Marx and a Professor. (1932)

Book Review from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The critics of Marx are many and varied. Chiefly they belong to two camps: those who are completely ignorant of his life and writings, and those who, though acquainted with both, misrepresent them deliberately, or do not understand them.

Of this latter kind of critic a correspondent drawn our attention to an effort to dispose of Marx by Professor Hearnshaw of the London University, in a book called “A Survey of Socialism.”

The professor’s criticism is levelled chiefly at the Materialist Conception of History and the Labour Theory of Value. The crux of his criticism of the latter is the so-called contradiction between the theory of value as outlined in Vol. I of “Das Capital,” and the theory of the price of production in Vol III. As this was dealt with in the March S.S., this article will be mainly confined to the Materialist Conception of History.

Concerning this, the professor cannot discover any contradictions from Marx’s own writings. Instead, he finds that it has been “exploded,” “abandoned,” and “explained away” by its adherents, among them the “faithful Engels.”

Engels is quoted on page 238 as follows : 

"Marx and I are partially responsible for the fact that the younger men have sometimes laid more stress on the economic side than it deserves.”

This is described as a recantation from Marx. But why? Engels says, “The younger men laid more stress on the economic side than it deserves.” He did not say, as Mr. Hearnshaw would have his readers believe, that the economic side deserves no stress.

Mr Hearnshaw displays great ability in quoting extracts from the writings of Marxists, most of them dragged from their context, to show that Marx has been abandoned. One example is the following extract from page 282 of Mr. Hearnshav/’s book. He says :

“In particular, the Marxian eschatology is as completely discredited and derelict as is the mediaeval hell. “History,” confessed Engels in 1895, “proved us wrong and showed the views which we then held to be illusions.” O shade of Marx ! What will not the injudicious Engels confess now you are no longer-near him to impose discretion ?”

The quotation from Engels, ” History proved us wrong” . . .,” is from his introduction to Marx’s “Class Struggles in France,” and is trickily used to imply that the illusions were the Materialist Conception of History and the Labour Theory of Value. Whereas, students of Marx know that Engels was writing of the tactics to be pursued by the workers, the question of constitutional methods versus the barricades. The illusions referred to were the barricades !

And, be it remembered, Mr. Hearnshaw is not a political peddler, but a professor of the London University.

Two extracts are taken from E. Belfort Bax’s book, “Outlooks from the New Standpoint,” and quoted on p. 239 of Hearnshaw’s book.

The first is : —

“Although economics are the basis of human existence, they are the basis merely and not the complete whole.”

The use made of this by Mr. Hearnshaw is such as to convey to the superficial reader that Marx’s case is that economics are the whole of existence. In reality, however, this particular quotation, though weakly stated, says nothing that Marx did not say. It is a Marxist truism. The second quotation is :

“There are certain human interests whose development cannot be interpreted economically.”

With regard to this quotation we do not attempt to defend Belfort Bax’s position.

It would be as well, before proceeding further, to state what is the working basis of the Materialist Conception of History. It is, as stated by Engels in the preface to the Communist Manifesto :

“That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch.”

In much of his writing on the Materialist Conception of History Bax diverged from the Marxian view. He says, for example, in the book from which Mr Hearnshaw quotes, “Outlooks from the New Standpoint” (p. 132).

“It would be difficult to deduce the Cruades from the conditions of the mediaeval manor of the eleventh century.”

Again :

“There is much in the history of the first two centuries of the Christian era which cannot be directly referred to economical courses.”

It will be noticed that Belfort Bax does not say that the underlying causes of events are not economic, but merely that he finds certain events “difficult to deduce'” and others which “cannot be directly referred to economical causes.” This does not dispute the fundamental Marxian proposition that the intellectual and political history of an epoch are to be explained in the mode of production then prevailing; a proposition |which Belfort Bax emphasises repeatedly. It is, however, his obscure and ambiguous use of English (unusual with Bax) that gives Mr. Hearnshaw the opportunity to accuse him of making a “tolerably complete evacuation from Marx.”

Mr. Hearnshaw gives a typical illustration of his inability to understand the Materialist Conception of History or of his deliberate misrepresentation of it on page 105. He says that it does not take into iaccount “sex attraction and religious aspiration . . . they cannot be interpreted as consequences of economic antecedents.” It might surprise Mr. Hearnshaw and Marx’s critics to know that it does take these into account; that it does not interpret them as “consequences of economic antecedents.” What the Materialist Conception of History does say is that the forms which “sex attraction and religious aspiration” take change from age to age; and that these forms can only be explained and understood in the light of the mode of production and consequent social organisation of the age in which they exist.

Mr. Hearnshaw summarises his arguments on page 241:

“The Materialist Conception of History may partially explain the evolution of primitive barbaric society which was wholly engrossed in the struggle for the means of existence, but it does not explain the evolution of civilised society in which other and higher interests prevail ; it leaves out of account—unexplained and wholly inexplicable—religion, patriotism, devotion to ideal causes, martyrdoms, spiritualities; it does not explain Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Luther, Tolstoi; nay, it does not explain Marx himself. For Marx, assuredly, was not moved by economic considerations.”

It will only be possible to deal with a few of the points raised here.

That primitive society was “wholly engrossed in the struggle for the means of existence” can only be wholly explained—not partially—by the fact that the means of production were primitive and had not developed to the point where it was possible to produce wealth easily, giving time for leisure, making it possible for any to live without working, or of living on the products of another class. In order to survive its struggle with nature the primitive social organisation demanded equal co-operation between its members. This equality was not an ethical creed, but a necessity which arose from the struggle. Class society emerged from primitive society when a mode of production had developed which destroyed this co-operative character of primitive society. It could not arise before. Nomadic tribes following their flocks and herds discovered a new method of production in agriculture, and laid the foundation of a new form of private property. The process was a gradual one, spread over a long period before society based on private property became clearly formed. The important point is that the change was determined by a change in the mode of production. The final result was class divided society, which gave leisure to, and made it possible for, certain classes to be other than “wholly engrossed in the struggles for the means of existence.”

Professor Hearnshaw refers also to patriotism. According to the dictionary patriotism means the “pride and love for one’s own country.” Not only does the Materialist Conception of History explain it, but nothing else can. In feudal society modern productive forces did not exist. Economically, the manorial village was almost a complete and self-sufficing unit in itself. It needed little or no intercourse with the outside world. When it did that intercourse was often “unfriendly.” Feudal history is one long record—so far as the nation is concerned—of internal conflicts. The conception of patriotism and nationalism did not come into existence until developments and changes in the methods of production were taking place, which gradually undermined the economic basis and social organisation of Feudalism. “Patriotism” and “England” grew simultaneously with the extension of the market. Mr. G. B. Shaw illustrates this point in his play, “St. Joan,” which was cast in the 15th century. He makes one of his characters, an English nobleman, say :

“A Frenchman ! Where did you pick up that expression? Are these Burgundians and Bretons and Picards and Gascons beginning to call themselves Englishmen? They actually talk of France and England as their countries. Theirs, if you please ! What is to become of me and you if that way of thinking comes into fashion ? Men cannot serve two masters. If this cant of serving their country takes hold of them, good-bye to the authority of their feudal lords, and good-bye to the authority of the church. That is, good-by to you and me.”

The rising capitalist class were a “patriotic” class at the same time that they were a revolutionary class. It was this patriotism which gave expression to the aspirations of the growing capitalist class that Dr. Johnson, the famous defender of waning feudal privileges, referred to when he said that “patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Changes in the mode of production have broken down the economic unity of the village, have made nations—and empires. Patriotism and Nationalism reflect this development and correspond to it.

Marx, Christ—and other matters.

When the learned professor speaks of explaining Christ and Marx he obviously means the ideas for which they stood in their time.

