What Bernard Shaw thought 60 years ago (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The division into classes with various standards of comfort which always occurs among slaves, and which is due to the necessity for educating and maintaining the slave who is a doctor or barrister very much better than the slave who is a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water, makes the highly skilled slave despise the unskilled, the unskilled hate and envy the skilled ; makes the upper regard classification with the lower as an intolerable degradation, and the lower spurn classification with the higher as a hypocritical effort to reconcile him to his inferiority. Organisation of the proletariat, and recognition by them of their common interest, is thus defeated by class feeling, which is always bitterest among the worst off. It is doubtful whether dukes habitually despise beggars; but it is certain that butlers despise scullions, artisans labourers and professional men tradesmen. The solicitor’s daughter must not know the young lady from Peter Robinson’s nor will the “amalgamated engineer” permit his wife to demean herself by visiting the spouse of the carman. The proprietors, on the other hand, though their properties vary in size, seem to understand that they belong to the same class ; and so, whatever petty jealousies and disputes as to precedence may arise between them, they are always united against the proletariat. There is a saying that a man can be no more than a gentleman (a gentleman being one who lives by robbing the poor). There is no such saying as that a man can be no more than a worker : there is on the contrary, a widely spread feeling that he cannot be much less, short of being a convict or a pauper. Hence the proprietors succeed in maintaining their privileges against enormous odds in point of numbers. The proletariat, excepting the fragment in the trade unions, are a mere mob ; and even the trade union regiments seem to mistrust one another far more than they hate the enemy, to whose ranks everyone of their individual members is eager to desert if a commission there be offered to him.”— (George Bernard Shaw in “Our Corner,” September. 1887).

The Class Struggle. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Dividing Line.

It has been urged against our position that it is impossible to draw a clear line of demarcation between the classes, and, therefore, any theory that starts out with the assumption that society is composed of two classes, must necessarily be wrong in its application to the problems of society. Even if it were true, however, that it is impossible to sharply divide society into two opposing classes, that would not invalidate the theory, as I shall endeavour to show.

The biological world is divided into two kingdoms : the animal kingdom and the vegetable kingdom. That division is true and scientifically sound, nowithstanding the fact that there exist organisms which present difficuly in classification. The mere fact that they possess the characteristics, or some of the characteristics, of one, does not prevent them belonging to the other if they possess its distinguishing feature. The decisive factor biologically, is whether the organism consumes ready-made protoplasm, in which case it is unmistakably animal; or whether it lives by the consumption of those inorganic chemical elements which it changes into protoplasm, in which case it is clearly vegetable. Organisms which, like the hydra, have all the appearance of vegetables, but which, living by the absorption of matter already transformed by the true vegetables, are classed, therefore, as animals. Other creatures, again, seen under the microscope, appear, by their ceaseless movement, to be animals; yet, measured by the acknowledged test, prove to be vegetables. Nevertheless, the existence of “borderland,” where the two kingdoms mingle into what is to the outsider hopeless confusion, does not invalidate the division. So in society. The existence of a “middle” class will not invalidate the division the Socialist draws, if a test can be made that will differentiate the constituent elements of that section into one or other of the classes. If, then, we define a capitalist as one living on the labour of others through his control of the means of production (that is, the possession of capital); and a workman as one living by the sale of his labour-power to the possessor of the means of production, we shall be able to decide whether any of the individuals in the “borderland” belong to one class or the other.

The Conflict of Interests.

Actually, however, this clear line of demarcation is not necessary, as for all ordinary purposes the division is plain enough, and the exactness will only be needed by those who have developed what might be called the outlook of the microscopist; for he, intent upon the tiny details of minute organisms, does not so readily take the more general view. So the individual, himself probably belonging to the “middle” class, is more intent upon the exact classification of doubtful cases than in the broader outlook which would make the division palpable.

And when we have satisfied ourselves that society is composed of two classes, we have to look further into the differences between them. The capitalist lives by the purchase of labour-power, which he employs in the production of certain commodities. The wealth then produced is divided into two parts : wages, and surplus-value. Contained in that, surplus-value is the profit on which the capitalist lives. Any increase, therefore, in the quantity of profit means inevitably a like decrease in the quantity remaining for wages, and vice-versa. The object of the worker is to get the highest price possible for his labour-power ; the object of the capitalist is to realise as much profit as possible. In this fundamental economic relationship lies the main-spring of the class struggle. That struggle is being waged unremittingly irrespective of whether the combatants are fully conscious of it or not. That struggle is, to the Socialist, the moving force in history. It arises, as we have seen, from the fact that the means of production, which are the means of life, are in the possession of those who do not use them, except as a means for the exploitation of those who do not possess them.

Class Consciousness.

“The emancipation of the working class from the domination of the capitalist class” can be effected only by the “conversion into common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.” So reads the “Declaration of Principles.” The conversion will not conceivably be made by the capitalist class, because their interest lies in the direction of retaining their privileges, which they may safely be relied upon to uphold to the last ditch. The interest of the workers lies in the direction of stripping privilege from the capitalist class: therefore in a direction opposed to that of the capitalist class. From this antagonism of interests arises the class struggle. The efforts of the workers to gain an improvement in their conditions, whether it be in the direction of higher wages or shorter hours, or in opposition to any of the disabilities imposed by the capitalist system, and the resistence of the masters to any such demand, manifest the struggle between the classes. When the workers’ efforts are directed towards the ending, rather than the mending, of capitalist conditions of industry, we see manifested a consciousness by the workers of their position, and the struggle takes on a new phase—a phase altered by the introduction of “class-consciousness.”

The Conditions of Successful Conflict.

For generations the working-class have battled class-unconsciously for improvements, but despite the heroism occasionally shown, despite the effort that have been devoted to the endeavour times without number, the working-class position has not improved, but has steadily worsened with the development of capitalism, for it cannot he denied that employment is more precarious than it has ever been ; unemployment is more prevalent and more lasting than formerly. Money wages may have increased in some cases over those paid at some former period, but measured by the increase in the productivity of labour, the greater frequency of unemployment, the increased expenditure necessitated by living at a distance from the factory, and the increasing cost of house-rent, it may safely be stated that the worker lives no fuller life than formerly, and enjoys life no more. Hours may, too, in some cases have been reduced, but measured again by the intensity of daily labour, and the rail journey between factory and home, the reduction in hours has by no means kept pace with capitalist development. The struggles of our forebears, then, have not solved our problems, however much they may have prevented us from sinking to a lower level, and mitigated the evil effects of capitalism. For the workers to fight on the old lines is impossible. They are no longer opposed to a competing mass of small capitalists, but to a highly organised and powerful class. The endeavours of the workers to meet that class in the old way on the economic field by means of the strike and the boycott meet with defeat, and must do so because, when the capitalist class is not sufficiently powerful to meet it successfully by its power as employers, it is always ready to call in the assistance of the political arm which it has long since controlled. In the political control by the capitalist class lies the centre of its power; yet the fact remains that political power is derived from the votes of the working class. With the working class rests ultimately the character of the government, because the workers control a majority of the votes cast at any General Election. For all these reasons, therefore, the struggle of the workers must take on a political character.

The Work of the Socialist Party.

This truth has been imperfectly recognised already as is shown by the development of what is called “Independent” Labour Representation. That this movement has been and is being manipulated by a set of job-hunters must not blind us to its real significance, which lies in the fact that a political movement is growing which is becoming independent of the two historic parties under capitalism. Therein lies what may be taken as the first glimmering of class-consciousness. The shortcomings of that movement have been frequently dilated upon in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, so that it less necessary for me to go into it now. As the constituent elements of that movement, and of the working class generally, become really class-conscious, and therefore Socialist, they will realise that the political independence of labour must rest upon the hostility of labour to all the forces of capitalism, and will either leave the present movement or bring it into line with their convictions by bringing themselves or it into The Socialist Party.

During the remainder of the life of capitalism the work of the Socialists is particularly to develop class-consciousness by explaining the class position of the workers in its relation to capitalism, by prosecuting, without intermission, the class-struggle ; while the nearer the Party keeps to the line of the class-struggle the greater will he its efficiency as a Socialist propagandist organisation, and the more effective will it be in generating class-consciousness. Because the Labour Party is in effect merely a wing of the Liberal Party, notwithstanding its protestations of independence, it does not answer the purpose of a working-class party either in encouraging the understanding of the working-class position, or in politically prosecuting the class-struggle. The Socialist Party must at all times, therefore, be opposed to it, and must spare no effort in pointing out to the workers that Socialism must be the goal of their organisation, and the class-struggle the guiding principle in its immediate work.

