenaciously cling to the forms of democracy and constitutionalism because (apart from other reasons) they realise their propaganda value, even if our correspondent does not. It would be absurd for the working class to weaken their own position by adopting unconstitutional methods when those methods brought no gain whatever.

But the more important point has been missed by our correspondent. He has not asked himself what would happen next after the abolition of the vote. He has not realised that the capitalist class have to do something else besides govern the working class—they have to administer the capitalist system. The workings of capitalist trade and finance, the production and distribution of wealth, the elaborate machinery for educating the workers and for adjusting the thousand and one social frictions incidental to capitalism, all of this complex, enormous, and growing machinery, has necessitated the system of representative government. No other means has yet been devised which will give the stability which is indispensable to the smooth running of capitalism. Our correspondent writes of “dictatorship” replacing the vote, as if it were a simple operation bringing no consequences of importance. So far is this from being true that none of the “dictators” in various European countries have been able to do any such thing. Rather they have extended the number of voters.

It has also to be remembered that capitalists are human beings, most of them more interested in living than in dying heroically for the sake of a theory. A few of the hotheads may prefer to wreck society, including themselves, rather than give way to the Socialist majority; but will their own capitalist friends back them up? Most capitalists will prefer to accept Socialism’ rather than stand by a minority who might wish to attempt the task of running capitalism without representative machinery, and against the organised majority. They might think it fine to fight (and starve) in the last ditch in defence of capitalism, but more pleasant, if less heroic, to go on living. Further, our correspondent must have overlooked the fact that by that time the armed forces—drawn from working class homes—would be mainly sympathetic to the Socialist viewpoint. Given the abandonment of democratic methods by the Government of the day after the Socialist Party had at an election received a majority of the votes, the armed forces would no longer be a dependable instrument for the capitalist minority, and would, in fact, help, not hinder, the majority in their endeavours to secure control of the machinery of Government. But that eventuality—the armed forces helping the Socialist working class to gain control—is quite different from the Communist Party policy of a minority fighting the armed forces.

The situation under those hypothetical conditions is widely different from the situation now. Socialists are now in a small minority ; the ruling class is backed by the majority, including the majority of the workers; the capitalist state is in full control of disciplined armed forces, and the members of these forces are not yet affected by Socialist ideas.

Physical force against the armed forces is lunacy. Those who advocate it never tell us how they propose to get arms and equipment, tanks, battle planes, cruisers, poison gas plant, etc., and how they are going to train their forces to use such things. They do not tell us because, when faced with those questions, they know that there is no answer.

In conclusion, let us put the whole matter in proper perspective by pointing out that the really important and difficult problem is not the problem of action after the working class have been won over to Socialism, but the present problem of winning them over. Even if there were an alternative method of gaining control of the political machinery, it would be useless for the purpose of running society on a Socialist basis if the working class did not want and understand Socialism.

Editorial Committee.

The Decay of Religion. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

With institutions there are degrees, even of deadness. Religion, for instance, may be deader than we think. The following extract from the religious notes in the Daily News of March 5th is quite illuminating : —

“Unholy Scramble.”

“An Anglican clergyman has described to me what he alleges to be the ‘unholy scramble’ that goes on behind the scenes for clerical appointments in the patronage of the Crown. He states that every possible string is pulled, not of course by the clergyman himself, but by his friends (with his knowledge). No avenue of approach is refused and a political caucus could not behave with greater skill and discrimination. While the friends of one man are at work he knows full well that several other clergymen are being pushed forward in a similar manner. Everyone concerned hates the system. But, as my informant says : ‘What can be done to improve it and place such patronage upon a more dignified basis?'”

This we might usefully follow with the following extract from Robert Graves’ “Good-bye to All That.”

“It was said that not one soldier in a hundred was inspired by religious feeling of even the crudest kind. 

For the regimental chaplains as a body we had no respect. If the regimental chaplains had shown one-tenth the courage, endurance and other human qualities that the regimental doctors showed, we agreed the B.E.F. might well have started a religious revival. But they had not. The fact is that they were under orders not to get mixed up with the fighting, to stay behind with the transport, and not to risk their lives. No soldier could have any respect for a chaplain who obeyed these orders, and yet there was not in our experience, one chaplain in fifty who was not glad to obey them. Occasionally on a quiet day, in a quiet section, the chaplain would make a daring afternoon visit to the support line, and distribute a few cigarettes, and that was all. But he was always in evidence back in rest-billets. Sometimes the colonel would summon him to come up with the rations and bury the day’s dead, and he would arrive, speak his lines and hastily retire.”

There you have two pictures of the value of superstition as a guide to living. There is a “holy scramble” for jobs in the world of witch-doctors when what is called peace is the order of things. When war presents the opportunity of a quick acquaintance with the joys of heaven, the self-appointed guides show a strange reluctance to leave the solid earth. Whether Robert Graves knew Prof. J. B. S. Haldane or not is not known to the writer, but it is remarkable how similar are their observations.

In an essay called “Mercy” in his “Possible Worlds,” Prof. Haldane says:

“I should be the last to suggest that the late war was a good thing, but there is no doubt it furnished a rough test of character. It will therefore be interesting to analyse the conduct of ministers of religion during its course.”

He proceeds, in the course of the essay, to do so. The following are fair extracts :

“A large number of the younger clergy became army chaplains. In this way they at once obtained the very satisfactory status of commissioned officers. With other officers that status was on the whole a fair return for the very grave dangers which they ran. The army chaplains generally ran the irreducible minimum of risk. Most of them kept well behind the line. In my war experience I never saw a chaplain display courage.”

Another extract.

