A Brief Exposition of Socialist Theory. (Continued.) (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 6.

Value.

We propose now to briefly epitomise the Socialist theory of Value, which is exhaustively and scientifically worked out by Karl Marx in "Capital."

We have already pointed out that a knowledge of what constitutes the wealth of a given period, and the method by which such wealth is obtained, is necessary in order to understand the ideas prevailing at that period. Consequently, to understand the ideas of today, we must find out how the wealth of to-day is obtained, and of what it consists.

By the term "wealth" we do not mean air, water, happiness, misery, and so on. The wealth to which we refer is economic wealth— the result obtained by applying human energy to the material provided by nature, such as food, clothing, houses, ships—articles useful to man which require producing.

Now what is the first fact connected with the nature of the wealth of modern times that comes to our notice on examining present society? In the opening lines of "Capital" Marx plunged right into the heart of the matter. He said:

  In other words the wealth of to-day appears as a multitude of useful article for sale.

These articles that are for sale have different values—one is worth so much, another is worth more, and another, again, is worth less.

To find out the cause of the difference in value, and the substance of value itself, we must separate in imagination a single commodity from the world of commodities and analize its relation to others, and also its origin and development.

A commodity, then, is an article for sale; but to be saleable it must contain two quite distinct properties: it must be useful and it must be valuable.

When we say that a commodity must be useful we do not mean useful to those who produce them. Commodity production is the production of articles that are useless to the producers but useful to others—the potential buyers. An article has as many uses as there are human wants it can satisfy. Its useful side is its capacity to satisfy these requirements. For example, steel is useful for moulding into a bayonet or a ploughshare; gold is useful for ornamenting a temple of peace or financing a war, and so forth. A useless article could not be a commodity, as it would be unsaleable— there would be no demand for it.

The valuable property of an article has nothing to do with its uses. No matter how varied the uses an article can be put to its value is not increased by a fraction. No matter how useful or essential an article may be to humanity its value is not in the least affected. For example, a diamond ring may be worth thousands of pounds whilst a piece of bread the same size would only be worth a fraction of a penny. If the value of an article had anything to do with its usefulness, the positions of the articles in question would be reversed. Further, an article can be very useful indeed, and yet contain no value. Thus a merchant could bring bottles of air upon the market — he might sell the bottles, but he certainly could not sell the air (except in very exceptional circumstances) though there is nothing more useful to mankind.

We have seen that an article, in order to figure as a commodity, must be useful and must contain value. We have already seen what constitutes the useful side of an article, and the question now arises, what constitutes the value side of an article ?

There is a common misconception abroad that the supply of and demand for commodities determines their values. This contention is easily disposed of. The relation of supply and demand is continually altering, supply at one time being greater than demand, and demand at another time being greater than supply. As a consequence of these movements there must come a time when supply and demand balance each other. What then would determine the value of an article ? Obviously not supply and demand, as the equilibration of the two would nullify their effect. Such a theory would then drive us to the absurd conclusion that the articles, at the moment supply and demand were equal, had no value! The supply and demand theory, therefore, offers no solution to value.

The value of an article is something contained in it that is only expressed when the article is put into exchange relations with other and different kind of articles. It is something different from the physical or useful properties of an article. We might look at a pair of boots for years without gaining any information as to their value. We can only find out the value of a pair of boots by putting them into exchange relation with other commodities.

The absolute value of an article cannot be determined, any more than its absolute weight. Relative weight only can be determined, and also relative value—the value of one article as compared with others. Hence the necessity for putting an article into exchange relation with another in order, by this means, to express its relative value.

As all commodities are exchangeable, though differing widely in physical characteristics and usefulness, the value property which makes them exchangeable must be one common to all commodities alike without reference to their peculiar forms or uses. Apart from their physical or useful properties there is only one other property possessed by all commodities alike, and that is—they are all the product of human labour-power applied to natural resources. It is the fact that they are all the product of human energy that enables the different kinds of articles to be put into an exchange relation with one another. Human energy is the common measurable factor of them all.

All commodities represent certain proportions of simple human energy. Skilled labour counts as a multiplication of simple energy, as in it has to be reckoned the amount of simple energy expended in making it skillful.

The average labour required to produce an article—or, to be more exact, to reproduce an article—gives it its value. Where machinery is employed in the production of one article and not in the case of another of the same kind, the value each would be determined by the value of the machine-made article. All commodities are produced for sale and competition compels producers to produce as cheaply as possible. Where out-of-date methods are used the value articles so produced only counts as the same as that of those produced by up-to-date methods —the labour that counts as value the socially necessary labour, the labour which is necessary with tha prevailing resources and technique.

As human energy is not a thing that can be put into pint measures and ladled out we must ascertain the method of measuring it. The sweat caused in producing an article cannot be measured, but the time taken to produce such an article can be measured, and this is in fact the method of arriving at value, although it is done, at present, by a process behind the backs of the producers.

Human labour is measured by time. The product of one man's labour is equal to the product of another's during the same time, assuming that they have each the same skill and follow the prevailing methods with the average results.

Broadly speaking, an article is equal in value to another that takes, on the average, the same time and skill to produce.

The value of a commodity, therefore, is determined by its cost of reproduction in human 
labour time.

Gilmac.

(To be continued.)

Correspondence. (1920)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editors.

Dear Sirs,

In reading your paper for the last few months one is struck with the insistence that characterises the finishing up of most of the articles, that is the capture of the political machinery by the workers, thereby obtaining control over the armed forces.

One realises that the workers' revolution will not be successful unless by the aid of the Army, Navy, and Police Force, they have stripped every vestige of power from the ruling class, thereby transforming from a functionless class to productive units of the Communist republic.

But by the mere fact of the workers getting a majority in the House of Commons and in the local council chambers will that prove all-sufficing ? Because one must bear in mind that right from your infantry officer to the more high administrative posts, are recruited from the ruling class.

Consequently, is it not more than likely that by the return to the governing bodies of a majority of revolutionaries, the "property-owning class," seeing their interest menaced, would immediately utilise the forces of the Crown to crush the workers? Undoubtedly there will be a portion of the armed forces whose sympathies will [not] be with the workers. Are they not already organising for the day ? Boy Scouts, Special Police Force, comprising of the shop-keeping element, men with a little stake in the present order.

Because the political machinery is more advanced in this country than Russia or Italy, does that imply that the transformation will be more peaceful? Circumstances seem to point to the fact that the machinery to hand will be used more efficiently by the master class here, owing to their vaster political experience.