The basis of Christ’s teaching, i.e., the idea of the “One God,” reflected social forms that then existed. The ground for this conception had been prepared by the dissolution of tribal life, and the destruction of the tribal gods which synchronised with the growth of the Roman Empire. Christ came (or the Christian teaching arose) after the zenith of the Roman Empire had been passed and decay was setting in. The conditions of the slave-classes in the Empire were at their lowest. Appalling poverty, social disintegration and oppression. Christianity blessed the poor and cursed the rich; extolled poverty and promised riches—in heaven. It did not promise recompense on this earth. The economic conditions of the time did not make possible any proposal that would remedy their slavery on this earth. It was perfectly natural then that deliverance from these conditions should take the form of a belief that promised recompense in a “life to come.” This belief fostered—and taught—a tolerance of the conditions of this world, and submissiveness to slavery. The ruling class discovered this and adopted Christianity. Subsequent ruling-classes also recognised it and made use of it; at the same time adapting its theological aspects to suit changing conditions, and their class interests. Hence the changing form of Christianity, from Catholicism to Protestantism, and to the modern abstract forms which have abandoned some of the crudities that were originally attached to it.

There is some similarity in the misery and poverty of the slaves in Ancient Rome and those of the modern proletariat. There is this difference, however, capitalism suggests an alternative on this earth. The tendency which characterises the modern proletariat is not, therefore, like that of the slaves of Rome, to give expression to their discontent by embracing a creed which “despairs of this world,” but it is to express its discontent politically. This it does by supporting, and in withdrawing its support from one political party after another. Sooner or later, knowledge, and the lessons that come from experience, will lead to an understanding of the present order of society. When that point is reached the working class will fulfil its historic mission, gain political power, and establish Socialism. Thus the conditions of capitalism drive the workers to give expression to their discontent in material forms and away from religious forms. Hence, the growing irreligion of the workers.

One of the easiest (and very common) methods of argument is to state what it is thought an opponent’s views are, and then proceed to demolish them. Mr. Hearnshaw (wittingly or not) has used this method. Though Mr. Hearnshaw’s book has over four hundred pages and contains nearly five hundred quotations, there is not one quotation which clearly states Marx’s view on the Materialist Conception of History. Instead, there are hundreds of quotations from books written mostly by anti-Socialists which purport to state Marx’s view. And this, despite the fact that the fundamental principles of the Materialist Conception of History which are outlined in the preface to Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy” could be stated in a few pages. In view of this, the following from page 230 of Mr. Hearnshaw’s book is just cheek :

“The second thing to be considered is this : that the Marxian system, since its formulation in 1894, has been entirely shattered by criticism, so that it is now a moral and intellectual ruin which no impartial thinker professes to regard is an intact structure.”

And nearly forty years after 1894 the learned professor and “impartial thinker,” regardless of the fact that the “Marxian system has been shattered” finds that it is necessary to do so again. There is an endless procession of those who add their “mite” to the shattering of the “Marxian system”; though it might be thought that having once shattered it into a “moral and intellectual ruin” it would, be unnecessary to do so again. But, alas ! the problems of capitalism arouse ever fresh interest in the “Marxian system” and prove the logic of its analysis. Where capitalism appears, there translated into every language, appears the “Marxian system” also. And it will be so until capitalism is abolished.

Further points from our correspondent’s letter dealing with other aspects of socialist criticism will appear in a subsequent issue.

Harry Waite

SPGB Meetings (1982)

Party News from the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

A number of the meetings listed are actually available as audio files on the SPGB website. Click on the links:

Debate: Did Lenin distort?

‘Yes’ – Steve Coleman, SPGB

‘No’ – Monty Johnstone, CPGB & ‘Marxism Today’

Venue: Islington Central Library, London

Date: 11th November 1982

Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

A series of talks by Steve Coleman and held by Islington Branch between 3rd October 1982 and 26th December 1982.

The venue was the Prince Albert pub in Islington.

Plekhanov and the Materialist Conception of History 

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 3rd October 1982

Dietzgen and Dialectical Thought

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 17th October 1982

Kautsky and the Critique of Religion

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 31st October 1982

Bronterre O'Brien and Working-Class Radicalism

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 21st November 1982

Belfort Bax and the Ethics of Socialism

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 28th November 1982

William Morris' Vision of Socialism

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 12th December 1982 (Part 2)

Martov and the Anti-Bolshevik Approach to Revolution

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 26th December 1982

What About Will Thorne, M.P.? (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his “Essays in Socialism” (Grant Richards, sixpence) E. Belfort Bax, of the Social Democratic Federation, says, under the heading “Factitious Unity” :

It is alleged by practical politicians, so called, as a reason for toleration or compromise that a party cannot afford to lose an able man or men merely because they happen to be shaky on some vital point of principal. To this it may be replied that the ability of doubtful members cuts both ways. It may be of more danger to party principles when inside the party organisation than it is of advantage to the enemy when working against it outside. A party having any regard for its principles should surely look to it that its able men—those, therefore, most powerful for leading—should be straight, even more than the ordinary rank and file—and, hence, if they go wrong, should be the more inexorably expelled. A party that is worth its salt can always afford to lose a man or two without collapsing, but it cannot always afford to have a powerful leader inside incessantly pulling the wrong way. Here, again, we ask, is the object of the party to hold together solely for the sake of office, emoluments, or party tranquility, or for the sake of its avowed aims?

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

W.T.S. (Crewe).—Irrespective of our opinion in the matter, the General Secretary and Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. are condemned out of their own months. In April last they issued a manifesto to Railwaymen in which they said “The delegates” (at Birmingham in November, 1906) “also decided that all negotiations relative to the men’s conditions shall be conducted through the Head Office, and the General Secretary of the Society. It may at once be definitely accepted that until this is done the men cannot hope for any great or substantial reforms.” The italics are ours. The income of the Union in 1906 was £82,978 6s. 0d. and the expenditure £50,813 1s. 1d., of which £25,214 0s 8d. was paid to members in benefits, £69 17s. 0d. in contributions to other Unions, and £25,529 3s. 5d. went in salaries of officers and other expenses of management.

J.B. (Manchester),—At the 1903 Newcastle Conference of the L.R.C. the constitution was revised, but has not since been altered. Candidates pledge themselves to accept the constitution, and “to abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties.” At that Conference it was moved by Mr. John Hodge (Steel Smelters) and seconded by Mr. C. Freak (Boot & Shoe Operatives) “That this Labour Representation Conference, representing nearly a million organised workers, unanimously endorses the candidature of Wm. Crooks, L.C.C., for the bye-election at Woolwich, rejoices in the chance of the return of another member to Parliament who accepts the Constitution of the Committee, and begs every workman in the division to vote for Crooks.” This resolution was carried with one dissentient. The Constitution was revised after the passing of this resolution. At the fourth Conference (Bradford, 1904) the Executive gave the result of the bye-election, describing Mr. Crooks as the L.R.C. candidate and included him in their list of L.R.C. candidates for the next elections. His name also appeared in the next annual report as a candidate and in the following one as an L.R.C. Member of Parliament. Mr. Crooks received £200 from the Committee for his salary for 1906, and presumably, therefore, he was taking the money of the L.R.C. at the time he sent the letter in support of Mr. Hamar Greenwood at York. No member’s salary is paid until he has signed the Constitution.

M.B. (Manchester).—It was stated by Reynold’s Newspaper of January 14th, 1906 that, among other “Socialists,” E. Belfort Bax, J. F. Green, and A. S. Headingley, all of the S.D.F., were members of the National Liberal Club, and that before being elected, every candidate must take a pledge that he will support the principles of the Liberal Party. Mr. Bax makes no secret of his membership. In the Social Democrat for July, 1902, J. B. Askew wrote : “It certainly seems curious that Bax, who is so severe on Bernstein, finds it consistent with his hatred of Liberalism to remain a member of a club which makes it a condition of membership that a member should recognise the principles of the Liberal Party . . . But then, are not the armchairs comfortable, and the whisky good ?” In the following issue Bax replied as follows: “Those members of the S.D.F. (and they count among them men who have certainly paid their tribute to the Cause in the past) who like myself are members of the N.L.C.,” etc. We believe that Mr. H. M. Hyndman is also a member. At any rate he was one of the speakers on May 25th, 1906, when Mr. W. M. Thompson was the guest at a dinner of the Club. Mr. Hyndman spoke after John Burns ! A. Hayday, S.D.F., is president of the South West Ham Radical Club of which W. Thorne and J. Jones are also members.

S.T. (Glasgow).—The S.D.F. “demand” is for “compulsory military training” and this cannot be had without military discipline. The S.D.F. must recognise this, because in that weird document which they term their programme they declare for the abolition of standing armies (number not stated) and the establishment of national citizen forces (number also omitted) and afterwards the abolition of courts-martial; all offences against discipline to be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts. So that they anticipate there will be offences against discipline even when they have national citizen forces.