“It may be contended that I was unfortunate in my acquaintance among army chaplains, and biassed in my interpretation of their conduct. It is therefore important to examine the behaviour of the clergy as a body. When conscription was introduced in Britain the clergy of all denominations showed a unanimity without parallel since the Reformation. Conscription was not for them, and so great was clerical influence among the governing-classes that their exemption was taken as a matter of course. Now from a Christian point of view, it is perhaps arguable that ministers of religion should not fight. But there is absolutely no reason why the self-styled disciples of Jesus should not, as privates of the R.A.M.C., have tended the sick and wounded under conditions of moderate discomfort if relatively little danger.”

The final extract.

“Priests have always used their power to evade the moral obligations of the ordinary man ; and threatened him with fire here or hereafter, or with social or economic penalties if he referred to the fact. What is new in the situation is that the public is beginning to recognise the moral and intellectual inferiority of the clergy. Their income is diminishing, and it is not likely to increase. For whereas the clergy of sixty years and over are on the whole men of fair intelligence, those of to-day are being recruited from the dregs of the universities, whilst many have no higher education at all. Under these circumstances they are hardly likely to tap fresh sources of revenue.”

So there you are. Knowledge and correct action will kill capitalism ; religion will flicker out.

W. T. Hopley

Our Circulation. (1930)

Party News from the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

How you can help to enlarge it

We want to get new readers and we know that we can look to our regular subscribers to do all they can to help. There must be many thousands of workers, who, if they were introduced to the Socialist Standard, would be as pleased to read as we would be pleased to add them to our list of subscribers. It is all a question of bringing our paper and our party to the notice of men and women who will be interested, and that is above all a matter for the present readers. Is there not at least one man or woman among your circle of friends and acquaintances who might be glad to read what the Socialist Party has to say about current events and Socialist principles? Why not send us the name at address and 6d. in stamps for a copy to be forwarded for three months? Why not pass on your own copy when you have read it or, better still, place an order for two copies and use the additional one for the purpose of gaining a new regular reader?

If you have opportunities for discussing Socialism at your Trade Union Branch meeting, or if you attend the meetings of other Parties, write to this office and ask for some specimen copies of the Socialist Standard for free distribution.

If you happen to live where there is no branch of the S.P.G.B., you can, as other isolated sympathisers have done in the past, make the Socialist Standard the means of slowly but steadily bringing in new readers, who will in time become members and help you to form that branch which you want to see established.

Let us have the name and address of the secretary of any local trade union or political party branch to which you think it might be worth while for us to send specimens of our literature.

Do all of these things, and if you have further ideas on developing our circulation write and tell us about them.

Wanted : A New Reader

Do you know a likely friend who does not read the Socialist Standard.

Send us his name and address and a Postal Order for 6d., and we will forward a copy for 3 months.

Death of a Comrade. (1930)

Obituary from the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to have to announce the death on March 10th, of W. Steele, for 19 years a member of Tottenham Branch.

Editorial: The Uselessness of Reforms. (1930)

Editorial from the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Important Admission.

Those who oppose Socialism and urge a policy of getting “something now” in the shape of social reforms habitually ignore the strength of the pressure which the employing class are able to bring to bear to force down wages towards the minimum consistent with efficiency.

What is the value to the workers of giving them unemployment pay if the “gift” is accompanied by a reduction in wages? The existence of a large and increasing army of unemployed puts the employers always in the position of being able to secure such readjustments.

In a report on wages in the wool textile industry, Lord MacMillan, appointed by the Labour Government to preside over a court of inquiry, recommends a wage reduction. He uses as one of his justifications for reducing pay the fact that social services have lessened the demands on the workers’ wages. In effect the “gains” secured by the vast efforts of the Labour Party and its supporters over many years are being nullified by reductions in wages. The reforms reduce the workers’ cost of living, but the employers it is who reap the benefit.

Lord MacMillan’s actual words are as follows (quoted in The Times, March 7th) :—

“In  former times  the  prudent  workman  had  to make provision out of his wages for various eventualities, the risk of which is now covered by one or other of what are known as the “social services”. . . . Thus the workman is now insured against ill-health, unemployment, accident, old age, and blindness, and provision is also made for his widows and orphans. In addition money from public sources is provided in connection with the health of mothers and children and the prevention and treatment of disease, as well as for the relief of the destitute and the care of the physically or mentally infirm. … I think it relevant to point out that they play a substantial part in improving the standard of life of the workman and lightening the burden on his wages.”

Another half-brick.

The “step-at-a-time” politicians of the I.L.P. and the Labour Party are for ever defending themselves on the plea that “half-a-loaf is better than no bread.” The first half-brick which the Labour Government delivered was a 6¼  per cent. reduction in pay for the cotton workers. Now comes a recommendation for a reduction for wool workers, ranging from 3s. to 5s. a week. (Daily Herald, March 8th.) The Herald in an editorial describes this as “a victory from the employer’s point of view.”

We would like to ask in what way “a victory from the employer’s point of view,” ushered in by MacDonald and his party, differs from a similar victory engineered by Baldwin.

And in view of the fact that a majority of the Labour M.P.s are members of the I.L.P. will Mr. Maxton tell us how many half-bricks make one “Socialism in our Time”?

Classes, but not class antagonism. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Manchester Guardian” (January 11th) has a delightfully phrased hope about class relationships. The Socialist points out that under Capitalism there is an owning class which lives by owning, and a non-owning class which has to work for the owners. The remedy for the resulting class conflict is to abolish private ownership and the class division. The “Manchester Guardian” has a brighter idea :—

“We have got to eliminate from the industrial state that rancour between the privileged and the disinherited, of which the heated controversies about the ‘dole’ are the latest form.”

A really choice piece of Liberal impudence. Let us keep the privileged and the disinherited, but let us find out how to induce the latter not to harbour hard thoughts about the former !

S.

Marx Among the Classics. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

An “expert” writes an introduction. 