Circumstances seem to point to the necessity of the workers themselves being armed in order to crush the armed forces of the Crown before they can be supreme.

By these few remarks I do not mean to infer that parliamentary action is useless, because in any highly organised society administrative work is necessary, for the control and direction of industry, and when such is under the control of the worker, obviously some form of parliamentary procedure is required.

But what I do imply is that the workers must be organised, primarily in the workshop, for a clear class purpose—first the suppression of the armed forces of the Crown (this necessitating, of course, an armed struggle) secondly the seizure of the land, factories, etc., by the workers and the democratic control thereof. This only shows that Parliament will only control the armed forces when the counter-revolutionary forces have been defeated.

It means that we must prepare ourselves for a hard struggle, and that at the first onset the master class will do all in their power to annul any revolutionary measures adopted by a revolutionary Parliament through the Civil Service and the officers of the Army and Navy, whose sentiments are with the powers that now be.

J. W.

Our Reply To Above.
Our correspondent's first error is in supposing that the officers of the armed forces and officials in administrative posts are all recruited from the ruling class. It is true that a few members of that class and some of their poorer relatives are employed in such positions, but the vast majority of both officers and civil servants are merely the professional sections of the slave class in society who depend upon the sale of their services for an existence, and are without any property worth mentioning. As this section extends its knowledge and understanding of social organisation they will steadily gravitate towards Socialism. By the time a majority of the working class are convinced of the need for Socialism, the number of the professional section who will have reached the same conviction will be sufficient to render these officials a doubtful factor for the master class to rely upon. Even the case of Russia, where conditions were much more unfavourable, gives us an example of this. Though large numbers of the old officials were anti-Bolshevik, they soon realised that they could not live without a purchaser for their services and they found that it was just as easy—in some cases, such as teaching, easier—to work under the new employers than it had been to work under the old ones.

Certainly the master class will endeavour to use all the organisations they can influence to oppose the revolution ; but, useful as the Boy Scouts and Special Police may be, it must be remembered that these are unarmed bodies, and even if they were armed, as the "Black and Tans" are in Ireland, they would still be far inferior to the trained forces.

Above all, however, as our correspondent admits to some degree, there is the great factor that, when the majority of the working class are ready for Socialism, the resulting impression upon the rest of society will be so strong that few outside the wealthy capitalists and such hair-brained adventurers as they may subsidise, will be found ready to offer resistance to the revolution.

Again with reference to the trained forces — these only move according to instructions from Departments of the Government, as the War Office, Admiralty, etc., and those who are in a majority in Parliament control these Departments. Hence the absolute necessity for political action on the part of the working class.

The statement of our correspondent that "circumstances appear to point to the necessity of the workers themselves being armed in order to crush the armed forces of the Crown" is a dangerous fallacy.

Where are the workers to obtain arms? And where ammunition? How and where can they train, or how be trained, in the use of arms? The days of street barricades have gone by. The high explosive shell and the aeroplane have rendered such a method ridiculous. Also the attempt to gather arms and ammunition would be illegal, and long before it would be able to reach dimensions that mattered the authorities could handle and crush the attempt by ordinary legal means.

Only by constitutional methods can the working class obtain control of the armed forces and use them to consolidate their emancipation. No workshop organisation can effect this, and useful as such organisation may be to operate the means of production during the revolution, it can only do so under the protection afforded by Parliament.

Editorial Committee

A Look Round. (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

From a recently published book, "The Mirrors of Downing Street. By a Gentleman with a Duster," which has excited a great deal of interest, I take the following quotation concerning one of our greatest and most versatile actors, Mr. David Lloyd George, the Welsh Wizard.

The occasion was the early part of the war, when those interested in its prosecution were shrieking out that if more and more munitions were not forthcoming "we" should lose the war and civilisation would be retarded for a hundred years. The government had arranged a meeting of the principal armament manufacturers with the object of persuading them to part with their trade secrets.

Quite naturally, the assembled capitalists demurred at this. They certainly wanted to win the war, but didn't care to jeopardise their advantages in any future commercial prosperity. To the insistent demands of the military and Government officials they simply returned a verdict of "nothing doing." At this despairing moment, when all appeared to be lost, our hero leaned forward in his chair, very pale, very earnest, and very quiet.

  "’Gentlemen,’ he said in a voice which produced an extraordinary hush, 'have you forgotten that your sons at this very moment are being killed—killed in hundreds and thousands? They are being killed by German guns for want of British guns. Your sons, your brothers, boys at the dawn of manhood ! They are being wiped out of life in thousands ! Gentlemen, give me guns. Don't think of your trade secrets. Think of your children. . . . Help them ! Give me those guns.' . . . His voice broke, his eyes filled with tears, and his hand, holding a piece of notepaper before him, shook like a leaf. There was not a man who heard him whose heart was not touched, and whose humanity was not quickened. The trade secrets were pooled."

#    #    #    #

Quite a contrast to his attitude towards the miners, where he denies the justice of their claim for another two shillings, and calls upon the country to "resist this attack with all its strength," is given by the writer in the same book, wherein he states that in conversation with Mr. Lloyd George during the war, he (the writer) suggested that probably one cause of the unrest existing in factories was the fact that "boys could earn fifteen or sixteen pounds a week by merely watching a machine they knew nothing about, while the skilled foremen, who alone could put those machines right, and who actually invented new tools to make the new machines of the inventors, were earning only the fixed wage of 50s. a week. 

" 'What does it matter,' Lloyd George exclaimed impatiently, ' what we pay those boys as long as we win the war? '"

#    #    #    #

The ethics of capitalism are altered to suit time and place. But property is a sacred institution anywhere and any time— under capitalism. When the war was on our "heroes," whether they knew it or not, were fighting simply in defence of capitalist property. War or no war, the same legal machinery is used to protect property against all comers, be they miners, Bolsheviks, Sinn Feiners, Americans, or what not. The point was nicely brought out the other day when an ex-soldier got fined for shooting rabbits, despite the fact that, as the soldier pointed out, he got a Mons Star for shooting Germans !

#    #    #    #

There are many people who assert that what is needed in order to bring about a better state of life is a Labour government. Others pin their [hopes on the] the efficacy of the League of Nations. Those who use their intelligence and take a longer view have faith in neither. The adoption of either or both does not threaten the existing basis of society. We have it on the authority of Mr. J. R. Clynes, M.P. that even under a Labour government a League of Nations will be necessary, although "the more we have capitalist government the greater the need for the League." (Putney, 7.11.20.)