Letter: The Class Struggle and Socialism (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

(We have received the following letter of criticism, to which is appended our reply—Ed. Comm.)

Golders Green, N.W.11.

4.7.55.

Dear Sirs,

The July Socialist Standard reprinted a quotation from an issue of 50 years ago “ Militant the workers’ cause is identified with class; triumphant, with humanity.” Recently (Oct. 1954) you reprinted the same quotation, which seems to indicate that you endorse it to-day. I have given considerable thought to the attitude to Socialism which is summed up in these few words, and I would appreciate it if you would allow me to state my point of view, together with whatever reply you may consider necessary or desirable on behalf of the S.P.G.B.

The first thing that strikes me about the quotation is that it states an obvious—even tautological—truth about the class struggle that characterises all property societies The “cause” of the people who are organised as a class in society can only be seen as a class cause—they are on one side or other of the struggle between those who buy and those who sell labour power. These causes and this struggle—militant or otherwise—are unquestionably a major feature of capitalist society. In so far as there is any triumph in this struggle, it is when one side gains a victory at the expense of the other—a class victory.

There is, however, another kind of struggle going on in society—the struggle for Socialism. On the one hand are Socialists: people who believe that a classless society is both desirable and practicable. On the other are those who are not Socialists, and who either support or acquiesce in the continuation of Capitalist institutions. The struggle between these two groups of people is a different kind of struggle from the first because it is concerned not with class interest but With social interest. Triumph here means that co-operation, harmony, social equality, will have ousted competition, warfare (including class warfare) and commodity relations.

Bearing this in mind, it seems hardly possible for the appeal to establish Socialism to be a class appeal. Much more is it a call to all people to be “integrated in a carefree world of humans,” as one of your writers puts it. This, of course, is not to say that Socialists should, in their propaganda, disregard the fact of the class struggle within Capitalism. It is a plea that the case for Socialism should be presented clearly for what it is—the triumph of humanity through the work of humanity.

I would like to add a few words on another point quoted in the S.S. that “the interests of the human race are bound up with the aspirations of the oppressed working-class in its struggle with Capitalist domination.” Everyone championing a sectional interest claims that it really represents the interests of all. At a recent political meeting I attended, several speakers tried to persuade the audience that movements for colonial self-government (i.e. nationalist movements) were really international in character. How easily Socialists can see the fallacy of that claim! Yet does it not appear that the S.P.G.B. is a victim of the same fallacy in claiming that a class movement can establish classless society

Yours sincerely,

S. R. Parker.

Reply:

The quotations to which our critic refers are those published under the heading “Fifty Years Ago” in our issues of October 1954 and July 1955.

The two articles from which these quotations were reproduced appeared in our issues of October 1904 and July 1905. They both express the point of view of the Socialist against that of the Reformists who, while reluctantly having to admit that the class struggle is a fact, want to disregard it. The first was an attack on Keir Hardie, who was one of these, and it included a quotation from Belfort Bax, who wrote of the “Benevolent old gentleman who says, 'Let us ignore classes, let us regard each other as human beings.' "

The second article (July 1905), again attacked those who, admitting the reality of the class straggle, refused to recognise the necessity of basing working-class political action on that reality, on the ground that “it is immoral, that it stirs up strife and sets one class against another.” It admitted that this was logical for those (Keir Hardie was one) who based their “Socialism” on the New Testament and its injunction “Resist not evil”; it also pointed out how this injunction serves the interest of the Capitalist class and fits in with their class morality which teaches the workers that any resistance by them against their exploitation is immoral. The article went on to show that as no propertied class ever voluntarily gives up its privileged position, and as the ending of class society is in the interest of humanity, “the only class that can be relied on for the abolition of privilege and power to exploit, is the unprivileged propertyless working class.”

One point made in the article was:—"Not indeed that we must hate the individual Capitalist, for he is the product of his circumstances; but in the interests of humanity the firmest action must be taken. The power to exploit must be wrested from the parasites.”

It should not be necessary to reproduce again the passage quoted in our July issue, but we do so because our critic’s letter so grotesquely misunderstands what it contains.

The quotation was:—

“The victory of the Socialist working-class is the only possible ending of this great struggle. This, however, does not mean the subjection of the Capitalist class by the workers: it means the abolition of Capitalism and the end of classes, for the great unprivileged masses cannot secure equality of opportunity without abolishing class privilege, and privilege is based on private property. The triumph of the great working majority thus involves the emancipation of all from class oppression, for the interests of the toiling masses are fundamentally the interests of humanity.

“Socialism, is then, the ethics of humanity, the necessary economic foundation of a rational code of morality. The interests of the human race are bound up with the aspirations of the oppressed working-class in its struggle with Capitalist domination. As it has very truly been said: 'Militant, the workers’ cause is identified with class triumphant, with humanity'.”

(In our July issue the word rational in line two of the second paragraph was in error given as national).

Our critic misrepresents the substance of this quotation by the peculiar and quite incorrect meaning he gives to the term class struggle and by his failure to read simple phrases in their obvious unmistakable meaning.

He thinks, as will be seen from the second paragraph of his letter, that the class struggle consists of “the struggle between those who buy and those who sell labour-power.” Historically class struggles have sometimes been between propertied classes, as for example between Feudal landlords and the rising Capitalists. In modern society the predominant class division is between the Capitalists who own the means of production and distribution and the property-less working class. This is the basis and substance of the class struggle; the struggle over wages is merely a restricted aspect of the class struggle, the one to which the workers are normally confined because the State power precludes other activities on their part. The culmination of the modern class struggle is the political struggle of a Socialist working class for Socialism.

But even for non-Socialist workers the wages struggle does not represent the whole of their aspirations. In our own time we have seen workers, when conditions made this temporarily possible, seize possession of the employers’ factories, as in Italy after World War I, and the Syndicalist movement before that war aimed at "taking and holding.” In the early 19th century workers’ movements (e.g. the co-operative pioneers) aspired to create a new society, though their aim was vague and they failed to understand the means necessary for its achievement

Next our critic evidently fails to notice that our quotation begins with a reference to “the Socialist working-class,” and fails to notice the reference in the same quotation to “the aspirations of the oppressed working class in its struggle with Capitalist domination." “Aspiration” is defined in the dictionary as “noble ambition,” and Capital domination does not merely mean the employers’ resistance to wage increases. So, departing entirely from the plain meaning of the passage, he criticises it as if what had been written there was something like this:—

“The victory of those non-Socialist workers whose aims extend no further than the struggle for another 3d. an hour embodies the aspirations of the Socialist working class and is in the interest of humanity.' "

In the light of what the quotation actually says the criticisms of it contained in the letter are almost entirely irrelevant

Rejecting the Socialist conception of a working-class becoming Socialist, and taking political action to end class society, our critic offers us instead the conception of a “group” of Socialists struggling against a “group” of non-Socialists, but omits to tell us how this is to lead to Socialism.

He concludes by asserting, without any discernable reason, that a Socialist working-class, constituting the great majority of society, cannot have a classless society though that will be its aim, but informs us that a “group” (a section only of society) can do so by struggling against the defenders of Capitalism.

What the example of self-styled Nationalists claiming to be Internationalists has to do with the case we do not know.

