Ramsay McDonald and the “Great War”. (1930)

From the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The pacifism of MacDonald has almost become a legend—to those who know little about him. The picture of him as a man of peace is rudely dispelled at the moment by his action as Prime Minister in deciding to build more ships than the Tories—as his own supporter, Kenworthy, has shown, and the programme of more bombing planes which his Air Ministry has put through.

Our Party Manifesto reprints MacDonald’s famous letter to the Mayor of Leicester during the war, in which our “pacific” Prime Minister called the young men of England to their “patriotic duty.”

In the life and work of MacDonald written by his admirer and defender, H. H. Tiltman, we have more evidence showing how MacDonald tried to keep the appearance of a pacifist whilst supporting the war.

On the economic causes of the war he was silent. He said nothing about the economic aims of the ruling class of each country pursuing the war. The only attack he made was on the diplomatic methods of the war mongers, especially the secret diplomacy of Sir Edward Grey. That was why MacDonald was criticised.

The day war was declared MacDonald merely showed that he did not believe that “national interests” were at stake.

“I want to say to this House, and to say it without equivocation, if the right hon. Gentleman had come here to-day and told us that our country is in danger, I do not care what party he appealed to, or to what class he appealed, we would be with him and behind him. If this is so, we will vote him what money he wants. Yes, and we will go further. We will offer him ourselves if the country is in danger.”

(House of Commons, 3rd August, 1914. quoted p. 285.)

Four days afterwards he followed that speech by another in the Trades Hall, Leicester (August 7th, 1914).

“We are in it and we must see it through. It is a sad thing that we, loving our own country best, and hoping and striving that we shall not be defeated or worsened or disgraced, should have as counterpart to that the desire that this great nation of Germany should be worsened, defeated, and disgraced. How one almost hates the diplomacy that has brought us to this.” (Quoted Tiltman, p. 93.)

After such a statement it is quite natural that his biographer should say :—

“The war, once begun, however, he never cast any reflection upon the need of pursuing it up to a point at which a peace, just to this country, France, Belgium and Germany alike, was obtainable.” (p. 94.)

The Labour Party threw their entire resources into the war. Henderson, Clynes, Parker, Roberts, etc., became members of the war Government. Did MacDonald resign from the Party? Or was he relieved of his position?

No, he retained his official position, as Mr. Tiltman shows :—

“During this time, when even those who admitted that they knew Ramsay MacDonald could not escape a measure of social ostracism, he retained his official connection with the Labour Party as the Treasurer of the body which he had fashioned in its earliest days.” (p. 103.)

At Oldham on October 28th, 1916, MacDonald made a speech full of the usual rhetoric indulged in by recruiters. We quote an extract : —

“When a nation was threatened something instinctive in every man and woman in the nation made them stand by their nation. England was not merely a little patch of red on a map of the world, but it was something like a personnel, that had grown through generations and centuries, so that the English man or woman was something that had a rich past, a hopeful present and an enticing future. All these things came into the minds of the people at the moment of war and made them forget all differences and principles and fight, almost blindly, for national existence and nationality itself. That was the instinctive emotion of the moment. ” (p. 109.)

In the House of Commons, as late as June 20th, 1918, MacDonald was still “in the war” :

“I am in the war for the purpose of ending all war. Because that is so, I say you will have to adopt a method which the history of Europe shows has never been adopted before, because if you go on the old lines you will fulfil the old ends and nothing else. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to bring freshness of mind to these problems of diplomacy.” (Quoted p. 114.)

H. G. Wells, the war supporter, said that it was a war to end war. Ramsay MacDonald followed him very close in this moonshine :—

“With our hearts uplifted and our enemies’ minds enlightened, I am perfectly certain that this war will eventuate in a demand for peace which will not be broken again—a demand for a peace which will be established upon the common agreements of the peoples, and which, therefore, will never be assailed in the history of mankind.” (House of Commons, May 24th, 1916 ; quoted p. 109.)

When MacDonald expressed a desire for bringing the war to a close soon it was because he wanted to see “us” get the best terms. !

Listen to his speech at Swansea in May, 1917 :—

“The country is threatened by two dangers. The first is that it may make peace on account of war weariness. Nothing can be more fatal than that peace should be made because this country is war weary. That means that you will not obtain your object at all. A man who runs a race to obtain a prize, and who sits down on the course half-way to the goal, has not only lost, but has lost very badly. This country must nor he allowed to make peace on account of war weariness.” (Quoted Tiltman, p. 112.)

When murmurs arose in his own I.L.P. against their “comrades who were a part of the war Government, MacDonald set out to allay these protests by reminding them of the necessity of unity with the super-patriots after the war. Tiltman quotes an incident :—

“The Town Hall in Newcastle was crowded with delegates of the I.L.P. Annual Conference in 1916. Members of the Party who favoured a strong war policy were obviously in a minority. Delegate after delegate rose and literally shouted for the heads of Henderson, Barnes, Clynes and Parker. . . . MacDonald rose, quiet and grave, and in the measured accents of the Scot, and with relentless logic, envisioned the future when the temporary issue of the war had passed and the need for unity would be greater than ever before. ‘Be fair to these men, even though you don’t see eye to eye with them,’ was the gist of the speech.” (p. 101.)

A final quotation from the biography will be useful to portray this pacific war supporter as his apologist sees him :—

“Within the last twelve months a Member of Parliament who sat in the House of Commons throughout the war has informed me that MacDonald was in a state of indecision for weeks following the outbreak of hostilities, and he instanced this recruiting letter as evidence of the fact. Perhaps he had not examined Mr. MacDonald’s speeches at that time. Through them all runs the same clear-cut policy of opposition to our foreign policy, and acceptance of the fact that once the war had started it must be waged until a just peace was possible.” (p. 96.)

All the copies of speeches, etc., quoted, were provided by MacDonald to assist in preparing the book, so that there can be no question of their genuineness.

To aspiring youths now doing odd jobs in the workshop of Labourism, this biography should be useful to teach them how to become a “Statesman !”

C.

The Profit-Sharing Snare. Co-partnership Schemes Exposed. (1930)

From the October 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The economics of cheapness.

Great Britain is losing her hold over the world market. That means producing firms are finding it harder to compete successfully against producers abroad. Every scheme is being tried to regain lost trade and to increase the quantity of goods sold. Industry to-day is carried on for the profit of the owners, and more trade, therefore, means more profit.

The most effective way to capture markets is to sell cheaper than your rivals. How can goods be sold at a lower price? Modern industry answers—”Reduce the time taken to produce them.” That is how the modern cry of Rationalisation pays tribute to the economics of Karl Marx.

Marx showed that the average amount of time taken under prevailing conditions to produce an article determined its value. So in order to sell cheaper, the manufacturers to-day use every possible method to lessen the time necessary to produce their wares.

Piece-work rates, bonus systems and other profit-sharing-schemes are adopted to arouse the worker to greater effort; to produce quicker; and to save waste. This enables the employer to produce more cheaply, whilst the workers are told they will share in the increased profits.

The “Pace-maker” and his function.