R. H. Kent

Facts for Propagandists (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks a number of questions on matters of general interest to propagandists. Questions and answers are given below.

(1) The Working Class.

Question: "What percentage of the total population are really members of the working class?”

Answer: The working class consists of all those people who, not owning sufficient property to be able to live without working are compelled to sell their labour power, their mental and physical energies, to an employer in order to live. These and their dependents form the working class. As the definition covers not only the industrial workers, but also technical, professional, supervisory and managerial workers it will readily be seen that in an advanced capitalist country like Great Britain the working class and their dependents constitute the great majority of the population.

How large is the proportion of working class to the rest of the population can be seen from the estimate made by Dr. Bowley and Sir Josiah Stamp in “The National Income, 1924" (Published by Clarendon Press, 1927).

On page 12 they estimate that in 1924, out of 20,300,000 “occupied persons," 76 per cent. were wage earners, and 14 per cent. salary earners, total 90 per cent.; leaving 10 per cent, for the rest of the occupied persons. This 10 per cent. was made up of 6 per cent. “Independent Workers" and 4 per cent. “Employers, Farmers, and Professional." ("Independent Worker" means one-man businesses, etc.)

Carr-Saunders and Caradog Jones, in the “Social Structure of England and Wales" (Oxford University Press, 1927) reproduce the above figures (p. 63) and add the illustration that, on an average, there are about 24 employees to every employer.

Some qualifications need to be made. The above estimates refer to “occupied persons" only, and do not include children, wives, and other dependents who are not “occupied." If we assume that the average number of dependents of a wage-earner or salary-earner is roughly the same as the average number of dependents of an employer or of an “independent worker," we can say that the total population of all ages is divided in the same proportion as the occupied persons.

In other words, taking every man, woman and child in the country, 90 per cent. can be described as “working class," 6 per cent. “Independent," and 4 per cent. “farmers, employers, or professional/’ (“Professional" means doctors, barristers, free-lance journalists, etc.)

It is not known how many property owners who need not work actually do so and are reckoned among the above 90 per cent.

(2) Who Owns the Means of Production and Distribution?

The position is that the great bulk of the accumulated property of all kinds (including money) is held by a very small part of the population, either direct, or through their ownership of the shares of companies. A small proportion of shares in companies is owned by workers. There are also independent persons (owners of one-man businesses) who own a small part of the total property.

Carr-Saunders and Caradog Jones, in their “Social Structure of England and Wales," reproduce and comment on various estimates of the ownership of accumulated wealth. They use Sir Josiah Stamp’s estimates to show that in 1919—

about two-thirds of the wealth is held by just under 400.000 people (or less than 1 per cent. of the total population) and one-third of the wealth by 36,000 people (or less than 1 in 1,000 of the total population). (P. 114.)

Taking “occupied persons" instead of the total population, Sir Josiah Stamp’s calculations show that—

about 2½ per cent. of occupied persons over 20 hold about two-thirds of the wealth, and about 2½ in 1,000 hold one-third of the wealth, (p. 114.)

They quote Professor Henry Clay that—

64 per cent., or rather less than two-thirds of the wealth is in the hands of 1.7 per cent. of persons holding property.

These people (“1.7 per cent. of the persons holding property") represent only 0.85 of the whole population (p. 116).

According to Clay, at the other end of the scale—

96.2 per cent. of persons have only 17.22 per cent, of the national capital, (p. 116.)

Sir Leo Chiozza Money showed before the War, in his “Riches and Poverty" (Third edition, p. 72), that—

about one-seventieth of the population owns far more than one-half of the entire accumulated wealth, public or private, of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson, of “The Economist," in his “The Small Investor" (Blackie aqd Son, Ltd., 1930), shows that the total accumulated resources of “small investors" amount to only about 10 per cent. to 14 per cent. of the total wealth of the country. Under “small investors" he includes the owners of all kinds of savings, including Post Office savings deposits, Trade Union Thrift Funds, Co-operative Society Funds, etc. These “small investors," he says, represent at least 75 per cent. of the total population (p. 110).

In other words, according to Mr. Parkinson, more than three-quarters of the population own only about one-eighth of the wealth. The other seven-eighths is owned by less than one quarter of the population.

(3) What Percentage of all Wealth is Owned by Banks and Insurance Companies ?

We have no means of ascertaining easily what is the total value of all the property owned by Banks and Insurance Companies.

It must, of course, be remembered that the property of the Banks and Insurance Companies is actually the property of the shareholders, depositors and insured persons, and is, therefore, already reckoned in the estimates given in reply to question (2).

(4) The Workers' Wages.

“ What is the average wage of the workers in Great Britain?"

Colin Clark, M.A., in “The National Income (1924-1931)," states that Bowley and Stamp estimated the average earnings of 12 million wage-earners in 1924 at £122, while Clark himself estimated £116 ("The National Income," published by McMillan, 1932, p. 61).

These amounts are equivalent to about 46s. and 45s. a week. They do not allow for deductions for sickness and holidays.

Since 1924 wages have fallen appreciably; according to Dr. Bowley by 3 per cent. up to 1931. This would make the average wage now about 44s.

(5) Unemployment and the Poor Law.

“ What percentage of the population is unemployed and in receipt of public assistance?"

On May 22nd, 1933, the total number of unemployed on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 2,653,852. (See “Labour Gazette," June, p. 207.)

This represented 20.5 per cent. (one in five) of the insured workers.

It represented nearly 6 per cent. of the total population. (There are, of course, an unknown number of unemployed who are not insured and not registered. )

The number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (both outdoor relief and relief in institutions) was 1,340,638 at the end of December, 1932.

This represented about 3.3 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales. (See “Labour Gazette," March, 1933, p. 84.)

It includes, of course, a large number of persons registered at the Employment Exchanges as unemployed. With their dependents these number nearly 400,000.

(6) Who are the Buyers of Shares ?

“ Who are the institutions of people who buy or oversubscribe the usual large issues of shares ?"

Except by having inside knowledge of the subscriptions to particular issues of shares it is not possible to have direct information which would answer this question.

A general indication of the position, however, is given by Mr. Hargreaves Parkinson in “The Small Investor." He estimates' that small investors (who, with their dependents, represent over three-quarters of the population) own shares totalling between £500 millions and £750 millions, and that they buy shares in normal times at the rate of between £20 millions and £40 millions a year.

Divided over the whole number of persons these amounts are trifling.

How small they are can be seen by comparing them with the total holdings of shares, and with the total amount of new shares bought each year by the big investors.

"The Bankers' Magazine" keeps an index of the average price of 365 representative securities. These 365, which represent only part of the total number of securities quoted on the Stock Exchange, had a total market price in June of £6,249 millions, i.e., about ten times as much as the total shareholdings of the “small investors.”

The “Stock Exchange Official Intelligence (1931)" states that at the end of 1929 there were 108,698 companies having share capital totalling £5,200 millions (p. 2023).

Whereas the “small investors," according to Mr. Parkinson, buy shares worth only £20 to £40 millions a year, the total amount of capital of new companies registered in 1928 and 1929 was £237 millions and £240 millions (“Intelligence,” p. 2023).

The bulk of the shares are bought and held by Banks, Insurance Companies, trading and industrial concerns, investment trusts, etc., and by wealthy individuals.

(7) Wages and Wealth Production.

“ What percentage of the wealth produced by the workers is returned to them as wages?"

Colin Clark, M.A., in his "The National Income, 1924-1931," estimated that in 1929 the wage-earners received 39.9 per cent, of the total national income (excluding income from abroad, i.e., from foreign investments, etc.).

Salary earners received 22.5 per cent. Rent of land and buildings accounted for 7.8 per cent., and profit and interest accounted for 29.7 per cent. (p. 72).

In other words, the wage and salary earners, who represent nine-tenths of the population, received just over three-fifths of the total national income.

The wage-earners, who represent three-quarters of the population, received only two-fifths.

These figures relate to the whole number of wage earners, irrespective of whether they are engaged in wealth production or whether they are engaged in financial, trading, and other activities.

Taking Manufacturing and Mining Industries only, the Committee on Finance Industry (MacMillan Committee) in its Report (1931) published tables showing that earnings represent just over one-half of the wealth produced in those industries. (52 per cent. in 1906-7 and 55 per cent. in 1924.) (See p. 313.)