It would thus appear that what is necessary to the administration of the political machinery of the capitalist class will be utilised also by the labour fakers in the event of their being placed in power. Does it suggest their belief in identity of interest between capital and labour ? Ask Brace.

#    #    #    #

Speaking of Labour governments, it seems we are to have one before long. Preparations are being made to pull it off at the forthcoming General Election. The unemployment situation must have affected the Government. Jobs are very scarce and the Labour Party is sore in consequence. Even the adherents of the Labour Party are beginning to lose faith in their patron saint, Mr. Lloyd George, and to wonder why it is they have been so uncharitably turned down after throwing the whole of their resources into winning the war for the British capitalists. Now they are determined that they will show the country how a government should be run.

As a preliminary we are presented with an outline of what will happen in "the England of to-morrow" which is put forward by Mr. J. H. Thomas, M.P., a prominent Labour Party official and one of capitalism's greatest assets. Mr. Thomas tells us all about it in a book which he has published under the highly apprehensive title of "When Labour Rules." After paying a handsome tribute to the Prince of Wales as "a unifying factor to the Empire as a whole" he sets out the proposals which are expected to be realised when the Labour Party comes into power. They may be taken as embodying the aspirations of that part of the British public known as "organised labour," and whose political expression is the Labour Party.

First of all there would be an hereditary constitutional Monarchy with an Upper Chamber (sigh of relief from George) ; Purchase of the Liquor Trade by the Government based on a pre-war value of 350 millions, all profits to be devoted to the lowering of taxation (broad smiles on the faces of the big-bellied landlords); Old Age Pensions at 60 ("Thank God!" exclaim the old folks) ; Nationalisation of Mines, Railways, etc., so as to promote efficiency in various supplies and reducing prices by limiting profits (chorus: "Wot ! prices coming down!)

"There will be" says Mr. Thomas, "when Labour comes into power, I hope, only one tax —income tax. . . . We should not be lavish in our expenditure for a fighting machine. But there would have to be an Army and Navy capable of backing our decisions, (note this) and these would be maintained." (Sure ! Col. Ward, Col Thorne, and other Labour militarists will want jobs, won't they?) As to finance, a capital levy would be instituted, probably realising 1,000 millions. Industrial questions to be solved by "collective bargaining between the organised workers and the employers." The fiscal policy will be Free Trade "for the sake of the workmen and the sake of peace." As regards the position of women under Labourism, legislation will be sought to abolish all night work for women in industry. It will be Labour's object "as far as possible (!) to wipe out the necessity for married women working at all. When Labour comes into power, however, women will be greatly encouraged and helped in every way to enter Parliament, to join Cabinets, even to the extent of a woman becoming Prime Minister of England if she be eminently suited to and the right person for that position."

And more to the same effect. No doubt the right persons will get the right jobs. But to those who will occupy the humbler walks in life we can offer Mr. Thomas's consolation that "there is nothing gives so great a feeling of security and pride and stability as the owning of even a small cottage."

By far the best feature of the book is its price—ten shillings—which is prohibitive.

To sum up, we find that under a system of Labour Government there will exist capital, exploitation, wage slavery, armies, navies, police, prisons, women labour, industrial problems, old age pensions, unemployment, wars, kings and queens, House of Lords, parliaments, prime ministers, profits, taxes, poverty, plutocrats and parasites of all kinds, either stated or implied.

All of which entitles one to ask in comparing it with the present capitalist system of government : "What is the difference ?" If this is all the Labour Party can do, compare it with the Socialist object to be found in our columns, then ask yourself is it worth while bolstering up these fakers even through your trade union affiliation.

#    #    #    #

More and more does the Municipal Election take on the character of a Parliamentary Election. Labels are more or less definite and the programmes are based usually on the lines of a "national" appeal rather than a local. In the recent election a great deal of attention was paid by the "non-progressives" to such questions as Bolshevism, Sinn Fein, Socialism, Pro-Germanism, High Rates and Taxes, Unemployment, ''Squandering of the People's Money,'' etc., attributing all these "evils" to the activities of Labour representatives both inside and outside the national and local administrative bodies. Whether these had any effect on the "hard-headed and clear-thinking British working men and women" to whom the appeal was made, or not, the fact remains that out of 747 candidates put up by the various Labour organisations in 70 leading boroughs, only 199 were successful. In some of the big industrial centres like Liverpool and Bradford (where 23 in each city stood for election) not a single one was returned.

Clearly something more is needed than "Labour" has to offer if the feeling of reverence for the master class and its institutions is ever going to be eradicated from the minds of that same "clear-thinking" working man.

Tom Sala

Editorial: The Latest Humbug. (1920)

Editorial from the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is, perhaps, no other epoch in history so mean and brutal as the present. Even the days we are wont to call the "Dark Ages" have no records of men slaughtered wholesale by gas and flame. Herod has been out-Heroded by dozens of petty military chiefs. Nero earned the execration of posterity by burning a city: a modern general will gain a title and the popular applause by burning a score.

Where in the pages of history can one read of such detestable hypocrisy as the burial of the "Unknown Soldier" that took place a short time ago in the very street where the erstwhile comrades of that lifeless clay had been batoned because they dared to rebel against the prospect of starvation? Does any thinking man suggest that the capitalist class had any other idea, in organising and carrying out, with such pomp and expense, the burial of a common soldier, than hoodwinking the working class ?

Standing at the Cenotaph in "silent humility" at 11 o'clock on the Anniversary of Armistice Day were to be seen politicians whose whole political career is a record of pompous and contemptuous disregard for the lives of the working class; who had sent soldiers to shoot down strikers in their native streets, and who at that very moment were formulating plans for the calling together of scientists to assure that this country should be well supplied with poison gas at the outbreak of the next war!

Representations are being made to the Government to protect the infant dye industry against foreign competition—not because they want English frocks dyed with English dyes! That is (vide "Daily Mail," 19th Nov.) only, apparently, a secondary point. The main reason is that of the maintenance of plant for the manufacture of toxic gases! And this almost contemporary with the announcement that the League of Nations is endeavouring to prohibit the use of gas in war !

We were told at the commencement of the war that no more would be seen the spectacle of men broken in fighting "their country's battles" forced to seek charity in the streets or shelter in the workhouses. We were promised "a land fit for heroes." Our eyes were dazzled with the prospect of an England made beautiful and happy so soon as the Prussian were crushed and rendered innocuous. Yet what do we find ? Men wearing war ribbons hawking vegetables, or even begging coppers, may be met with all over the place. Certain newspapers are full of the plaints of ex-soldiers who have been swindled out of their pensions. One journalist has been going about the country as a tramp, and reports the casual wards in all parts to be full of ex-service men tramping about the land looking for work! The economic position of nearly everyone who possesses nothing but labour power is more desperate than ever it was before ! And yet Prussianism is crushed. Its arch-exponent is reduced to the expedient of sawing wood as an outlet to his feelings !