The cotton trade to-day is in decline, and these speeding-up methods are being pushed in Lancashire to enable the employers to ensure their profits. The Manchester Guardian recently had an article suggesting piece-work and bonus systems as a remedy. The fixing of piece-work rates, however, we are told by the writer, is difficult, as it means getting “pace-makers,” or sloggers who can lead the rest by turning out more goods. The standards of price per piece can be fixed more profitably for the employers if really rapid workers are employed as “time setters” to cut down the time required to turn out each job. Thus the Taylor system in all its variations of efficiency is offered as a cure for “Lancashire ills.” Its adoption will certainly raise the employers’ profits, but will simply mean in practice that fewer workers are required to do the same amount of work. Any apparent increase in wages by sharing in the profits is only in actual practice a reduction of wages in relation to the increased amount of work performed. The employer’s share is that his profits are increased vastly. The worker is paid a fraction more than before for turning out a much larger product. The sole result is that the increased efforts of the workers reduce the “share” of the total product given back to the workers as wages. That is why prominent employers are so much in favour of these piece-work and profit sharing systems.

One feature of all these piece price and premium bonus ideas was noted by the Manchester Guardian writer; that is the policy of firms cutting down the piece rate once they find efficiency going up and adding to the workers’ wage. So almost as fast as the workers’ output is increased by slogging, the unit price comes down and the workers are back again to subsistence wages. Once the workers raise output it becomes the average standard for all to comply with in order to get the basic wage.

The Co-partnership fraud. 

Many leading employers have recently boomed another artful dodge to ensnare the workers into working in harmony with the employers. Co-partnership or shareholding by employees is the stale device which is being revived. The Economic League—that body of employers’ friends—issue many leaflets praising co-partnership as the way to social peace and workers’ prosperity.

One of the great examples of this scheme is the South Metropolitan Gas Works, who smashed their employees’ strike on the profit-sharing issue, and afterwards raised hours from 8 to 12 per day. This firm boasts that since “allowing” employees to own shares the efficiency has increased, the price of gas has fallen, and better still— profits have risen considerably. In this firm the profit-sharing scheme was made compulsory, so that all workers would take a “greater interest in their work.” It worked out in practice that fewer men were required to do the same amount of work and the tiny “share” of the workers in dividend at the end of the year proved that the owners had really shared in the added wages due to the workers for their increased efforts and output.

The workers get the "leavings."

Lord Leverhulme, of the Soap Trust, was a great believer in co-partnership. But on his death we found from the published will that he owned the entire two millions of ordinary shares himself. Not much co-partnership there ! And by “allowing” some workers to have special “employees’ shares,” receiving interest after the ordinary shareholders, Lord Leverhulme was able to pile up millions in profit. In his book on the “Six Hour Day,” he points out that he always insisted that the co-partner workers must share in the losses as well as profits. This policy was calculated to teach the workers the importance of helping the firm to make profits.

All co-partnership and similar schemes are put forward to kill any organised efforts by the workers to increase their share of the wealth produced. Under the spell of the “divi.” or bonus, the worker is to be enticed away from the struggle to push up his wages or in any way reduce the employers’ surplus.

The Co-partners get the sack.

Cadbury’s and Rowntree’s are examples of “good” firms with profit-sharing policies. Recent efforts on the part of these companies to hold or increase their trade led them to use more machinery to reduce the labour costs. A reduction of workers employed resulted, and Rowntree appealed through the press for employers to give his superseded men a job. After all the work and efforts of the employees in these firms working hard to produce profits they were replaced by machines ! The co-partners were out of work ! Do you need more evidence of the function of bonus systems and co-partnership ?

The fruits of profit sharing.

In the Ministry of Labour Gazette (July, 1930) appears a complete survey of all profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes operating during 1929. These schemes numbered 495, and were participated in by 260,000 employees out of 531,000 employed in these firms. The report tells us that “in all industries taken together nearly one half of the schemes started have come to an end.” We are also informed that “a considerable number of the schemes admit employees to participation in the profits only to the extent that they are able and willing to deposit savings with the firm or purchase shares.”

A famous firm practising co-partnership is the Eastman Kodak Co. Listen to Mr. George Eastman’s testimony of the profit­ able results to the firm :—

“In 1919 several thousand pounds’ worth of shares were distributed to our employees. One result was that after handing over to the workers one-third of my shares, the value of the remaining holdings soon climbed a third higher than the previous total. That was not the purpose in distributing the shares, but the result shows the business value of the act. Since the shares were distributed the market value has gone up over 150 per cent. Part of this increase in value unquestionably has been due to the wide distribution among workers and officials.”—(Co-partnership, Dec., 1927.)

The Chemical combine.

Sir Alfred Mond (now Lord Melchett) is one of the chief apostles of the co-partnership device. He boasted at the annual meeting of the Imperial Chemical Industries, 1929, that 53,000 employees held shares, totalling about 850,000 shares. (This is about 17 shares each.) They are allowed to buy ordinary shares at market prices less 2/6 per share, and preference shares at the fixed price of 21/6 each. He “trusts” his employees not to sell their shares. Why so many employees put their savings into “their firm’s” shares is easily understood, as it is thought to be a means of being kept on or possibly useful in promotion. How little the workers own in the mighty Imperial Chemical Industries can be seen when it is found that the capital of this combine is over 76 millions. The co-partners have no control over “their” jobs nor any control over the business. What are a few shares owned by each worker against the huge amount owned by such Directors of the firm as Lord Melchett, Lord Birkenhead, Lord Colwyn, Sir Max Muspratt, Henry Mond, Marquess of Reading, Lord Weir, etc. ?

Longer hours for co-partners.

How little Lord Melchett is interested in workers’ conditions can be seen by his efforts in Parliament to get a longer working day for miners. The Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries (owned by Imperial Chemicals) controls 12 coal concerns, and has paid huge dividends in recent years.

Who really owns most of the capital can be seen by its share-list, where dozens of shareholders own 10,000 shares and upwards each, and prominent holders like Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds own £395,000 in shares. Lady Buckland, the well-known miner, owns £395,000 in shares in company with two other aristocrats.

Is this an example of the widespread diffusion of capital that the Economic League and Mond refer to ?

How co-partnership rivets the employees to the firm which holds their “savings” can be seen from Mond’s speech at a co­ partnership luncheon :—

“What is the effect of making them shareholders? We saw some of it in the last General Strike. Not one workman in Brunner, Mond’s left his job ! while many were heard to observe that they did not intend to jeopardise their dividends at the dictates of any outside person. In the business with which I am connected we have been free from Labour disputes for fifty years.”

Lord Melchett is very reticent about the wages paid by his alkali works, mines and every other of the 50 concerns amalgamated into his trust. But the Chemical Workers’ Union are continually protesting’ against the “low” wages paid in that industry practically controlled by the combine.

The workmen co-partners have no control of the share market. Should they want to sell their shares just now what will they get? £1 ordinary shares have fallen from 45/- last year to 19/- to-day. And the 10/- deferred shares have fallen to 5/- each. (Observer, August 3rd, 1930).

The right "spirit" for slaves.

Perhaps there is no better indication of Lord Melchett’s policy than the following- :

“After all, there is no more competitive spirit than that displayed by the British people. If you put them into a football match they will kill themselves every Saturday afternoon for nothing. Why not introduce the same spirit into industry?”—(Co-partnership, Dec., 1927.)

This is from his speech at the same co-partnership luncheon. How tragically true ! that is the spirit of industry—killing themselves for nothing !

