Sunlight. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

You know, fellow-workers, that we live in a democratic age. The great ones of the earth walk without ceremony amongst men. You have perhaps heard, and in part believed, how the Prince of Wales at the Royal Garden Party did not wear, but merely carried his gloves ; how the Queen permitted two amateurs to take her photograph, and Prince George laughed at a Punch and Judy show. It may be, too, that at your annual beano you have rubbed shoulders with that aristocracy of wealth which, except at these hallowed seasons, you apprehend but dimly as the beneficent power that feeds, clothes, and shelters you —sometimes; have been privileged to return a respectful answer to a man-to-man query, and to cheer when the gentry departed in its car. But with all this I wonder if you quite realise how democratic we have grown? Do you know that several thousands of our brothers in toil, by the scheme of co-partnership which operates at Port Sunlight, are knit with both the plutocracy and the royal family—united in the exalted purpose of serving human need and a pressing need at that—soap! Well, they are.

“The Marquis of Carisbrooke” (the Star told us one evening), “eldest son of Princess Beatrice and cousin to the King, has joined the Board of Lever Brothers, Limited. . . It is not generally known that many members of the Royal Family have very substantial holdings in Lever Brothers.” Now then !

See what advantage there is in being born in the era of capitalism. Formerly you might as well have sought admission to the circle of seraphim as to the royal circle. There are records of such things, of course, but the terms were much harder: wounds, hunger, and more than a sporting chance of death. You remember Henry the Fifth’s words to his army :

  “For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition.”

But nowadays, bless you, you have only to get a job at Port Sunlight, and you automatically become a partaker in glory, although, as our friend Uriah would say, “only a very ‘umble one.”

Oh, the ennobled ones appreciate the honour ! Indeed yes ; and some other things even more than the honour. For example, there was an enthusiastic meeting in July of the ‘umble partners of Lever Bros., to hear presented by Lord Leverhulme a new scheme of benefits intended to be introduced on October 1st. The arrangement, briefly, provides half-pay when there is no work, the same during four weeks of sickness or longer at the discretion of the company, and a free life insurance. And the Star, reporting, and rubbing its hands over the excellence of the scheme, declared: “Labour and capital together can produce the means for these and greater benefits if we can once eliminate the theory that they are antagonistic. Pulling together they could make the whole world one huge Port Sunlight.”

Be sure they could ! One slight alteration will render the Star quite correct. For “eliminate the theory” you must read “disguise the fact”; for the theory of the class-war has a way of realising itself in everyday experience. With this reservation, its truth is evident. Given the present great and potential greater productivity of labour; if the capitalist will only be a little patient for his dividends, and the worker will overcome his foolish prejudice against going on half-rations during sickness and slack trade, the thing is done. You can have a docile and industrious proletariat, a rich and unharassed master-class, an absence of trade disputes, a smoothly, running industrial machine; in short, an ideal capitalist world—a huge Port Sunlight.

And if that is what you want, fellow-workers, well and good. But—I wonder just why you should select for yourselves a life of labour and for your co-partners a life of ease: for yourselves a modest level of comfort and culture, for them the utmost of luxury: for you the cheap cap and the ready-made suit, for them the silk hat and the coronet. In what does Leverhulme or Carisbrooke differ from you? They look much like you; sleeker, perhaps, but not so handsome as many a workman at Port Sunlight. Can they be more brainy than the men who planned the factories and designed the plant? Put them down in the wilderness : could they any better than you preserve and provide for themselves? Only by virtue of one advantage do they enjoy the best of what the partnership produces: they are the owners of the factories, of the machines, of the product. Such a collaboration resembles that of the fox and the wolf. You recall the wolf’s daily chant? “Red Fox, get me something to eat, or I will eat you.” But the fox had an eye to his own interest. When the opportunity came he took it—and good-bye wolf; whereas Lord Leverhulme’s scheme, the Evening Standard tells us, was “enthusiastically adopted.” Ah, but the wolf was less wise than Leverhulme. Instead of “Get me something to eat or I will eat you,” he should have said: “Brother fox, little partner, to provide you with meals is the first aim of our enterprise. I am the director of it. Feed me well, therefore, that I may the better discharge my beneficent mission.” He might then have been able, like Leverhulme, to say: “I have always had the good fortune to be supported.”

Here the prince of soap, candles, margarine, fish, and several other things, may certainly congratulate himself: for without: the support of the employees of his many companies, he would stand no higher than they stand themselves. Their support it is that has lifted him above them, placed him in luxury and increased his power. “I was supported,” he tells us, “by a sweet lady who consented to be my wife . . . all through her life she supported me. I am now supported by my son and my colleagues on the board.”

Excellent, my lord: and you, your amiable wife, your son, and your colleagues (royalty included), have all been supported by whom? . . . The pillars of the glittering edifice are they from whose profitable labour your fortunes are drawn. Fifty years ago you were able to gather your father’s whole staff in the room above his grocery shop in Bolton. From that gathering to this at Port Sunlight in July last, your career is a business romance ; and what has been your rôle in it all ? You have been the bringer together of human labour power and means of production: you have also been the appropriator of the product. To your employees you have allotted, first, the cost of their keep and reproduction, that you may have a plentiful supply of workers always at call; second, a fraction of your profits, that they may have an interest in keeping them high; and now such provisions as, making away to some extent with the insecurity of their modest livelihood, shall further bind them to you in content and loyalty. The first for your own sake you must do; for the two last the resulting high level of production amply recompenses you. In this you are the type of the far-seeing capitalist.