Editorial Committee.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

On January 1st all orthodox persons are supposed to make resolutions—which they devote the remaining days of the year to breaking. Reformers of all shades are amongst the orthodox, regarding the members of the S.P.G.B. as unorthodox, “visionary,” “outside the political pale,” etc. I would suggest that these folk take a resolution to ignore the things that do not matter, and to devote their energies to the only thing that does, viz., the class ownership of the means of wealth production, and the consequent enslavement and poverty of the wealth producers,

o o o

If the reformers could show any effective “reforms” as the result of their efforts ; if they could prove that any “reforms” they may have been instrumental in securing have made any real difference to the condition of the working class, one would be inclined to bear with them, but when there is abundant testimony to the failure of their efforts, to the waste of all the money they have spent, the time and energy they have devoted to the particular phases of the social problem which find favour in their eyes, one gets a little impatient. However, I will be calm and will only bid them take to heart the truth, as expounded in the following paragraph, extracted from the columns of that, most respectable organ, The Times, of Christmas Day, in its comments upon the reports by medical inspectors of the Local Government Boards.

o o o

“The stories told, it says, are monotonous, and, in most instances, the particulars are disgusting. . . Houses unfit for human habitation, rooms destitute of light and ventilation, overcrowding in rural cottages, contaminated water supplies, accumulations of every description of filth and refuse, a total absence of drainage, a reign of unbelievable dirt in milk-shops and slaughter-houses, and an inadequate supervision by officials who are frequently incompetent; such, in a general way, is the picture that is commonly presented.”

o o o

Reading an article from the pen of Mr. E. Belfort Bax in Wilshire’s Magazine, written from the National Liberal Club, England, a correspondent in America asks how the S.D.F. can square its assertion that the Liberal Party must be smashed with the fact that it allows its prominent members to belong to Liberal Clubs. We know it is usual to ask riddles at the festive season, but, owing to the ravages of the prevailing epidemic, we regret we are not up to finding the solution.

o o o

According to the Reader, one of the most prized possessions of Lord Tweedmouth is a half-crown. It is set in a frame, and underneath are the words, “Honestly earned.” We congratulate his Lordship upon being so candid as to admit that out of his large income he has only “honestly earned” one solitary half-crown in his life, and that was by accident.

o o o

Mr. Ben Cooper (Liberal) and Mr. Harry Quelch (S.D.F., and supporter of Liberal candidates) will represent the London Trades Council at the Labour Party Conference at Belfast this month.

o o o

Mr. Bell, M.P., addressing a meeting of the Derby Trades Council recently, said that he certainly had said “For God’s sake let us keep politics out of our unions,” and he was still of the same opinion. Later he declared that they had had more advantages for Labour during the past year from the Liberals than they had ever had or were likely to have from any Conservative government. His position was and always had been one of strict neutrality, but he invited them to give the Liberal Government credit.

o o o

If Mr. Bell believes in keeping politics out of the unions, why does he so continuously use union meetings to boom the Liberals and—Richard Bell, M.P. ?

o o o

In these days when wealthy and titled personages are entering the “Labour” movement, and, because of their wealth and their titles, being pushed to the front by the middle-class dominators of that movement; when “Labour ” “copy” is “good copy” in capitalist journals and magazines, the working class will need all their wits to prevent side-tracking. There is something to ponder over in the words put into the mouth of an Anarchist plotter in a story in the December Harper’s.

o o o

“Don’t you know yet that an idle and selfish class loves to see mischief being made, even if it is made at its own expense ? Its own life being all a matter of vestment and gesture, it is unable to realise the power and danger of real ache and of words that have no sham meaning. It is all fun and sentiment. It is sufficient, for instance, to point out the attitude of the old French aristocracy towards the philosophers whose words were preparing the Great Revolution. Even in England, where you have some common sense, a demagogue has only to shout loud enough and long enough to find some backing in the very class he is shouting at. You too like to see mischief being made. The demagogue gets the amateurs of emotion with him. Amateurism in this, that and the other thing is a delightfully easy way of killing time, and of feeding one’s own vanity—the silly vanity of being abreast with the ideas of the day after tomorrow. Just as good and otherwise harmless people will join you in ecstacies over your collection of old china, without having the slightest notion in what its marvellousness really consists.”

o o o

With the advent of these “aristocratic” and “millionaire” Socialists in increasing numbers, more strenuous efforts are made by their “fellow conspirators” to make Socialism appeal ever so respectable. “Hide the Red Flag” says one section; “Don’t hold meetings on Sundays,” says another; “Deny the Class War,” and so on. And here is Gaylord Wilshire, one of America’s “millionaire Socialists,” repeating the old twaddle that “The phrase ‘capital versus labour’ continually gives rise to the popular misconception that labour is against capital, or rather that the Socialist is against capital. Not at all. The Socialist is against the private ownership of capital, but certainly not against capital itself.”

o o o

The Socialist who understands the position is out for the abolition of capital. This was dealt with in our issues of April and August last.

o o o

“There are many Socialists who assert that ‘the armed nation,’ so called, should supplant the standing armies of capitalism, but the experience of Switzerland doesn’t bear out the theory. A recent meeting of Socialists in the Canton of Zurich was held to protest against the employment of troops in suppressing strikes. They claimed that in no country in Europe, Russia not excepted, were troops so constantly used to put down strikes and suppress picketing, and stated that ‘military outrages against peaceful strikers are becoming matters of daily occurrence.’ Switzerland’s military establishment is based on the ‘armed nation’ principle.” 

Wilshire’s Magazine.

o o o

In the Report of Mr. D. Cummings and his Executive of the Boiler Makers’ Union, on the failure of the Clyde Strike, and the defeat of the men, occur these words : “On account of our railway shares not being saleable without great loss, and the difficulty of disposing of the Preference shares of Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., we were momentarily in financial difficulty, but our bankers advanced us temporarily a large sum of money at the current interest, and were prepared to advance us still more had the strike gone on.”

o o o

The capitalist Press are continually booming the “thrift” of the working class, as evidenced by their savings in trade unions, friendly societies, building societies and the like. But in a time of need, such as the strike under review, these savings are useless unless “at call.” As they are invariably invested in capitalist enterprises they are, not available when needed, except under the disadvantageous circumstances referred to in the Report. A combination of financiers could at any time, paralyze the trade unions, by dealing with their investments on the Stock Exchange in such a manner as to render them useless.

o o o

The capitalist cat has at least the proverbial number of lives, and is not going to be killed by a little Trade Dispute Act, despite the junketing of S.D.F., I.L.P., and Liberal-Labour men, who forgot their differences and ate, drank, and were merry together at the Shackleton Banquet last month.

J. Kay

Blogger's Note:

"There is something to ponder over in the words put into the mouth of an Anarchist plotter in a story in the December Harper’s . . . " 

The passage quoted from Harper's magazine is from Joseph Conrad's short story, 'The Informer'. I'm guessing this short story was one of Conrad's dry runs for his more famous work, The Secret Agent.

Socialism on tape (1989)

 From the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

From the list above the following recordings are available on the SPGB website:

• Is Britain Worth Dying For? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Lady Olga Maitland (Women and Families for Defence) (1984).
• After The Miners Strike — Which Way Forward For Socialists? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party (speaker Colin Tipton) (1985).
• Is Inequality Natural? Speaker Clifford Slapper (1985).
• Did Lenin Distort Marx? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Monty Johnstone (Communist Party. Marxism Today) (1982).
• Why Tony Benn Should Be A Socialist. Speaker Dick Donnelly (1980).
• The Crisis In Capitalism — What Is The Next Step? DEBATE between The Socialist Party (speaker Clifford Slapper) and Bill Etherington (General Secretary. Durham Mechanics NUM) (1986)
• Historical Materialism: Theory And Action. Speakers Janie Percy-Smith. Steve Coleman (1987)
• Marxian Economics And Capitalist Textbooks. Speaker Adam Buick. (1987)
• Marx's Conception Of Socialism. Speaker E. Hardy (1987)

Education Series: Socialist Thinkers — People Who History 
Made. Speaker Steve Coleman (1982).

• Plekhanov And Historical Materialism.
• Dietzgen And Dialectical Thought.
• Kautsky's Critique Of Religion.
• Bronterre O'Brien And Working Class Radicalism.
• Belfort Bax And The "Ethics’ Of Socialism.
• William Morris' Vision Of Socialism.
• Martov And The Anti-Bolshevik Approach To Revolution.

50 Years Ago: Bax on Class (1954)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Classes exist; you may ignore them, but they will exist still with the respective characters they engender. Though you ignore them, they will not ignore you. . . .  In the Socialist workmen the class-instinct has become transformed into the conviction that, in the words of Lassalle, ‘he is called to raise the principle of his class into the principle of the age.' He knows that in the moment of victory—of the realisation of the dominion of his class—the ugly head of class itself must fall, and society emerge. Militant, his cause is identified with class; triumphant with Humanity." (Quoted from “Socialism and Ethics,” by E. Belfort Bax.)

(From the Socialist Standard, October, 1904.)

Fakirs' (1905)

From the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amongst the first members of the National Liberal Club to subscribe to Reynold’s Sandwichmen’s Fund were Mr. J. F. Green and Mr. E. Belfort Bax.