Some of the conditions of the Imperial Chemical’s co-partners’ scheme are interesting :

“The scheme is an investment one, and while no absolute restriction is placed upon the workers, they will not be expected to speculate with their shares. The directors reserve the right to refuse to allot further shares to a worker who does not enter into the right spirit of the scheme.

The maximum individual allotment will be such number of shares as can he purchased by an expenditure of a sum not exceeding 20 per cent. of the annual wages or salary of the employee. To this 20 per cent. an additional 1 per cent, for each year of service above five may be added.”—(Co-partnership, Dec., 1927.)

The conditions are, of course, laid down by the firm ! The worker must enter into “the right spirit,” and he must not buy (even if he could afford it) too many shares. Perhaps he might then give up working and, like the real “partners,” live upon profits !

The purpose behind Imperial Chemicals “profit sharing” can be gleaned from the following paragraph : —

“This departure from the normal method of dealing with manual workers is described in the current issue of the Imperial Chemical Industries Magazine as an “experiment,” the continuance of which must depend on its economic result. The creation of the Staff Grade will involve a heavy initial cost which must be balanced by compensating increase of efficiency.—(Co-partnership, Sept., 1928.)

Lion and lamb shall unite!

Another well-known “Co-partnership” firm is the Brush Electrical Engineering Co. The Chairman of that concern, speaking of the results of co-partnership in his firm, says : —

“The scheme also gives us confidence of being able to maintain a fairly satisfactory dividend on the share capital, and it enables us to satisfy our customers that good service deserves a fair and adequate, though not excessive, reward for the shareholders and the staff of workers, both mental and manual.”—(Co-partnership, Sep., 1928.)

The same employer, speaking at the annual meeting of his firm this year, explained some of his principles thus : —

1. Greater economy by elimination of waste.
2. Higher efficiency by elimination of inefficient machinery and methods.
3. Larger output to neutralise low prices by removal of Trade Union restrictions.”—(Co-partnership, June, 1930.)

The last principle is striking, in view of the fact that the supporters of the movement, as the above magazine shows, are prominent Labour leaders, like Citrine, Ben Turner, E. F. Wise, E. L. Poulton (General Secretary of Boot and Shoe Workers). This last leader spoke at the Co-partnership Conference, May 10th, this year, and he served up this slop :—

“If the co-partnership principles are properly adopted, we shall soon get out of the slough in which we find ourselves at the present time.”

The financial steam roller.

One prominent co-partner advocate is Angus Watson, of the Newcastle firm selling Skipper Sardines. His firm was recently bought out by the monster international trust, Unilever, Ltd. Angus Watson resigned as Director, and commented very bitterly on the effects of combination of firms and rationalisation. The worker who had played his part building up the firm’s assets was ruthlessly pushed out by machinery and the power of capital. What can copartnership do in face of the modern International Trust?

Edward Cadbury, the cocoa manufacturer, admits our indictment. Speaking at the Quaker Employers’ Conference :—

“He said they would all agree that the workman ought to have some voice in the management, but at present there was no way in which he could be given any effective control in large scale industry; stressing the words ‘effective control’.”—(Co-partnership, Sept., 1928.)

Reviewing the Life of Lord Leverhulme, by his son, the same paper says :—

“Lord Leverhulme’s ideas did not extend to giving any share of the control to the workers. In his particular case he did not see the reason, and perhaps there was not the demand.”

All the evidence we have produced shows that copartnership and profit-sharing schemes are merely another method of inducing the workers to continue a system in which the real control and ownership is in the hands of the employers and in which all the work must be carried on by the workers.

C.

Canadian notes. (1930)

From the October 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent from Winnipeg, Canada, commenting on the situation there, says that everybody is talking wheat ! wheat ! The Canadian Wheat Pool was to save the farmers, but the bankers are forcing them to sell their wheat at a very low price, with the result that the pool is being broken and wheat is being “bootlegged” at market prices. The merchants cannot collect the farmers’ bills, so have to cart away wheat to satisfy the debts.

Unemployment is rife in Canada, and the Reform Parties, I.L.P. and Communist, are vying with each other in their reform programmes. The old Socialist Party of Canada is dead, and its leading members, such as Harrington, Lefeaux and Pritchard, now support the I.L.P. candidates. Efforts are being made in Alberta to revive the S.P. of C., but it is not very promising at present. In Manitoba the One Big Union holds meetings, but as the Union contains all varieties of opinion, the need for Socialist educational work is great. Amongst the thousands of members the One Big Union contains, there are no subscribers of the Socialist Standard, our correspondent informs us. In an area where this journal had a good circulation, the few readers today indicates how little interest there is in real Socialist work. There is no paper in the U.S.A. and Canada to compare with the educational value of the Socialist Standard, and we urge our friends there to make it widely known.

C.

A Socialist Searchlight: No More Class War (1930)

From the September 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

No More Class War

“During the last twenty-five years, he said, thousands of rich people had come to see that the host thing they could do in life was to share in the great task of improving conditions of the community. 

The time, he believed, was not far distant when rich and poor would co-operate in serving the community.”

No, it was not Mr. Churchill who said that, but Mr. George Lansbury, at Rotherham (“Daily Herald,” July 21st).

This First Commissioner of Works, and Christian Evangelist, visited Russia a few years ago, and in his book, “What I Saw in Russia,” grew lyrical over “the achievements of Russia,” compared with the miserable efforts of Capitalism at home.

Although the rich have been helping’ the poor so much here, there are faint rumours that for many years past the employers have been busy reducing wages and smashing strikes. The kind-hearted employers who are going to co-operate with the poor, are still very active in keeping a system going which produces poverty for the worker and profits for the idler. What better evidence do you want than Lans-bury’s speech, to prove how the Labour Party serve Capitalism? Don’t struggle, but love each other. Lansbury used to say at the Mission that only the love of Christ could save us, but now the rich have taken on Christ’s work. That is what has made Bow and Bromley such a paradise.

* * *

The Bankers’ Friends

Labour in office shows how it practices continuity in capitalist policy “The Times” complimented “Labour” on effecting’ such a close relation between finance and industry when they got the Banks to agree to rationalize the factories. The Bankers, with Labour’s approval, formed the National Industrial Development Co., Ltd. Montagu Norman, of the Bank of England ; Sir Guy Granet, Railway Director, and of Higginson & Co., World Financiers; Baron Schroeder, famous in the Ruhr Steel Combines, and of Schroeder’s, the New York Bankers; Peacock, of Baring Brothers; and Wagg, the Finance Merchant—these became the directors of the new concern to buy up and rationalize the profitable industries. Once Labour screamed about the Bankers’ power ! That was only when out of office. Now they have earned the affection of “finance” by encouraging Bankers’ control over production more than ever.

While “Labour” cried out that their schemes were being shelved because local bodies were sabotaging them, they appointed a Public Loans Board to advise what loans should be made to local authorities. They appointed the same board of Bankers the Conservatives had selected five years before. Then a few backbenchers objected to Lord Hunsdon being on it, because he said the miners should be starved into surrender in 1926. The Labour Government have drawn fulsome praise from the poisonous Newspaper Press by squashing their own members and getting Lord Hunsdon reappointed with Liberal and Tory support in Parliament.