Was it, then, Prussianism that was the enemy of the working class ? Or was not the Socialist right when he told you that the capitalist system was the enemy to be fought and crushed ? Do you still place reliance on your political representatives ? Show us a capitalist politician and we will show you a fraud, a trickster, and a pot-hunter. Show us a labour leader and we will point you either a stupid ignoramus or a wilful misleader. Show us an ideal you cherish and we will show you how the capitalist class through their Press twist it to their own advantage. Even your tears and heartaches for your lost young men are used by this hypocritical class to blind you to the rottenness of the system upon which they batten and live their luxurious lives.

How, then, to escape from this murderous, slavish existence ? Do we need tell you the way again ? Or need we only urge you.to think for yourselves ? If you need encouragement go to Bethnal Green, or to the slums of Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, or whatever great town you may be near, and if you have any pity in you it will not be long before you discover the way to end the system that murders and degrades the large mass of its community in the interests of a small section, and assuages its grief-stricken millions with a circus.

The Outline of History by H. G. Wells. A Criticism. (1920)

Book Review from the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

This, the Magnum Opus of Mr. Wells, is a very remarkable book. It will be a useful addition to the "library" of the worker-student as undoubtedly it already is in many thousands of cases, and the work will probably have a widespread influence. Whilst woefully deficient in many respects, it is certainly the best one-man attempt at a fairly detailed "Universal History" which has come under the notice of the present writer. A "perfect" work of this kind will never be written this side of the Revolution.

The prime value of the book is as a great accumulation of historical data, orderly arranged and compressed within comparatively small compass. As a narrative it is for the most part intensely interesting. The descriptive powers, not to speak of imagination, of the writer of "The Time Machine" are, in places, exercised to the full, and the grip of the story at times approaches fascination.

The evolution of the Solar System, the earth and life, the races of men and their languages, and the evolution of writing and of primitive ideas, are all clearly and concisely dealt with according to the most recent and authoritative findings of Science. Mr. Wells is particularly good when describing the growth of inventions, discoveries, and knowledge in general.

A good sense of proportion is, in the main, shown throughout the book. The civilisation of China in particular, receives the prominence to which, by its "peculiar" character, age and expansion, it is entitled in any general account of the work of Man. Moreover Mr. Wells is continually reviewing well known facts from quite unusual points of view. He shows, for the most part, at least, a healthy disregard for conventional opinions, and especially for those which, embellish the sacred personalities of "great men." Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Gladstone receive some rough handling which has shocked some of the more orthodox reviewers of the book. Mr. Wells has done some useful work in pulling down some of the "tin gods" of the multitude of hero-worshippers. He has his own "heroes," nevertheless.

A very valuable and organic part of the work are the maps. They form quite an historical atlas in themselves. The same artist, Mr. Horrabin, has produced the "time charts" which are a novel and helpful inclusion, whilst his numerous line illustrations are not only really illustrative and seemingly very accurate but they are good examples of a rather severe, but eminently suitable technique in that difficult art—pen drawing.

In reviewing such a large work the line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore the following comments and criticisms are chiefly confined to some of Mr. Wells' generalisations about history and views regarding social evolution. Owing to the different paging of the several editions, all citations are to the chapters and their subsections.

#    #    #    #

Despite his sub title: "A Plain History of Life and Mankind," Mr. Wells has not made the mere telling of his story his sole, or even his primary, aim. He has a theory to expound and to prove—a theory which issues finally as a lesson and a warning to his readers.

Briefly, Mr. Wells' "theory of history" is that the evolution of the human race consists of the gradual "rise" of bestial, cruel, selfish, ignorant animals — primaeval men—living in small, independent, isolated and antagonistic family groups, to a cultured refinement, wisdom and altruism—fit citizens of one world-wide brotherhood-community. We have not yet arrived at this latter stage of perfection, but Mr. Wells says we have made enormous strides in that direction and this achievement is the next great step in human progress.

It is important to note that this evolution is the result mainly, in Mr. Wells's opinion, of the influence of Religion and Education upon the minds of men, and it is to these factors he looks for future progress.

Of course our author strains the evidence to fit his theory. Practically all historians have done the same. It is so easy; it is all but unavoidable. Many of the "facts" upon which histories are based are so uncertain in themselves, are almost always open to a variety of legitimate interpretations and still more illegitimate ones. Moreover, their immense number makes inevitable a certain selection and suppression of facts in accord with the writer's views as to their relative order of importance, which again depends upon his theoretical opinion or practical aims. In the book before us the "straining" is very obvious in parts, but on the whole is not so much in evidence as one would expect, for the author is by no means either thorough or consistent in the application of his theories.

Mr. Wells assumes that altruism and social solidarity was lacking in the earliest men. Even apart from other considerations this is rendered very improbable by the fact that recent savages possess these qualities to a marked degree. The extinct Tasmanians certainly did, and, as Mr. Wells points out, they were still in the early Paleolithic stage at the time they were discovered. The Bushmen and Australians, only a little further advanced, also contradict his view. Savages are almost invariably kind, affectionate, and loyal to their own people, but hostile to strangers and cruel to their enemies. Any survey of the races of men, such as Keane's or Hutchinson's, will prove this.

A serious and significant omission occurs when Mr. Wells fails to make any mention of the existence of the communal marriage system among primitive peoples. The discovery of this institution was one of the most revolutionary in the whole range of anthropology.

The reason for this omission is that our historian believes that the earliest and original form of human society was the single "self-centred" family group, ruled despotically by the oldest male, usually the father, until he died or one of his sons managed to kill him and rule in his stead. This is merely an extension to primitive conditions of the old "patriarchal theory." He quotes from Worthington Smith's excellent description of life in the early Stone Age, but, as this writer holds the contrary view of primitive society, Mr. Wells adds a highly hypothetical account of the supposed paleolithic family group and the conduct of its ruler, the "Old Man," borrowed from the "Primal Law" by J. J. Atkinson, who, with Andrew Lang, is the only authority mentioned who supports his view. (See Chap. IX. 2.)