Law and society (1974)

From the September 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism will be a system of society where the mass of formal rules and regulations which now govern human conduct will disappear. There will also be none of the trappings which inevitably accompany any advanced legal system.

The crushing environment of capitalist society helps to instil in people the idea that the law is some sort of external norm governing human behaviour and that those individuals administering it are a breed of superior beings. The foolish notion that judges and lawyers are somehow of a better moral or intellectual fibre than the rest of us, should not need debunking in the 1970s. Shakespeare did it over 350 years ago. King Lear says, “. . see how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief . . . change places and handy dandy which is the justice which is the thief.”

More recently Belfort Bax in The Religion of Socialism said:

. . . it is an undoubted truth that no judge can be an honest man . . . and why? Because the aspiring member of the bar when he accepts a judgeship knows that in doing so he deliberately pledges himself to functions which at any moment compel him to act against his conscience and wrong another man . . . He lays himself under the obligation of administering a law which he may know to be bad on any occasion when called upon merely because it is the law. He makes this surrender of humanity and honour for what? For filthy lucre and tawdry notoriety. Now I ask can we conceive a more abjectly contemptible character than that which acts thus?

But the Socialist’s attitude to the role of law in society is not based on exposing the fallacy that those who administer the law are a nobler breed of men. It is reasoned on the basis of the law’s function in present day society. Although academic lawyers divide the realm of law into hundreds of different branches, when looked at from the point of view of society as a whole, there are really four main areas of law. These are state, criminal, contract and what is sometimes known as welfare law but is usually more accurately described as poverty law. An examination of these four branches of law shows their bases in capitalist society and how they will be totally irrelevant and unnecessary in Socialist society.

State law is the area of the legal machinery which deals with the individual’s right in society as against the machinery of government and its armed forces. States only exist in capitalist society as arbitrary boundaries, defining areas of competing capitalist interests. Internal state law is the legal machinery used as the front to back up the armed control of the capitalist over wealth produced by the workers. A world community where everything is owned in common will have neither place nor need for laws to keep one section of society in subjection.

Now let’s take criminal law. The vast bulk of this area is concerned with offences against recognised property relationships. All wealth in capitalist society is owned by definite individuals or bodies (e.g. companies or governments). The law takes no notice of how it came about that X owns vast estates and Y owns nothing. Criminal law is there to preserve those relationships that currently exist. The shareholder’s title to his shares is protected by the law (backed up by the armed force of the state); the landlord’s title to his land is likewise defended by the law. The criminal law takes no notice of the social robbery that is a fact of everyday life, i.e. that the land, factories, mines etc. are owned by a small minority. Clearly in a society where all wealth is owned by the whole of mankind, i.e. Socialism, there will be no part to be played by a system or rules to enable robbers to hold on to their booty.

The rest of the criminal law, which is not directly related to the defence of private property is largely concerned with state control of production and distribution. Factory legislation and road traffic legislation set a standard (usually the absolute minimum) for controls in the interest of the whole of the capitalist class. Lorries going at 80 m.p.h. are a danger to other products on the road; men working more than a certain number of hours at a stretch driving these lorries are also a danger to other commodities on the roads. They also risk damaging the goods of their own employer.

It is fairly well known that legislation protecting workers from dangerous machinery and processes is ineffective. Firstly the number of factory inspectors is totally inadequate. Secondly the penalties that are imposed for the breaches that are discovered and brought before the courts are derisive. Many employers find it cheaper to pay the penalty fines that are imposed for hazarding workers’ lives by, for example, unfenced machinery, than foot the bill for complying with safety regulations. In a Socialist society the needs of those involved in the productive processes will not be swept aside by the insane drive for profit.

The final part of the criminal law deals with ‘‘offences against the person’’. In terms of the legal machinery of capitalism it occupies a small part in the whole process. The majority of crimes in this category (often inter family disputes) are traceable to frustrations and problems caused by private property in society. When father comes home having worked a ten-hour day, doing a simple, boring, degrading, mind destroying process, to a wife cooped up in two rooms with three children, it is hardly surprising that domestic violence sometimes results. Other crimes of violence are generally linked with theft in some way or other though a recent ugly development has been political violence. The hooliganism of the football match and the thuggery of the tubes and street corners are only a reaction to the horrific conditions the majority of people face in private property society. In a society where material deprivations have been left behind the need for legal restraint will be found to be obsolete.

The third main area, contract law, covers an enormous field, from buying a joint at the local supermarket to property “developers” buying slag heaps. Quite obviously the majority of workers have little contact with this area of the law or the courts that administer it. Disputes over the amount to pay for a loaf of bread seldom reach the somber pomposity of High Court Judges. On the other hand a dispute over the correct price of a shipment of copper from South America could involve millions of pounds. The capitalist class needs the Civil Courts to sort out their property disputes. The only times the average worker has any real contact with this area of the law is when he is buying a house) of course on mortgage so it is really the building society or the local authority that is buying it); or if he fails to meet his instalments on the h.p. or the fridge. But it is a brief look, and many workers do not even have this glimpse into the mysteries of the workings of the law. Need it be added that when all wealth is owned in common, laws of contract will be as relevant as a horse and cart at the motor show.

Which leaves poverty law. The area embraces the law dealing with state benefits of whatever sort, local authority benefits (e.g. subsidized housing) and certain areas which are known as social law. It is an area where most lawyers know little and care less. After all there is no money to be made for the lawyer in explaining to the pensioner how he can obtain an allowance of 2p off the cost of his butter. It is, however, the area of the law with which most workers make some contact. In 1972 over 10 million received some sort of regular state “benefits", out of a total population of 56 million. (Social Trends 1973 published by the Central Statistical Office). That is a high proportion of the adult population. The distribution of the pittances that are given to the members of the working class, unable to keep even their abysmal standard of living afloat (£16 per week for a married couple not a pittance?) is surely evidence of the appalling failure of capitalist society to produce an answer to poverty. This despite the Lloyd Georges, the Beveridges and the mile upon mile of statutes dealing with poverty.

The vast complicated structure for measuring the subsistence allowances that are doled out to workers only has a place in a world that allows a small minority to live in luxury and forces the vast majority to live in poverty.

Finally, under this general heading of poverty law might be included “family law". The Law Society is responsible for administering the civil Legal Aid system in this country. That is the fund to enable people who cannot afford legal advice or assistance to have it paid by the state in certain circumstances. (This fund is different from the one relating to Legal Aid in criminal cases.) The Law Society calculates that the majority of its funds are used in proceedings relating to divorce, maintenance or custody of children. With the greater pressures that capitalist society bring on personal relationships the divorce courts (which have the task of rearranging the poverty of the working class when family situations get out of hand) are the courts that workers increasingly enter.

In Socialist society where there will be no buying and selling and therefore no money, there will be no financial pressures on human beings, adults or children. The relationships between the sexes will not be complicated by the irrelevant considerations which are of such importance to-day. If people who were formerly living together wish to separate there will be no financial or “moral” pressures to prevent them doing so, and no humiliating proceedings to be endured as a result.

When Socialism is introduced amongst many of the vast changes in human existence will be the following:

1. Wealth will be produced in the abundance necessary to satisfy man’s physical wants. This is technically possible now, but production is limited to what can be sold at a profit on the market.
2. There will be free access for all in society to the goods produced. In these circumstances laws defining people’s property relationships will be as unnecessary as they are useless. When poverty is abolished, who needs poverty laws? When private property is abolished, who will want contract and criminal laws defending it?

Ronnie Warrington

Correction (1974)

From the September 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are grateful to a correspondent for pointing out the following corrections to an article in the June Socialist Standard.

On page 98 we stated that when the SPGB was formed in 1904 it had to contend with, among others “. . . the Democratic Labour League (William Morris and Belford Bax) . . .” This should have been the Socialist League and Bax’s first name was Belfort. Further Morris had died in 1896 and the Socialist League had for some years ceased to be the organisation he and Bax had championed.

The Fabians, Bernstein and Revisionism — Part 3 (1956)

From the April 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2

The controversy between Askew and Bax over Bernstein's membership of the German Social Democratic Party, was concluded in the July and August numbers of the Social Democrat.