Yet there are still workers who tell us that Labour is opposed to the Capitalists ! Let them learn from such practices as the above how well the Labour servants obey their masters. When the workers become Socialist, and control the Parliaments for Socialism the Labour politicians will be able to seek solace with their friends, the Bankers, and they can take the Mace with them to where people want entertainment, instead of a sane social system.

* * *

The Confessions of a Clyde "Red.

    “The only time in my life that I have allied myself with the enemies of the workers has been since I came to the House of Commons, and that is by the order of the Labour Government. Almost every time I go into the Division Lobby I join such tried and trusted friends of the Labour Party as Lloyd George, his daughter, Sir Herbert Samuel, etc. They are keeping the Labour Party in office on condition that the workers and the Labour Party programme are deserted.”

Thus writes the Labour M.P. for Shettleston (“Forward,” August 2nd). He was, however, the official Labour candidate, and stood for the official Labour Party Programme. He was attacked during the election by another Labourite, Mr. C. Diamond, who has been on three occasions official Labour candidate, and who stated that he has supported the Labour Party because it is not committed to Socialism.

The Party that the Member for Shettleston—McGovern—stands for, is not out for the working class. Read his own words: –

 “There is no danger of chasing away the Liberal votes, as they have all joined us at Westminster. The Labour Cabinet coddle them too much to drive them away, and are more concerned about them than about the working class.”

He became the official Labour Candidate—because it’s the best way to get elected. “Getting in” —that’s the game, even if it means going into the Lobby to vote against the programme he ran on.

The little conflict between the “wings” has now been settled at a joint meeting of the Labour Party and I.L.P., and the following terms were agreed upon: –

1. That the I.L.P. accepts the Labour Party Annual Conference as the supreme authority of the organised political movement of the workers.
2. That the I.L.P. wishes to remain in affiliation with the Labour Party. (Forward, Aug. 2.)

So, now Lloyd George, the I.L.P., and the Labour Party may continue their united front—in the same Lobby.

C.

Blogger's Note:

The Confessions of A Clyde 'Red' had previously appeared on the blog as a separate piece. I'm guessing I cherry picked it at the time 'cos it was about John McGovern and because of the location of his parliamentary constituency.

A Look Round. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Red” Leader turns Green! Another “Communist Hope” gone.

Under the heading of “Larkin not a Communist,” the Communist Daily Worker, March 12th, reports a meeting addressed on March 9th in Dublin for the Workers’ Union. Talking of the approach of St. Patrick’s Day, Larkin said, “This nation needs a spiritual uplifting.” He then praised the Government’s famous prison, Mountjoy—as “the best prison in the world.”

Another statement was, “I am not a Communist and I know very little about Capitalism.” Larkin finished by asking the audience to remove their hats and sing the Free State national anthem.

The Daily Worker, with its usual confusion, says : “Larkin’s renegacy removes one of the obstacles to the formation of a real Communist Party in Ireland.”

It is not long since Jim Larkin went to Moscow and was elected to the Executive of the Third International. To give an International flavour to this body the five or six calling themselves the Communist League of Ireland were taken into the Third International, and Larkin, with his notorious nationalism, Catholicism, and Labourism, was at once pushed on the Executive of the “World Communist International.” That alone shows how anti-revolutionary the Third International is, apart from the long string of adventurers who became leaders in its ranks. Willie Gallacher and Larkin were usually in close company and the anti-Socialist ideas of Larkin were well known to the other “Communist” Leaders.

It was common knowledge that Larkin in New York was busy supporting the formation of a Labour Party there, and talked of the great work of the British Labour Party, keeping silent on how the Labour Party here had betrayed the transport workers in 1913, when appealed to by Larkin himself for assistance in the struggle.

Larkin is a member of the Catholic Church and always pointed out that he was “a good member of mother church.”

That did not stop his enlistment into the Bolshevik International, but now, when his church is busy denouncing Bolshevism, Larkin falls in to the Pope’s call. Such are the great recruits to the Communist Party. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear from such a Catholic stronghold as the Free State that Bob Stewart, the Communist official in Dublin, recently spoke there, and said that Russia was fighting the Greek Orthodox Church only, and not the Holy Catholic Religion. How similar are Jesuits and “Communists” in their handling” of truth, with their doctrine,” “the end justifies the means.”

* * *

Capitalist can't give details—But they ask us for them.

How often do opponents demand details of life under Socialism? They insist upon blue prints of the future before they will support Socialism, regardless of the fact that those details depend upon the conditions, knowledge, and wishes of the population under Socialism.

The Capitalists, however, ask for support of their policies, but even on trumpery reform measures they decline to prophesy details. Listen to Lord Melchett in his book on “Imperial Economic Unity,” advocating Empire Free Trade and asking for support now :

“If at this stage I am asked whether my policy involves a tax on this or that, I decline to answer, because that is a question which can be answered only after the problem of each commodity has been investigated from every point of view.”

Push that in front of the next anti-Socialist who wants details of an entire social system.

* * *

Who's to have the best poison gas ! 

The Duchess of Hamilton in her article in the Sunday Express (March 2nd) against Vivisection complains bitterly against the War Office under a Labour Government, experimenting by means of poison gas on animals at a Salisbury Plain military experimental camp. Cats, monkeys, goats, horses, etc., are used to test the efficiency of poison gas. The Editorial of the same paper, commenting on the leisured lady’s article, says that “it is no use suggesting that such experiments should not be conducted in this country when they are conducted in other countries. Such a course would merely place this country at a disadvantage.”

Has not Professor Levinstein, of the Chemical Industry, told us that poison gas in war is more humane and kills quicker—possibly more.

What would the noble lady have the Labour Government do ? What is a War Office for ? It is to prepare for War—for markets, territory, etc., wanted by Capitalists.

She doesn’t oppose war, but war on cats, etc. A Labour Government must carry on the research, or how otherwise would they get the best poison gas ready for the next war. These scientific men employed by the Government used 1184 animals for poison gas experiments between November 1st, 1926, and April 20th, 1929.

The Duchess asks that poison gas should be suppressed. She expects war to be carried on more “humanely.” She doesn’t suggest war should be abolished by removing the cause. That would be Utopian. It is quite scientific to agree to preparations for wars as long as you kill in a gentlemanly way, such as sticking a bayonet in another man’s stomach or dropping bombs. The Labour Government must continue poison gas experiments, of course, because every other capitalist government is doing the same ! So the Sunday Express comes to the defence of the Labour Government !

* * *

“The Community Spirit.”

Mr. Ramsay McDonald presided at the Annual Dinner of the London Morayshire Club on March 1st, and among the guests were Lord Inchcape, Lord Furness, Sir Alex­ander Grant, and several other millionaire exploiters and opponents of the working class. So we learn from the Daily Herald (March 2nd).

This is the “United Front” of “Labour” and Capital. No class war spirit there.

* * *

The small shopkeeper finished !

“10,000 shopkeepers mainly trading in the villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”

“Bankruptcies among small shop­ keepers have increased 50 per cent. since the war,” said the manager of a trade protection agency.”

These two quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd), shows how the large stores have benefited by increased travelling facilities which brings the customers into the bigger cities.

The Capitalist Press are compelled to admit that the “small man” has no chance to-day. Only a week before the same paper told us about the rich men who started with nothing. Now they confess that modern competition causes large numbers to finish up “with nothing.”

C.

Points for Propagandists. (1930)

From the June 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour cannot improve Capitalism.

