The Gravesend by-election by Eye Witness (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour victory in this hotly-contested by-election—we were told at almost every meeting that the eyes of the world were on Gravesend— must have been a surprise to the Tories. They believed that the discontent of the masses with their living conditions would assure them of victory; but two things the Tories forgot: first, that the worker’s have a memory which they sometimes use and secondly, that the Labour Party are at least their equal at pulling stunts out of the bag.

The main issue of the election was “Which party can better administer Capitalism, the Labour Party or the Conservatives?” Througout the campaign, the question of Socialism—the abolition of private ownership of the means of life and the consequent ending of wage-labour and capital—was mentioned by neither Party.

It is true, of course, that Sir Richard Acland, the Labour candidate, mentioned the word “Socialism,” and when reaching rhetorical heights claimed that the mines and the Bank of England were “ours,” but he never once referred to the fact that the previous private owners were given State-bonds in exchange for their company shares, and that, in consequence, they are still drawing their profits in the form of interest.

For Acland, as for other Lahour Party members, Socialism means the nationalisation of the key industries. Thus he was able to argue that “Socialism” would enable the village shop-keeper and the small, businesses to operate as they do now. He did not point out to his audiences that Socialism is a system of society fundamentally different from Capitalism; that, whereas under Capitalism goods are produced to be exchanged (sold) at a profit, they will, under Socialism, be produced solely for use. He did NOT point out that Socialism means the end of all exchange, including the exchange of the workers’ labour-power for wages.

It is not surprising, therefore, that there was in this election nothing fundamentally different between the policy of the Labour Party and the Tories. Even Anthony Eden did not speak in opposition to nationalisation—what he did say was that “before further nationalisation is tried, we should first see how the nationalised industries work.”

The bulk of the Tory attack was concentrated on the administrative blunders of the Labour Party, the lack of “leadership and foresight” by the government. Acland’s reply was that the Labour Parly had done a better job of administration after this war than the Tories did after the last.

On the question of controls the difference between the Parties was more apparent than real. The Labour Party stood for the retention of controls ; the Tories for ending those which are “irritable without being really useful,” but for retaining those judged necessary.

As stated in the first paragraph, the Tories perhaps underestimated the importance of the workers’ memories. At every Labour Party meeting the unemployment figures between the wars were hammered home and blame for them rivetted on the Conservatives. It was amusing to hear how the Labour Party speakers blamed world conditions for the present shortages of foodstuffs reaching the workers’ tables, but ignored these same world conditions as the main cause of unemployment between the wars. They even proudly claimed to he responsible for the present-day relatively low unemployment figures. They boosted the export drive, but they did not tell their audiences what is going to happen when the export drives, so madly indulged in now by Britain, America, Canada, etc., etc., have glutted the world’s markets and when, in consequence, goods produced cannot he sold. That time is fast approaching.

The Labour Party flattered the electors by telling them that they were intelligent people and able to use their reason in deciding which party to support. And yet they did not shrink from making the biggest emotional appeal either party attempted. With about 3,000 present at a meeting, lights were put out and a miners’ choir, complete with helmets and little lights shining, entered the hall from the rear, walking in single file and singing as they came. The applause was tremendous, as it was after each hymn and song rendered by the choir in the darkened hall. Sympathy of other workers for the miners had been won and, in the speeches which followed, the audience was told that every Tory vote would be a smack in the face for those miners. As an emotional appeal this was terrific and worth many votes to the Labour Party. The Tory stunt of carrying around a potato, dressed in Conservative colours, was puny in comparison.

Lastly it need hardly he said that the Communist Party had its finger in the pie. They said, in a leaflet, that if the Tories got back the queues at the labour exchange would be 1,000 times worse than before the war. And we have only 45,000,000 population in Britain ! They’ve been so busy changing policies and organising stunts of one kind and another that they cannot be expected to remember that unemployment reached anything from one to two millions before the war. In brief, the Communists came out strongly in favour of the Labour candidate.

Readers will see, therefore, that the main issues of the much discussed Gravesend By-Election were concerned with the administration of Capitalism. Time will show that Capitalism, notwithstanding the Party in power, means endless poverty for the masses.

C.A.

Answers to Correspondents: Can the Workers be Won Over by Socialism? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. J. T. R. (Carlisle) doubts “the possibility of converting the masses to Socialism . . . when we consider the barrage of capitalist propaganda in its many forms.”

The case for Socialism rests upon the fact that the evils which the working class has to endure cannot be ended within capitalist society.

Therefore, capitalism itself, by its very helplessness, forces the working class to turn to Socialism. So far the number of Socialists is small. However, these few Socialists are not necessarily more intelligent than other workers. To-day, workers run capitalist industry from top to bottom. A class which is intelligent enough to do that, is intelligent enough to understand Socialism.

As time goes on, the working class will grow tired of supporting capitalist parties, of demanding reforms which still leave them in poverty; they will give more serious” attention to studying the solution of their problems.

At first the movement for Socialism grows slowly. Still, it DOES grow, and it will gradually gather more and more momentum.

Capitalist propaganda will not permanently stand in the way, for it cannot change the exploiting nature of capitalism, it cannot end poverty, it cannot prevent the class struggle breaking out into full view again and again.

C. A.

SPGB Meetings (1944)

Party News from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is Russia Socialist? (Concluded) (1943)

Book Review from the July 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Another teaching of Socialism ignored by Hewlett Johnson and the Bolsheviks is closely bound up with the above; Socialism can be established only when the working class are ripe for it. The development of capitalism creates a world-wide working-class with identical interests, and presents it with problems the solution of which requires the abolition of capitalist society and the establishment of Socialism. Not for any other class is the task of accomplishing the Socialist revolution! But to achieve Socialism, it does need, not a handful of workers, but the majority of them, class-conscious and with an understanding of what Socialism is. Marx and Engels deal with this point in their “Communist Manifesto,” as Hewlett Johnson must know. They write: 

“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the conscious movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.” 

This was penned in 1847. Nor the founders of Scientific Socialism change their minds on this point. On the contrary. After many more years of experience and study, Engels wrote about this question of “majority or minority,” His words make it plain that he was convinced that only a class-conscious majority of workers could achieve Socialism. “As conditions have changed for warfare,” he writes, “so not less for the class struggle. The period for sudden onslaughts, of revolutions carried out by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where the question involves the complete transformation of the social organisation, there the masses must be consulted, must themselves have already grasped what the struggle is about, and what they stand for.” “This is what the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is needed …” Thus Engels in the last thing he wrote: The Preface to “Class struggles in France.”

The point Engels makes above is a fundamental of Scientific Socialism. But the Dean ignores it. He believes that a handful of men with some knowledge of the trends of history and with determination can lead the masses from a semi-mediaeval system direct to Socialism – that society which needs for its establishment a working class desirous of Socialism and organised politically to achieve it and which needs also, as Stalin said, “a high productivity of labour” (p. 209). The Bolsheviks won the support of the peasants and power with their “Bread, Peace and Land” programme. And the Dean believes Socialism has been achieved in this way.

According to Hewlett Johnson, Russia is a classless state. This does not mean, however, that its citizens enjoy economic equality for, to quote from his book, the classless state “was never intended to mean strict equality, save at the end of a very long process. It left freedom, of instance, for inequality of wage.”

Thus again the Dean distorts the teachings of Socialism. In the first place, Socialist writers have shown that with the end of classes, the state will disappear, since it is only necessary where class-rule obtains. The state arose with the private property and the growth of an exploiting and exploited class. When private property is abolished – and classes cease to exist – the state will have no function left and will wither away. It is strange that the Dean does not know this considering that he claims to have studied Socialism, especially since the state is dealt with by Engels in his “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific” – one of the most widely-read of Socialist classics. The Dean uses a useless phrase when he talks of “the class-less state.”

Secondly, Socialism does mean economic equality, in spite of all Hewlett Johnson may say to the contrary. It involves the abolition of the wages system, and the creation of a society wherein every member has free access to the means of life.