In 1924 the average net product per person employed was £220, while average earnings was £120. This means that each person employed was producing a surplus of £100 a year, over and above his own pay and after meeting all the raw material and other costs.

(8) Wealth and Waste.

“ What percentage of workers are engaged in luxury or useless or redundant occupations?"

An attempt to estimate this percentage is made in our pamphlet, “Socialism," to which our correspondent is referred.

(9) The Churches and Property.

“What percentage of all wealth is owned by religious organisations?"

We have no information on this subject.

(10) The Cost of the Armed Forces, etc.

“What percentage of the total income is devoted to the upkeep of army, navy and police?"

The cost of Police pay in 1931 was about £15,600,000. (See Report of Committee of National Expenditure, 1931, p. 42.)

The Army, Navy and Air Estimates for  1932-33 amounted to about £104 millions.

Taking the two figures together, we have a grand total of £120 millions.

Colin Clark estimated the total national income in 1931 at £3,322 millions. Therefore, the cost of the army, navy, air force and police represents about 4 per cent. of the total national income. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Some implications of Socialism (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the end of the war the workers have been the target of production campaigns, on the screen, on the platforms and in print, urging them to work harder because the world at large was suffering from a tremendous shortage of goods; a shortage that it was claimed would continue for many years. In the last few weeks, however, the tune has begun to change and there are ominous whispers that we are on the verge of another crisis of “overproduction”; this in spite of rationing and of the genuine shortage suffered by the mass of the population. It is the old old story of capitalism that will continue as long as capitalism lasts; its basis is the class ownership of the means of production under which goods are only produced for the purpose of realising a profit to the class that owns the means of production and distribution.

When the Labour Party took over the government and commenced nationalising some industries many workers were misled into the belief that capitalist private ownership was passing away. It was overlooked that the wage system in all its vileness still remained and that the former shareholders in the industries that had been nationalised had simply changed into holders of government securities, the interest on which had to be provided out of the nationalised industry; that these securities were, on the whole, as lucrative as the former shares had been and, moreover, were much safer because the interest was guaranteed at a fixed rate by the government.

Nationalisation has been a good thing for the capitalists but it has tied the worker more firmly to the wheels of industry, limiting the range of employment for those who cannot keep up the pace and tightening up the system of recording how, where and when each worker employs his energy.

The threatened onset of another crisis in a world where the mass of the people are still going short is irrefutable proof that capitalism cannot solve the problems it throws up, including the terrible problem of war for which all nations are at present preparing by building up gigantic armaments with a despairing fatalism.

Only the Socialist has the answer to these major social problems because only Socialism, the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, can guarantee to the whole of the people of the earth comfort, security, and a world freed for ever from the shadows of war and the perplexities of economic crises.

Let us consider some of the implications of Socialism.

As the means for meeting the needs of all the people will be commonly owned and democratically controlled, everyone being on an equal footing economically and politically, there will be no privileged groups, nor will there be privileged individuals, except of course the old, the infirm and the young.

From this it also follows that there will be no State nor will there be State ownership of anything, A State only exists where there is privilege, and it is the purpose of a State to make and administer laws that are based upon the existence of privilege; to defend the privileged group from attacks upon their privileges, either by the unprivileged or by an external privileged group. The crimes that give occupation to thousands upon thousands of police, lawyers, judges and other legal functionaries are crimes against property, or arising out of private property based society, which would disappear with the disappearance of private property. Thus, when we see that every country in the world, including Russia and its satellites, has either a strongly organised state or one in the process of development, we know, without the need for further evidence, that in every country there are privileged and unprivileged classes, and all the evils that flow from this class division.

Under Socialism there will be no buying, no selling and no money; the latter only exists as a means to buy and sell. As each person will have free access to what is produced, in the same way as he has free access to air, there will be nothing to buy, nothing to sell and, therefore, money will have no function to perform. There was a time, in the primitive communistic groups that flourished before civilisation began, when money was unknown; it only came into existence when property, and with property buying and selling, invaded and finally broke up the old tribal communities. Books of the last century contain the innocent amazement of travellers in backward areas who came across groups of natives who knew nothing whatever of money or its uses.

Another implication of Socialism is that there will be no class distinctions of any political or economic kind. Class distinctions are an attribute of privilege. The class distinction of modern times, that is between capitalist and worker, is reflected in many forms of snobbery that have caused disunion in the working class movement. These forms of snobbery are slowly passing away as the bonds of wage slavery sear the flesh of all with equal fierceness, but they still have some influence on the outlook of sections of the working class. Two forms of snobbery, in particular, still persist both of which are based upon the false distinction between the so-called professional worker and those that are not included in this category; the scientist, the artist, and the rest of the workers. Although commercialism is gradually killing these fictitious distinctions they still have considerable sway. Both derive from the past when the professional groups were hangers-on, or panderers to the whims and luxuries of the ruling aristocracies. The growing body of scientists is greatly afflicted with the idea that they are a class apart from and above the sordid everyday struggle. When it suits the members of the ruling class they foster this idea— when it does not suit them the scientist is brought to heel. There was an example of this in recent cases connected with the disclosure of atom bomb secrets. It may be added that under Socialism there will be no “secrets”; all information and all steps forward in conquering the forces of nature will be spread as widely and as rapidly as possible to assist the people of the world to take full advantage of the inexhaustible fertility of the human brain. All the people of the world being on an equal footing there will be none of the distinctions, false or real, that trouble the world today.

Still another implication of Socialism is that there will be no national frontiers as the people of the world will be one vast family, regardless of colour or alleged race. Each will be free to wander over the earth as the primitive savage was to wander in the primeval forests before the growth of property placed bars across his path, eventually secluding some into reservations and driving others, the unluckier ones, into the bosom of eternity.

From the foregoing it will be seen that Socialism signifies a fundamental social revolution, a complete change in the basis of society from private ownership to its opposite. There can be no half-way house between private ownership and common ownership. Private ownership cannot be abolished little by little and bit by bit. Some supporters of the Labour Party claim that it can, but after four years of Labour Government, jewels, fur coats and fortunes are still the lot of the privileged and there are rich harvests for burglars, both the legal and the illegal. The burglars, like the poor, we always have with us, and for the same reason.

Finally let us mention one more implication of Socialism—that democracy is essential. The Socialist movement is a movement of the working class in the interests of society as a whole and, therefore, freedom of discussion, freedom of expression, freedom of meetings and the like are essential in order that the foundations of the new society may be laid in lasting fashion.

There is no productive bar to the establishment of Socialism tomorrow; the only bar is lack of understanding and desire on the part of the workers of the world. The capacity to meet the needs of every man, woman and child in the world exists today but most of this capacity is wasted. One need only look at the vast amount of energy wasted on war preparations, on materials such as coal and steel that are only connected with war purposes, as well as the energy wasted on the multitudinous matters solely connected with buying and selling, to realize what a vast amount of productive and distributive capacity slumbers in the bosom of capitalism. And, further, what inventive capacities will be released when no longer curbed by the system that demands the production of only those articles which can command sufficient paying customers to provide unearned incomes for the class that lives like leeches on the backs of the workers.

Gilmac.

The Proletariat (The Working Class). By Karl Kautsky (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from November issue

Specially translated for The Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

6. The Growing Extent of the Working Class. 

The Commercial and the "Educated" Proletariat. 

It is not only by the extension of industry on a large scale that the capitalist mode of production makes the proletarian conditions general. It is also caused by the position of the wage-workers in industries on a large scale becoming the standard for the position of the wage-workers in other spheres of activity. And their conditions of work and life are revolutionised by the large-scale industries.

The advantages which these workers may perhaps have possessed over those employed in capitalist industries are now, by the influence of the latter, changed into so many disadvantages. Where, for instance, to-day the worker of a handicraft still boards and lodges with his master, the aforesaid change results in this handicraft worker being worse fed and housed than the wage-worker who has a household of his own. The long apprenticeship was, in times gone by, a means for preventing a glut of workers in handicraft; to-day the system of apprenticeship is the most effective means of producing a glut of cheap workers in handicraft and of depriving the adult workers of their livelihood.

Here also, as in other directions, things that under the domination of petty enterprise were reasonable and a boon, have become nonsensical and a hindrance owing to the capitalist mode of production.

The endeavour of guild-masters to revive the old guild system may in the main be ascribed to the desire to create, by the revival of the old forms, new means for the purpose of exploiting their workmen. They seek to save themselves from the bog by throwing down and stepping on proletarian bodies.