Mr. Herbert Tracey, the Labour Party’s Chief Election Agent, denies the claim made by his own party that conditions can be materially improved in this system. These are his words :—

“The workers are not getting a larger share of the national wealth. Under Capitalism the proportionate division of the national product cannot be materially altered ; the existing system secretes millionaires and paupers as the liver secretes bile.” (Daily Herald, April 16)

* * *

Who owns Great Britain?

The nonsense talked by all defenders of this system, from Tory to Labour, about the wealth of the workers, is completely smashed by the statement of Sir Leo Chiozza Money, the Labour-Liberal statistician. In the New Leader of April 11, he states :

“Twenty-five years have elapsed since first, in “Riches and Poverty,” I drew attention to the astonishing facts as to the distribution of property revealed by the collection of Death Duties. The facts are not less surprising to-day. In a quarter of a century very little progress has been made in securing a more equitable distribution of land and capital.

The nation, as a going concern, is still, for the most part, owned by a handful of people so small that, if they all left the country, the population would roundly remain unaltered. “

And he further says :

“It is equally true that, taking Great Britain as a whole, about 6 per cent. of its families possess nearly 70 per cent. of its land and capital.”

* * *

Nationalisation and unemployment.

How improved methods of transport affect post office workers in Scotland is shown by the report of the Scottish Council of the Postal Workers’ Union : —

“It is stated on the authority of official reports that during the last five years 1,700 full-time positions have been cancelled in Scotland as against an increase of 800 part-time positions. The reduction in the number of employees is attributed to the increasing use of motor vehicles in the conveyance of mails, which has made many rural postmen and auxiliary workers unnecessary. 

The union are suggesting a reduction in the working week with a view to the avoidance of unemployment in the service.”(Glasgow Evening Times, April 14.)

* * *

The cheapness of "Labour" Reforms. 

How Labour’s reforms save the property-owners money is shown in the following-from the I.L.P, paper, Forward:

“The change over of the unemployed from parish relief to unemployment benefit, as a result of the Labour Government’s new Unemployment Insurance Act, will save Glasgow Ratepayers £7400,000 a year, equal to 9d. off the Rates. Seven thousand men who have been receiving parish relief in Glasgow have been transferred to unemployment benefit through the new Act renewing their eligibility.” (Forward, April 12.)

* * *

The Revolutionary I.L.P. !

Unemployment relief should be a national charge, say both Winston Churchill and the I.L.P.

“That was the view of the I.L.P. in 1911 when Lloyd George framed his Unemployment Insurance Act. It is still the view of the I.L.P. The I.L.P. agitators of that time are the Government to-day, and it is left to Winston Churchill, the political adventurer with the adaptable mind, to express the I.L.P. point of view on unemployment relief.” (Forward, April 12.)

* * *

Humanizing Socialism !

I.L.P. object to Marx.

Mr. Fenner Brockway, the mouthpiece of the I.L.P., tells us in the Daily Herald (Jan. 22) that 20 years ago he read the American Socialist papers every week, and of them he says :

“They seemed to aim at making Socialism as difficult and forbidding as possible. The theories of the class struggle, the economic interpretation of history and surplus value were elaborated in detail, and their acceptance in entirety was made the test of Socialist conviction. 

I remember discussing this characteristic of American Socialism with Keir Hardie. He told me that before the formation of the I.L.P. British Socialism had been advocated in a similar way. The result was that the working-class was unmoved; it was left cold by the hard materialism, the dogmatic intolerance, and Continental phraseology in which Socialism was expressed.”

So Keir Hardie, who ridiculed the class war idea, and got his economics from Jesus, founded the I.L.P., with its sentimental appeal for social reform and a “humanized” capitalism, and support of capitalist parties.

Mr. Fenner Brockway reviews a book called the “Socialism of Our Times,” published by the “League of Industrial Democracy” (New York, 50 cents). This is a symposium by various writers who provide advice on “adapting” Socialism to the needs of the U.S.A.

Judging from the quotations, it is a collection of intellectual essays on everything except Socialism.

Mr. Brockway naturally commends the book, and quotes Mr. Harold Laski’s suggestions :

“The first step must be to awaken the American people to a sense of the positive character of the State. America still regards the State negatively, as we did in this country before the Labour Party entered Parliament. It does not recognise that the State has any responsibility for the unemployed, the sick, the widows, and the aged. Laski urges, therefore, that, the first need is to advocate unemployment and health insurance and old age and widows’ pensions, plus municipal ownership, taxation for social purposes, and Court and Parliamentary reform. In this way he believes a mental attitude will be created in the public for bigger Socialist reforms.”

* * *

Paralysing Socialism.

So Prof. Laski’s suggestion for “Americanizing” Socialism is to demand bigger reforms. What a Socialist Reform is, he doesn’t say. Seeing that all reforms are to be passed by the Capitalist Government—obviously they can’t be Socialist.

No suggestion is made that the workers should be taught Socialism, so that reforms will not be needed, but Socialism can be established.

The State is to be used by the worker to improve conditions under Capitalism ! The State, however, is a machine used under Capitalism to maintain private ownership and to repress the workers. The only use the State will be to a Socialist working-class is to capture it for the purpose of ending this system.

The workers of U.S.A. are advised by Mr. Laski to fight for the social reform legislation Mr. Lloyd George passed under Liberal Party rule.

This late professor of Harvard University understands the problem so little that he advises the workers in the most advanced industrial country to press for the paltry reforms that Germany had under Bismarck, and that England has suffered for many years.

Miss Jessie Wallace Hughan, another contributor to the book, says :

“American Socialism was imported by foreign-born doctrinaires. ’Gene Debs did much to humanise it, but it has still to be Americanised ‘from the pain economy to the pleasure economy, from the phraseology of the European labourer with nothing to lose but his chains to that of the American worker with his demands for a Ford and a radio.’”

American conditions are so different, she would have you believe, that the worker there has something to lose—and demands a radio and a Ford car. But how is it that both this writer and Mr. Laski advocate that the American workers demand all kinds of pensions, “doles,” and many other reforms similar to those we have in Europe, where “the labourer has nothing to lose but his chains”? The very reform agitation they favour gives the lie to the alleged differences in the condition of labour between U.S.A. and Europe.

Humanizing Socialism—Mr. Brockway calls his article. It should have been entitled—”Socialism” without Socialists— an I.L.P, beef stew !

* * *

Canadian Communists.

The Communist Party is as Reformist abroad as it is here. In Toronto Municipal Elections they are running candidates on a programme which covers everything except Communism. Their immediate demands according to their official organ, The Worker (Toronto, Dec. 21) include :

• “Unemployed relief of £5 per week to married men and £3 to single men.
• An Unemployed Insurance Act.
• Seven-hour day and 5-day week and 2 weeks’ holiday with pay.
• No night work for women and all those under 18 years of age.
• 2s. l1d. per hour for municipal employees.
• Abolition of property qualification for voters.
• Town Planning Scheme to pay union rates.
• Revision of taxation to benefit the workers.
• Free speech assemblage and Press.”

That’s how they build up Communist support in Canada.

* * *

More “Direct Action”?

“American Socialism or Labor Unions contra Company Unions,” by Robert Clausen, 409, East Fifth Street, Los Angeles. Price 35 cents.