At last the first volume of Marx’s great work on Capitalist Production has been brought within easy reach of the workers’ pockets.

Forty-three years ago the first English translation appeared in two volumes, but the price put it beyond the average worker’s means.

Few workers, unfortunately, were interested in studying Marx in those days, and when later on the publishers, Swan, Sonnerschein & Co., became a limited company they sold the copyright of Marx’s “Capital” to a firm, who issued it as a publishers remainder. The same type was continually used to print from until it became impossible to print again, unless the work was reset in new type.

The translation, however, was a good one. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling had performed a creditable task, and Frederick Engels, the co-worker of Marx, revised the work on completion.

When the sheets printed from the old type had been used up, the copyright holders would not go to the expense of setting-up the book again, and so “Capital” was no longer published in this country.

Last year, Swan Sonnerschein’s successors, Allen and Unwin, Ltd., went to the expense of having “Capital” translated afresh, and published in a well-printed volume at 12s. 6d. Eden and Cedar Paul made a very readable translation, and a copy was sent by the translators to our late comrade, J. Fitzgerald, for review. This appeared in the Socialist Standard last year. The price, however, was still too high for the worker.

This, we are pleased to say, has now been remedied. “Capital” has been included in the Everyman Library (translated by E. and C. Paul), among the great classics of literature, science, philosophy. The great volume on Capitalist Production is now to be had in two volumes at 2s. each. The size is a handy one, and will easily fit into the pocket. The print is good, and the general get-up makes it a credit to those responsible.

For years Marx’s work was treated with a “conspiracy of silence.” Economic development, with its effects on the workers, was, however, on Marx’s side, and so more and more workers became interested in reading and studying “Capital,” in order to understand the inner workings of the system and the nature of its Economics. The “conspiracy of silence” has gone to a large extent, and now practically every bookstall and bookshop will have “Marx” on sale.

The “expert” introduces Marx.

The reader of this new edition will be astounded to find that it contains an introduction by G. D. H. Cole, which is not an introduction to Marx’s work at all.

Mr. Cole, who was a Fabian, Guild Socialist, and Labour Party propagandist, is now a member of the Government’s Economic Advisory Council. He has never been a supporter of Marx’s economic ideas, and his introduction shows he has not understood them. Why did the publishers get Mr. Cole to write the foreword, seeing that he holds that the Marxian theory of value is “not worth preserving to-day “? No evidence whatever is brought against the correctness of the labour theory of value as explained by Marx.

A new “materialism”

On page xviii, Mr. Cole “explains” the materialist conception of history as follows : “Marx’s materialism is not materialistic in the sense that it excludes the action of mind, but only that it seeks its reality in this world of men and things, and not in any universe of ideas transcending this world and its limitations.” Any student of Marx will see that Mr. Coles’ “wide” definition is not a definition of Marx’s historical materialism at all. In fact, any idealist, positivist, or other believer in ideal forces can agree with Cole, and be entirely opposed to the view that material conditions are the real foundations of social change.

Marx's contribution.

Mr. Cole says : “There is nothing specifically Marxian about Marx’s theory of value; what is novel is the use to which he puts the theory, and not the theory itself.”

In actual fact, Marx took the labour theory of Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc., (the implications of which had not been seen by them), clarified it, applied it to the commodity labour-power, and related it to an exhaustive analysis of the actual labour process under Capitalism.

Wherever a previous Economist had made a similar point to Marx credit was always given, but Marx’s work teems with criticism of the fathers of political economy. In the “Histories of Surplus Value,” by Marx, edited by Karl Kautsky, there is a storehouse of information, showing the limitations of Adam Smith and his school of thought.

On page 22 Mr. Cole writes as though Marx accepted the “Iron Law of Wages,” of Ricardo, etc., which was a mixture of Malthus’ overpopulation theory with economics. Marx specifically rejected this so-called law of wages, together with the false laws of population of Malthus.

The cream of Mr. Cole’s pedantic introduction is his statement that “it is fully possible to hold the theory of Surplus Value without holding the Labour theory of Value, on which superficially it appears to depend ” (page xxiii).

Marx’s theory of Surplus Value is simply the logical result of the theory of value. Without the value theory there is no basis in Economics for surplus value.

Unless socially necessary labour time is the measure of value, there is no evidence of surplus value. The difference between the value of labour power, bought by the capitalist, and the value produced by that same labour power—that is surplus value.

What is the new theory of value?

Among the many statements of Mr. Cole’s to prejudice, mystify or confuse the reader of “Capital” is this : “By all economists, save the Marxists, the Labour theory has long been discarded.” This would imply that another theory has taken its place. What is the new theory which has replaced Marx?

The entire information we get from Mr. Cole is this. “All modern theories—if we may still leave the Marxists aside for the moment—are very far removed from the ‘amount of labour’ theory which Marx took over from Ricardo and McCulloch.

“How, then, does it happen that the Marxists have gone on for quite half a century re-affirming Marx’s views, and wholly unshaken by all the criticism that orthodox economists have been able to bring against them?”

What have these criticisms been? One economist, the father of the entire modern capitalist school, Bohm Bawerk, said that Marx ignored scarcity as a factor in value. Actually Marx had dealt with the scarcity factor in the first few pages of “Capital.” The other capitalist “economists” of note, Jevons, Marshall, Seligman, etc., took refuge in supply and demand, as their answer to Marx, but as supply and demand only accounted for fluctuations, the central point around which variations took place was still left unexplained.

“Final Utility” and “Marginal Utility” were the modern theories of supply and demand which evaded the determinant of value.

Did Marx give up his theory of value?

Mr. Cole does not tell us where Marx’s theory of Value is wrong. He resorts to an old device of stating that in the third volume (Capitalist Production as a whole), Marx admitted that values of articles do not coincide with prices.