And these gentlemen grow indignant when the working class fails to become enthusiastic over this method of delaying somewhat the inevitable extinction of petty enterpise.

Commercial trading undergoes a similar development to handicraft. The large enterprise squeezes out of existence the petty enterprise, even in the sphere of petty trading.

The small commercial undertakings need not, therefore, diminish ia number. Petty trading becomes the last refuge of those who have gone bankrupt among the small producers.

In the German empire there were employed per thousand workers in each particular group :—

ESTABLISHMENTS	INDUSTRIAL		COMMERCIAL. (including Licensed Victuallers.)
	1882	1895	1882	1895
With 1 – 8 employees	551	399	757	697
With 6 – 50 employees	186	238	202	243
Over 50 employees	263	363	41	60

From this table it will be gathered that in commercial and licensed establishments petty enterprise predominates far more than in industry and declines less rapidly—speaking relatively. Speaking absolutely, petty enterprise is on the increase in commerce and the licensed victuallers’ trade. The number of employees in these callings increased from 1,013,981 in 1882 to 1,509,453 in 1895.

To restrict petty trading—for instance by restricting hawking or peddling—would mean nothing else but to sweep those who are getting their livelihood in that way completely off their feet and to force them into the ranks of the loafing class ; that is to say, to compel them to become beggars, vagabonds, or jailbirds—which would indeed be typical social reform.

The influence of the development of industry on a large scale, as far as petty trading is concerned, does not find expression in a decrease in the number of small trading concerns, but in their actual dwindling away. The existence of petty traders on their own account becomes continually more insecure and more like that of proletarians. Besides, there is a steady increase in the number of those employed in large concerns, who become real proletarians, and have no prospect of ever going into business on their own account; child- and woman-labour continues to extend, the latter accompanied by increased prostitution. Overwork, unemployment, and the cutting down of wages also enter this sphere of employment. The position of the commercial employee is approaching that of the industrial proletarian. The former can be distinguished from the latter almost in only one way, namely, by his keeping up the appearance, at a great sacrifice, of a higher social position, while the industrial proletarian knows nothing of practising such deception.

And yet another category of proletarians begins to develop: the educated proletariat. To be educated has, in our present mode of production, become quite a separate business. The scope of knowledge has grown immensely and is widening from day to day. And capitalist society as well as the capitalist state, require more and more men of science and art for the conduct of their affairs, for the subjection of the forces of nature, be it for the purpose of production or destruction, or for the luxurious utilisation of their increasing affluence. But not only the peasant, the handicraftsman or proletarian, but even the merchant, the manufacturer, the banker, the stock-exchange gambler and the large land-owner have no time to devote to art or science. Their time is fully taken up by their business and amusements. In present society it is not, as under former systems of society, the exploiters themselves, or at least a section of them, who foster art and science. They leave that occupation to a separate class, whom they pay for their services. Education becomes a commodity.

But until several decades ago it was still a rare commodity. There were but few schools, and study involved considerable expense. The peasants were mostly not in a position to be able to raise the means for sending their sons to the higher schools. Handicraft and commerce on the other hand were still in a prosperous condition ; hence, whosoever was engaged in these callings remained in them; only the fact of being specially gifted or in exceptional circumstances induced the son of the handicraftsman or merchant to take up the study of art or science. While the demand for officials, technical experts, medical men, teachers, artists, etc., increased, the supply was almost entirely restricted to the progeny from such circles.

The commodity education commanded therefore a high price. Its possession brought at least a comfortable living to those who turned it to practical account, like lawyers, officials, medical men, professors, etc.,—often fame and honour also. The artist, the poet, the philosopher were the companions of kings. The intellectual aristocrat considered himself superior to the aristocrat by birth or money. His only concern was the development of his intellectual gifts. Consequently the educated could be idealists, and often were such. They stood above the other classes and their material aspirations and antagonisms. Education meant power, happiness, and amiableness; therefore the conclusion lay near, that, in order to make all men happy and amiable, to surmount all class antagonism and to abolish poverty and degradation, nothing more was required than the diffusion of education.

Since then the spreading of higher school education—and here it is only a question of higher education—has made gigantic strides. The number of educational establishments has immensely increased. The number of scholars has grown to a still greater extent. Petty enterprise in commerce and industry no longer offers chances of prosperity. The petty bourgeois is unable to save his children from drifting into the ranks of the proletariat unless he can manage to give them a university education, providing, of course, it is possible for him to rake together sufficient means for this end. And he must think of providing not only for his sons but also for his daughters; for the progress in the division of labour gradually transforms, as already mentioned, household work into separate occupations, thus reducing more and more the work in the home, so that a marriage in which the wife is only the housekeeper, and not at least partly bread-winner, becomes increasingly a luxury. At the same time, however, the petty bourgeoisie falls into greater poverty, as we have seen, so that it loses the ability of affording a luxury. The number of celibates increases, as does the number of families in which wife and daughter have to work to augment the income of the family. Thus female labour increases not only in the direction of the petty and large industry, and of petty trading, but also in the sphere of officialdom in Government and private employment, as, for instance, in the post and telegraph offices, railways, banks, art and science. However loud the protest on the grounds of prejudice or personal interest may be, female labour enters increasingly into the various spheres of intellectual activity. It is not conceit, neither insolence nor uppishness, but the compulsion due to economic development, which forces women to seek occupation in that particular sphere as elsewhere. While the men in some intellectual occupations, in which craft organisation still exists, have been successful in keeping out female competition, the women have been able to gain admission to callings unhampered by craft organisation, as, for instance, journalism, painting, and music.

A consequence of this entire development is, that the number of the educated persons has increased tremendously in comparison with the past; but the favourable consequences which the idealists expected to be derived from a greater diffusion of education, have not been realised. So long as education remains a commodity, the diffusion of education means an increased supply of the commodity, hence a lowering of its prices and consequently a worse position for the owner of the commodity The number of the educated has grown to an extent that more than satisfies the requirements of the capitalists and of the capitalist state. The labour market of the educated workers is to-day as overcrowded as that of the manual workers. And also the intellectual workers have already their Reserve Army—unemployment is as much known in their ranks as in those of the industrial workers. Those who wish to obtain an appointment under Government have to wait years, often more than a decade, until they are able to get one of the badly paid minor posts. With the others over-work is followed as much by unemployment and vice-versa as with the hand-workers, and the forcing down of wages is practised upon them as upon the latter.

The class position of the educated workers grows perceptibly worse ; if before one spoke of the aristocracy of intellect, one now speaks of the proletariat of intelligence; and very soon these latter proletarians will distinguish themselves from the other wage-workers by only one thing—their conceit. The majority of them will still think they are something better than the wage-workers ; they still consider themselves to belong to the bourgeoisie, but in a similar way as servants regard themselves as belonging to the family of their masters. They have ceased to be the intellectual leaders of the bourgeoisie and have become their hired prize fighters. The ambition to succeed develops among them; not the cultivation, but the turning to account, of their intellectual gifts now becomes their first consideration, and the prostitution of their being is the principal means of advancement. Like the petty traders, they, too, are deceived by a few big prizes in the lottery of their life; they overlook the numerous blanks which are facing them and bargain away body and soul for the mere prospect of drawing such a big prize. The selling of their own convictions and a marriage for money have become in the estimation of the majority of our “educated,” two self-understood as well as indispensable means for “making a fortune.” And that is what the capitalist production has made of its explorers, thinkers and dreamers.

(To be continued)

Blogger's Note:

It was the German SPGBer, Hans Neumann, who translated Kautsky's writings from the German into English for the Socialist Standard.

Answers to Correspondents. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A. Porcelli, Baron de St. Andrew (The Cottage, Camberley.)—Your statement that Society cannot be divided into two classes because “there are, for instance, children in arms,” is distinctly refreshing. We are, however, always glad to deal with intelligent opposition. We note also that you profess to belong neither “to the working class nor to the capitalist class, but to a much nobler class, viz, the Sons of God.” Nevertheless, if as we surmise the necessities and comforts of life which you enjoy in your baronial “Cottage” do not descend direct from heaven, but are the products of worldly labour, it would materially assist us in deciding (at least to our own satisfaction) to which economic category you belong if we were informed whether your present income is the result of your own mental and physical labour, or is derived through the ownership of property and is therefore a tax on others’ labour. This is not a personal question, for “we must all toil, or steal, (howsoever we name our stealing).”