This pamphlet, sent to us for review, is evidently the work of an ex S.L.P. member.

The writer claims that the S.L.P. have given up De Leon’s main idea, viz., reliance upon the economic organization, “taking and holding” the means of life without affiliation to any political party. Mr. Clausen does not deal with the weakness of De Leon’s position. In several articles in the Socialist Standard, our Comrade Jacomb showed that the S.L.P. had committed suicide politically by advocating that the workers give their undivided attention to economic organization.

The author of this pamphlet criticises both the “direct action” I.W.W. and also the industrial unions formed by employers for the harmless organization of their workers. These latter are called Company Unions in U.S.A., and their counterpart has grown up here since the General Strike.

Mr. Clausen’s pamphlet is a poor presentation of his views, but his chief idea is economic organization of labour, to take the means of production out of the hands of Capital.

He does not show how this can be done. Neither could De Leon or the S.L.P. Mr. Clausen supports Marx’s economics, but nowhere did Marx rely upon economic organization. Marx said that the first step was to capture political power (Communist Manifesto). The S.L.P. have not been able to deal with our case against their “direct action” policy, and so they remain silent on this, their special nostrum.

Perhaps Mr. Clausen would like to explain how economic organizations can “come into possession.”

* * *

“The Making of Socialists.”

“Why I doubt that the I.L.P. is a Socialist organization” was the title of a lecture given to the I.L.P. in North St. Pancras on March 6th by E. C. Fairchild. 

“He did not think the policy of social reform adopted by the Labour Party had any real connection with Socialism, and thought that the I.L.P. was making the fatal mistake of trying to outbid the Labour Party in reform measures, instead of concentrating on the making of Socialists.” (New Leader.)

The title of Mr. Fairchild’s lecture implies that he isn’t sure about the I.L.P. His doubts would not exist if he examined the I.L.P’s. position. It is inside the Labour Party, because that is where the jobs and popularity are. Its members run as Labour Party candidates because that is the way to get elected—and it’s election they want, not Socialism. The programme of rationalisation and reform gets millions of votes—advocating Socialism wouldn’t. The real crime of the I.L.P. and Labour Party is not merely their reform programme, but the assistance they give to keep power in the hands of the Capitalist Class.

Mr. Fairchild belonged to the Social Democratic Federation before the War, and in defence of their reform policy, wrote a pamphlet explaining that reforms and palliatives were the weapons of working class struggle.

In a series of articles in the Socialist Standard, our Comrade Jacomb analysed the reform nostrums of Mr. Fairchild. Since then the latter left the S.D.F. and joined the I.L.P., who had more reforms in their programme than the S.D.F. And now he is at Ruskin College as a teacher.

Before Mr. Fairchild started his wanderings in the reform wilderness, there was the Socialist Party of Great Britain in existence, and it still exists for the object of making Socialists and establishing Socialism.

* * *

Shaw v. Marx.

“And do not forget that the Marxian dream of a world-wide proletarian revolution, though it is not now practical politics, may yet upset all our conceptions of international relations. The Reformation did not seem practical in the Middle Ages; but it happened for all that.”

Thus spoke Bernard Shaw in an interview in the Sunday Observer (March 23}. It may suit Shaw to portray Marx’s idea as a dream, but the Capitalist Class don’t spend their time and money fighting dreams. They are busy with every weapon, from miseducation to repression, to try and prevent an end coming to their system. No wonder they are so full of praise for Labour Leaders like Thomas and Labour Politicians like MacDonald, who turn working class discontent into support of Capitalism. Lord Balfour, who has just “gone to heaven,” said that Social Reform was the antidote to Socialism. Shaw and the Labour Party support the antidote, while the very development of Capitalism makes Socialism inevitable.

* * *

The worker in America. 

“If the depression continues for another three months the situation will become seriously acute. The American working man has not been accustomed to saving. He has no reserves, and all his luxuries and household goods have been purchased out of income. If he is out of employment, then he will not be able to meet his instalments, and the companies that are keyed up to mass production will find that the percentage of production necessary to make large profits will be reduced to such an extent that there will not even be small profits—there will be considerable losses.”

Thus writes the City Editor of the Sunday Express (March 23), on his return from America. This Capitalist paper explodes the myth about the prosperity of the American worker with his “home” and motor car—”bought” on the hire system. The effects of mass production in America should teach the worker here that “greater output” in the most advanced country makes the workers’ position more insecure than ever.

* * *

Labour bombs.

Mr. Fred. Montague (Under Minister for Air) is opposed to materialism—in philosophy. As a Labour Minister under the Capitalist system, however, he is a staunch materialist, and strongly defended spending nearly 18 millions on the Air Force, an increase of nearly a million on last year. The modern weapons of war are taking the form of more air forces, so this spiritual Air Minister brings in larger air estimates.

So the Labour Government is keeping up the pace for bombing planes and all the other deadly weapons of this Capitalist world.

* * *

Lloyd George “Behind” the I.L.P.

“Mr. Lloyd George’s article in the Daily Express this week strongly reinforces the I.L.P. policy, so closely associated with F. W. Jowett’s name.” These are the words of the New Leader—the I.L.P. paper. What better evidence of the I.L. P. ‘s Socialism can you have?—Mr. Lloyd George “reinforces I.L.P. policy.” Perhaps that is Lloyd George’s thanks to the I.L.P. for so long supporting his Budget and other Reform campaigns !

* * *

A Communist Programme.

(1) Feeding all school children.

(2) Unemployed men on slack time to be relieved from paying rates.

(3) A school holiday on May 1st.

(4) Joint action by unemployed and employed to force these demands.

This is the Communist Party programme in Fifeshire (Daily Worker, March 14).

That is what they call uniting the workers for Revolution. The workers are to join together—not fighting for Socialism, but fighting for a school holiday on May 1st, etc.

Did the Third International spend large sums to develop such powerful Revolutionaries ?

C.

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.

Who are the capitalists? (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Every Man a Capitalist” is the title of an article written by Sir Sydney Low, and published in the “Sunday Pictorial” (2.10.27). The sub-title is “‘How Wealth is Spreading Amongst the Workers.”

Sir Sydney accuses Socialists of being “dealers in popular unrest,” and states that for years past we have been saying that “the rich are growing richer and the poor becoming poorer.” Also, we have said this so often and so persistently that many earnest persons who are not Socialists are inclined to believe there must be some truth in the indictment. In fact, there is none. So says Sir Sydney.

Of course, we are very pleased to hear that we are making an impression upon “many earnest persons who are not Socialists.”

To show that the rich are getting poorer, Low tells us “they are not spending extravagantly, their lives are simpler and less luxurious than they used to be.” These unfortunate people are parting with “their large, expensive houses, and offering their estates for sale. Many of them protest that they are living upon their capital in order to pay their way.”

This is all very sad, but it is not proof that the rich are getting poorer. They may not be spending extravagantly because they desire to invest more; they may be living less luxurious and more simple lives in the interests of their health. But the really important point, which Sir Sydney overlooks, is that large estates cannot be sold unless there exist purchasers. Unless, therefore, he believes that the large estates are being bought up by unemployed miners and others who have been compelled to relinquish their former occupation, there must still be rich people willing to be extravagant and able to afford it.

Another factor ignored by Sir Sydney Low is that many of these estates have been broken up merely because of the tempting opportunity of netting big gains, owing to the demand for building sites.