Now, in Russia, of course, the worker has not “free access to the means of life.” There exists in Russia, as elsewhere, money, invested in Government bonds, buying and selling and other paraphernalia of capitalism. This being so, we cannot see the point when we read: “The Soviet plan stands in vivid contrast to the planless world of capitalism … where if I possess money I can buy; if not, I must continue in unrelieved want” (p. 89). In Russia, as in other countries, those with large incomes have the advantage; as in other countries, the rich will see they are comfortably housed, well fed and pleasantly entertained. The poor in Russia, like their fellows in all capitalist countries, will have to make do with shoddy.

Certainly Russia has its privileged section of the population and they will buy (because they can afford to do so) the bulk of the luxury articles which the average worker cannot afford. These privileged people are the party officials, technical experts, writers, doctors, lawyers, etc. Some of these people receive incomes a hundred times bigger than that of the average worker. With the legality of inheritance in force, accumulation of wealth is to-day bound to be taking place in Russia among the wealthy. They are the exploiters, and the Dean is wrong when he says (p. 282) “exploitation of man by man is entirely abolished.” They can obtain their big incomes only out of the wealth produced by the workers.

It is not surprising, then, that the Socialist slogan, “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs,” was thrown overboard by the Bolsheviks in 1936 Constitution, and replaced by the slogan, “From each according to his ability and to each according to the work done.” These Russian exploiters claim that their work is more specialised, more important, more skilled than that of the ordinary workman. Capitalists of other countries have argued the same way. “We are entitled to profits, because we have to think the thing out.”

Before leaving the Dean’s misrepresentations of Socialism, we must draw the reader’s attention to the fact that he has distorted the meaning of Socialism itself. In this respect, he has again followed the Bolsheviks, who now propagate that Socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism never had this meaning until the Bolsheviks found it convenient to foist it into the word. For Marx and Engels, especially after the events caused the disappearance of “Utopian Socialism” just after the middle of last century, Socialism and Communism were synonymous terms. Hence the title of Engels’ masterpiece (which the Dean should read), “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” In his Preface to “The Communist Manifesto,” written in 1890, Engels makes it clear that he nor Marx had in mind what the Bolsheviks mean when the term “Socialism” is used. Why then did the Bolsheviks give another meaning to word? In the first place, they doubtless wished to attract support of the workers at home and in other lands and therefore used phraseology which appealed to workers. Later the Nazis did the same with their “National Socialism(!).” Then, again, it was obvious to the Russian people after 1917 that not yet had the millennium arrived. With the impossibility of abolishing poverty it was necessary to hold out hopes of better things to come. In effect they said: “This, you will get, Comrade Worker, when Communism is possible. But you cannot have Communism yet; we must finish building up Socialism first.” In this respect, therefore, the Bolsheviks have proved themselves equal to other exploiters of the workers: they have (so far) succeeded in keeping them “contented” with promises of a good time in the future. They have succeeded too (incidentally) in adding to the confusion which already existed in the worker’s mind as to what Socialism means.

What of Russian Progress ?

A large portion of the Dean’s book is concerned with showing the great progress that Russia has certainly made since 1917. The reader is told of the enormous strides that have been made in industrial development, agriculture, education, etc. The reader is reminded by the author that these advances must be judged, not by the standards of Western Europe, but by the conditions prevailing in Russia in the days of the Tzars.

The facts given of Russian progress may be true. But what if they are? What do they prove? Not, as the Dean thinks, that a Sixth of the World has gone Socialist. Let us consider education. Illiteracy is being rapidly abolished. But does this prove that Russia is Socialist? Of course not. Any country which wishes to make some show in international trade today – which wishes to keep pace with technical improvements in industry, etc., must have an educated population. It was all the more necessary for the Bolsheviks to attempt a hot-house growth of literacy, for in 1917 Russia was backward in almost every respect. If she wished to hold her own, progress had to be rapid. And as it was with education, so it was with industry, agriculture and scientific progress. As we have said earlier, the revolution of 1917 resulted in a development of capitalism. At the most, the Dean has shown us that this development has been rapid.

There are literally scores of other points which we could take up with the Dean, but we think sufficient has already been written.

In conclusion, then, we will content ourselves with emphasising these points:-

1. The book contains nothing new about Socialism or Russia.
2. Hewlett Johnson has borrowed most the Communist misconceptions about these subjects, and without first having critically examined Communist propaganda, he passes it on to his reading public.
3. The Dean fails to prove that a Sixth of the World is Socialist. His book, then, carries a false title.
4. The Dean is not a Socialist as he does not understand Socialism. In spite of his claim to have studied Scientific Socialism, we must say that he shows little sign of having benefited from his study.
5. Russia to-day is passing through a period of capitalist development. This is inevitable, for in 1917 none of the conditions were present which are imperative for the achievement of Socialism (i.e., an advanced industry and a class-conscious working class).
6. Lastly Socialism will come to Russia as to the rest of the world when the conditions are ripe.

Clifford Allen

What Means This Strife? (1942)

From the August 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

How to End the Class Struggle. The Rise of Classes.

During man’s very early history, when society was in the stage of primitive communism, there were no classes and no class struggles. Then—and the period must have lasted for thousands of years—private property was unknown, all members of the tribe joining in the ownership of the hunting grounds and fishing waters. The proceeds of the chase were for the enjoyment of every member of the tribe. Thanks to this ownership in common there was no monopolising of resources and wealth by one section of the community to the detriment of another. No man could live by the exploitation of his fellows.

The domestication of animals and the fashioning of tools suitable for agriculture brought to an end this first stage of man’s history. It is always a revolution in the means of producing wealth which causes social relationships to change. Now tribes conquered others with the express purpose of converting the vanquished into slaves. They were brought home and set to work the land. The conquerors owned the tools, the animals and the land; the conquered were propertyless. Thus did private property arise and with it came classes and man’s exploitation by man.

Since that time the history of all society is the history of class struggles, for private property has severed society into the “haves” and the “have-nots.” For this reason we find antagonism between one section of society and another. “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, baron and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, standing constantly in opposition to each other, carried on an uninterrupted warfare, now open, now concealed . . .” And present-day capitalist society has not abolished the class struggle. “It has but substituted new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of warfare for the old.” (See “Communist Manifesto,” by Marx and Engels.) To-day we have the class-struggle between the capitalist and working classes.

They Won’t Face the Facts

Frequently, especially in war time and during crises, appeals are made to the exploited, the working class, to abandon the class struggle.

Such an appeal was made on May Day by Marshal Petain. According to a Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury report, he “appealed to the French workers not to restore the class system (!)” and spoke of “the unhealthy ideologies of the class struggle.”

(The Marshal, in keeping with his shallow thoughts, is guilty of loose phraseology; the “class system”—capitalism—has not been abolished in France, or elsewhere, and so cannot be restored.)

It is strange how the workers are always held responsible for the class struggle. Yet, as we have shown, it owes its origin to private property, the corner-stone of capitalist society. The class struggle exists because of the clash of interests between the workers and their masters. That the interests of these two classes are opposed is quite clear if we take one aspect of it. The worker sells his energies, his labour-power, to the capitalist. Over the price of this and over the length of time it shall belong to the capitalist, there is bound to be disagreement. The worker, living on the starvation line, wants the best price (wage) he can get; the capitalist, seeking to produce his wares cheaply so that he can sell them in the world market, wants to reduce production costs. He, therefore, tries to keep wages down. Strikes and lockouts, both as old as capitalism, are evidences of the class struggle.

We can say with confidence, therefore, that the Marshal made his May Day appeal in vain. The French workers, like any others, are compelled by the very nature of capitalism to wage the class struggle in order to maintain their standard of life. This they are forced to do, even if they do not understand the economics of capitalism, even if they are not politically-minded. To quote Marx again : “The proletariat goes through various evolutionary stages. Its struggle against the bourgeoisie begins with its birth.” Not Petain, nor Hitler, nor anyone else can check the outbreak of the class struggle, either by words, government decrees or brute force. Nothing less than the abolition of that which gives rise to classes will accomplish that—the abolition of private property.

People like the Marshal are to be found the world over, wherever capitalism has (as it inevitably must) brought into existence workers and capitalists.