Now Mr. Wells does not tell his readers that a very large number—probably the great majority—of ethnologists and sociologists, hold a totally different view of social origins. Prof. Edward Jenks, a very able thinker, says in his "History of Politics" (p. 18) "by the discoveries concerning the nature of savage society . . it has been proved, that the earliest social group, so far from being a small household of a single man and his wives, is a large and loosely connected group or 'pack' ... it could easily be shown that the origin of society in 'single families' is inherently impossible," and he refers to the view supported by Mr. Wells as "the old theory, now definitely exploded."

It is difficult to see how man could have acquired language, tools, or a developed intelligence without a considerable degree of sociability. The conclusions of modern Psychology as to the deep-rooted power of the herd-instinct and the pronounced suggestibility of the human mind also point indisputably to the gregarious nature of man.

The "Handbook to the Ethnographical Collection" of the British Museum (a cheap, well illustrated and useful book to students) states the general opinion amongst ethnologists as follows :

  "In a primitive community the individual has little importance as such. He may almost be said to belong to it body and soul, and apart from it he has neither rights nor responsibilities. Such a system is unfavourable to the development of enterprise or private initiative, but at the same time it entourages the habits of obedience, discipline and common action, upon which further social progress depends. The absorbing claims of the community are well illustrated by the primitive laws of property, according to which everything of the greatest value belongs to the clan in common." (P. 25.)

Now the above paragraph flatly contradicts Mr. Wells's assertion that "No more nonsensical expression is conceivable in sociology than the term 'primitive communism.'" (Chap. XXXVII. 13.) By the use of such totally irrelevant analogies as the "dog and his bone, the tigress and her lair," he tries to prove that primitive man was an intensely individualistic property-holder.

Many readers of his work will be unaware that in taking up this position Mr. Walls is contemptuously disregarding for the benefit of his thesis the accumulated evidence of a host of competent observers in all parts of the world, and also, for the later stages of primitive communism, a considerable mass of documentary evidence. We cannot state or discuss this evidence here. The works on the subject are numerous ; those by Morgan, Tylor, Lubbock and Maine will be profitable reading to the student. A good summary from a sound viewpoint is Lafargue's "Evolution of Property," and a great mass of evidence from all peoples and periods is contained in Prof. Letourneau's "Property, its Origin and Development."

These omissions and errors, unfortunately, give a distorting perspective to what would otherwise be an uncommonly vivid picture of primaeval humanity. So conspicuous and important are they that their occurrence is only to be explained as a result of the preconceived theoretical notions of the author.

Mr. Wells classifies more advanced human societies into two primary types: "Communities of Will" and "Communities of Faith and Obedience." The former are societies of "free" individuals, jointly and freely determining the activities of the communities to which they belong. His stock examples are the tribes of nomadic, warlike herdsmen of the great plains. Illustrations of the second type of community are the ancient States, such as those of Egypt and Babylonia, in which a monarchic and priestly government controlled the lives and commanded the allegiance and obedience of its subjects who regarded it with fearful and religious reverence.

Now, to the Marxist this classification must appear unsatisfactory, being based on nothing fundamental. It lays no stress upon the supremely important factor of interest. It should be obvious that you will find no community of will where there is no community of interest. The two conditions are interdependent. One in the absence of the other is almost inconceivable.

The tribesmen of a nomadic people could determine the activity of the community in defence, offence, or migration because their individual needs both immediate and ultimate were identical. This was easily seen and fully understood. The division of social labour had not yet reached the point at which it produces classes of oppressors and oppressed. All had inalienable "rights" in the community, membership of which was based upon actual blood-kinship. Every incentive existed to loyal action in support of the tribe.

Moreover, the fact that in a pastoral community public affairs are decided by the Council of Chiefs or assembly of tribesmen in no way alters the fact that "faith and obedience" exert a great influence on its members. The people of the tribe owe rigid obedience to the tribal custom law, and the sacred bonds of "ancestor worship" are an additional cement to that produced by unity of interest.

Now, exactly the reverse state of affairs obtained in the great communities of Egypt and Babylonia. Here diversity of occupation social function and interest brought about by progress in agriculture, handicraft, and commerce, was the cardinal feature. There were peasants, artisans, merchants, soldiers, officials, nobles, and priests, with sub-divisions of each. (Chattel slaves, very numerous, especially in Babylonia, are expressly omitted, as they are not members of the community in Mr. Wells's sense.) The bulk of the "free" town workers had their narrow but well recognised craft interests, but those in different trades even in the same locality would have little in common. There were few amongst them who were completely propertyless, and thus no proletariat existed.

In districts where a large slave population existed—especially of gang-slaves—fear of their revolt would act as a sedative to discontent amongst the "free" workers.

These great States covered an extensive territory, and their population was large. Means of communication between distant cities and districts did not exist for the common people. There was thus little possibility of widespread revolt on the part of any exploited class. Local revolts though were not unknown—there was a "strike" of labourers at Thebes in the reign of Rameses III.—and as they were bound to conflict with the politico-religious authority they show that the common people were not so servile as Mr. Wells would have us believe.

Division of interests among the masses made possible the despotic rule of the politically intelligent minority, and the common need for protection against the inroads of barbarian invaders justified it. This minority, the "ruling class," were originally successful conquerors, clan or tribal chiefs and "medicine men." They had at their back a disciplined army largely of foreign troops from conquered provinces. Tradition and superstition were contributory factors, but of secondary importance.

Turning to another aspect of this interesting question, as Mr. Wells says (Chap. XX. 2): "On the whole the common men were probably well content to live under lord or king or god and obey their bidding. It was safer. It was easier." Accustomed to his lot and aspiring to nothing higher than the standard of comfort it traditionally afforded, the average Egyptian peasant or labourer would submit in "faith and obedience" to what must often have seemed intolerable extortion and irksome obligations, rather than engage in any serious revolt against what must have seemed to him the mightiest, most impregnable power in the world. Such an act would do too much violence to his settled habits of work and thought, and all to no good purpose. Here also, then, interest, bodily and mental, is the deciding impulse.

It must not be thought that Mr. Wells entirely fails to recognise these effects of the hierarchy of classes; he does show that they are a contributory factor, but seems to think that it was the influence of priests and of the "god-king" idea which primarily caused men to surrender their "wills" in social affairs. The "god-king" certainly was a useful, indeed a necessary institution to primitive civilisation. Superstition, religious or secular, is always useful to class divided societies. It gives the ruling classes a supernatural or a moral sanction otherwise absent and thus oils the wheels of exploitation.

Mr. Wells devotes a whole chapter to the rise of classes in Egypt, Babylonia, India and China and his treatment in the main is very satisfactory. Here and there throughout the book he shows very clearly the effect of class grouping and interest as a determinant in social change.