Then to show how every worker tends to become a capitalist, Sir Sydney refers to the increase in the number of privately-owned motor cars. He says : “By the end of this year there will be 700,000 self-propelled private vehicles in England. And who owns them ? For the most part people of moderate and even small means.”

Our opponent, evidently thinking this fad not sufficient to convince the sceptical, put forth further evidence to show that some day every worker will be a capitalist. This time it is houses. He tells us that “since 1923 600,000 new houses have been bought by middle class and working class tenants.” These houses have been built with State, or municipal, aid. And then “hundreds of thousands of others already in existence or erected by private builders have been sold to occupiers of the same kind.”

“House owning,” he goes on, “is not the only method whereby the man of limited income is turning himself into a capitalist. He tends more and more to become an investor.” As evidence, Sir Sydney informs us, “National Savings Certificates are now issued to the value of over £642,000,000. It may safely be asserted that almost the whole of that £642,000,000 represents capital belonging to the small investor.” But does it in fact?

In 1922, that is, before the workers’ savings had been drained by five years of trade depression, unemployment, short time and lowered wages, the Montague Committee were only able to express the opinion that “at least half” of the total sold up to the 31st March, 1922, represented the subscriptions of small investors (see Colwyn Committee Report, page 21).

Mr. W. T. Layton, the Liberal economist and statistician, estimates that small investors hold £455 million out of a total £6,592 million, which makes up the Internal National Debt, the magnificent proportion of 7 per cent. (“Economic Journal,” June, 1927, p. 204.)

However, enough! Is it the private ownership of a motor car, whether a Ford or a Rolls-Royce, that makes a person a capitalist? No. Is a man a capitalist because he owns the house in which he lives? No. Is it the possession of a few Savings Certificates that makes a man a capitalist? No.

What, then, is a capitalist? A capitalist is one who owns enough property in the means of living such as land, factories, railways, steamships, raw materials, etc., to be able to live without needing to work. The income derived from this private ownership frees the capitalist from the necessity of working for his livelihood.

It may be asked, what, then, is a worker?

A worker is one who, not owning any or sufficient property, is forced to sell his labour-power to the capitalist class, in order that he may live.

Sir Sydney speaks of the “lower middle class and the “higher working class.” This is “confusion worse confounded” as there are only two classes in modern capitalism, those who live by working and those who live by owning. And, as shown above, it is the manner in which a person obtains his or her livelihood that places him or her in one of these two classes.

As to wealth spreading out amongst the workers, heaps of evidence could be put forth to show the contrary to be true. First of all the workers are painfully aware of the constant dwindling in their wages, and ever-present unemployment.

In the report of the Ministry of Health, 1926-27, it is stated : “Poor Law Relief has risen nearly 350 per cent. since 1914, but outdoor relief has risen by over 1,000 per cent. The number of persons receiving out-relief were, in 1914, 387,796; 1927, 1,722,084 ” (“Daily News,” 16.9.27).

Then Mr. Harold Cox, who is a defender of capitalism, writing in the “Sunday Times,” 31.7.27., says: “In round figures pauperism in 1914 represented 21 per 1,000 of the population, and in 1927, as stated above, just under 40 per 1.000. It is, therefore, not far from the truth to state that the proportion of paupers to self-dependant citizens has doubled since 1914.”

The above facts show the falsity of Sir Sydney Low’s argument. As capitalism develops, the major portion of the wealth produced ccncentrates still further into fewer and fewer hands. It is, therefore^ obvious that the poverty of the mass must increase relatively to the wealth of the propertied class.

And as bad as the lot of the workers may be at the moment, it will tend to become worse with the further development of capitalism.

The only solution to the poverty problem of the working class is not for individual workers to buy a motor car, a house, or a few Savings Certificates, but to organise in the Socialist Party in order to do away with capitalism, the cause of their poverty, and to bring into existence Socialism, the social system which will free them from poverty.

C.

How we live. (1924)

From the May 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Brighton recently the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches held its Annual Assembly. The speakers included Ramsay MacDonald, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lloyd George, and several Divines. They spoke on religion, science, politics, and various social matters. Confusion was great, and a splendid selection of subjects for Socialist criticism was provided. But alas! our time and space is limited. Therefore I have selected from the mishmash what I consider to be a most glaring example of absurdity. This item of “wisdom” was uttered by Mr Ramsay MacDonald. Here it is:—“We live by faith, not by fact.”—Daily Telegraph, 7/3/24. Would you believe it! However, in fairness to Mr. MacDonald, and in the words of Marx, let us look at the matter a little closer.

What is faith? In this case faith is belief, or trust, in a religious system, the head of which is God. In short, faith is belief in God. What is fact? Fact is truth, reality, something that actually happens; something that is made known to us by one, or more, of our five senses; something we can see, or feel, or hear, or smell. Now we cannot know God through our senses. That is to say, he does not show himself to us; we cannot hear him speak or sing; we cannot shake hands with him. We cannot send a letter or a telegram to God, because we do not know his address, neither are there any means of communication with his supposed place of abode. The reason of this negation is, there is “no sich persun.” The idea of God was born through mankind’s ignorance of the workings of Nature. God did not create man; on the contrary, man created God. God only exists in the imagination, and has no external existence. We only hear of God what it pleases certain people, for certain reasons, to tell us. Thus, we live by faith. Faith in what? Something that does not really exist. Marvellous ! Now, you workers, who have been out of work, and had faith, know perfectly well that your faith did not keep you alive. In order to live you had to eat, drink, and sleep; you had to be clothed and have shelter. You have learned that to get a sufficiency of these things you must work. Thus you live by reality, or fact. You workers who are out of work and have faith, just study the above statements and you will see that they meet your case also. Those of you who have never been out of work and have faith, ask yourself why you work. You will learn that you work to get the realities stated above so that you can live. You know that if you depended on faith to keep you alive you would very soon cease to exist as living human beings. And do the Eminent Divines—the “most faithful”—live by faith? Oh! dear no, they live, very much, by fact. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, enjoys a stipend of £15,000 a year. The Bishop of London gets £10,000 a year. The Gloomy Dean Inge gets £2,000 a year, and Ramsay himself, at present, enjoys a salary of £5,000 a year. Now if we live by faith why do these people require these large incomes? Because they can only live by fact. And so in opposition to Mr. MacDonald : We live by fact, not by faith. The Prime Minister increases his absurdity in the same speech :—“The temporal can never receive quality except from the Infinite, and until our Churches and politicians seize upon that and bring the nation back to fundamental facts, you can pass,” etc. How Churches can seize anything I do not know. “And bring the nation back to fundamental facts.” We assume he means the British nation, and so, suppose, that the other nations of the world have nothing to do with the matter. And why bring the nation back to fundamental facts if we live by faith? According to Mr. MacDonald we do not live by fact, therefore, it is obvious, fact is useless to us. Why, then, does he suggest that the churches and politicians undertake—what to me seems a very difficult task—to bring the nation back to something which is useless to it? Simply a waste of time and energy. Here is a poser for Ramsay. If we live by faith, not by fact, why the dickens has he troubled himself for many years with politics ? The truth of the matter is that Religion is a part of the means by which the Capitalist Class keep you in ignorance. These “intellectual” and “Christian” people who take part in the “dirty” work do so because their social and financial positions depend upon it.