On the same day as Petain’s broadcast was reported, and in the same paper, a letter appeared entitled “Labour Discipline.” This writer, too, assumes that the class struggle is the workers’ creation. He deplores the fact that 400 factory workers on strike have refused to obey their union leaders’ orders to resume work pending negotiations. The writer does not stop to ponder why negotiations are so frequently necessary between the owners of industry and their workpeople. For this man the class struggle is a matter of will, of inclination, on the part of the working class. He cannot see that it is a sheer necessity inseparable from capitalism.

Another of those perturbed by this everlasting strife between employer and employed is Lord Dudley Gordon. Addressing the Leeds and District branch of the Federation of British Industries, he spoke thus:

“We must do all in our power to get rid of the idea that the community consists of classes who have different interests clashing and competing one with another.” This paraphrased means: “Do your best to shut your eyes to facts. The class struggle is there alright, but ignore it.”

Lord Dudley’s solution for the whole problem is quite simple. “It would,” he said, “be better if we could look for competition in sacrifice.” This advice could, however, only have been meant for the workers—the usual call for more sacrifices. At any rate, his fellow capitalists ignored the message, for so far they have shown no inclination to enter into competition with each other in sacrificing the privileges of private ownership.

The Socialist Solution

Enough has been said to show that the way to a class-free society devoid of strife is not through the Petains and the Dudleys. Indeed, it can safely be maintained that the Socialist alone knows the solution to this problem. In his spoken and written propaganda, he aims at impressing upon the workers that the time has now arrived when classes need not be.

So long as the means of production were at a low stage of development and incapable of producing enough for all, it was inevitable that a few should ensure to themselves the privileges that ownership gives.

But that need not be now. The means of production can to-day pour our abundance. The truth of this is evident when one remembers that though so many millions are under arms and so many more millions engaged m turning out weapons of destruction, the world still carries on.

The Socialist urges that the way to end the class struggle is to make these gigantic productive forces the property of all society. This would immediately remove the cause of classes and conflict. This remedy, the only one, is, of course, opposed by the capitalist class. Their interests and privileges are at stake.

The task, then, of effecting this economic transformation rests with the working class, and sooner or later the workers of all nations will be obliged to undertake it.

The working class will carry the class struggle to its logical conclusion.

Beginning on the economic field over such particular questions as hours of work and wages, the struggle becomes a political struggle. The workers must win political power in order to carry through their revolution.

As time goes on the working class will realise more and more that this is their historical mission. The workers will become ever more critical of capitalist society. Every sphere of present-day society will be carefully scrutinised by them as their class consciousness grows.

When the majority of the workers become aware that class struggles need no longer be, that is, when they have become Socialists, they will use political power to abolish private property. Capitalism will be replaced by a harmonious social system—Socialism.

When we have the common ownership of the means of life, the individual’s interest will coincide with his fellows. Then, at last, strife and turmoil, so characteristic of capitalism, will no longer impede man’s progress.

With a society united and each giving according to his ability, who can say what will be the limits of man’s progress?

Clifford Allen

Reform or Revolution? (1942)

From the May 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Workers Will Decide

Changes are needed ! For the present, at any rate, everybody seems to agree on that point. Charters, New World Orders, schemes for post-war improvement of this and that—with these the worker is regaled to convince him that this time he will not be forgotten when “peace” returns.

We ask the workers to consider carefully these questions: What kind of a change is it going to be? Is it to be only the reform of present-day society, capitalism? This is the kind of change the capitalist class and their supporters envisage. Or will the workers act in their own interest, and perform the revolutionary act of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism?

We ask the workers these questions because the nature of the change society undergoes will depend upon their choice. This is a point too frequently forgotten in these days when the world has so many so-called “great men.” Yes, the choice rests with the working-class. If they want reforms, mere modifications of capitalism which will still leave them fundamentally in the same position as they occupy to-day, they can have them. On the other hand, should they decide to have done once and for all with capitalism, its private property, profits and privileges for the few and its wage-slavery and poverty for the vast majority, there is no one who can prevent them. Let those who doubt this remember that the Nazis succeeded in gaining power in Germany because the majority of German workers had become either antagonistic to the Social Democrats and Communists and were impressed by the promises of the Nazis or else they had become apathetic and were ready to give the new party a chance. Another proof that the working-class can decide the nature of society is amply afforded by the present war. This has been called a war of propaganda. And, indeed, propaganda is poured out ad nauseum by the belligerent governments to keep their respective workers in the fighting mood. The ruling class realise that without the support of their workers he war could not be prosecuted.

The lesson is plain, therefore; in highly developed capitalist countries the workers, the bulk of the population, can decide how society is going to be changed. Should the workers support plans for the reform of capitalism? Or should they take matters into their own hands, abolish the present system, and establish Socialism?

The Weakness of Reformism

Since capitalism came into existence, it has had its many evils. Moreover, these evils have weighed heavily upon the mass of the people, upon those who do the work, the working-class. Hurriedly constructed hovels, unemployment for some and excessive toil for others, malnutrition—these are just a few of the evils that capitalism generates and which must be borne by the working-class only. Not for the rich employing class are these evils, for they all spring from the poverty which afflicts those who must work.

Now for many years, in fact since the early days of capitalism, efforts have been made to make the lot of the worker more bearable, to ease the chafing of his chains. The reformists who busy themselves with this task start with the assumption that capitalism will remain. Any changes they advocate are to be brought about within the framework of capitalism. This is the essence of reformism. Capital and wage-labour, the two bases of capitalism, they leave fundamentally untouched. They do not seek to eradicate these roots of capitalism. They merely try to lessen the pains inflicted on society by the capitalism system.

Herein lies the weakness of reformism.

Capitalism cannot be so modified by reform measures that it becomes “the best of possible worlds” for the working-class. All reformist efforts to solve the fundamental problems of the workers are bound to fail. An analysis of capitalism will show why this is so.

Capitalism, it must be understood, is a system of society organised so as to provide profit to the owners of industry, the capitalist class. To do this, the wage-worker is set to work, and what he produces belongs to the employers, the capitalists. The wage-worker is given back, in the form of wages, only a portion of what he produces ; the rest, the surplus, the capitalist owner retains. Thus is the worker exploited and kept on the poverty line, for the portion he receives as wages is just about sufficient to keep him fit enough to perform his particular job and reproduce his kind—future wage-slaves for the service of the capitalist class. Hence the worker is born poor, he lives his life in poverty and dies still poor.

Frequently, to increase his profit (part of the surplus we spoke of), or to compete more successfully in the markets of the world, the capitalist cuts down his production costs. Then he seeks to enforce wage reductions, or he may replace workmen by labour-saving machinery or by adopting a new technique. Moreover, the growth of the unemployment problem has been particularly favourable to the capitalist class in its attack upon the workers’ standard of living, for as soon as there is a reserve army of unemployed workers, the keeping down of wages becomes a more simple matter for the owners of industry, since the workers compete with each other for jobs.

The motive power of capitalism being the lust for profit, any wage increases won by the workers are, if possible, offset by the employing class, for wage increases mean an attack on profits. Hence wage increases are usually the signal for the introduction of more labour saving devices, of more machinery. Thus, very frequently, more production is squeezed out of fewer workers. The exploitation of the worker becomes more intense.

From the foregoing brief examination of capitalism we can see why reformists must fail to solve the workers’ problems. Whatever reforms are introduced, so long as the present system remains, the following evils will persist: —

1. The bulk of what the workers produce will be taken from them.
2. They will be kept on or near the poverty line, and will be thus forced to continue in a slave position, dependent on the capitalist class for a living. They will still stand in need of doles, old age pensions and all the other accessories of poverty.

Just one other point about the weakness of reformism. It is an important point. Often reforms carried to improve the lot of the worker prove but of short duration. Should they be of inconvenience to the capitalist class in whose interests present-day society operates, they are, as soon as a favourable opportunity arises, either abandoned altogether or modified to the disadvantage of the workers. All that is necessary is for an industrial crisis or a war to arise—and both these come crashing in on us with regularity—and years of effort for reform measures are as nothing. Then we must say good-bye to the reforms “for the time being,” or at least the reforms are drastically altered. It will suffice if we remind the reader of the crisis 1929-31 with all its cuts. The impermanence of reforms, therefore, is a fundamental weakness of the reformist position.