The statements regarding your numerous charities to the distressed working class prove only that those who produce the wealth do not enjoy it and that the appropriators, who flourish through the workers’ misery, accompany their alms with misunderstanding and contempt. We would, indeed, in this connection (in return for the text on unclean beasts to which you referred us) commend to you respectfully Matthew VI., 1-4.

You assert that we are “perfectly ignorant of the Bible.” But to this we cannot plead guilty; for we regard and use the Bible as a valuable historical document of the upper status of barbarism in social evolution. As you, however, appear to value the Bible in quite another sense may we suggest that you take as texts for your next epistle Matthew XIX., 21-24 and Isaiah V., 8?

We cannot afford space to deal with all the curious points you raise. Your point of view, moreover, not being that of a wage-worker, and presenting otherwise no common ground of logic and experience as a basis for argument, renders further discussion difficult.

Socialism, as such, is not directly concerned with religion or the supernatural, and is not antagonistic thereto except in so far as religion is used against the working class. It would, however, be idle to deny that the fulcrum toward obtaining a rational conception of life provided by the scientific basis of Socialism can ultimately leave no room in the consistent mind for belief in the supernatural.

The concluding statement in your letter that “Woe betide the man who ignorantly seeks to make God responsible for the warped nature of fellow man, and the evils produced by Satanic devilry” is, as applied to us, entirely gratuitous; and you may be comforted by the assurance that we hold no metaphysical cloud-pusher responsible for the misery of the world.

G.H.L. (Kentish Town).—No. There is no “mental labour” that does not involve physical labour, and no physical or manual labour that does not involve mental labour also. When we speak of labour we do not discriminate between mental and manual, they are complementary.

The distinction you also desire to make between the “producer” of commodities, such as the brick-maker, and the “non-producer” such as the transport worker, will not hold. The transport worker is just as much a producer as the brickmaker, neither really produces in the sense you mean, both however are engaged in producing values. The brickmaker usefully alters the form of the raw material supplied by nature, and the transport worker usefully alters its position ; embodying in the process, quite as much as the brickmaker, a portion of the labour necessary to placing the bricks upon the market and creating values in so doing.

F.D. (Wimbledon).—There are essentially but two classes to-day, as we say. The capitalist class comprises all those whose income is derived from the ownership of property and is contrasted with the working class which comprises all those (with their dependents) who are possessors of only their power to labour which they are forced to sell to those who monopolise the means of wealth production.

All marketable wealth is the product of labour, and the able-bodied man who lives without contributing his quota of the necessary labour is robbing his fellows.

On the border line, between the two classes of exploiter and exploited, (which are, on the whole, vividly distinct), there are a number—with a foot in each camp—called the “middle class.” The members of this group are becoming an almost negligible factor owing to the growing centralisation of industry, but in so far as they express themselves politically they cling tenaciously to the capitalist side of their interests, and all the more desperately since the small property or position that they hold is alone that which distinguishes them from the working class properly so-called ; and this small property or means of exploitation is that by means of which they hope to climb into the select and secure section of the exploiters and so save themselves from the proletarian abyss which ever threatens to engulf them. Hence this section of lower capitalists is not only reactionary in that it fights against industrial advance, but also is most unscrupulous in defending its right to exploit, in sweating, and in conserving its monopoly of education or position against the interests of the workers. A small section, it is true, would “organise” the workers, on condition that it be given (under title of “the expert”) all the well-paid jobs and the right to govern the masses; but in face of a genuine proletarian advance all of these stand by the reaction and bitterly oppose genuine industrial democracy.

It is therefore seen that as economic categories reflecting politically their fundamentally opposing interests, there are, in reality, but two classes: those who live by labour and those who live upon those who labour; so that the workers in their task ot abolishing all privilege and exploitation, stand alone, and must rely only upon themselves.

J.T.T.—Thanks for information. We are always pleased to receive local papers with interesting articles or reports. Your query will be dealt with next month.

A few comparisons. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Together with the conclusions we draw from them.

It has been said that mere comparisons do not appeal to the workers in general. So accustomed are they to their poverty and the possession and display of wealth by the class that exploits them, that to merely point to such a fact, or even to draw comparisons of the extremes of wealth and poverty, conveys nothing to them. It does not appear at all extraordinary to them that a class performing none of the useful work of society should possess fabulous and ever increasing wealth, while they who produce all the wealth of society should remain always in abject poverty.

This is not because the worker lacks the power of observation or comparison; but rather because he has seen it all his life, has become accustomed to it. Just as he expects the night to follow the day or the day to follow the night, and accepts both as unalterable; in the same way he looks upon society as being of necessity made up of two classes, rich and poor. Natural and social phenomena are in the same category for him—things that have always been and always will be.

This is scarcely to be wondered at, for almost from the cradle influences have been at work shaping in his mind this idea as to the fixed character of social institutions. All those he comes in contact with show by their actions daily and hourly that they do not question the elementary rules upon which society is based, however much they may squabble over the details. The average worker, therefore, regards his class as helpless and inert, though he is himself a unit and a fair sample of all the rest. Even if he understands Socialism, or claims to, he overlooks the power that can be attained by an organised movement, and the paramount importance of maintaining such a movement by individual effort, consequently he does nothing. That, together with the incessant struggle for a bare existence, is the explanation of apathy among the working class.

The result of apathy is disastrous, not only to the working class as a whole, but to the individual. Those who are quiescent not only strengthen capitalist domination, but are continually throwing away what opportunities remain to them of becoming men and women in the real sense; for nothing can be more contemptible than to wear chains without making an effort to throw them off ; while persistence in manly actions makes men.

Socialists, like others of the working class, are compelled to sell their energy in order to live. They cannot escape from wage slavery, but they have already escaped the effects of one of capitalism’s worst weapons, the deliberate propaganda of ignorance and confusion. Without Socialist principles that make his class position clear, the worker cannot discriminate, his brain does not function as the organ of thought, but becomes the receptacle of all the ignorant twaddle that is purposely served up to him through the Press, platform, and pulpit.

Correctly speaking, ignorance is lack of knowledge, but it does not follow that ignorance is purely negative. Ignorant persons can babble, fraudulent labour leaders can make social reforms appear plausible to those who do not think for themselves. The clergy by their trained eloquence keep alive superstitions that no longer exist in the minds of intelligent men and women, because science has long ago explained their origin and growth and shown their absurdity.

Where ignorance speaks the loudest, however, is in the dissemination of falsehoods with regard to the function of capital. Those who own the most capital are everywhere extolled as the most desirable citizens. Yet when one of these desirable citizens dies, the function of the capital he leaves behind goes on without interruption, though it may be left to a child or a lunatic. Whatever that function may be it is obvious that it does not need any special ability in its owner in order to function ; an extract from “Harmsworth’s Popular Science” illustrates this.

“But many a modern shareholder of means resembles a French nobleman of the old regime. He knows personally nothing about the workmen who help to earn the dividends on which he lives. All that be knows is that when they strike for higher wages they are striking for a reduction in his income. He often knows no more about the manner in which the income on his capital is obtained than he does about the manner in which the animal from which his meat is sliced was bred and slaughtered.”

The great mass of the wealth of all capitalist countries is owned in this way by shareholders, who may know a little or a great deal about their concerns, but who certainly take no part in any of the necessary operations of production. This fact is borne out by a superficial examination. When “the heads” do come down to see us at work they are blissfully ignorant of the meaning of it all, and have to be shown round and have things explained to them. They really have no time for the understanding of things industrial or economic ; the pursuit of pleasure absorbs the whole of their useless lives, as Lady Troubridge says in an article in the “Royal Magazine.” “The pursuit of pleasure by society has been brought to a fine art, and almost every week has its own special gaiety and distraction . . . The real fact is that the London season is but the culminating point of a year’s ceaseless round of gaiety and sport, every month of which is mapped out so as to seize the greatest amount of pleasure that it is possible to obtain.” When is their boasted directive ability exercised if they chase pleasure all the year round ?

“What do these men and women know” says the same writer “of the monotony of long, grey days, broken only by tedious work and the weariness of accustomed sights. To them the glittering ballroom with its rose wreathed pillars, its haunting music, its flower-decked tables heaped with dainties, are exchanged before they have time to pall, for the white deck of a yacht, or the moors or uplands of breezy Scotland, and later on for the hunting field and the luxurious country home ; and all the time society is preparing for the great culminating burst of gaiety that comes with the flowers of May.”