Readers of Engels’ Preface to the second volume of “Capital” will be familiar with this argument. Engels challenged the critics of Marx to do something neither Ricardo or his followers could accomplish— to explain how the rates of profits in the various industries are equalised on the basis of the law of value.

Engels told the economic writers that the answer would be given in the third volume of “Capital.” It was. And the problem which proved insoluble to Ricardo was solved.

Mr. Cole may claim that the Labour theory of value has been given up by Marx because he agreed that market prices did not agree with the value of articles sold. Mr. Cole has not dealt with Marx’s explanation and, therefore, in spite of all the critics who have come and gone, Marx’s theory of value still remains to be answered.

On the question of value and prices we will quote from one who studied Marx’s economics, and wrote the best popular guide to Marxian Economics which has been published—Karl Kautsky’s “The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx.”

“The opponents of the Marxian theory of value are fond of asserting that Marx himself threw overboard his own theory, which he developed in the first volume of “Capital,” in the third volume, in which he demonstrates that, in consequence of the tendency towards an equalisation of profits under developed capitalise commodity production, the prices of most commodities permanently deviate from their values, inasmuch as the prices of one half of these commodities are permanently as much below their values as those of the other half are above them. But Marx would have thrown overboard his theory of value only if he had contended that prices are independent of their values. Far from doing this, the third volume of “Capital” proves rather that production prices, about which market prices oscillate, remain in complete dependence upon the law of value, without which they cannot be explained. It is precisely the factor of the average profit, which causes the deviations of production prices from values, that can only be explained by the laws of surplus-value, which in their turn arise from those of value.”

Adolph Kohn

Economic and Political organisation. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class struggle and action. 

The Socialist Party hold that both economic and political organisation of labour are necessary. The class struggle is neither purely political nor purely economic, but involves both lines of action. That follows from the nature of the class struggle which arises from the conflict of interests between the working class and the employing class.

Economic organisation is a part of the inevitable defence of workers’ interests in selling their working power to the employers. The class position of the workers naturally compels them to organise to protect their interests. The class struggle arises on the economic field, and is seen in the conflicts always going on between the workers and their masters.

Limits of economic action.

The necessary fights over hours and wages are inseparable from the wages system. The efforts to raise wages and shorten hours, and the employers’ opposition cannot be abolished while there is one class selling its labour power and another class who buy it.

The rapid development of modern industry with its improved machinery and methods steadily tends to throw an increasing number out of work to compete for jobs. The combination and trustification of employers into huge firms and alliances is another of the great factors in defeating the workers’ struggle in industry. It is clearly seen to-day that Karl Marx was right when he pointed out that “in its merely economic action capital is the stronger side.” (“Value, Price and Profit.”)

Where strikes fail.

The weakness of all economic action by the workers lies in the fact that they have no power over production and no control of the means and instruments by which production is carried on. The economic struggles are limited to efforts within this economic system to better their daily working conditions as wage-slaves. After even the most successful strike, the workers have to go back to work for the employers and depend upon the employers’ consent and power to employ them. No matter what wages and working conditions may be gained, the workers will never be free from the necessity of finding masters and being exploited, while the masters are left in possession of the resources of production.

The essential thing, therefore, is for the workers to enter into possession of the means and instruments of production and distribution of wealth—the land, railways, factories, machinery, etc. The common ownership of these by the entire society of workers is the only remedy for the workers’ slave condition.

Economic action can never enable the workers to take control of the means of life because economic organisation has neither the power nor the machinery to take and maintain possession.

Why the employers are supreme. 

The employers do not rely upon their ownership alone, but their ownership is backed up and maintained by the forces of the State. These State forces are controlled by the employers through their possession of political power. In all countries with constitutions like Great Britain those who control a majority in Parliament control the State, and have charge of all the armed forces of repression and the legal machinery of the country. The employing class to-day are put into political control by the votes of the workers, who with their majority of votes elect Conservative, Liberal or Labour agents of Capitalism. This economic system is kept in existence because in their ignorance the working class use their, political power to make the employing class masters of the State machine.

How the workers are defeated. 

In the last “General Strike,” and even in smaller struggles, the property and wealth of the employers were protected by all the armed forces of the State. Economic or industrial organisations of the workers are, therefore, rendered unable to take possession of the factories, etc.—they are faced with the fact that the political machine dominates the entire situation and that the State forces are used to defend capitalist ownership against the workers.

Strike action—local or general, industrial or craft—does not enable the workers to become the owning class and end the system. Strikes, however general they are, leave the employers in possession. They may dislocate industry, and even paralyse it—but paralysis of industry is not the object of the Socialist, and does not mean the control of production. To establish Socialism the workers must be able to continue production and produce the everyday requirements of the workers.

Can you lock out the employing class? 

The slogan—lock out the bosses—which is used sometimes, is similar in its futility to a general strike. It may, for the time being, leave the workers in charge of a factory, but does not give them power over the entire economic system of production and distribution without which the workers are helpless.

Factory workers in Italy who tried the “lock out the boss” policy to enforce wage demands found that they could not eat the products of their factory—automobiles, etc. They had to either sell them or get into contact with the other producers, in order to live. The armed forces of the Italian State were able both to eject the “stay in strikers” and make it impossible for them to organise production and distribution in common with the rest of the workers of Italy.

Political action the only way.

The lesson, then, is for the working class to understand their class interests and organise as a class into a political party of Socialists to control political power, and thus control the armed forces of the State.

Having obtained control of these forces the workers can continue production for themselves—socialise the means of production and distribution, and secure themselves against aggression.

Strikes and other economic action may win temporary concessions, but no economic action can establish common ownership. That is the function of political action.

The common objections against political action, and some of the arguments in favour of economic action will be considered in another article.