The lesson the S.P.G.B. has learnt from all this is that the ills afflicting the working-class are due to capitalism, with its profit-making motive.

How Reformists Help the Workers

We have just shown why the Socialist Party of Great Britain is opposed to refornism. But we have heard it uttered that the Labour Party ought not to be so opposed because really it does not support capitalism. We shall see how much truth there is in this assertion by examining recent writings of a Labour M.P. He is Mr. Tom Smith, M.P. for Normanton,, not one of the “big shots,” but just an ordinary Labour Member, whose outlook is typical ol his colleagues.

Mr. Tom Smith championed the cause of the farm workers in their demand for a minimum wage of three pounds a week, and spoke on their behalf in the House of Commons.

Recently, in a letter to The Dairy Farmer (January, 1942), Mr. Smith wrote as follows about his efforts for the agricultural workers: —

“With regard to wages, I am proud to feel that I have been of some little assistance in securing the £3 per week minimum. I have felt for a long time that the agricultural worker never had the recognition that his services warranted, and I am hoping to see the day when conditions in the countryside, both in regard to housing, education and other social amenities, will be vastly improved.”

No doubt the average worker who has not reached an understanding of his position in society and who, in consequence, is too ready to take “the short view” and accept appearances for facts, is moved to exclaim: ” Good old Tom!” and support the Labour Party, the party to which Mr. Smith belongs.

Not so the Socialist. He cannot enthuse when L.P.-ers (or any other people) make efforts to obtain immediate improvements for the workers.

It is not because he objects to an improvement in the condition of the working-class that the Socialist adopts this attitude. It is, as we have already shown earlier in this article, because he maintains that such efforts, even if successful, do too little to eradicate the numerous and ghastly evils of capitalism. The problems confronting the working-class are too big to be remedied by reforms of the existing system.

The S.P.G.B. opposes Mr. Tom Smith (and his colleagues) for this very reason. Let us return to his letter in The Dairy Farmer and see how he wishes to retain the capitalist system. The following quotations should be carefully studied by all those who believe the Labour Party is out for a new form of society. Mr. Smith writes: —

1. “With regard to the future of agriculture, The action of the Ministry of Agriculture in announcing more security of tenure for the farmers; the assurance that planning can take place till at least the 1945 harvest . . . are steps in the right direction.”
2. “In my opinion, if this question of distribution were tackled as it ought to be tackled, I see no reason why the producer shouldn’t have a reasonable price without unduly burdening the consumer in the urban districts ” (our emphasis).

From these quotations, it is obvious that Mr. Tom Smith, while concerned to help the land worker, cannot envisage the removal of the system which robs and enslaves the workers. He accepts the preservation of private property; he wants “reasonable prices” and presumably “reasonable” profits.

Mr. Smith, like most reformists, is therefore in this position: he wants to improve the lot of the worker (we do give him credit for this) and yet is prepared to help preserve the very system which causes so much suffering to the worker. And let us emphasise that Mr. Smith is just a typical example of other reformists.

The Socialist, on the other hand, must point out on all occasions that if the present system is maintained with its problems of wages, profits, prices, currency, etc., poverty will always be the workers’ reward.

What Should The Worker Do ?

Because no salvation is possible for the worker under capitalism, we of the S.P.G.B. are out to abolish it and to replace it by Socialism. We aim at nothing less, because we know nothing less will satisfy the needs of the class to which we belong. It is also for this reason that we are opposed to all other parties, all of which, at the most, aim merely at modifications of present-day society.

The workers should study Socialism. That is the first step towards their salvation. We are confident that a little study will convince them that only by going to the root of their problems can their position be permanently improved. They will realise the need for abandoning reform movements. They will realise the need for revolutionary action, for replacing capitalism by Socialism, that is by a society wherein there will be no private property, no profit making and no wages. Socialism is, in fact, a social system wherein the means of life belong to all society and wherein, consequently, production is carried on to satisfy the needs of society. Socialism, having no “ulterior motive,” will make unnecessary the present-day strivings for “a living wage” (which still leaves the workers robbed of the bulk of what they produce). Let the worker, then, change his motto. With Marx, we say, “Instead of the Conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work !’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system !’ ”

A Word of Warning

The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for the revolutionary transformation of society. Because of this and because history has proved that a party for revolution cannot be built up on reform programmes, the S.P.G.B. does not seek to win support by advocating reforms.

We do not expect, therefore, to gain the support of people still unconvinced of the need for Socialism—nor do we desire to be supported by non-Socialists. Until the majority desire and are prepared to organise for the specific job of establishing Socialism, the achievement of the new society is an impossibility. Our task now then is, to propagate Socialist principles, to make Socialists. Non-Socialists, people interested in the reform of capitalism, would hamper us in that job.

Then, again, as Leibnecht showed long ago in his “No Compromise,” once a revolutionary party begins to compromise with capitalism and is willing to help in its administration and reform, such a party is doomed as a weapon for Socialism. It ceases to be revolutionary.

The reason for this is plain to see. Once a party adopts reform programmes, it appeals to many kinds of people who are anything but Socialist. The result is that the Socialists are swamped, and Socialism is pushed further and further into the background on the party programme; Socialism ceases to be the object of the party.

Workers desiring Socialism should, therefore, remember these things and study the case of the S.P.G.B.. They should refuse to give their support to any party which, while claiming to be Socialist, fights elections on a reformist programme. Such parties could not introduce Socialism even if they won power. Their mandate would be for the reform of capitalism, not for Socialism.

This is one of the reasons the I.L.P. cannot stand for Socialism. When one of its members, Fenner Brockway, stood as a candidate at the Lancaster election last October, it was admitted in the New Leader (October 25th, 1941) that his advocacy of certain reforms had won him support. Still interested in votes rather than in Socialism, Fenner Brockway is “fighting” the Cardiff election. In his election address he has expressed his sympathy with Welsh Nationalism (see New Leader, April 11th, 1942).

It should be obvious that such parties as the I.L.P. which use plenty of revolutionary jargon but which have suitable reform programmes ready for time and place cannot bring to an end the workers’ wage-slavery. Socialism alone will do that, and such parties are merely reformist.

Let the workers, then, reject reformism, and embrace revolution. Let them cease to spend their forces on reformist futilities. Let them concentrate their strength in the S.P.G.B.—the weapon for Socialism that will not falter.

Clifford Allen

The Roots of Capitalism (1941)

From the April 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Though Capitalism may change its form and give rise to social structures which differ in many respects, yet at rock bottom it remains the same. Its pillars are wage-labour and capital: these are the constants of Capitalism, which is based upon the exploitation of wage-labour.

With the establishment of Socialism this exploitation will cease. Man is to-day exploited by man, because the means of wealth production are owned by and operated for the profit of a relatively small section of the world’s population. The masses, without any ownership in the means of production, are obliged, in order to get a living, to work in factories, in mines, on railways, etc., so that the owners thereof can reap profits.

The Socialist knows that the ills from which the workers suffer, degrading poverty and the multitude of other evils that accompany it, are due to the present system of society, the roots of which are wage-labour and capital.

Cut Away the Roots

The Socialist, therefore, wishing to put an end to these evils, logically urges upon the workers the need to abolish Capitalism, roots and all, and replace it by a new social system, the basis of which is the common ownership of the means of life by all society.

It will be seen at once that in Socialist society man could not exploit man, because no single person or group of persons would own the instruments for wealth production. The ownership of all these things would be vested in all society.

Of course, with the abolition of private property, capital and wage-labour will disappear. Production will proceed, not to satisfy the profit-making lust of capital, but to satisfy the wants of man.

With Socialism, man will enter upon a new life. No longer exploited by his fellow, no longer grubbing to make ends meet, he will be free. As never before, he will harness nature to satisfy man’s wants. Thanks to the high stage of efficiency industrial technique has now reached, plenty will be assured to all.

When Socialists advocate the abolition of private property, capital and wage-labour, up goes the cry: “Would you deprive of ownership those people who have laboured so hard to build up their businesses?”