R. W. Housley

To be continued.

A New Programme of Confusion. (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The National Administrative Council are submitting a draft programme for adoption by the Independent Labour Party. The ''Labour Leader" (Nov. 11th) in publishing the programme ask for discussion and are setting apart two columns weekly for the purpose. In order to assist the rank and file who may wish to take part in this discussion a few of the most glaring absurdities are pointed out in the following lines.

Clause one states that the object of the I.L.P. is "to end the present capitalist system." Clause two states that "the industrial organisation of society in the Socialist Commonwealth must be based upon the communal ownership of land and capital." Some hitherto obscure member might gain the limelight by asking how it is possible to end the capitalist system while retaining the thing that makes it a capitalist system, i.e., capital.

The capitalist system did not exist until wealth was used generally as capital, which obviously gave it its name. Wealth is not always capital : it only becomes capital when it is used for the production of profit, in other words, for the purpose of exploitation. When society is organised on the basis of production for use wealth can no longer be used as capital, either by individuals or collectively by the State. It remains for the N.A.C. to explain how it is possible to abolish a system while retaining the principles that form the basis of that system.

It is this absurd notion, that a totally different social system can be built up on the basis of the present system, that is responsible for the next absurdity, that under Socialism there must be two separate organisations, one to represent the interests of the consumers and the other to represent the interests of the producers. If this were true it would at once dispose of one of the strongest points in favour of Socialism. The need for two organisations to represent opposing interests would reveal the fact that society was not based on principles that made the interests of each identical with those of the whole, but that antagonism of interests between classes or sections still remained.

Under a sane system of society, where the whole of the people took part in the labour necessary to satisfy their wants, each individual would be both producer and consumer, and only a marionette showman would think of setting him up in two separate organisations in order that he might oppose and support himself alternately in each. But even this unnecessary duplication of organisations is not enough. Clause four lays it down that there must be a co-ordinating authority made up of representatives of producers and consumers.

Clause five assumes a "transition period" during the existence of the present system, saying—

  "Before the final stage is reached, the Socialist movement must accept as intermediate systems only those which promote its ultimate aim : for instance, any scheme of nationalisation or municipalisation (a) must give the workers in the industry an effective control over and responsibility for its administration, (b) must tend to eliminate capitalism and prevent, the creation of new means of financial exploitation, etc. "

The N.A.C. are evidently much confused with regard to the meaning of the word system. The fact that the capitalists of a country may decide to buy out the capitalists of a given industry or service and run it collectively through the State, does not constitute a new system. It does not even disguise the old one, as anybody can see by examining the position of the workers in the Post Office and other institutions that have been either nationalised, or municipalised.

Exploitation is effected to-day by capitalists organised in companies, trusts, combines, and groups. The individual capitalist owns shares in a company or a number of companies and draws dividends according to his holding. When his company becomes amalgamated with others the tendency is to increase the security of his shares ; consequently the bigger the amalgamation the greater the security, and the biggest amalgamation is the State itself. The capitalist, however, in order that he may be assured of his dividends, must be able to control his capital, which is, for the time being, incorporated in the machinery and buildings of the company. The management of the concern is, therefore, placed in the hands of those who will run it in the interest of shareholders like himself. But whether the concern is small or large, the management must be free to run it solely in the interests of the owners; it is therefore ridiculous to suppose that the workers will be granted "effective control" over the administration of any industry. The capitalist class control because they own, but what enables them to own and control is the physical force at their command because they dominate the political machinery of the State.

The N.A.C. lays it down that the Socialist movement must only accept intermediate systems that give the workers effective control or tend to eliminate capitalism. If they wait until the ruling class offer them such systems they will wait till the crack of doom. On the other hand, if the ruling class find it to their advantage to nationalise any industry or service, the workers will be unable to prevent them doing so while they control the machinery of government.

Clause six is entitled "immediate objects" : and provides for "(a) the co-ordination and development of Trade Union organisation with a view to the securing of full working class solidarity and the obtaining of control over industry." Working-class solidarity on these lines must always be elusive because of the ever-increasing competition among the workers for jobs. But even if complete solidarity were possible control would still be beyond the reach of the workers for reasons already given.

And "(b) the strengthening and expansion of the Co-operative movement, with a view to making it the effective representative of the domestic consumer in the future Socialist Commonwealth."

Thus the number of interests that will have to be represented under Socialism continues to grow according to I.L.P notions, because the party dare not frighten away possible supporters by exposing the futility of their freak ideas—or does a freak party attract freaks?— ideas embodied in movements that can only flourish during the present system because they promise some slight measure of relief from its hardships and poverty ; though always promised without fulfilment.

Thus the N.A.C. prophesy a system made up of consumers, domestic consumers, producers and co-operators, organisations (local and national), and administrative councils representing each interest. They have not the faintest notion that when the workers have the necessary knowledge to establish Socialism, they will know how to arrange their intercourse with each other for the purpose of satisfying their material needs on the most simple and direct lines.

Production for profit is just as much the principle of the co-operative movement as it is of the capitalist system itself. The co-operative movement has been in the hands of the small capitalists for many years. But even if the ideas of its founders had been strictly followed out, and all the profits shared among working-class members, it would none the less be a system in which the producers were exploited by the members. And the fact that the producers might be members themselves would not enable them to get back anything but the smallest fraction of the results of their robbery.

The proposed international policy of the I.L.P. is embodied in clause seven, which reads as follows:

  "Realising that imperialism and war waged by capitalist governments constitute the greatest hindrances to the attainment of Socialism, the I.L.P believes that it is incumbent upon Socialists to destroy imperialism and render war impossible ; it therefore aims at the fullest development of the international working-class movement, at the most effective action by that movement for the prevention of war and the liberation of subject peoples, and at aiding by every means in its power, the victory of the working class in all lands. "

This clause proves that the N.A.C. does not yet realise that "capitalist imperialism and war" cannot be abolished until capitalism itself is abolished. This is evidenced by their reference to subject peoples. The Socialist is only concerned with the subjection of the working class, and not at all with the subjection of one capitalist State by another. Once the workers of any country have been robbed of the results of their labour it does not matter a tinker's anathema to them whether the robbers retain their plunder, or are compelled to share it with other members of the robber class.