Askew’s contribution to the July number contended that Bax had not shown that Bernstein had defended “almost every abuse of Capitalism,” and, to offset this charge, he pointed out that Bernstein was actually at that time advocating “the use of that extremely conservative weapon known as the general strike” in opposition to the great bulk of the German party. He then goes on:

 “Of course, I may point out, what Kautsky has already pointed out in his book against Bernstein, what was the distinguishing feature of Bernstein’s standpoint was the absence of any definite standpoint. You had criticism of the party programme, etc., but what Bernstein’s own standpoint was it was impossible to say. Now. we may think what we may of Bernstein for having published his ideas in this way; we may think he was inconsistent in staying in the party; but owing to the very indefiniteness of his ideas, we cannot condemn them without at the same time condemning criticism itself.”

This is a strange argument of Askew’s. The German Party claimed to be Marxist and organised for the establishment of Socialism. Bernstein was opposed to the basic Marxian outlook and supported anti-Socialist proposals, some of which we have already referred to. Yet because his views were “indefinite” (they were certainly definitely anti-Socialist) Askew holds that he should not be excluded from the German party. However, there is this much to be said for Askew’s views. The German Party supported such a hotch-potch of reformism that they had difficulty in making a case against Bernstein that would not react against the bulk of their own members.

Askew then argues that as nobody took the trouble to go through Bernstein’s articles and draw attention to the nature of his actions, it was no use “talking at random in the English party Press when what was required was an explanation in the German party Press.” Then Askew twits Bax with himself being guilty of the mendacity with which he charges Bernstein. In support of this he charges Bax with having misquoted Bebel’s statements in his book on the Woman question. Bax had quoted Bebel in support of his own view that Feminism, as such is not and never has been, a necessary part of Socialism. Askew makes a long quotation from p. 7 of the 30th edition of Bebel’s “Woman.” In the extract Bebel states that the Democratic Parties agree that women should have equal treatment, and their emancipation from all dependence and oppression, on account of Socialist principles. But this agreement cannot be said for the manner in which the aim is to be achieved. As soon as one “enters on the description of the institutions of the future, a wide field is opened out for speculation.” He then goes on that what is laid down in this book are the personal views of the author for which he alone is responsible.

There is then an attack on Bax’s attitude to the M.C of H. and Askew says that Bax’s views on the subject are difficult to distinguish from Bernstein’s, and, in fact, he was told by a member of the Swiss party that: 

 “Large numbers of the comrades were firmly convinced that Bax was a Bernsteinianer . . . now, as Kautsky explained, no one has dreamed of making acceptance of the materialist conception of history a condition of party membership; then, neither, so far as 1 know, has anyone hitherto seriously proposed to make a limitation of the right of free criticism in the sense proposed by Bax, but, if we are to accept Bax’s test that criticism of fundamentals is to be forbidden, the case is altered. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

Askew takes up Bax’s contention that criticism of the party programme was permissible but criticism of the ultimate foundation on which the party rests, its basal object, was not permissible. Askew then argued that “ultimate foundation” and “basal object ” were not the same thing; that the “Socialisation of the means of production’’ was the basal object, and the ultimate foundation consisted of the theory of surplus value and the materialist conception of history. He then quotes Kautsky as writing that of the two the materialist conception of history “is become the more fundamental. With it stands or falls Marxism, i.e.. the highest point at which the Socialist theory has yet arrived.” Askew adds that, while this is a personal opinion, a very large majority of the members of the party would agree with it. and if a rule is made that fundamentals must not be criticised it would have unfortunate results.

There is a footnote to one of the pages of Askew’s contribution in which he twits Bax with his membership of a Liberal Club, remarking that he “finds it inconsistent with his (Bax’s) hatred of Liberalism to remain a member of a Club which makes it a condition of membership that a member should recognise the principles of the Liberal Party—a Club recognised, almost more than the Reform, as the headquarters of the party.”

We will give Askew’s concluding paragraph in full as it summarises his outlook, and what he expects.

"Finally, the German party has better things to do than to consider if, when members declare their agreement with the main principles of the party programme, they do so with their tongue in their cheek or not. As long as any individual member proves loyal in the practice, the German party are not prepared to limit the right of free criticism, which they consider is the very breath of life to the party, because they do not agree to all that he says. ‘Idealist' Marxists or synthetic historians may attach great importance to rigidity of doctrine; we materialists know that the facts of life decide. Thus we do not get into a fuss every time the class war is called in question; we know that the class war, being inherent in the present order of society, will soon assert itself again, even where it seems to be temporarily eclipsed. And the same applies to the ‘final aim' of Socialism. The proletariat as a whole must, in its own interests, demand the socialisation of the means of production, etc. Of course you get backwaters in this as in all progress, and you find the English trade unions, having got to a certain pitch, stopping there. But even this seems to me to confirm the materialist conception of history. As long as the Continental workers were in the eyes of the British workmen in a much inferior position to themselves, the latter could hardly believe in the possibility of their own emancipation. They would, no doubt, say to themselves, ‘Beyond a certain extent we cannot at present improve our position.’ That may be right or wrong, but I cannot help feeling, and this feeling was strengthened by the arguments of the British delegation at the recent Textile Workers’ Congress, that it had its influence on the English trade unionists. Taken with the fact that English employers, owing to their position in the world, were able, and not unnaturally willing, to make concessions in the interests of peace from time to time, that the ‘suffrage' was practically a gift at a time when no urgent demand had arisen for it, I think we have ground to assume that the peculiar historical conditions of the British trade unionist explains the weakness of his class consciousness. But the loss of a favoured position, or what he imagines is a favoured position, compared with his Continental brothers, will do more than all the preaching in the world to make the British working man Socialist. When that comes, we need not fear the heresy of a Bernstein any more than that of a Bax. We can be tolerant of them just as we should be tolerant of those who deny the theory of gravity."

It will be noticed that there are no doubts here about whether "Final Truth” has been attained. Askew makes positive statements about the accuracy of the materialist conception of history, the class war and class-consciousness, as well as his satisfaction with the eventual outcome of trade union agitation, in spite of set-backs. He also takes for granted that Bernstein and his like will be proved wrong. But he skates over the confusion that would come to a party honeycombed with people like Bernstein.

Gilmac.

(To be continued)

Blogger's Note:

"To be continued?"  'fraid not. I can't find any further articles in the series. And, trust me, I looked.

The Fabians, Bernstein and Revisionism — Part 2 (1956)

From the February 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

The action of the German Social Democratic Party in deciding to overlook the theoretical and practical delinquencies of Bernstein raised a heated controversy in the columns of the English social democratic journal, the Social Democrat.

The controversy opened with a somewhat vitriolic article by Belfort Bax entitled Factitious Unity, which appeared in the Social Democrat of February, 1902. The article opens with some general remarks about unity. He claimed that there was a strong tendency in advanced parties to make a fetish of party unity and that “The integrity of principles is quite a secondary consideration provided that the unity of the party be maintained. Anything to avoid a split—that is the motto of the practical politician in the dawning 20th century.” He then suggests that it would be well for the advocates of unity at any price to ask themselves for what their party exists. If it for money, office, or power for its own sake, then unity may be justified in its day and generation. But, “If, on the contrary, party organisation itself is subservient to certain definite ideals, and has no object or significance apart from such, then equally clearly, whenever those ideals are threatened by the unity of the party, that unity must go by the board.”

Coming indirectly to the question of Bernstein, Bax examines the claim for unity by those who argue that it is better to patch up differences of opinion that may exist and “unite on a basis of some vague and general formula on which all can agree,” and who claim “that a party cannot afford to lose an able man of men merely because they happen to be shaky on some vital point of principle.” 

To the first point Bax replies “the realisation of the ideals of a party is less likely to be effectuated by the attenuation of those ideals for the sake of mere numerical strength than by the surrender of a certain amount of such strength on behalf of the vigorous maintenance intact of the principles for the sake of which the party avowedly exists.” Against the second point he contends that “the ability of doubtful members cuts both ways. It may be of more danger to party principles when inside the party organisation than it is of advantage to the enemy when working against it outside. A party having any regard for its principles should surely look to it that its able men . . . should be straight even more than the rank and file—and, hence, if they go wrong, should be the more inexorably expelled. A party that is worth its salt can always afford to lose a man or two without collapsing, but if cannot always afford to have a powerful leader inside incessantly pulling the wrong way.”