This is Capitalism

The question itself is an anachronism today. In the early days of Capitalism, when the Capitalists, the “captains of industry,” worked side by side with the men they employed, there might have been some truth in the statement that owners of industry worked hard to build up their businesses. But that was long ago.

Capitalism to-day is not the Capitalism of the small trader. Present-day Capitalism is large-scale industry, growing ever larger. In growing it becomes more and more impersonal: the worker-owner of yore is replaced by the absentee shareholder and by the bureaucracy of the State.

The first point, then, that the Socialist makes in answer to the above question is that it ignores present-day realities.

Secondly, not Socialism but Capitalism is the great expropriator. Capital has already deprived of ownership the vast majority of the population. Even in his day, in 1848, Marx was able to answer this self-same question by showing that for the masses private property had been destroyed. Since Marx’s day, the tendency has continued; capital becomes concentrated into fewer hands. Periodically we are able to see this closely: when small businessmen are driven out of business by big trusts. How many small capitalists have such firms as Woolworth’s reduced to the ranks of the working-class ?

Referring back to the question, it is worth while thinking for a moment how businesses are built up. Certainly big businesses are not usually built up by the labours of the capitalists. To put but one point of view, one worked out by Josiah Wedgwood in “The Economics of Inheritance,” the capitalist class of to-day inherits a very large portion of its wealth. Wedgwood writes: “The relative proportions of the total property in 1912 acquired by ‘saving’ and inheritance are 34 per cent. and 66 per cent. respectively, or, in round figures, one-third and two-thirds” (p. 138, Pelican Edition).

Big businesses are, of course, built up by the exploitation of workers. Proofs of this can be seen all around us. Who would say, for example, that the shareholders (the owners) of the railways have built them up and make them work ? Long ago, Engels pointed out that the capitalist class has ceased to contribute by its labour to production. Frequently the capitalist never visits the works in which his capital is invested. No longer does the capitalist even figure as a supervisor—his place has been taken by “well-paid” managers—members of the working-class. The role the capitalist plays today is of a parasitical character. He appropriates the profits produced by the exploitation of wage-labour.

Whilst on this point, it is worth while referring to an article which appeared in the Sunday Dispatch (December 22nd, 1940), entitled “400 Scots run Giant Ranch and They’ve Never Seen It.”

The article gave a picure of capitalism true in many respects. It dealt with the origin and growth of the great Matador Ranch in Texas.

It is worthy of note how the Matador company started. To quote from the Sunday Dispatch : —

“Matador started simply; there were big profits in the ranch business, and the five Scots entered the market as a gamble. . . . .The five had one thing in common. They had never seen a ranch, wouldn’t have recognised a steer if they saw one, and knew precisely nothing about cattle. They did not even go over to see their piece of prairie.”

It is obvious from the above that the five capitalists mentioned above could not supervise the ranch, nor did they build up the business by their labours—the prairie was too far off and they knew nothing about ranching.

This example is typical of present-day capitalism. Fortunes come to the capitalists, not because they are intelligent or hardworking, but simply because they own, and because masses of people, without any means of life, are driven to work to provide profits for the owners.

To return to the Matador Ranch, it is interesting to see what the Sunday Dispatch journalist tells us of the people who actually do the work and make the concern go—the cowboys. Says the writer: “They are not a bit like Cecil B. De Mille paints them.” We can believe that; they have hard work to do, and, in return, receive “30s. a week and keep.”

The objection to the Socialist demand for the abolition of private property, wage-labour and capital is not, therefore, a serious one. As we have seen, the question reveals a point of view typical of capitalist society in the days of small-scale industry. As with the passing of time, small-scale industry counts less and less, the struggle becomes one between a capitalist-class who do nothing towards production, and a working-class who do all the work and run industry from top to bottom.

Clifford Allen

Blessings of British Imperialism (1939)

From the April 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two interesting letters appeared in the Manchester Guardian Weekly (January 20th, 1939). Both of them dealt with the same subject: the suppression of native political rights in the British Empire, but while one referred to Cyprus, the other was concerned with Kenya.

In his letter, “Cypriot" wrote: “No one acquainted with Cyprus affairs is unaware that the present autocratic rule favours a small number of people. I remember when in the summer of 1936 there was a strike by the Skouriotissa miners everything was done by the police and other officials to suppress the strike. The committee of the strikers were arrested, and after considerable time in gaol they were charged with organising a meeting without the permission of the district commissioner. . . . An official committee set not long ago to investigate the living conditions of the villagers, recommended that the heavy municipal taxes on rural products should be reduced. Up to the present nothing has been done to this effect, and the Press can make no comment on the delay."

“Cypriot" makes the further charge that in the past two years censorship has existed from time to time in various forms. The Press has been censored; also “two years ago there was the postal censorship. Even invitations to a wedding, a funeral or any other social event had to be censored. No meetings of any nature (even athletic) are allowed without the previous permission of the District Commissioners. The police in Cyprus can obtain an order from the Court for the banishment to a remote village of any individual whose activities are suspected not to be in favour of the Government. Nearly all the provisions of the Defence Order (which amounts to martial law) have been incorporated into statutes similar to those in force in the totalitarian states."

The letter on the subject of “Native Rights in Kenya" tells the same tale of suppression. The writer, after quoting laws in force in Kenya, sums up the effect they have in these words:—

“These, in practice, mean that meetings may not be held without the permission of the district commissioner or headman."

He refers to a case when several natives, returning home from church, were arrested and punished, on the ground that, being more than five in number, they constituted a meeting. "In his summing-up, the judge concluded that a meeting had been held because more than five persons were present, and though he expressly stated that the objects of the meeting did not appear to be dangerous, the meeting itself constituted an offence."

Believers in the British Empire and the liberty it bestows on natives need not, however, despair entirely; Africans are not discouraged from attending either football matches or Salvation Army meetings.

The snag is, unfortunately, that the natives are not altogether satisfied with those concessions, because, the writer states, “they are not regarded as acceptable substitutes for the right to form trade unions, co-operative societies, and other organisations to protect African political, economic and cultural rights."

Since it is chiefly to the British worker that we address our message, we would urge him to ask himself why such suppression is necessary. Is it because the British worker, himself, wishes it? Or is it because capitalism requires such suppression, so that the exploitation of natives can go on uninterrupted?

If he decides for the second reason, it is his duty to join with us in the work of abolishing a system of society which causes such brutality, and of establishing Socialism which will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or colour.

Clifford Allen

Capitalist Federation or International Socialism? (1940)

From the May 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing for the Workers !

In our previous articles, published in the March and April issues of the Socialist Standard, we have shown that a Federal Union could not bring permanent peace or improve the lot of the working class.

The claims of Federalists are extravagant and Utopian, because they are based upon misunderstandings of the capitalist system. Like all other reformists who have preceded them, the Federalists are attempting to achieve the impossible : they want to retain capitalism, but wish to eliminate the evils it engenders. Reformists of one school or another have, for generations, been trying to realise that happy state of affairs. With what result? The development of capitalism proceeds unhindered and defeats their efforts every time: wars, degrading poverty, malnutrition, overwork, unemployment and countless other evils inseparable from capitalism are still with us.

In discussing Federal Union, we have been compelled to arrive at this conclusion: there is not the slightest reason to believe that Federalists would succeed where other reformists have failed. Capitalism cannot be adapted and made to function for the benefit of the mass of the population.

As a matter of fact, some advocates of Federal Union are aware that their scheme can do little for the workers as a whole. Perhaps this accounts for their attempts to win the approval of the tax-paying capitalist and the better-paid sections of the working class. Perhaps this accounts for the promises of easier travel, or reduced taxation and even the promise of new careers for the educated sons of the well-to-do, who are now finding a difficulty in obtaining “suitable” places in capitalist society.

We read in “Federation and World Order,” by Duncan and Elizabeth Wilson, that “the institution of a Federal government would open a wide choice of new careers in the new civil service that would have to be formed” (p. 178).

Whilst the “brains” would have new careers within the Union, the two writers just quoted have to admit that, for the ordinary person, life would proceed much as it does at present. Here is what they say : —

“First it must be emphasized that in many ways of ordinary life the average man would notice little change ” (p. 177).