C.

A Look Round. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Prosperity in America!

That successor to Samuel Gompers, Mr. Wm. Green (the president of the American Federation of Labour), writes in the Daily Herald (March 8th) on High Wages in U.S.A. Mr. Green gets High Wages, like his fellow Labour Leaders, but doesn’t refer to that. He says that the principles for which they contended in their unions—high wages—is now accepted American practice. But his whole article is a series of admissions of the futility of a ”high wage” policy to assure any security or well-being to workers under Capitalism. Firstly, he tells us how obliging the American workers are :

“In industries where trade unions are an established agency, they have added to protective functions responsibility for helping to solve problems of production such as finding more efficient methods of work, the most economic use of materials, higher quality standards, regularising work and the number of work days. 

Testimony as to the practical value of this kind of co-operation was given to the convention by the president of the Canadian National Railways.”

So not only are the workers exploited, but they assist the employers to find ways to do it better. The “directive ability” of the employer about which we hear so much is assisted by the advice of the workers.

* * *

Where the cotton blooms. 

The Capitalists of the Northern States have found it more profitable to have cotton spun in the South, where it is grown—for there “labour” is cheap. About this Mr. Green says :

“During the past ten years rapid industrialisation of the South has come from textile mills seeking “cheap” labour in our Southern States, which have been slowly overcoming the economic handicaps of civil war between the States in the ’60’s. 

Long hours in mills operating night as well as day shifts and employing child labour also, mill villages controlled by the textile companies and paying low wages, have exploited Southern workers. 

They were driven to revolt last spring by work orders that more than doubled their work but decreased their pay.”

These workers have been left to their “fate” by the American Federation of Labour, who supported Capitalist Politics while all the forces of law and State were used to smash their strike.

* * *

The Scrap Heap

In that “happy land” of rationalised industry—which is the ideal of industrial reformers here—Mr. Green confesses that only young’ workers are wanted.

“Another problem which the convention considered was discrimination against workers over 45 years of age. The speed of machine production is assumed to require young workers. 

This idea, together with protective features which compensation laws, old age pensions or insurance plans provide for wage earners, has developed a prejudice against the middle-aged workers because of additional costs their greater liability is supposed to bring to industry.”

“The speed of machine industry” wants the nimble hands of the young-—hence the future is black while the machine is owned by the employers. The last paragraph quoted above shows that when reforms cost the employers’ money they reduce their liability by sacking those most liable to accident and those who would need to be pensioned.

* * *

Not over 25 years of age.

How quickly workers are used up in modern developed industry is evident from Mr. Green :

“The Federation has collected information which shows that some large corporations refuse to employ workers over 35 years of age, and in some cases as low as 25 years. 

The general trend towards decreasing employment opportunity to middle-aged workers increases the difficulties of providing for incomes for old age. 

In addition we have the problem of workers displaced by machinery and technical changes, so that skills which have been developed through years of work are no longer of any value in production. The resulting so-called technical unemployment is very hard on older workers.”

* * *

What a remedy!

After these remarks on “High Wages” in America, the leader of the American Unions tells us that the remedy for the conditions is to remove them from the area of conflict to the Conference Table ! He also advises the workers to practise “greater output,”

Nearly 30 years ago the American Labour Leaders formed the Civic Federation to get together with Employers “round the table.” And the result can be seen in Mr. Green’s own admissions to-day.

22 per cent. of organised Labour in U.S.A. is unemployed according to the Federation of Labour (Daily Herald, March 4th). What is the unions’ remedy ? More Capitalism. Mr. Ford says high wages are the remedy, but he wants other employers to pay high wages so that their workers can buy his motor-cars. When he announced higher wages for his employees he forgot to add that short time was general in his “shops” and that along with the extra dollar a day a greater speeding up of the machine slaves went on. High wages did not prevent his factories closing down many departments recently and when they re-started the pace was increased.

The land of high wages ! The Secretary of Labour recently complained that 2 million workers were getting 1s. 3d. (30 cents) per hour or less. (New York Telegram).

That means practically a starvation wage in a land with a high cost of living.

But more machinery is coming”!

The New York Post (November 18th) says that machinery in industry, mining and farming has displaced 2,300,000 in the last 8 years in the U.S.A.

The lesson for the workers is to own the machines and produce for use.

* * *

The fruits of rationalisation in Britain. 

“There are 153,000 building workers unemployed.” (Chiozza Money, Daily Herald, February 27th.) 

“There are 200,000 miners who will never work underground again.” (Tom Smith, M.P., of Department of Mines, Daily Herald, February 27th.) 

“Some colliery companies laid it down that when they wanted fresh hands no men over 45 need apply.” (Same speaker.)

We were told that the dilution of labour in the building trade would provide work by making houses cheaper. Now after all the dilution there is vast unemployment. The Labour Party are rationalising mines, closing down uneconomic pits, and combining the others with the result that the 200,000 miners “out of work” will be added to. Rationalisation means efficiency in industry and the older men not wanted as they have been “worked out.”

. . . . . .

By the “aid” of the Banks the shipyards have combined into a huge trust, “National Shipbuilders Security, Ltd.,” and the banks will see that before loans are issued the unnecessary yards and smaller plants are closed down.

Beardmore’s recently dispensed with 600 men on the Clyde at Parkhead as their amalgamation with David Colville, Ltd., made that plant unnecessary. Mr. Brownlie, of the Engineering Union, said :

“I think the shipbuilders are adopting the right policy in dispensing with the obsolete and unnecessary shipyards and reducing overhead and administration charges.”

This capitalist view of a trade union leader quoted in the Daily Herald (March 1st) contrasts with the view from the same paper of the representative of the Shipwrights’ Society, who said, “the scheme was one of the worst things which could happen to the employees.” We are assured by this “Labour” paper that the scheme is largely “a financial one,” which means, of course, a financier’s one. A scheme to assure profits to the detriment of wages and employment.