After some references to the Liberal and Radical parties of the time Bax then comes to the attitude of the German Social Democratic Party towards Bernstein, at which his article was really aimed. We will have to quote nearly the whole of his final paragraph in order that what follows will be understandable.

After stating that the glorification of unity is not confined to Liberalism he continues:

“We see much the same thing at the present time among our comrades of the German Social Democratic Party. It has been of late crucially manifested in the Bernstein controversy. Mr. Bernstein repudiated almost every principle hitherto regarded as ’of faith’ in Social Democracy. He champions every form and well-nigh every abuse of capitalism. . . . He has systematically attacked every Social Democratic doctrine in turn, to the delight of reactionary readers and hearers. In a word, Mr. Bernstein is incomparably less friendly to Socialism, if any meaning is to be attached to the word at all, than the mildest English Radical. To judge from his expressed opinions, in fact, Mr. Bernstein has no more sympathy with the recognised principles of Social Democracy, and perhaps rather less, than Count von Bulow himself. And yet, wonderful to relate, for fear of causing a split in the party, for fear of jeopardising party unity, the German Social Democrats could not muster up sufficient courage to exclude Mr. Bernstein from their ranks. In this case /the mere desire of preserving a formal unity must be alone in question, since it can hardly be alleged that there is any extraordinary ability at stake.”

In the March, 1902. number of the Social Democrat, J. B. Askew replied to Bax, defending the attitude of the German Social Democratic Party, contending that the German party had considered the whole circumstances of the case and not merely the points raised by Bax. He then gives a lengthy outline of the matters in dispute, largely in accordance with the summary we gave in our last month's contribution; but he omitted Bernstein’s support for war and his claim that the “higher” civilisation had a greater right to the territory of native people than the natives themselves.

After his statement of matters in dispute, he writes;

"Now it is fairly obvious that this theory or theories are open to dispute, and, indeed, I think that Kautzky has completely proved the worthlessness of most of Bernstein's speculations, but that is a very different thing from thinking with Bax that it was advisable to expel him from the party on the strength of them.”

He then argues that if Bernstein were expelled for his criticisms,

"We tie the party down to a formula, which nobody is allowed to criticise under penalty of expulsion, a proceeding which is consistent from those who consider that Final Truth has been achieved in this direction, but very stupid for those who do not. After all what is a political party, or, rather, what is the Social Democratic Party, and what are the conditions of membership? The answer is. surely, we are a body of men and women who have come together to work for the achievement of ideas which we have embodied in a common programme, the most important item of which is that of die socialisation of the means of production and exchange. Membership of the party is conditional on acceptance of this, programme and the agreement to work for the common end Bernstein accepts both these conditions. . . . There is a difference. I may remind Bax. between saying that Bernstein is inconsistent in remaining in the Party and thinking that the party would do well to turn him out.”

Finally, after having a dig at Bax’s criticism of the Materialist Conception, and suggesting that he is in the same position as Bernstein. Askew winds up as follows:

“I am against expulsion—as I believe the German Party is—in cases where the theory of the Party alone is concerned, and there is no question of Party discipline or character at stake, because I believe that if we are to progress as a Party, if we are to meet the difficulties, which will confront us, our members must enjoy a full, free, and unlimited right of criticism in respect of the Party programme. To deny this is to imply that we have attained Final Truth, and that new circumstances can never arise to alter it, or render a new tactic and programme necessary.” 

Before we go on to Bax's reply to Askew’s contribution we must interpolate a few remarks of our own on the above.

The argument about Final Truth in connection with the matters in dispute seems plausible until it is examined, then it becomes comical. For example. If a naked man stands upright in the path of a modern express train he will be killed; likewise, if a thousand tons of rock drops on a naked man he will also be killed. These are final truths within the conditions of the statements; there can be no doubts about them, either now or in a thousand years.

Now let us come to the question of Socialist principles.

Present society is based upon the ownership of the means of living by the Capitalist class; there is an antagonism of interests between the owning class and the producing class: this antagonism of interests must continue as long as there is buying and selling. Capitalist ownership and capital investment, and a class that lives by selling its physical and mental energies to an owning class. These conditions can only be removed by a social revolution accomplished by the subject, or producing class. These are statements of fact and final truths for the conditions specified as far as Socialists are concerned. Further, reforms cannot alter the conditions because they do not aim at abolishing the present basis of society. This is also a final truth for the conditions specified. Again, wars, insecurity, crime, and a host of other evils, will continue whilst the present social basis remains. This, again, is a final truth for the condition specified.

Askew’s Final Truth argument would therefore appear to have no bearing upon the matters in dispute. In fact, however, it has for the disputants. What hipped all of Bernstein's opponents in the dispute was the lengthy reform programmes and compromising of the Social Democratic Parties. Here there was no final truth, because no sooner was one reform adopted than another was required to meet the effects of the previous one. Many of the reforms advocated by the Social Democratic Parties during the eighties and nineties have been adopted, yet still the fundamental social position remains unchanged —Capitalists and workers, domination and class-struggle, wars, insecurity, crime, and the rest of the social evils. Yet still the reformers pursue their will-o-the-wisps. This reformism is what Askew means when he refers to “a common programme" in the above quotation. To him Socialism consists of two antagonistic parts—the accomplishment of common ownership and a policy of reformism. Reforms, however well intended, are designed to enable the exploiting machine to ran more smoothly; not to remove the machine, but to take some of the sand out of it. To bemuse the discontented and induce them to work harder and complain less.

Now to return to the controversy.

Bax's reply to Askew appeared in the Social Democrat for June 1902. His answer to Askew's Final Truth argument was as follows:

"I answer, it is a party, at all events, possessing certain principles, political, economical, and ethical, based on the known facts of historic evolution. Any one who sets himself up by sophistry, or otherwise, to upset these principles, though he may be an excellent man, has no right within a party whose raison d'etre is the realisation of an ideal based on the assumed truth of these principles. The cackle of toleration, of ‘self-criticism,’ and what-not, is the veriest balderdash. We want no ‘self-criticism’ within the party in the matter of fundamentals. We have a right to assume that a man has done his 'criticism ’ of principles before joining the party, for no party can afford to have persons within its ranks who call in question its very bases. And hence I say the moment a member begins publicly to whittle away doctrines at the foundation of the very existence of the party, he should be expelled.”

Bax then goes on to distinguish between the party programme and fundamentals:

"When Askew asks me whether I think it advisable to allow members the right of free criticism of the party programme, I say Yes. But if by party programme he means the ultimate foundation on which the party rests the basal object for which the party is constituted, I say No.

No man has a right to expect to be allowed to remain a member of a party whose principles, whether rightly or wrongly, he has publicly called in question. On the other hand, no party has a right to use the State, the secular arm, to crush opposition to its views.

The utmost that has been suggested is that he [Bernstein] should be politely, but firmly, told to clear out of the German Social Democratic organisation, and take his criticism with him There is nothing to prevent him from demolishing Marx or anybody else outside the organisation. What more than this can he want?”

The rest of Bax's reply consists of some sarcastic references to Askew's contribution, some instances of Berntein's perfidious conduct, and a misunderstanding of Askew’s reference to views held by Bax which, he alleged put Bax in the position he claimed Bernstein was in. Bax took this to mean his attitude to feminism, whereas it really referred to his attitude to the Materialist Conception of History, Bax held views at variance with the Materialist Conception of History,  and had debated his view with Kautsky in the German party journal a few years earlier. He called his view “The Synthetic Doctrine of History." We will discuss his outlook at the end of the controversy over Bernstein’s membership of the German Social Democratic Party, 

Gilmac.

(To be continued.)

Letter: The Anti-Fascists again. (1925)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

The National Union for Combating Fascism has at last replied to the criticisms of them which appeared in the April Standard. Their reply is dealt with below. Before they sent their reply, the N.U.C.F. forwarded part of an article taken from the July issue of their paper, the Clear Light, and asked us to print it. As it did not mention us and contained no reference whatever to our criticism we naturally assumed that it had been sent in error. We wrote pointing this out and asked for their reply to our “April” article. It arrived too late for our August issue.