Presumably the everyday sufferings peculiar to the working class would remain: the worry of making ends meet, the anxiety about employment, etc.

In fairness to the Wilsons we must add that they promise the average person “the absence of a sense of insecurity which has of late become part of his consciousness.” But we have already shown that Federal Union cannot give anybody “security” from war nor from the threats of war, because it does not touch the economic rivalries which are inherent in capitalism.

When the worker is asked to support Federal Union, he ought, thereore, to remember that even according to some of its supporters “the average man would notice little change.” That is our contention, too; Federal Union can do. nothing for the working class.

Federal Union—A Bulwark of Capitalism

Federal Union stands for the retention of capitalism. Let there be no mistake on that point. It has been openly admitted by several of its advocates.

Mr. Streit, one of the principal supporters of Federal Union, states clearly and definitely in his proposed constitution that Federal Union would safeguard private property. According to him, Federal Union must give “Freedom . . . from having property taken for public use without just compensation.”

Of course, were Streit allowed to have his own way, were his idea to be rigidly adhered to, there could never be a Socialist society. Compensation for property socialised means that previous owners would have a right to claim some of the products of industry. In other words, he wishes to ensure that present property owners will continue to live without working, that they will continue to claim, as their own, wealth produced by our class.

Socialists are opposed to the capitalist class living, like parasites, on the backs of the workers.

Mr. Curry goes further. He wishes to see the ownership of property as widely diffused as possible. It is thus that we shall obtain, he thinks, a population that is “independent,” that “cannot be easily bribed, coerced, or bullied ” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 101).

It is a pity that the Federalists do not get down to facts instead of dreaming and indulging in wishful thinking !

Federalists defend capitalism, so they must be prepared to put up with its inconveniences. The fact is that it is inconceivable to have capitalism and an independent population, to have capitalism and a population of property-holders. As Marx observed in “The Communist Manifesto,” nearly a century ago, the development of capitalism destroyed private property for the majority of people. The small peasant was either robbed of his land or else driven out of existence by the competition of large-scale capitalist farmers. The petty artisan, with his small tools, likewise could not compete against the giant machinery possessed by the wealthy capitalist. In both cases, the result was the same. The small peasant and the petty artisan lost possession of their means of production (land, tools, etc.) and became DEPENDENT on the capitalist class for their livelihood.

Nor has this process ceased. As time goes on, capitalism concentrates the means of production into fewer hands, the small capitalist being precipitated into the ranks of the property-less.

Does Mr. Curry think he can fight against this tendency of capitalist society ? Does he think he can turn back the wheel of history ? This is the dream of a Utopian.

What blindness when Mr. Curry says: “Middle-class independence depends upon economic security.” Which economic security?

Capitalism offers no economic security to the “middle class.” Doesn’t Mr. Curry remember the last economic crisis and the thousands of small capitalists it ruined ? Has he forgotten the streets of towns with their shop windows bearing the “To let” posters?

In case he has, these quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd, 1930) will serve to refresh his memory and show how little security small tradespeople have : —

1) “Ten thousand shopkeepers, mainly trading in villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”

2) “Bankruptcies among small shopkeepers have increased 50 per cent, since the (1914-18) war.”

The independence of the small capitalist is a myth. The general trend of capitalism is to replace him by, or make him dependent on, the big combine.

The position of the “middle-class” managers of big firms is little more secure than that of the small tradesman. Technicians and administrators are now trained in such numbers that, if capitalist firms so choose, they can replace them without much inconvenience. This being so, the independence of the salaried worker is also a myth.

To sum up, this is our point. When the masses are divorced from the means of production they cannot be other than dependent upon the capitalist class. When the majority depend on the few for the necessities of life “bribery,” “coercion” and “bullying” are natural normal features of life. Not Federal Union, but Socialism can alone put an end to that dependence.

A Vital Factor

The Federalists reject Socialism on the grounds that some remedy must be found quickly to put the world in order. “Time,” says Mr. Curry, “is an absolutely vital factor.”

This argument has repeatedly been used to dissuade the workers from studying the real cause of their plight, capitalism, and to dissuade them from studying Socialism, the one solution of the world’s ills.

In rejecting Federal Union as being worthless from the point of view of the workers, we take this opportunity of urging them once more to study Socialism.

Earlier in these articles we have shown that capitalism is responsible for the many sufferings inflicted upon the workers. These sufferings will continue as long as capitalism lasts, until the workers take matters into their own hands. Mr. Curry is again wrong when he says: “Mankind is not faced with the immediate alternative, Socialism or disaster.” We say that until Socialism is established working-class history will be one long-series of disasters. These disasters will show themselves in the form of wholesale massacres, prolonged periods of unemployment, struggles to maintain their standard of living, strikes and lockouts. These disasters will confront the working class, Federal Union or no Federal Union. Time, then, is a vital factor. Socialism must be established as quickly as possible.

It is Up to You

The workers can put an end to capitalism as soon as they have the knowledge and the will to act.

The means of production have now reached a stage of development when they could be used to produce enough to satisfy the wants of all. Frequently new processes of industry are not utilised because the markets of the world cannot absorb all rhe good things that are produced. Frequently, too, things are burned or destroyed so as to keep up prices and profits. Obviously production for profit is becoming a more serious fetter as time goes on. Even cabinet ministers and economists have occasionally been obliged to admit that we are living in an age of plenty, that because wealth is being produced in such abundance unemployment and poverty are forced upon the working class.

The Socialist solution for the world’s ills is a simple one, but it needs the co-operation of the majority.

In Socialist society all will co-operate to produce and distribute the things man needs. In return, every member will have free access to the means of life.

Poverty will not exist, because we shall have production for use only, and modern technique assures us of a gigantic output of goods.

Unemployment will not exist, because all those who are physically and mentally able will assist in production.

Wars will cease, because there will be no rivalries for markets. Goods will be made solely for use, not for profit. National boundaries will become meaningless, since the workers of all lands will be co-operating to satisfy each other’s needs. Their interests will be identical. The effort that is now put into the manufacture of armaments will, under Socialism, be directed to the providing of the things all can enjoy.

The armed forces, being unnecessary in Socialist society, its members will give their energies to production.

Obviously, the standard of living of the workers would be greatly increased by the introduction of Socialism, and would go on increasing with each new invention and improved process of production.

It is up to you, then, fellow worker. Are you going to support Federal Union, which, as some of its advocates rightly say, will leave you in your present position, or are you going to organise for Socialism, and win the world?

Clifford Allen

Fallacies of Federal Union. (continued) (1940)

From the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

Federal Union and War

In our last issue we examined the claim that a Federal Union would put an end to wars.

Briefly stated, these are the conclusions we reached : —

The supporters of Federal Union ignore or pay too little attention to the profit-making nature of capitalism. Under capitalism it is for profit that goods are produced, and it is so that profits may be realised by the sale of goods in the world market that rivalries and armed conflicts arise between states.

The struggle for markets makes impossible a Federal Union of world-wide scope, though this same struggle, growing more and more keen, may lead certain states to join forces, even form a Federal Union, so as to compete more successfully against others. Such a Federal Union, however, could not end war; it would cause rival states to co-operate more closely. Wars would not be at an end, but would become more widespread and more highly organised.

For this reason, therefore, the workers ought not to support Federal Union. On the contrary, their duty is to go to the root of the trouble and abolish, as quickly as possible, capitalism, with its private ownership and production for profit, for it is this which gives rise to the struggle for world trade, conflicts and wars. The workers’ duty is to establish Socialism—a system of society wherein goods will be produced, not for sale, not for profit, but solely for use.

Propaganda for Federal Union contains many other fallacies, some of which we will now discuss.

Prosperity—But for Whom ?

Raymond O’Malley, in his “Peace and Prosperity” writes: “The Union would offer the best conditions for trade and prosperity the world has ever known” (p. 6).

This prosperity would be brought about largely by the establishment of Free Trade and a single monetary unit within the Union. Says Clarence K. Streit: “It is self-evident that you and I would live an easier and a richer life if through half the world we could do business with one money and postage, if through half the world we were free to buy in the cheapest market what we need to buy and free to sell in the dearest market what we have to sell” (“Federal Union,” p. 32).