On the one side is all luxury, gaiety and sport, on the other want and misery. The World’s workers are robbed of the wealth they produce and then insulted with the hoary tale that if there were no demand for luxuries poverty would be still more widespread—almost sufficient in itself to proclaim the rotteness of the capitalist system. The very fact that they have a superabundance proves that there is no need for anyone to lack the necessaries of life, but to claim indulgence as a virtue and give themselves credit for making work, is pure hypocrisy, and should cause every worker to think. In fact, on every hand we find contradictions, inconsistencies, and comparisons that should rouse the workers to thought. Modern society is full of them. Fashionable women spend incalculable sums on dress and “Swaddle their dogs in costly blankets and spray them with priceless scents,” while, according to Mr. J. J. Mallon, Secretary of the Anti-Sweating League: “The vast majority of women workers in this country earn less than ten shillings per week.” An American millionaire, Lieu. Com. Spofford, bestows one hundred pounds per week on his baby, and Mr. E. McClean’s child is known as the twenty million pound baby, while the Rev. J. E. Roberts says that in London alone 122,000 children are underfed. Mr. Lloyd George once told a large audience “that he knew twelve men whoso income during the worst days of depression would suffice to keep fifty-thousand working-class families in comfort for one month.”

These are a few comparisons taken at random for the thoughtful reader to reflect upon; they should arouse the deepest indignation and the desire to eradicate them. Those who believe in tho permanence of the capitalist system can only suggest social reforms of one kind or another, that are easily shown to be impossible or absurd. The very fact that there are no remedies possible of application within the system, proves that the system is responsible and we have to look to that for the cause.

The system of society we live under to-day differs from feudalism and chattel slavery, though like it, both these were forms of slavery. Under feudalism the worker owned the land he tilled and his took, but was forced to give up a portion of his produce and labour-time. Under chattel slavery the workers were bought and sold like cattle. Under capitalism they are stripped of everything in the nature of property and forced to sell themselves.

Under all these systems the workers produced all the wealth of society, yet may only retain, or have returned to them the barest necessaries of life. Under each of them they are forced to labour to add to the luxury of a ruling class, while they remain poor.

In Oriental countries where the needs of the workers were scanty and easily supplied, they were forced to labour to add to the luxury and grandeur of their rulers. In capitalist countries it is the same; the more thrifty and efficient the working class becomes, the greater the affluence of the master class.

The merchandise character of labour-power is also a condition that breeds and develops antagonism ; the germ of the class struggle. This struggle cannot continue indefinitely, though it is bound to go on while labour-power is merchandise ; obviously, then, the struggle will cease only when the conditions that engender it come to an end. So-called economic action is useless to this end, because in the main it agrees with the wages system by asking for more, while when it endeavours to be revolutionary it simply challenges armed forces with which it is unable to cope.

The working class have to learn that man frames his system according to the means and methods of producing and distributing wealth, and that they can and must change the system to make it harmonise with the changes that have taken place in these means and methods. That change must be from the present private and class ownership to the common ownership and democratic control of all the means of life.

This is Socialism—the only remedy for poverty in the midst of plenty. In its establishment the working class will receive no assistance from the class above ; on the contrary, every obstacle that can hinder the movement will be flung across the path of the revolutionary working class. The workers must therefore preserve their indignation and hatred of the crimes of capitalism. They must be wary of cant and hypocrisy, suspicious of social reformers, and above all, watchful and critical of those who profess to be their friends. In a word, every worker must understand Socialism for himself, then no one can deceive him.

It is part of the policy of the rulers in every country to encourage those who deceive and confuse the workers as to the meaning of Socialism. One section is telling us that Christianity is Socialism, another that the State must own the means of life, another that we must buyout the capitalists. These are easily seen through; the worst frauds are those who lull the workers into apathy by telling them Socialism will come by evolution, and that even now we are in the transition stages.

Socialism can only be established by the deliberate and conscious action of the working class utterly disregarding the interests of those who oppose them. Before they can arrange or control the details of their own lives they must own and control the means of wealth production. To gain possession of these, they must first control the physical power that protects the capitalist class in their ownership. This is only possible by means of a working-class organisation that will control the political machinery. When the armed forces, through the machinery of government, are controlled by the working class, they can enter into possession of the means of wealth production without bargaining or compensation.

Of the details of the future system we say nothing, content to leave them in the hands of those who control—the people. Lady Troubridge, in the “Royal,” says: “Truly this world is a pleasant place for the rich and the gay. . . . Those happy ones whose hearts dance to as merry a tune as the fashionable rag-time music of Cassano’s famous band.” With modern methods of production and a sane system of society, slavery and poverty would be a thing of the past, and all hearts might dance to whatever tune they pleased.

F. Foan

Running Commentary: Myths of equality (1981)

The Running Commentary Column from the September 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Myths of equality

Do not believe the common myth that we are no longer living in a class-divided society. Class is not about being “classy”. It is not something you can take on or reject. While there is still the institution of property in human society we are all born into families who either do or do not possess it. The Low Pay Unit has just produced Low Pay Review 4, which shows that the lowest paid workers today are relatively worse off than the lowest paid in 1886, when figures were first collected. More wealth is produced today than a century ago, but those who are born to no property and are therefore forced to go out and work, producing that wealth, now receive proportionately less of it.

Mr. Chris Pond, director of the Low Pay Unit, comments: “The government’s assertion that workers could protect their jobs by cutting wages is a cruel deception. It is in those industries in which wages have fallen furthest, precisely because of the reduction in demand for the goods and services produced, that have faced the biggest job losses” (Guardian, 2/6/81). And do not forget the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, which reported in 1979 (after five years of Labour government) that the richest one per cent in Britain own more wealth than the poorer eighty per cent.

Against this background, which is based on a minority class owning stocks and shares and other property, and deriving a vast unearned income from employing the rest of us, the “European Socialists” tell us to pull in our belts still further. On 28 April this year, an Amsterdam conference of the “Socialist International” agreed unanimously that “the time had come to promote wage controls firmly linked to economic democracy” (Guardian, 29/4/81).

Are you trying to escape from this wage-slavery which is imposed upon us? The Pearl Assurance Company has recently been advertising what they call the Capital Accumulator Plan. Basically, this means workers struggling to save up their hard-earned cash for them to spend on a few trinkets just before they die. We can be sure than Pearl shareholders, among others, will be profiting from the process.

But don’t they know there is a far more reliable “Capital Accumulator Plan”? It works like this. You inherit a few million pounds (be sure to choose the right parents) or, perhaps rob a few banks (be sure not to be caught and incarcerated). Then you employ (exploit) a few thousand workers (who chose the wrong parents) and accumulate a few million more. At the moment, there are dozens of annual Company reports being published which illustrate the process. Just take one example. Mothcrcare. Profit after tax: £8,634,000. Earnings per share: 13.39p. Dividends per share: 5p. Mr. S. Zilkha and Mr. E. Zilkha, both on the Board, have between them 11,478,776 shares. Their dividend will be £573,938.80. Their earnings will be £1,537,008. They are not employees, they are owners. They do not produce, they possess. “Profit per employee” is declared to be £4,422 for the year. Each worker, then, was paid just enough to keep them fit to work, and produced about as much again on top for the benefit of their masters. That is what is known as “Civilisation”.

Take power

The Child Poverty Action Group has produced a report. Poor and Powerless, showing how the gas or electricity is being cut off in more than 770 households each day because the families concerned cannot afford to pay the bills. This is in spite of the fuel industry’s Code of Practice introduced in 1976 supposedly to reduce the hardship of those very people. The reductions in the real value of child benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness and industrial injury, and maternity benefits together with cuts in the real value of wages, have contributed to worsen the situation since the onset of depression, For example, [ . . . ] disconnected 37,648 people last year, more than three times as many as in 1978. The report quotes particular cases, such as one low-paid family of six children, one of whom had just been discharged from hospital after a bone marrow operation, who were cut off for a gas debt of £17.

The piecemeal suggestions of the CPAG, such as forcing the fuel industries to obtain court orders for such cases, or raising benefits to low-income families, will not remove the problem. As long as people are dependent on employers or the state for a meagre income, poverty will remain an integral aspect of society. Only in a classless society, where everything is owned in common, and resources are freely available to all, will we be able to feel properly secure. As long as the profit system is retained, workers’ living standards will be cut down to the minimum that the employers can get away with it.