Mr. Holdsworth’s letter is given in full :—

Comrades,—In your last issue you charged the National Union for Combating Fascism with being an anti-working class organisation. I could only conclude that you knew nothing about the N.U.C.F., so I forwarded a statement outlining the outlook and aims of the organisation. Your reply took the form of a sarcastic rejoinder through the post, thus proving to me that I had little to expect from the “precarious indulgence of that abstraction you call Ed. Com.” I am prompted to go further into the matter only by the fact that the British Fascisti have seized on your charge and are now using yourselves wherewith to check our attacks on them—a splendid commentary on the N.U.C.F. slogan that sectional bickering, faced with organised counter-revolution, is fiddling whilst Freedom burns.

But you say that you have produced evidence that the N.U.C.F. is certainly an anti-working class organisation. I want your readers to note the nature of the evidence itself. I give it as quoted and misquoted by yourselves.

1. That we reject the British Communists, but accept their anti-Marxist theory that capitalism will in some mysterious way collapse. (A misrepresentation of our position.)
2. That an individual writer in The Clear Light has spoken of the need to organise the workers to overthrow the capitalist system. (He has as much right to express his opinion thus as Bax has to say that no man can tell how Socialism will come.)
3. That we have said there are hundreds of thousands of revolutionary socialists in Great Britain. (Jack London put the figure at 100,000 as far back as 1905.)
4. That the editors are apparently not of the working-class. (Compare Marx and Engels. One editor and a wage slave.)
5. That we advocate the simple, clean, direct, open fight, without hesitation and without compromise. (We most certainly do—and what a crime against the working class.)
6. That we call on all Socialists to unite. (Don’t you?)
7. That we provide a rallying point for the progressives of all shades of Labour, Communist and Anarchist opinion. (And have been successful, so far.)

On these points you have arraigned us as enemies of the working class. Let your readers judge—or tell them, straight out, that the way of the S.P.G.B. is the one and only way, and that the N.L.P., the I.L.P., the S.D.F., the C.P., the A.P.C.F,, the S.L.P., the N.U.C.F., the C.L.C., and the anarchist groups are, the lot of them, enemies of the working class. You might also explain to them how Marxians arrive at the conclusion that organised counter-revolution is a “red-herring” unworthy of consideration, (I make bold to say that, within two years’ time, unless the Labour Movement takes a hand in checking it, that herring will be a whale, and a black one at that.)

I now challenge your own position, and meet me, if you can, without knocking the bottom out of your own vituperative malice against an organisation, all workers and all of them members of some one of the organisations above-mentioned, seeking to awaken the Movement to the fact that counter-revolution is in the saddle.

The present formation of the N.U.C.F. began as the old S.D.F. began—that school of scientific Socialists—it began, as Bax puts it, “an executive without a tail.” Are we to be dubbed “anti-working class” on that account? Then dub the old S.D.F. likewise—the forerunner of yourselves.

We apply principles to tendencies. Marx did likewise. But we are not fossilised Marxians. We are not a select circle of intellectuals mouthing a bunch of formulae whilst Counter-revolution organises itself. If we were, then you could, with some justification, call us enemies of the working class.

Now let me enlighten you a little further. The N.U.C.F. was not formed or initiated by those at present active in it, but by some other, Socialists likewise, who, finding it uphill work, dumped their burden on ourselves. But we carried on. And we shall carry on. And as soon as ever it is possible, a conference will be held, and we, personally, shall be relieved of the suspicion cast on us by such as yourselves, which, after all, was cast on no man more foully than on Karl Marx.

Fraternally,

Alfred Holdsworth,

Editor, The Clear Light.

Our Reply.

For convenience we will use numbered paragraphs as above.

(1) We can only repeat what we wrote in April. On page 1 of the February Clear Light we are told that “The day is dawning when the onus of choice will be flung upon the masses …”, but on page 2 we find that the workers “must be prepared …to overthrow the existing order.” No one explains why the workers need organise to overthrow something which is going to collapse from its own weakness, which is sinking “by its own weight.”

(2) A journal or a party which has one official policy but allows individuals to remain members while expressing their belief that that policy is unsound, is confusing the minds of the workers. One policy or the other must be wrong. It is, of course, necessary for the workers to organise to overthrow capitalism, but this is inconsistent with the N.U.C.F. Communist belief that capitalism will “collapse” through its own weakness. What on earth Mr. Bax has to do with us or with the point at issue, Mr. Holdsworth unfortunately does not explain.

(3) The N.U.C.F. claims (without offering a shadow of evidence) that there are “hundreds of thousands of revolutionary Socialists” in Great Britain. Asked for proof, they can only protest that Jack London in 1905 suffered from the same vice as themselves of mistaking hopes for facts. Jack London may have had some excuse in 1905, and was probably mislead through accepting the idle chatter of the Mr. Holdsworths of those days. We repeat that the assertion is idiotic, and again ask Mr. Holdsworth if he will turn a Clear Light upon the mysterious failure of these hundreds of thousands (if they exist) to organise into a Socialist Party, and if he will explain why they refrain from expressing their views at the ballot box.

(4) Marx and Engels did not talk as does the N.U.C.F. about the necessity for “us” to “prepare the masses, the poor victims of the old order” as if “the masses” were to be mere cannon fodder in the hands of “us” generals of the Revolutionary Army. On the contrary, they recognised that emancipation must be the work of the workers themselves.

(5) A simple, direct open fight is just what the N.U.C.F. does not and could not wage. Not to do so is a crime against the working class. We charge them with that crime. Rallying “the progressives of all shades of Labour, Socialist, Communist and Anarchist opinion …” precludes the possibility of carrying on a “simple, direct” fight for or against anything whatever. The idea of such a weird collection of persons fighting for Socialism is ludicrous.

(6) Mr. Holdsworth now talks about calling on “all Socialists to unite.” In April we criticised Aim number 1 as printed in their February issue. It read as follows :— “To provide a rallying point for the progressives of all shades of Labour, Socialist, Communist and Anarchist opinion …”This we said was nonsense. In the next issue of The Clear Light (April-May) and in subsequent issues the words “Labour,” “Communist,” and “Anarchist” are omitted. Was this because Mr. Holdsworth had to recognise that our criticism was justified and that this aim was indefensible? But even now the N.U.C.F.’s actions belie their claim. We call on Socialists to unite and fight for Socialism. The N.U.C.F. calls on Socialists to join with various kinds of anti-Socialists in supporting the Labour Party and other definitely anti-Socialist bodies.

(7) If the N.U.C.F. has been successful in rallying Communists, Anarchists, etc., why did it alter its aim to exclude them?

Mr. Holdsworth, somewhat late in the day, challenges us to tell the workers “straight out that the way of the S.P.G.B. is the one and only way,” and that a long list of organisations are “the lot of them enemies of the working class.” If he had ever troubled to read our literature or even one issue of the Socialist Standard, he would know that this is just what we do and have always done. Never by word or deed have we supported the Labour Party or any other political party. We advocate our policy because we believe it to be the correct policy for the workers of Great Britain. We do not, like Mr. Holdsworth, belong to one organisation because we believe its policy to be wrong, and that half-a-dozen other contrary policies are just as, good (or bad). We do not mislead by pretending that the question of aims and methods does not matter.

To note one incident only, we observe that not one of the political parties he mentions took up a Socialist attitude to the war in 1914. Those who supported that war were “enemies of the working class.” Let Mr. Holdsworth dispute it if he can.

We do not say that “organised counter-revolution” is an impossibility. We recognised the possibility 20 years ago. What we do say is that our way is the best method of dealing with it. We are, however, not given to working out plans for the future based on the remote possibility of “red herrings” turning into “black whales.”

We meet Mr. Holdsworth’s challenge by asking how the N.U.C.F. can be other than anti-working class since it gives support to and allows members to belong to the political bodies he mentions?

We do, and, since our formation, always have, dubbed the S.D.F. anti-working class. Did it not support the war, and does it not still advocate the reform of the capitalist system? We want the abolition of that system.

We broke away from the S.D.F. because we thought them wrong, not because we thought them right.

It is interesting to note that the N.U.C.F. has never had a conference, and presumably, therefore, has no kind of democratic control by the members. (By the way, who authorised the alteration in the aims?) Mr. Holdsworth has still not told us that the N.U.C.F. is willing to open all its meetings freely to the public. If it were democratic, “simple and direct,” etc., it would have nothing to hide from us or from the Fascisti, and could then not complain that the latter were using our statements against the N.U.C.F.

Undemocratic and secret societies are dangerous only to the working class.—Ed. Com.