The S.P.G.B. estimates the value of any proposition from the working-class point of view, AND WE SAY OUTRIGHT THAT FREE TRADE AND THE DEMAND FOR A SINGLE MONETARY UNIT ARE OF NO CONCERN TO THE WORKING CLASS.

Mr. Streit should remember that the worker has only ONE commodity to sell, and that is his power to work. This he sells (if he can obtain employment) to a capitalist. Usually he is in no position to pick and choose his market or his capitalist. Owning no property and no means of life, threatened by starvation, he has to accept any employment he can get. The capitalist buys the worker’s one commodity, labour-power, just as he buys any other. On the average the cost of production of the labour-power determines the price (wages) the capitalist pays for it. Hence, broadly speaking, wages are just sufficient to keep the worker fit for work and to enable him to produce future wage-workers. THIS IS A LAW OF CAPITALISM, and its truth is demonstrated by hard facts the world over. It is true in small capitalist states and in big capitalist states. It was true in England in the days of free trade, and it is true in these days of tariff barriers. Furthermore, IT WOULD BE TRUE IF WE HAD A FEDERAL UNION, since the size of the economic unit could not alter the exploitation of its wage slaves by capitalism. Although the United States of America is a Federal Union (the model of the federalists), and although there is free trade within that Union, the American worker is in the same position as his fellow in Britain and elsewhere. In return for his labour-power, he is given wages adequate only to exist and reproduce his kind. This is not the fault of the federal system of the U.S.A., nor of free trade, but of capitalism.

The adoption of a single monetary unit by the whole world would, like the introduction of free trade, and for the same reason, leave the position of the worker untouched.

The worker’s prosperity will come only when he abolishes the wages system.

Less Taxation—What Then ?

Since, under capitalism, the wages of a worker are on the average just sufficient to enable him to carry on his work more or less efficiently, it follows that taxes are not his concern. Whether taxes are high or low, he will still be faced with all the evils that accompany poverty, e.g., unemployment, malnutrition, disease and slum-dwellings.

We are, therefore, not filled with enthusiasm when the advocates of Federal Union promise us reduced taxation (see Mr. Chaning-Pearce’s “Federation of the Free,” p. 5). Nor can we do other than smile at Mr. Curry’s childlike innocence when he writes: “Think of the inroads on poverty, ignorance and disease that could be made with those thousands of millions we are spending on armaments” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 78).

“WE,” Mr. Cuny, receive wages which just enable us to eke out an existence. It is the capitalist class, fat with superfluous wealth, that is spending the millions on armaments.

It would be very interesting to know upon what grounds Mr. Curry bases his belief that if the capitalists paid less in taxation and for armaments they would spend the money thus saved in improving our standard of life.

Bad conditions among the workers do not exist because the capitalist class is impoverished either by heavy taxation or otherwise. As a matter of fact, in spite of taxation, the capitalist class is getting wealthier and wealthier. This is because the means of production which the capitalists own turn out wealth in ever-growing abundance. Even when the capitalist class has so much wealth piled up in the form of goods that no market for them can be found, the goods are burnt or thrown to rats rather than freely distributed among the starving workers. (This happens even in that federal union, the U.S.A. !) And why is this seemingly idiotic policy pursued ? Because capitalism is not a charity institution, but a system of society which is run so that profits may accrue to the few.

Again, not long ago the British capitalist class was forcing down wages on the grounds that, unless reductions were made, it could not afford to carry on. Yet, soon afterwards, when its privileged position is threatened by a rival section of the same class, it can pour out money like water on preparing the war machine and putting it into motion.

In the face of these facts, it is evident that the reduction in taxation promised by Federal Union would benefit the capitalist class but would not bring any change to the poverty-stricken workers.

Freedom of Movement

Federal Union, we are told, would enable us to travel freely within the Union, without passports and the frequent opening of bags at frontiers.

“We should wander as freely over the whole world as now Americans wander over America” (W. B. Curry’s “Case for Federal Union,” p. 80)

It would be interesting to know if the American workers appreciate this boon that the Federal Union of the U.S.A. bestows on them.

Actually the American worker is very much like his fellow in other lands. He cannot afford to trave to any extent.

Passports and frontier inconveniences are of little concern to the working class.

Who is Free?

We have already shown how little the supporters of Federal Union understand the position and needs of our class. It is due to their ignorance of the working of the capitalist system that so man of their promises are extravagant. This ignorance, however, when it hides or tends to hide bitter fact is dangerous to working-class interests.

Mr. Chaning-Pearce writes: “To the tyranny of totalitarianism the only adequate reply is the federation of the free.”

The impression that Mr. Chaning-Pearce wish to give, namely, that in democratic states all are free, is false.

In any capitalist state, totalitarian or otherwis the bulk of the population occupies a slave position. The working class, the majority in any capitalist state, is dependent on the capitalist class for the means of life. The worker is free in one sense FREE FROM PROPERTY, but this kind of freedom forces him to work for the owning class, forces him to keep the capitalist class in idleness and luxury, whilst he himself, who toils with brawn and brain, must live in poverty.

So long as this compulsion lasts, the worker is not free, he is a wage-slave, and that, irrespective of the form of government prevailing in the state wherein he lives his drab life.

Not till the world belongs to the workers will our class be free.

Mr. Chaning-Pearce should ponder over this speech, made by a representative of American capital, at the time when the federal form of government was being worked out. John Adams said : “It is of no consequence by what name you call your people, whether by that of freeman or of slave. In some countries the labouring poor are CALLED freemen, in others they are called slaves, but the difference is imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten labourers on his farm gives them annually as much as will buy the necessities of life or gives them those necessities at short hand?” (Quoted by Simons in his “Class Struggles in America.”)

Warnings

Before concluding our article, we warn the workers that any time spent by them in advocating Federal Union would be, from their point of view, time wasted. Working-class salvation is bound up with Socialism, which the workers will have to establish sooner or later. When they establish Socialism they will abolish all those evils which their masters and reformers are always going to end, but never do : war, unemployment and poverty.

To chase after Federal Union, WHICH after all (if realised) WILL LEAVE THE WORKERS IN PRECISELY THE SAME SLAVE POSITION AS THEY OCCUPY TO-DAY, is to delay the day of emancipation.

We do not doubt lhat many supporters of Federal Union are sincere in believing they have found the key to happiness. A few words of warning to them, therefore.

It may happen that if the idea of Federal Union becomes widely accepted the capitalist class will use it to further their own material interests.

Beware, federalists! Perhaps at some future date the British Government would be willing to support (even if only temporarily) a Federal Union of the European states against America, or perhaps a Federal Union of, say, England, France, Germany (without Hitler and Co.) and the Scandinavian countries against Russia.

It must not be forgotten that in 1930 the representatives of many governments opposed the French Memorandum on a European Federal Union on the grounds that such a Union would tend to accentuate inter-continental rivalries. Behind the idea of a United States of Europe there existed a strong opposition to America. (See Sir Arthur Salter’s “The United States of Europe.”)

It remains for us to discuss another fallacy of the advocates of Federal Union; their misunderstanding of Socialism. This will be done in our next article.

Clifford Allen

Fallacies of Federal Union. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Warning to the Workers

After the war (1914—18), many members of the working class wasted much of their time and energy in supporting the League of Nations. They thought that, at last, a way to end war had been devised. The socialist warning went unheeded. We pointed out that the League of Nations was bound to fail, since it did not put an end to the real causes of war: —the intense struggle for world trade which capitalism forces upon rival sections of the capitalist class. We urged then, as we do now, that the only way to peace is to get rid of these rivalries which are inherent in capitalism, by abolishing capitalism itself, and by establishing a new social order—socialism.

Again we issue a warning to our fellow workers, for again there is a possibility of their being led up a blind alley in another futile quest for permanent peace. This time the blind alley is FEDERAL UNION. Like the League of Nations, it will, if supported, bring to the workers bitter disillusionment and will direct them away from the path they must finally tread—the path of uncompromising opposition to capitalism.