These “Judas’s” know that when the workers learn that they suffer want, poverty, and the evils arising therefrom, because they are robbed of the wealth they produce, it will be “all-up” with the wretched system the Judases uphold—the Capitalist System. This article contains a statement to the effect that God has no external existence, but only exists in the imagination. Even to-day many people consider this to be a very grave and terrible statement. However, should anyone desire more convincing evidence we recommend the study of our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion.”

Here will be found sufficient facts to steer one from the Mystical World to the Scientific World; from the world of misunderstanding to the world of understanding, that is, of course, should they desire to make the journey. Fellow workers, don’t forget, Study Socialism.

C.

The Forces Making For Socialism. (1930)

From the August 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the June issue, we dealt with Shaw’s reference to Marx’s “dream” of International Socialism. We pointed out that “the very development of capitalism makes Socialism inevitable.” A Manchester correspondent says that our statement is incorrect.

In the original short paragraph we could not explain the full meaning of such a phrase. It has been explained in this journal often, but we will outline the basis of our position.

The economic development of the present economic system produces industrial efficiency and at the same time growing economic insecurity and unemployment. The concentration of wealth into the hands of relatively fewer owners increases the contrast between the workers and the employers. The anarchy of each firm producing as much as possible for the same market leads to continuous over-production under the highly organised producing system of to-day.

Contradictions such as increasing productive power along with increasing misery more and more affect the workers’ minds. When they escape from the confusing ideas of the reformers the workers will organise to take over the industries, etc., and end the discord between social production and private ownership. The working class will rescue society from the chaos which would ensue unless the fruits of industrial evolution were gathered up into a new system, consistent with economic tendencies.

Does our correspondent deny the inevitability of Socialism? If not, what makes Socialism inevitable but just the economic developments of the present system? The same development will drive more and more workers to seek a way out and, therefore, make them willing listeners to the propaganda of Socialism, until under the varying pressure of conditions the mass of the workers are compelled to accept the Socialist policy and organise to win political power to establish the new system.

Economic conditions, it is true, do not alone change class rule. The contest for supremacy is a struggle between classes. But the development of economic conditions drives the subject class to struggle to establish a new system.

The development of capitalism makes Socialism inevitable, because while the material conditions are ripening, the working class are being matured for their emancipation.

C.

Slavery and Slaves. (1924)

From the March 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Slavery is a condition of people who are subjected, or forced, to do the bidding of other people. Subjected people are slaves; those people who dominate slaves are their masters. In the early times of savagery and barbarism, the Human Race suffered shortage of the means of subsistence; this caused the various tribes to war with each other. In these wars captives were taken, killed and in some cases eaten; hence the origin of cannibalism. In the course of time, discoveries and inventions enabled mankind to produce the means of subsistence in greater abundance, and so, it was not necessary to kill the captives taken in war.

The captured ones were kept alive and made to work for their captors; the captives became chattel slaves and were the property of their masters, known as slave holders. The masters provided their slaves with food, clothing and shelter, and so, work or no work, chattel slaves were always sure of their means of subsistence; this is an important point.

In the period of feudalism, also called the Middle Ages, chattel slavery had developed into feudal slavery, and a change in the conditions of the slaves is seen.

The feudal slaves are called serfs, or vassals; their masters, were the nobles, or Barons. The serfs, or vassals, were not fed, clothed and housed by their masters, but certain land was reserved for the use of the serf and he owned his own tools; therefore, they, the serfs, were able to produce their necessaries of life. An important feature of this period is that the slaves, having access to the land and owning instruments of production, were always sure of their means of subsistence, except, of course, when they suffered famine or pestilence. Also the masters protected their bond slaves against intruders. In return for these "privileges” the vassals had to give part of their time to producing the needs of their masters.

In the later stages of feudalism the system of capitalism began to rise, and in order that capitalism could exist and develop it was essential that the serfs be deprived of their means of living. Gradually, and in a brutal and forcible manner, the serfs were robbed of their means of living; and we see the feudal slaves transformed into wage slaves, their masters transformed into capitalists. Karl Marx, on page 761 in "Capital," says :—

  Thus the agricultural people, first forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system.

On page 738 Marx deals with the transformation of the feudal slaves into wage slaves; also called freedmen.

He says:

  But, on the other hand, these new freed men became the sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their means of production, and all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.

Wage slaves, then, are people who have been robbed of their means of living; therefore, they possess no property: neither do their masters feed, clothe nor house them.

In order to live, these slaves must sell their labour power to their masters, the capitalists, who, in return give them a wage on the average only sufficient to buy the means of subsistence whilst working. Thus it will be seen, if the wage slave cannot find work he will get no money; without money he cannot get the means of subsistence, therefore, he must slowly starve to death.

When the conditions of wage slavery are compared with the conditions of chattel and feudal. slavery, an exclamation arises What a change! Yes ! and a change to the disadvantage of the wage slaves, or the working class. There are, of course, alternatives provided by the masters, viz., the workhouse, parish relief, the dole, old age pensions, and, of course, a slave can beg. The masters cause the conditions of the workhouse, and parish relief, to be such that only in very extreme cases will workers use them. The dole and the old age pensions are insufficient to provide the means of subsistence; and begging is a precarious resource. The beggar is ever under the watchful eyes of the law and often finds himself in prison for striving to exist.

During the capitalistic period inventions and discoveries have arisen whereby the working class is able to produce a vast amount of the necessaries of life. But side by side with the increase in wealth there is an increase in the want and poverty of the working class; and this is because the means of living are owned by the capitalist class. Owning the means of living this class owns all the wealth produced.

We have seen the three forms of slavery and the difference between them. The chattel and feudal slaves had to endure their bondage because they had no power with which to free themselves. But the wage slaves, although they have lost the certainty of their means of subsistence, are able to obtain the power to free themselves from slavery.

Yes, the wage slaves can obtain the power to free themselves from slavery! This power can be obtained through the vote; chattel and feudal slaves were not allowed to vote, but the wage slaves are. The power to be obtained through the vote is made manifest in an election, when the different sections of the capitalist class beg for the votes of the workers in order to get into power. It is a strange thing, that the working class have the means at hand to gain their freedom and yet they use those means to put their masters into Parliament. Remarkable! By such action the wage slaves of to-day tighten the bonds of their slavery. Of course, it is obvious, the working class would not return their masters to power if they understood their slave position. How then can the workers overcome their political ignorance? By studying Socialism.

This article is a short survey of the development of slavery and slaves, and is a part of the knowledge of a Socialist. It is through studying the history of the Human Race that Socialists understand the cause of the unhappy lot of their class— the working class—and know, that the only remedy for the ills of their class is— Socialism.

C.

The Labour Party and The City. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Snowden and Mr. MacDonald have recently received the Freedom of the City of London. Addressing the bankers, stockbrokers and city business men gathered at the Guildhall on the occasion, Mr. Snowden said :—

   The Prime Minister and he perhaps held different views from those who had been given the honour before. "That illustrates," said Mr. Snowden, "one of the finest traits of British life —a toleration of opinions with which we differ— and it shows still more that the political controversies which divide us are petty and trivial compared with the vital things which unite us.” —("Edinburgh Evening News," 19th Dec.)

Yet there are people who describe the Labour Party as a class party—a Working Class Party.

C.