Clause eight is entitled "Method," and is a good example of the I.L.P. method of becoming all things to all men. It reads :

  "In pursuance of these objects, the I.L.P. realises that, owing to the fact that elections under the existing British Parliamentary system frequently result in false and inadequate representation, and enables governments to manipulate and thwart the national will, it may be necessary on specific occasions for the organised workers to use extra-political means, such as direct action. "

The first part of this statement is altogether misleading. Under the British electoral system the workers have only to obtain a majority for Socialism over other parties and it is impossible to thwart them in their determination to establish it.

Then, without committing themselves to any "specific occasions," the N.A.C. angle for the Direct Actionists' support. If this clause is accepted by the workers, then a minority of labour members in the House of Commons, unable to enforce any measure of little or much importance, could cause endless suffering to the workers by a call for Direct Action.

In conclusion, this latest attempt to draw up a programme that makes clear the working-class position in modern society, together with the way to emancipation, is another miserable failure. It does not even show the common ground upon which the workers of all lands must unite. While prating about the exploitation of the workers, it neglects to show how this exploitation is effected, or on what basis society must be organised in order to end it.

If the rank and file of the I.L.P. intend to consider this new programme seriously, let them compare it with the Object and principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, when its absurdities and shortcomings will become apparent to them, and they will be fully equipped to take part in the proposed discussion.

F. Foan

One Thousand Pound Fund. (1920)

Party News from the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New Heroes. (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "Daily News" of October 25th published the following note and comment:

  "The estate of the late Mr. Andrew Carnegie has been finally certified at 23¼ million dollars (nominally £4,650,000).
"By law only half of this amount is available for public bequests, which are therefore reduced by ten millions during the life of the widow, unless she elects to make gifts.
"[When Mr. Carnegie's will was published in August, 1919, the estate was estimated at between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. Gifts during the testator's lifetime exceeded £70,000,000. Annuities under the will included £2,000 a year to Mr. Lloyd George, £2,000 a year to Lord Morley, £1,000 a year to Mr. John Burns, and £1,000 a year to Mr. John Burt.]"

Mr. Andrew Carnegie must have been class-conscious in a very high degree to have recognised the heroes mentioned in the liberal way he has.

John Burns, Lloyd George & Co. are once more seen in their right setting, as champions of the robber class of which Carnegie was a typical representative.

Carnegie is still thought by some to be a great benefactor of the working class, because he has bequeathed a few libraries to his fellow capitalists, to enable their wage slaves readily and cheaply to take in the mental dope which is stored on those libraries' shelves.

Yes! Carnegie was class-conscious. He recognised the necessity of keeping working class minds inoculated with the poisonous matter which comprises the bulk of the literature contained in his libraries. He also recognised the valuable services which men like Lloyd George and John Burns have rendered to him and his class. The "honest John," as some used to know him—the supporter of butcher Asquith and his shooting of the miners at Featherstone. Lloyd George, the great bamboozler, the silver-tongued betrayer.

Yes! they are the Carnegie war heroes; they were the valiant supporters of the class war, waged in full consciousness by Carnegie and his fellow capitalists. Strange as it may appear, no bequests are made to the million and one heroes who bled to death, who were blown to death, who were frozen to death in the great European war just ended, to defend the property and interests of the murdering Carnegie class, the capitalist class.

Yet perhaps it is not so strange, for fellow wage slave, Carnegie was class-conscious.

When will you. become so, and join with us in waging the only war worth while—the class war—in order to dethrone capitalism's gang of thieves and inaugurate the Socialist co-operative Commonwealth ?

O.C.I.

A Plaster for a Wooden Leg. (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Threefold State. The True Aspect of the Social Question. By Dr. Rudolf Steiner. London: G. Allen & Unwin, Ltd. 5s. net.

The Adaptability of Capitalism.

Capitalism is a wonderful system of society. Its powers of production are colossal: its products more amazing than any dream of the Arabian Nights. Huge structures, mighty engines, gigantic ships, tremendous means of transport, mark its march across the earth. But along with the giant powers and products exist problems of such seeming complexity, and so far-reaching in their effects, that all the spokesmen, defenders, apologists, and believers in the system are bewildered at the appalling appearance of these problems, and vainly seek a solution within the limits of the system.

Their failure to find such a solution raises the hopes of those who, with fiery enthusiasm taking the place of knowledge, look to the overthrow of capitalism as a result of the insolubility of these problems, in the immediate future.

Capitalism, however, has shown remarkable powers of recovery from shocks, and it is easy to overestimate the speed at which it may succumb to its own contradictions.

The world war lasting over four years was a terrific strain upon its powers ; yet it not only supported millions of men as combatants, but supplied stupendous quantities of materials of a solely destructive character in addition to maintaining both the combatants and the producers.

The Strain of "Peace."

If ever, it stood the shock of a mighty war tolerably well, it is sustaining the shock of partial peace badly. The inherent contradictions of the system come to the front with greater force because the war pushed forward mechanical and scientific developments in industry as a hothouse develops the growth of a plant. As a result of this development the problems inevitably bound up with capitalism loom larger, show sharper, and press harder than before.

Pannicky "Intellectuals."

Apologists and defenders of capitalism are growing uneasy, and even alarmed, at the menacing aspects of these problems. The bolder of them seek for some reorganisation of the system that, while it leaves the capitalists secure, will palliate the evils existing. In this country perhaps the chief example of this idea is Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb's Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth.

It is claimed that on the Continent the chief work on this subject is Dr. Rudolph Steiner's Threefold State. The collapse of Austria as a result of the war, and the appalling condition of Eastern Europe generally, have shown the evils and dangers of the present situation more clearly there than they appear here. Under such conditions the primary need for food places all else in a secondary position. Hence the professional sections find themselves pushed into the background and in danger of being submerged in the chaos.

Sounding the Alarm.

This book, with its threefold State as a solution for the evils of capitalism, is a vivid expression of the professional's attempt to restore order out of confusion.

The author first draws attention to the attitude of the working class. He warns the master class that the workers have become "class-conscious," are students of Marx, and are developing a scientific mode of thought.

He claims

that the most powerful driving force in the world of labour is the system of thought," and says that it is to some extent the first of its kind in the world to take its stand solely on a scientific basis. (P. 34.)

According to him the great evil of the present system is not that it robs the workers of the material wealth they have produced, though the fact of the robbery is admitted, but —

It is because machinery and capitalism could give the working man nothing to fill and satisfy his soul as a human being that the working class movement was driven to seek for its fount of inspiration in the direction of modern science. (P. 12.)