American fuel companies have a mechanism called a service limiter adapter. In most parts of America, it is illegal to cut off consumers’ power supplies, so they have found this simple way round it. The adapter can reduce the supply in varying degrees, so that particular appliances cease to function one by one. One New York official has said: “The great attraction is that defaulters face an uncomfortable time without lives being put at risk in freezing weather conditions”.

Sick society

The Office of Health Economics have reported that work days lost through sickness for March 1981 are 21 per cent below the average for the same month over the past four years. The drop coincides with a one million rise in unemployment and the report suggests that high unemployment has made people so afraid of losing their jobs that they may be going to work even when ill.

If not, however, perhaps they can become ill once they get there. The CBI, the Chemical Industries Association and the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries have mounted a vigorous campaign against proposed regulations to protect workers from dangerous chemicals. Section Six of the Health and Safety at Work Act, if it is passed, would prescribe the testing of certain chemicals used in industry, such as Dioxin, used in pesticides, which causes miscarriages and deformed births. “Tightening controls will involve the chemical and pharmaceutical industries in added cost, and this is the core of their objection” (Guardian, 10/8/81). In a confidential memo to members in June, the CBI stated: “CBI is likely to challenge the philosophy underlying the new controls . . . Industry has consistently opposed over-regulation and unnecessary bureaucratic controls by governments in the field of harmful substances”.

In a society of common ownership, production would be solely to satisfy human needs, and not for the profit of a minority. Under democratic control, work can become a pleasure in itself. But when it is owned and controlled by the likes of the CBI, the slogan is wealth before health.

Housing

Speaking of wealth, the Daily Mail did an interesting profile of Michael Heseltine on 17 July. It showed how the man who was sent to Liverpool to work out for his Prime Minister the puzzle of why people living in slums are frustrated, has four houses himself. One in Belgravia, worth £600,000, a country estate in Oxfordshire worth £750,000, a £100,000 “hideaway” in Exford, and a smaller place in Swansea, “not for personal occupation”.

He took some of his fellow capitalists on a bus-trip round Liverpool to see how the other sort live, and to work out how to buy off their discontent. The same issue of the Daily Mail reported on the court case involving Per Hegard, the “man who could buy everything”. His ownership of several companies allows him to live off the work of thousands, riding on their misery. He has six Rolls Royce cars, three yachts, two jet planes, half a dozen mansions and a £15,000 cigar bill.

Those who work to create Hegard wealth for him have least and suffer most, and it is in defence of the property of such people that millions die in wars fought over the control of markets; and his grasping need for profit causes pollution, industrial danger, poverty, destruction and waste.

The World Bank's World Development Report for 1981 refers to the millions living and dying in extreme poverty, and contains two predictions, one “optimistic” and the other less so. The optimistic forecast is that by the end of the century the number on the verge of starvation will fall from 750 million to 630 million. On the other hand, they say, it may rise to 850 million. But it is in our hands to make it fall to nought immediately, and to end all poverty and war, if we combine to end the profit system and create a community where wealth is produced freely for direct use according to needs.

Clifford Slapper

The tyranny of the wages system (1985-6)

From the Winter 1985-6 issue of the World Socialist

In any form of society wealth is created by the application of human labour-power to nature-given materials. In capitalist society, whether 'private' or state varieties, this fact is concealed by the need to procure capital to furnish machinery and equipment and to pay wages — thus the capitalist apologia that capital and labour are complementary. The relationship is one created by capitalism and, whereas the skills and energies of workers can, if allowed access to natural resources, produce all the goods and services required by human beings, a train-load of money, left over an area where seismographic tests have indicated, say, the presence of oil, will not succeed even in breaking the soil.

Capital, in the form of money, is simply congealed labour, an exchange equivalent of commodities already produced by wage labour. In its constant form (raw materials, buildings, machinery, etc.) it is, similarly, a representation of accumulated labour. It is labour-power that produces all wealth and it is in our role as wealth-producers obliged to sell ourselves on the labour market for a wage or salary that the working class is exploited. We are not, as a class, exploited as consumers or as taxpayers but as producers.

Capitalism's exploitive mechanism is the wages system. We live in a society where the means of life such as food, clothing and shelter have to be purchased with money. For the great majority of people, that money is derived from a wage packet or a salary cheque which they receive from their employer for the sale of their labour-power, their mental or physical ability to contribute to the production of wealth. It is this necessity to sell its labour-power that divides the working class from the minority of capitalists who — whether they choose to work or not — are able to live by profit or by rent or interest. Thus capitalism divides the human family into two distinct and conflicting classes: the capitalist class, which buys labour-power, and the working class, which sells labour-power. Inevitably, as in all transactions between buyer and seller, there is a conflict of interest between these two classes with one trying to sell its labour-power for as much as possible and the other trying to buy it as cheaply as possible.

The source of all wealth, as we have observed, is human labour-power applied to nature-given materials. But the wealth produced, which, under capitalism takes the form of a great aggregation of commodities, does not belong to the class that produces it but, instead, to the class whose claim to ownership of the natural resources and the means of production (themselves the product of past expenditure of labour-power) are enshrined in law and enforced, if necessary, by the coercive power of the state.

The unassailable fact that all wealth is produced by the working class demonstrates that the source of capital accumulation and of the profit, rent and interest that underwrites the affluence, power and privilege of the capitalist class is the surplus of wealth produced over and above what the working class is paid for its labours. This is in accordance with the economic laws of a market economy for though the workers do receive the value of the commodity they sell, their labour-power, nevertheless their exploitation is through the wages system.

What we get for the sale of our labour-power to our employers is a wage or salary that equates to the price currently being paid for our particular type of labour-power. Our ability to work, in capitalist society, is a commodity the price of which is determined by the same factors as govern the price of other commodities. When a particular commodity is in short supply its price tends to rise and, when it is plentiful, its price tends to fall. To say this, however, begs the question: above what does it rise and fall? The answer is its value and that value is determined by its labour cost of production or, in other words, by the amount of socially-necessary labour time required under average conditions of production to produce it from start to finish. It is value that determines the point above and below which prices fluctuate in line with supply and demand.

Since our labour-power is sold on the labour market as a commodity, its value is determined in the same way as any other commodity. In other words, the value of labour-power is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labour required to maintain us as useful, functioning units of production and enable us to provide for the next generation of wage slaves. The value of particular types of labour-power varies, then, in accordance with the amount of training or education that is required to equip workers with certain skills and these greater values are reflected in the inequality of wages.

But labour-power has a unique property: it can create value of greater quantity than the value required in its own production. It is this capacity to create surplus value that lies at the heart of the workers' exploitation and the capitalists' profit. In any given period labour-power can produce wealth greater than the equivalent of the socially-necessary labour required in its own production. Let us say that workers in a particular industry produce a value amounting to double that of the value of their own labour-power. In half of each day they would produce a value equal to the value represented by their wages for a full day. For the second half of each day they would produce a surplus over and above the value they received in the form of wages or salary. This surplus value belongs to their employer and represents his profit, after payment of rent or Interest if the employer has such obligations.

The ratio of labour-power paid for by an employer to that spent by the worker in creating surplus value determines the rate of exploitation of the worker or, as Marx called it, the rate of surplus value. "The rate of surplus value, all other circumstances remaining the same, will depend in the proportion between that part of the working day necessary to reproduce the value of the labouring power and the surplus time performed for the capitalists" (Value, Price and Profit).

This, then, is the seat of capitalist exploitation of the working class. Other conditions, such as the state of the market, the degree of working class organisation in trade unions and, even, the form of capitalist organisation, may affect or influence the rate of exploitation of the worker at particular times but such influences can themselves be cancelled out by market forces. It is the tyranny of the wages system that itself imposes on the working class their slave status. Where the wages-system exists, irrespective of what party holds political power or whether ownership of the wealth-producing machinery is vested in the state or is in private hands, capitalism exists. That is why Marx refused to support the nonsensical slogan of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" and urged workers to inscribe instead on their banner "ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM".

That is why the World Socialist Movement defines Socialism as a wageless, moneyless and classless society of common ownership and production for use.

Richard Montague

(Ireland)

The Revolutionary Proposition. (1910)

From the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

That is the Revolutionary Proposition.

It is revolutionary by virtue of what it proposes.

Many people, hearing us speak of the revolution, conjure up a picture of armed conflict and carnage. These things, however, can only be a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Our proposition says nothing as to the means. It answers the question “what?” not “how?” It is revolutionary because of the end it proposes, and whether that end be achieved by peaceful means or violent makes no difference to its revolutionary character.