* * *

More work—fewer men required. 

How true the Socialist view of rationalisation is, can be gathered from the figures given by the Daily Herald—the supporter of rationalisation and the Labour Government. Dealing with the Iron Ore industry in Cumberland, it states that last year was the most productive since the war, output totalling 1,050,000 tons. The next best was 1922 with 868,000 tons. But last year’s output was from 10 mines, while in 1922 it came from 30. “Moreover, the number of employees is half the total of a few years ago. The explanation lies chiefly in the increased use of machinery.” And the “Herald” adds that the volume of unemployment in the industry is very serious, and that the position has worsened since the beginning of the year.

25 per cent. of the Lancashire cotton workers are unemployed and over 5 million spindles are permanently idle, and a large number more are only used on short time. Such are the conditions in the highly developed industry—the backbone of British Export Trade. Now they form a huge combine and fewer mills than ever will be required.

The Labour leaders agreed to a reduction in wages of 1s. 3d. in the £, and the employers argued that a reduction in wages would mean more employment for cotton operatives. After several months of reduced wages they are faced with more unemployment than before.

In the weaving branch the employers are rationalising with a vengeance. Mills are being equipped with “up to date” looms; 8 looms per weaver instead of four. Thus the process of speeding up production means more output by fewer employed, and all the time the output is increased the market for it declines. With a view to using the most efficient machinery continuously the masters are advocating the two shift system as in America, but it has not saved the New England mill workers from unemployment.

. . . . .

We learn from the Daily Express that 120 drivers and Conductors have been dismissed by the London Bus Combine. These men were taken over from the independent companies when the Labour Government’s Traffic Act gave the Combine the control of the London ‘buses. The men were dismissed after medical examination and have no prospect of other employment. The London General Omnibus Company is “fully rationalised ” and Lord Ashfield, the director, sees that when the Company pays its “union wage” he gets the goods. They took over the rival ‘bus company’s ‘buses, but the men were not reckoned to be able to stand the terrific physical and mental strain of working the profit hunting ‘bus of the Combine with its merciless exploitation under “high wages.” So here again—combination of capital plays havoc with the worker. No wonder the Minister of Transport (Mr. Morrison) described his own Government’s bill as one of the worst bills ever passed through Parliament.

Adolph Kohn

Gift to Library. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received from Comrade Stevens, “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.”

What Price Nationalisation? (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "Pampered" Civil Service.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always opposed Nationalisation or State capitalism. The Labour Party, the I.L.P., and the Communists are at one in supporting it. The following facts and figures will show what Nationalisation means in practice, and show how little difference there is from the workers’ point of view between State capitalism and private capitalism, whether under a Conservative or a Labour Government.

Low Pay and No Pension.
The figures given below relating to pay and pensions are taken from leaflets issued by the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council. They are all based directly upon information given in the j House of Commons by Ministers of the Crown. 150,000 Civil Servants, representing 50 per cent. of the non-industrial staff, receive less than £3 a week inclusive of cost of living bonus.

225,000 (75 per cent.) receive less than £4. Only 8 per cent. receive £7 a week or more.

Only half of the Civil Servants are pensionable. Out of 300,000 “non-industrial” Civil Servants 110,000 are not eligible for pension. Out of 120,000 “industrial” civil servants (Post Office engineers, dockyard workers, etc.) only 30,000 are pensionable.

Mr. Lees-Smith, Postmaster-General, stated in the House of Commons on July 22nd, 1929, that out of 180,000 full-time Post Office employees, only 60,000 receive more than 70s.; 81,000 receive between 50s. and 70s. ; and 21,000 receive between 40s. and 50s. The remainder receive less than 40s. A basis for comparison with the pay in a non-State concern is afforded by the Underground Electric Railway Company. At the 1929 Annual General Meeting, the Chairman, Lord Ashfield, stated that out of a total staff of 43,500, only 1,400 adults (about 3 per cent.) received less than £3 a week. (Economist, March 9th, 1929; and State Service, March, 1929.)

Even after allowing for the fact that the Post Office figures include a proportion of juveniles in the group below 40s. a week, and allowing for certain other factors which have to be taken into account, it is evident that Post Office pay is certainly not higher than that of the Underground Railway staffs, and is in all probability appreciably lower.

Temporary and Part-Time Workers.
The Post Office employs over 3,000 temporary full-time employees as telegraphists, counter-clerks, telephonists, etc. None of these employees are paid more than 57s. a week. A temporary postman’s rate in London is 49s. or 51s.; porters get 49s.; and telephonists (women) from 39s. 6d. to 43s. 6d.

In the Provinces men sorting clerks and telegraphists are paid at rates varying from 46s. to 57s., and postmen from 44s. to 49s.; women sorting clerks and telegraphists are paid from 37s. 6d. to 47s. 6d. (See Year Book of the Union of Post Office Workers, pages 390-393.)

The Post Office employs about 13,000 auxiliary postmen for a varying number of hours not exceeding 36 per week. Before the war it used to be said in defence of the low pay of these men that they were expected to have other employment. Now this pretence has been dropped, and it is admitted officially that many of them are known to be fully dependent on their Post Office pay owing to their inability to obtain other work. Even if unemployment were not as widespread as it is, men bound down to Post Office hours of attendance would find it difficult to fit in other employment.

For a 36-hour week an auxiliary postman receives from 43s. 5d. to 47s. 8d. in London, and from 35s. 9d. to 40s. 10d. in the Provinces. Those who are not given the full 36 hours’ work, receive correspondingly less. The majority work between 18 and 30 hours. (See pages 144-151. Award 1325, of the Industrial Court, July, 1927.)