What the Workers Want

It is true that the worker is not really conscious of this "soul aspiration" and if asked would deny it, claiming that what is required is freedom from exploitation ; but our author denies that such freedom alone would solve the problem, and on page 34 asks :

Suppose we find anywhere signs that there is a life of the soul having its source in the spirit of the times, bearing mankind up and down with it as it goes, and rooted in a spiritual reality, then from this soul life may come the force which shall give the right impulse to the social movement also.

and on page 87 he says that —

in the domain of mind and spirit there reigns a reality that transcends material external circumstances and bears within itself its own matter and substance.

Meaningless jargon of this sort prepares the reader for the author's remedies. According to him human societies should function in three independent but connected channels. He admits that to-day the economic factor pervades — nay overrides — all other activities in society but this he holds is one of the great causes of the growing chaos. Mankind has three sides to its character, and the State should be reformed in harmony with these characteristics.

Here is the New Utopia.

First should come the Economic State, concerned with the production, circulation and consumption of commodities.

Secondly should come the "Equity State" that deals with the common rights, the relation of man and man in social affairs.

Thirdly there is the "Spiritual State." This "must comprise all that concerns the life of the mind and spirit" or "everything that must play a part in the body social by reason of those natural attributes of the individual being, whether those aptitudes be qualities of mind or body." (P. 57.) Here we reach a world of shadow and vagueness, in fact, the only thing standing out clear and definite in this threefold State is that private property in the means of life will still

The Equity State must not prevent the formation and control of private property in capital, so long as the connection between the capital-basis and individual ability remains such that the private control implies a service to the whole body social. (P. 131)

Nothing New Under the Sun.

It is to be under control that is on lines curiously similar to those laid down in the British Government's new Agricultural Bill, where, having guaranteed the farmers a price for their goods, it is enacted that if a farmer does not carry on production efficiently the Government will take control of the land.

Dr. Steiner's scheme covers all branches of production, but there the Government does not take control itself, but merely hands the business on to another capitalist or group. The capitalist concerned, however, will have the right to pick out an individual or group to whom the property shall be transferred.

Under this section the worker is not to treated as a commodity, but must have "the conditions of a decent human existence." These conditions being a question of man to man, will be arranged by the "equity State." To prevent the latter becoming contaminated by economic interests it must be rigidly excluded from any management of economic processes and must get rid of those now managed by the State, such as the Post Office, etc.

Forgotten Trifles. 

Who, then, shall decide the conditions of production ? The Spiritual State. This State will lay down the methods and details of the economic system, though the management will be in the hands of the Economic State.

The Spiritual State will lay down rules for guidance in Education— but not State Education. The author's ideal is to see State Education completely abolished, and all education left to private persons. Children are to have the "right to education," and the father of a family will have an income in excess of that of a single man to provide for his children's education.

The critical reader may here ask "How are these States to be formed?" the answer to which will be that of Masefield's vagabond—"Dunno." Whether they are to be elected or selected, nominated or appointed, hereditary or periodical, the author does not say. It is all left in beautiful, vague, one might almost say "spiritual" condition.

Steiner's Ignorance. 

How deeply the author has gone in his examination of present conditions is shown by his statements about the "useful functions" of the capitalists, and his childish belief that the "entrepreneur"—or "initiator" as his translator calls-it—still exists in modern capitalism. He has no idea that the same factor in economic development killed both these personalities at the same time. The joint stock company wound up the "useful functions" of the capitalist and converted the initiator into a salaried servant.

A Funk Hole Book.

The book is an interesting example of the attempts of the "non-productive labourers"—as Loria calls the "intellectuals"—to produce a plan that will show the capitalists a solution to their present difficulties, while still leaving them a ruling class, and which will lead the workers on another wild-goose chase by promising them a decent existence.

How imbecile these attempts are is shown by one simple factor in the system of capitalism.

Under private ownership of the means of life goods are produced to sell. In order to sell there must be buyers—that is, people able to purchase. Mere desire for, or even pressing need for,. The goods is not sufficient. One must be able to produce the cash. The market will thus be determined by the number of buyers multiplied by their purchasing power. Every student of economic development knows that the methods of production have improved and increased by leaps and bounds until the products have gone far beyond both the increase of buyers and their purchasing power. To meet this situation one of two courses must be followed.

Dubious Alternatives.

Either the workers must have their hours of work reduced until, even with increased means of production, only the amount of commodities required by the market is produced, or a sufficient number of workers must be thrown out of work to allow the remainder to stay at production to turn out the goods required.

The capitalists, of course, have not the slightest intention of adopting the first method. The second is in full swing now, though modified by a few doles.

The idiotic paradox of millions of producers being in want because they have produced so lavishly that their products are piled all around them will not be abolished by patching up administration. The evil is rooted in the private ownership of the means of life, and cannot be cured until that ownership is abolished.

Fabian quackeries and Austrian paper lids on volcanoes are equally ineffective. The only remedy is for the workers to capture political power and use it to abolish capitalism root and branch.

Jack Fitzgerald

The Alarm (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the most important possessions of the average worker is an alarm clock: In most households it is handled with great care, and even reverence. Without it part of the wages of the breadwinner is in jeopardy, for tardy arrival at the workshop, factory, etc., results in the loss of a certain portion of the “reward of toil."

Notwithstanding the fact that most large workshops and factories have a bell or steam siren, the alarm clock is the household autocrat. The wives of our masters purchase them for their domestic servants, knowing that mechanical noise is necessary to combat nature when sleep has claimed the tired victim of prolonged hours of toil.

Very few members of the working class can claim to be opponents of Mother Nature, in so far as their bodies are prepared for toil hours before King Sol has reared his crest, or morning mists and fogs have disappeared. Therefore there is a constant. demand for alarm clocks. The workers of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, prior to the war, made them in thousands for sale all over the world. There was a dearth during the war, murder and munition making being the two principle industries engaging the labour of the working class, to the detriment of dock production. Now, however, the wage slaves of Europe, being back at their benches, machines, or any industry where daylight counts for nought, the alarm clock is once more obeyed. What is more, the necessity of this mechanical horror will always be recognised, while the capitalist system lasts. Before you buy your next ask yourself why you need one. Perhaps its humorous or sardonic face (according to your mood) will answer, especially when the large hand points directly up, arid the small hand directly down, and the furious ringing assails your dimly conscious mind. 

Workers, listen! Can you not hear the alarm of proletarian insistence? Wake to it; realise your own strength and power. There is no reason why your slavery should last a day longer. But remember that the emancipation of the working class must necessarily be the work of the working class itself.

The capitalist class welcome the introduction of any reform that does not interfere with profit. Production must be for use and not for profit, and alarm clocks relegated to the home of the antiques.

W. A. G.