Federal Union—A Dangerous Utopia

According to the advocates of Federal Union, “the essential root of our trouble is nationalism in the hearts of ordinary men reduced to a political system which constantly inflames that nationalism.” (Mr. Lionel Curtis in an address given at Oxford, September 23rd, 1939.) This “excessive nationalism,” Federalists say, must be curbed by a federation of states. They urge that at first the democratic states ought to federate. Such a federation, they claim, would bring peace, since any attack against it would from the outset be sure of failure. (Clarence K. Streit’s “Federal Union,” p. 25.) Later, it is thought, other states would join, until finally the federation would be world-wide.

The whole idea is Utopian, and, from the working class point of view, dangerous.

It is Utopian because in capitalist society a world federation of states has not the slightest chance of ever being made to function harmoniously.

It is dangerous for the working class because it will not only waste their time but may even lead to greater and greater wars.

Why Federal Union Will Not Work

In his book, “The Case for Federal Union,” W. B. Curry writes: — “The World is not politically or psychologically a society, but economically and technically it is already one community ” (p. 23). This is typical of the way the supporters of Federal Union refuse to get to the bottom of things. Moreover, this is one of the false premises upon which their plan is based : they argue that since the world is economically one unit, logically we ought to have one political unit.

Unfortunately for the federalists, THE WORLD IS NOT ECONOMICALLY ONE COMMUNITY.

It is true that to an ever-increasing extent the different parts of the world are becoming more and more dependent on each other for vital necessities of life. It is true that capitalism, as it spreads to every corner of the globe, breaks down national barriers and creates, or tends to create, similar conditions the world over. Still, capitalism itself, though in some respects a uniting force, prevents the world from being or becoming “economically one community.” It prevents this in the following ways:—

First, in capitalist society, there are TWO CLASSES, and between these two classes a persistent struggle and clash of interests. The capitalist class owns the means of production and distribution and employs the working class which, being propertyless, must work for the advantage of the owners, i.e., to produce profits for them. Over the questions of wages and working conditions, the capitalists and workers are in constant conflict. This class struggle, evident within every capitalist state, is ignored or dismissed as unimportant by the federalists. However, so long as it continues to exist the world cannot possibly become one community.

Furthermore, in capitalist society owing to the existence of private property and the consequent production of goods SOLELY for profit, the world is one big jumble of conflicting capitalist interests. 

Wars are the result of these conflicting interests.

Capitalism is by nature competitive and monopolistic. Different sections of the capitalist class—which to prosper must make profits—compete with each other to obtain monopolies of markets, monopolies of raw materials and monopolies of fields for investments. It is partly for the purpose of protecting or furthering these capitalist interests that the gigantic armed forces of the states exist; and the great powers annex territories, not so that the vanquished natives may benefit, but so that the interests of their capitalists can be developed without interference.

If, as often happens, the flow of profits going to capitalists is interfered with by competing sections of the capitalist class, quarrels break out, and, when other means fail, it is by force that differences are settled.

Developing capitalism has led to the growth of international trusts and rings, but this has not diminished the rivalries between groups of capitalists. On the contrary, it has led to an intensification of those rivalries, for now capitalists of different nationalities work together in exploiting spheres of influence in order that a firmer monopoly may be obtained to the disadvantage of rival groups.

Advocates of Federal Union would do well to remember also that, as time goes on, the competition for markets becomes keener and keener. In recent years, countries which were formerly markets for certain goods are now themselves producing the same goods in such abundance that they too are exporting them, trying to find markets. In recent decades, we have seen the growth of capitalism in Japan, Turkey, and a score of smaller states.

Therefore, this is the position. Though more and more goods are produced for sale, the markets for some of them grow less and less. The result is obvious : a greater struggle between rival sections of the capitalist class for markets where profits can be realised.

It is this commercial rivalry which causes states to set up tariff barriers, which inspires the “We must export or die” pleas of the German and British ministers.

In short, markets are necessary for the well-being and prosperity of any section of the capitalist class. This being so, it is evident that the federalists will have an enormous task to persuade the “have” powers to place non-self-governing dependencies under the control of an international commission of ALL states. (See “The Case for Federal Union,” p. 191.)

The capitalist class and their representatives realise how dependent they are on markets. Marshal Foch, during the Great War, admitted that the struggle for markets was an important cause of war. He said : —

“What do we all seek ? New outlets for an ever-increasing- commerce and for industries which, producing far more than they can consume or sell, are constantly hampered by an increasing competition. And then ? Why ! New areas for trade are cleared by cannon shot.”— (United Service Magazine, December, 1918.)

The late Lord Brentford, too, who was the Conservative Home Secretary, 1924-28, once stated in very definite terms that for markets capitalist states are prepared to go to war. During a speech, he said :—

“We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of the Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we shall hold it.”

Mr. Curry, in his “Case for Federal Union,” mentions the rivalry between states caused by conflicting capitalist interests. We suggest to him that he give more attention to this; he will then talk less glibly about the world being “economically one community” and about “substituting international government for international anarchy.”

The Blind Alley

When production is carried on for the SOLE PURPOSE OF PROFITS as it is to-day, powers which hold colonies or have spheres of influence where raw materials are available or where there are valuable markets for products, will be very loath to give up their monopolies over them. After all, to do so would perhaps mean a serious reduction in the profits going to the sections of the capitalist class they represent and the enrichment of rival groups.

Capitalism FORCES this “cut-throat competition,” this struggle for spheres of influence upon the different sections of the capitalist class.

It is, therefore, capitalism which gives rise to wars, not that abstraction Mr. Curtis spoke of: — “nationalism in the hearts of ordinary men.”

Federal Union does not attempt to get rid of the deep-rooted clashes of interests, inherent in capitalism. It does not aim at ending private property and production for profit. Struggles for markets, for raw materials, would still persist, therefore, even if a Federal Union were to be formed, and even if federalists would wish it to be otherwise.

What Federal Union aims to do is to try to curb these rivalries by having a larger political unit.

It may be that with the development of capitalism and the growth of international trusts, some form of very close co-operation between certain states will result. However, were this co-operation to take the form of a federation of those states which, for the moment, found their economic interests more or less in line, it would be no victory for peace.

We have shown that a world federation is out of the question. Rival capitalist interests prevent that. A Federal Union of only a number of states would lead to the formation of rival federations, or to closer co-operation on the part of other states. The struggle for world trade would necessitate that. Federal Union offers, therefore, not peace, but more intense rivalries AND GREATER WARS.

Although federalists offer their scheme as a means of ending war, they themselves are doubtful about the success it would have. And so in Streit’s proposed constitution, he suggests the machinery which would carry on war if Federal Union were established. He writes:—”The Union shall have the sole right to deal with foreign governments, provide for the Union’s defence, raise, maintain and control standing land, sea and air forces, make peace and war. …”

Furthermore, it is admitted by Mr. Curry that war might break out within the Federal Union itself. This is indeed very likely, for capitalist interests which are in line to-day may in the near future be in conflict. America’s attitude towards Japan is clear proof of how capitalist interests and sympathies change. On this point Nathaniel Peffer writes:—

“In the Russo-Japanese war, we were pro-Japanese to the point of sentimentality. Japan evicted Russia and took over its ambitions for hegemony in the Far East. Almost immediately, we began protesting against Japan’s actions in Manchuria, adumbrated schemes for neutralising or internationalising Manchurian railways, and in less than five years tensions had arisen between Japan and the United States. The tensions have never eased.” (See “Empire in the East,” edited by Joseph Barnes).

Within a Federal Union, rivalries might well lead to friction, withdrawals from the Union (just as from the League of Nations) and war. As Mr. Curry writes : —”The Federal Union may even have to face civil war, as the American Union had to face it” (p. 130).

We repeat that to end war, its cause must be abolished. Until capitalism is swept away, all the forces making for armed conflicts will be at work. Attempts to clamp down these forces by Federal Union would be doomed to failure.

We urge the working class, therefore, not to waste its time on Federal Union, which, leaving untouched the causes of war, cannot possibly put an end to it.

Only when capitalism has been overthrown and socialism established will the causes of war—production for profit, trade and commercial rivalries—be removed.

Other fallacies of Federal Union will be discussed in future articles.

Clifford Allen

Link to Part 2.