"Skilled" Work at Labourer's Pay.

The Journal of the Post Office Engineering Union (February 21st, 1930), in an editorial, states that Post Office engineering labourers are employed on skilled and semi-skilled work, without being correspondingly paid:—

   Post Office engineering labourers do work which, in outside trades, would be allotted to mates and paid for at something between the skilled and unskilled rates. . . . A great many labourers are employed on skilled duties for long periods; . . . the labourer’s staff was, in fact, a staff trained by the Post Office to get skilled and semi-skilled work done at a price below a fair rate for such work.

The labourers are not pensioned or permanent, and have just been refused an increase in pay.

Profit the Only Consideration.

The Labour Postmaster-General, Mr. Lees-Smith, M.P., in a letter to the P.O. Engineering Union (see P.O.E.U. Journal, February 7th, 1930), defends the dismissals of engineering staff in the following terms:

  The need for a reduction of costs is, however, paramount; and so long as this can be effected by reorganisation and the introduction of improved methods of working, the Postmaster-General feels compelled to pursue the policy which has been initiated. . . .  As there would be no justification for retaining men for whom no work is available, reductions in staff have been inevitable.

The Union’s only suggested remedy was that the Post Office should do certain work itself which is now put out to contractors. In other words, it proposed to solve the problem of unemployed Post Office engineers by increasing the unemployment among engineers employed by the private companies!

No Politics.

Finally, it is interesting to notice that the Labour Government does not intend to abolish the restrictions which have been imposed by earlier governments on the political activities of civil servants. The following question and. answer are taken from Hansard of January 27th, 1930 (Column 644).

  Mr. Freeman asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation removing the present disabilities of free speech and action on political matters at present imposed, on civil servants?
 Mr. P. Snowden: His Majesty’s Government endorse the well-established rule of the Civil Service that civil servants should take no overt part in public political affairs, and I am not prepared to introduce legislation which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of this general principle of conduct.

Presumably if the Labour Party had their way, and introduced State capitalism throughout the chief manufacturing and transport industries, we should all be civil servants and all debarred from active political work.

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialism and Psychology: An Open Letter to a Critic. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear X,

You ask me what I am doing for the community, and whether I have not underestimated the important differences of type or character in human beings which you consider such a formidable obstacle to the establishment of Socialism. I will try and answer your questions.

In the first place, let me direct your attention to the fact that the “community,” for which you expect me to do something, is sharply divided into two distinct classes, one of which owns the means of living of the other. Do not take my word for this! Professor Clay (I know you are impressed by Professors), a most respectable person, told us, on February 19th, 1925, in the sober columns of the Manchester Guardian, that less than 6 per cent. of the population held four-fifths of the national capital and received nearly half the national income. Just think that over carefully and you will cease to wonder that the majority of people are poor, no matter how hard they toil.

No psychologist has ever yet discovered how to live upon fresh air! He or she always wants food in his or her tummy, clothes to prevent arrest, if nothing else, and a "home” ! And to-day, the means whereby food, clothing and shelter are produced are owned in the main by considerably less than a tenth of the population.

The vast mass of the community feed and breed only by permission of the tiny section which owns the resources (land, factories, machinery, etc.), without which feeding and breeding are impossible to-day; and the conditions upon which this permission is granted are that the propertyless ones shall toil for the profit of those who own and control the means of existence.

The members of the class to which you and I belong surrender the product of their toil to their kind employers, who graciously return to them a sum of money capable of buying back goods to the value of only a fraction of their product. The masterclass (mostly composed of inactive shareholders) are enabled to live in luxury and also amass fresh capital to make still more profit.

This has not always been so. In the Middle Ages the class which attempted to live by trade and money-lending was despised and persecuted by the feudal lords and their vassal land-holders, and condemned by the Church. One day, when you have nothing better to do, you might ask your psychological tutor to explain the curious volte-face on the part of the reformed Church towards the taking of interest. As he believes that the human mind is an independent entity, which develops regardless of material conditions and social environment, I can readily imagine some entertaining mental contortions on his part. To maintain any degree of consistency he will have to maintain that—the Church received a sudden revelation from those "forces” which are hidden so mysteriously somewhere "behind the universe” ! But the above is only one of the many changes in social life and in men's corresponding ideas and customs.

Go far back in history and you will come to a time when neither money nor territory nor chattels but kinship formed the root condition of social organisation, and it is from this misty past that the creatures of religious fancy take their rise.

In those days a few crude tools and weapons were men's only equipment against nature (animal, vegetable and mineral), yet even these represented ages of experiment. Ideas of practical utility were hard to come by and slow in growth, and so, men's wishes outstripped their acts and built up an imaginary world transcending ordinary human limitations wherein men's shades became transfigured into gods. It is from this primitive ignorance of men that the concept of a "soul” (or psyche) was derived. The individual was credited with possessing an immortal shadow or second self, which controlled his body as a man operates any other inert object. “Mind” was held to dominate “matter,” and the “modern” psychologist, who clings tenaciously to this superstition does but proclaim how little, in this respect, he has progressed beyond the savage.

The materialistic Socialist, however, reviewing human history perceives how overwhelming has been the effect of economic development upon the habits of mankind and how, in practice, Christians and other metaphysicians have flown in the face of their avowed doctrines in the pursuit of their material interests.

The ruling classes throughout history have imposed systems of discipline and so-called education upon their subjects which would be meaningless if man’s “soul” controlled man’s behaviour. Is the “immortal” susceptible to training and the environment of the school? But let us return to our boiled beef and carrots!