The proposal is to establish a system of society. What then is a system of society ?

A modern lexicographer tells us that a system is “an assemblage of things adjusted into a regular whole ; a regular method or order ; an arranged scheme,” and defines society as “a number of persons living in community.”

Accordingly a system of society is an arranged scheme or regular method in accordance with which a number of people live in community.

But people live in community at the present time, and it is not to be supposed without some method or order ; therefore the essential characteristic of the proposition must lie in its final terms—that the social system is to be based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

Common experience teaches us that these means and instruments (the land, factories, railways, mines, machinery, etc.) are private property, therefore present society cannot be based on the common ownership of these things.

It follows from this that the Revolutionary Proposition is destructive as well as constructive, that its proposal to establish is by implication a proposal to disestablish. One system of society is to be overthrown in order that another may be set up in its place.

The thoughtful man, before assenting to so momentous a proceeding as the overthrow of the social system, will demand the weightiest reasons for its condemnation and the fullest assurance that there is a better system to take its place.

The first question then is, why do social systems exist ?

Since that which is essential to social systems will appear as surely in the simplest system as in the most complex, and in the former may be most easily discerned, let us turn to one of the earliest social systems we have knowledge of.

In the form of savage society known as the hunting pack, it is obvious that people come together in social relationship to co-operate in the chase and in battle—to get their living together, in short. In all forms of society the primary object which holds people together in community is the need for joint effort in procuring food, clothing and shelter.

The first and most important function of a social system, then, is to facilitate the satisfying of the material needs of its component units, for it is for this reason that, consciously or unconsciously, those units enter into social relations.

Does the present social system fulfil this function ? If not, can it be made to do so ? If again the answer is in the negative, is there any other system which would fulfil the purpose for which people unite in community ?

Material needs are satisfied by material wealth. Statisticians give the amount of wealth annually produced in this country as approximating eighteen hundred million pounds sterling (£1,800,000,000) in value. On the indisputable authority of the census returns the population of the Kingdom is roughly forty millions.

So the ratio of wealth produced per head of the population is about £45 per annum, or, taking the average of families as 4½ persons, over £200 per family per annum.

There are very few working men indeed whose wages, even were they always fully employed, amount to half this sum, whilst millions of families have to subsist on an income of one-quarter (or less) of this amount per family.

It must be admitted, then, that material wealth sufficient to adequately (from a working-class view-point) satisfy the material needs of the whole of the people is produced under the present social system.

The production of the material wealth, however, is only the first step toward satisfying the material needs of the people. However much wealth exists, it must be accessible to the people before they can satisfy their wants. Is the wealth of capitalist society accessible to those who constitute capitalist society?

Responsible politicians and writers amongst the upholders of the present system, admit that nearly one-third of the population of this country are always on the verge of starvation,

A system which enables the people to produce ample wealth to satisfy, even with a degree of luxury, their material needs, yet leaves a third of them lacking bare necessaries, certainly appears not to fulfill its function. The wealth is produced, but the system fails in distribution.

The next question is, can this defect of the social system be rectified ? Before we can find the answer to this we must understand why the system of society does not fulfil its function.

All economic wealth is produced by labour. Labour-power applied to nature-prodded material, changes the form or position of that material and makes it available and useful to man—turns it into wealth. There is no other source of wealth, therefore all who produce wealth are workers.

When workers have produced wealth what becomes of it ? We know that generally the producer has no title to it. He is compelled to leave it in the possession of another, to accept a money payment called wages as the fruits of his toil. Why this is so does not matter at present. The result, then, of the efforts of those who come together to facilitate the winning of their livelihood is that the wealth produced passes from the possession of those who produce it into the hands of those who do not.

At the end of this process those who produced the wealth are not themselves without wealth, but theirs takes the form of money, which they can neither eat nor drink. This money, their wages, however, becomes their sole means of obtaining necessaries. It will exchange for them on a basis of value, so that the wealth of society becomes accessible to those who produce it in proportion to the amount of their wages. Obviously, then, the reason the social system breaks down at the point of distribution is because wages are insufficient to secure the necessaries of life.

If, then, the social system is to be made to perform its functions, it is necessary, at least, that it shall in the first place afford wages to all who are able and willing to work, and in the second place assure that those wages shall represent the fullest sustenance possible with the means and materials of production to hand.

It is our common experience that a person goes to the factory, mine, or other place of industry, labours, and is paid wages. Between the payer and the receiver of wages there is a transaction which must be actuated by motives. Undoubtedly the worker produces for wages, and by the same token, the non-worker pays wages because the worker produces.

The wages paid have the form of money, and the product of the worker’s toil is soon “turned into money” also.

The wages which the non-worker pays out and that to obtain which he pays them, are thus reduced to one and the same thing—he pays money to get money.

It is possible to argue, of course, that though, the payment of wages finally results in a return of money to the wage-payer, the reason which actuated him was the “altruistic” motive of producing for use. This, however, is disproved by the practice of adulteration. The ingenuity displayed in making soap carry the greatest possible amount of “standing water” adds nothing to the usefulness of the commodity, though it counts in the scales.

As there must be a motive there must be a difference of quantity between the two values—the worker’s wages and his product. From the wage-payer’s view-point the cycle must be Money— Commodities—Money plus more money, and that final term, the added money, must be the incentive of the wage-payer in paying wages.

Let us call that added money “profit” and see how we stand with the every-day facts o£ life. We know that every industrial concern of any standing keeps a profit and loss account, and that if such account does not show a profit there is an how-to-do about it, the outlook is considered “very serious,” the directors (if it is a company) have to “face the music,” and there is a deplorable slump in shares. Let such a state of things continue and we shall be “sacked” and the concern “closed down.”

This “profit” and the “added money” which we termed profit are alike in one respect—they are both value added to that invested in the concern, as the result of the operations of that concern. That added value cannot come from nothing. If the concern is a bakery and the value of 50 loaves is expended in hour and other material and a like value in wages, added value can only be shown by the production totalling more than 100 loaves. Human labour alone turns the flour into loaves, hence human labour alone produces the added value called profit.

That which appears as profit in the “profit and loss” account and without which the concern cannot be run, is the same thing which induced the wage-payer to pay wages.

So production is carried on for profit under the present system, and cannot continue when profit ceases to result from it.

We saw that both wages and profit are represented in the product of the worker’s labour.

Let us suppose the product to be 150 loaves, of which 50 represent material, and the remainder wages and profit, it is clear that the profit must depend upon the amount of wages, and the more goes to the worker as wages the less is left as profit. Thus if wages equal 75 loaves profit can be only 25 loaves, while if but 25 loaves go to the worker the profit rises to 75.

Since the product of the worker is the object of both the receiver of wages and the taker of profit, they will naturally each endeavour take as much of that product as they can. How, then, is the relative share of each determined ?

If we credit each with being thoroughly greedy—a pretty safe assumption—then each will endeavour to seize the whole of the product. The limitations of each must be, on the one hand, the worker must leave some profit or the other will not allow the machinery of production to be put into operation, while on the other hand the worker must be given something or he will not produce. Between these points how is the decision arrived at ?

The power to labour can only be created by the consumption of material wealth, therefore a new limitation is set up. Obviously not only must wages be given the worker or he will not work, but they must be sufficient to reproduce his efficiency or he cannot work.

The downward limit of wages, then, is clearly marked, but what prevents them from rising until all profit ceases and production collapses?

In any other market than the labour market the price of commodities or goods is regulated by the relation of supply to demand. If the demand outbalances the supply prices will be high, while if the supply is in excess of the demand prices will run low. Can we apply the argument to labour-power, of which wages are the price ?

We know that there exists at all times a redundancy of labour-power in the shape of a vast army of unemployed. These unemployed, in their endeavours to secure work, necessarily depress the price of that which they have to sell—their labour-power.

This unemployed army supplies us with the conditions of the competitive market, wherein prices are regulated by supply and demand.

We see then that production, under the present social system, can only be carried on while profit results, and profit can only result while an unemployed army exists to depress wages.

The defective distribution of wealth cannot be rectified under the present system therefore because in the first place unemployed are necessary to enable production to be carried on at all, and secondly because the competition of the unemployed reduces wages, not to the point of satisfying the needs of the working class, but only of producing and reproducing so many of them as the labour market requires. Hence the present system cannot be made to fulfil its function.

A. E. Jacomb

[To be Continued.]