The class to which you and I belong consists of individuals whose characters are as varied as their physical make-ups. In this respect it does not differ from the master-class nor, indeed, from any class that has ever existed. From this fact it is clear that social position does not rest upon individual character. A man is either a worker or a capitalist, not because he has a peculiar temperament or disposition, but because his environment and history have so determined. To explain the difference between him and others we can only refer to this same environmental history. Try how we will we cannot discover any mysterious entity which decides that certain individuals shall dig coal for a living while others clip coupons. In short, the illusion that “character is destiny” sums up the stupid conceit of the master-class, who childishly fancy that ”God” or “Fate” has blessed them with “superior natures.” They mistake the effect for the cause, and imagine that their privileged position is due to their “culture,” instead of realising that their "culture ” is the fruit of their privileged position in society.

Socialists aim at the foundation of a system based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living. In such a society individuals will continue to vary, but it is in the common necessities of all that social life is rooted. Capitalist society has long since ceased to be consistent with the satisfactory distribution of these necessities. Hence the turmoil of modern social life. The "superior persons” of the master-class will, no doubt, resist the change as long as possible; but every ruling class in history has bitten the dust in due course when economic development has dug its grave. Psychological trickery may delay, it cannot prevent, the slow but sure awakening of the working-class, the class whose mission is to give to capitalism a conclusive exit to the land of shades.

Eric Boden

Brotherly Love in the U.S.A. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Sinclair Lewis, the author of "Babbitt," "Main Street," and other widely read novels, dealing with life in the U.S.A., was on the spot during the recent embittered struggle between mill-owners and cotton workers at Marion, North Carolina, one of the new industrial areas in the Southern States. He was inspired to write a pamphlet, "Cheap and Contented Labor," in which he tells of some of the incidents of industrial conflict as it is waged in America. It is written in simple, direct language, and is a powerful indictment of the unrestrained brutality of the employing class when they believe their interests to be endangered.

The operatives were on strike for an increase in their wages of 13 dollars a week—a starvation wage at American prices.

No sooner had the workers struck than all the forces of capitalist suppression were turned against them. Armed militia fired upon them on the least provocation. Hospitals refused to tend their sick and wounded. The law courts discounted their evidence, and charges were fabricated in the favour of the employers. Parsons ranted and demanded public whipping posts as a punishment for the "agitators."

General housing and social conditions in Marion are appalling, and call to mind the conditions of the mining and cotton districts of England in the early days of English factory development. Mr. Lewis, who has visited the Lancashire cotton districts, says that the condition of the workers there "is the abomination of desolation," but, he adds, these are "some three or four hundred per cent. superior to those of the workers in Marion." To any who are acquainted with the cotton districts of England such a comparison is enough.

We are also told that the conditions of the mill-workers of Marion are representative of scores of mill towns in America.

However, America still is a land of "prosperity and golden opportunities"—for the Capitalist. For the workers—slavery.

Mr. Lewis wants to abolish this slavery, although in this pamphlet he does not tell us what are his own views on the method of doing it.

H. W.

Is the 'Manual' Worker the Only 'Producer'? (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A book recommended by the translators of Marx's "Capital" (E. and C. Paul) is the Marxian Economic Handbook, by W. H. Emmett. This is one of the books supposed to simplify Marx, but it makes Marx more difficult than it is supposed to be. It contains also many errors. The author was prominent at one time in the Socialist Labour Party in Australia, and seems anxious to attack De Leon's explanation of Marx's "theories."

Dealing with that fine chapter of Marx on "Co-operation," Mr. Emmett says :

“In a pamphlet entitled "Marx on Mallock," Daniel de Leon implies that, according to Marx, managers and superintendents, by virtue of their brain work, are productive of wealth." (P.343.)

Mr. Emmett quotes Marx but leaves out the essential quotation. The advantages of division of labour and the necessary cooperation of producers in the modern factory are well brought out by Marx, who explains the necessity of "directive labour" in the following words : —

"Labour that is directly social, community labour on a large scale, always stands more or less in need of guidance, of a management which can establish harmony among the individual activities, and fulfil the general functions that belong to the movement of the unified productive organism as contrasted with the movements of the independent organs out of which the organism is made up. An individual violinist manages his own affairs ; an orchestra needs a conductor. This function of guidance, superintendence, and arrangement devolves upon capital as soon as the labour subordinated to it becomes co-operative. As a specific function of capital, the function of management acquires special characteristics." ("Capital," page 346 Everyman Ed.)

Mr. Emmett makes the following statement :—

"If the increased yield of modern wealth be not the exclusive yield of the manual labour employed, then this will mean that the labourers productive power is not (neither individually nor collectively) increased at all by the co-operation." (Page 343.)

The co-operation of workers does increase the output by means of the cooperative method in production, but does that mean that the work of foremen, superintendents, etc., in directing the division of labour and the co-operation of the various parts of the process, does not play a part in the increased output?

Mr. Emmett fails to take note of Marx's point in the quotation we give.

Marx clearly shows that the functions of guidance, superintendence and arrangement are essential to the co-operative labour process.

Mr. Emmett makes a further point. He. says : —

"If the managers and overlookers were a part of the co-operation (or that "collective power that resides in the manual workers and their direction, collectively ") how could Marx tell us that, "while the work is being done" these managers, etc. "command in the name of the capitalist " (Page 343.)

Naturally, under capitalism the foremen, managers, etc., command in the capitalists' name, but does that mean that they do not perform an essential part of the producing process ? Marx clearly -shows that management acquires "special characteristics" to-day, because of the "twofold nature" of production, "being, on the one hand, a social labour process intended to produce use-values, and, on the other hand, a process for promoting the self-expansion of Capital, a process for making surplus value." ("Capital," page 348.)

That two-fold character of modern production explains why the foremen, superintendents, etc., of industry are essential to the increased production of wealth in social production, and also "command in the name of the capitalist" for the purpose of producing- more surplus value.

Adolph Kohn