In so far as you have personally directed your concerns, you have done useful work, you have produced value: but you will not pretend that your fortune represents the value of your services alone. It has been built by the unpaid labour of those whom you employ. The worker may not blame you. So long as we leave the organisation of production in private hands, we can look for no other kind of co-partnership. But we are slowly learning that the “captain of industry” can do nothing which we cannot do better ourselves. A little while now, and “Sceptre and crown will tumble down,” and many an immaculate “topper” with them. When that day comes, my lord, directive genius will be used in the service of the people, and rewarded by the people, not allowed as yours is to-day, to reward itself. Make the most of your time !

A.

Blogger's Note:

I'm not sure why but I still just sign these articles as 'A.' (as they appeared in the Socialist Standard) when it is plainly obvious now that 'A.' was Alex Anderson. I do now have Anderson included in the labels and when I'm not such a lazy git, I will at some point go through all the 'A' articles and relabel/re-sign them as Alex Anderson. He should be properly remembered. 

Editorial: Election Reflections. (1922)

Editorial from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The General Election is over and, according to the spokesmen of each party, everybody is satisfied—even Lloyd George is reported to have said that the result is as he expected. Curiously enough, in the “Daily Chronicle" (22/11/22) he contends that under proportional representation his group would have done better, and suggests that the question of representation is an important matter that should occupy the new Government. Strange he uttered no word of this in 1918 when a similar thing happened—he waited until it affected him adversely before he said anything on the subject.

The Coalition swept into victory with a large majority in 1918, and now with the swing of the pendulum the Coalition has been swept out of office.

It is the workers who have mainly accomplished this feat. They have done so because they lack the particular knowledge that would enable them to see how hollow are the pretensions of every candidate who put up, and how futile it is, from a working-class standpoint, to change Tweedledum for Tweedledee. As a matter of fact, the same party (Conservative) that had a majority in the last Parliament has the majority in the new, but they have now knocked the word “Coalition” out of their title—that is the essential difference ! As we pointed out in our election manifesto, the change of Government was an excuse to make certain changes of policy more suitable to the Imperialists who control affairs. 

According to the returns over 13,000,000 people voted in this election ; that is, over 3,000,000 more than in 1918.

As in 1918, so now—the Liberals endeavour to cover their sweeping defeat by claiming that under proportional representation their figures would have been higher. There is no guarantee that such would be the case, as under proportional representation all parties would be represented in each constituency, which might alter the whole complexion of affairs in almost any direction. There was no Socialist candidate put forward in this election, but still, as in 1918, we can claim some consolation prizes.

For example: Dundee has given Winsome Winston the noble order of the boot. In 1919 C. B. Stanton was hoping for “the resumption of the pre-war Royal Garden Parties where their Majesties met members of the House of Commons.” Now, alas! his luck was out and so is he (although he ran as a Liberal against Labour)—no more Royal Garden Parties for him for awhile.

Havelock Wilson is another “failure,” as South Shields turned him down. Colonel Claude Lowther, some time Chairman of the Anti-Socialist Union, got less than a third of the votes at Carlisle and also failed to get in.

Lieut.-Col. John Ward and the Rt. Hon. G. H. Roberts have risen to the distinguished position of running as Liberals against their former Labour associates.

That celebrated strike seller, emigration and military tout, Ben Tillett, squeezed in by a majority of 19 (a minority of the total poll) at Salford, and a chip of the same block, Dan Irving, “worked the oracle” again at Burnley. Bill Thorne also turns up once more.

The voting in the elections was roughly as follows :—

Conservatives    5,500,000

Liberals              4,000,000

Labour               4,250,000

Other Parties        400,000 odd

In other words, 13½ million people voted against Socialism the other day in this country, and many hundred thousands were too indifferent and apathetic to vote at all ! And yet there are people who lately waited on the tiptoe of expectancy for revolution to stalk abroad in the land at any moment.

The Labour Party is jubilant over their large return of 142 members. How was it obtained? A glance at the list of members returned on the Labour programme reveals how very respectable the Labour Party has become. K.C.s, Rt. Hons., clergymen. Army officers, doctors, and other professional place hunters, together with landowners and successful business men, figure in the list.

The entrance of the lawyers is highly significant. They are usually found where there is a promise of plums, and their support of the Labour Party’s policy suggests that this policy promises to be fruitful— with a particular brand of plums !

It is worth noting, in passing, that over fifty Labour candidates were returned by a minority of the poll in three-cornered contests, so that the majority of their constituents are not in favour of such candidates. It is also worthy of note that Labour candidates received a considerable amount of Liberal support. The “Daily News” advised its supporters to vote Labour where there was no Independent Liberal, and backed in particular such candidates as H. Gosling, Emil Davies, and Holford Knight. A further point is that in this election the Labour Party put forward far more candidates than ever before.

When these points are weighed along with the increased vote at the election, and the nondescript nature of the Labour candidates, it takes some of the edge off “Labour’s Victory.”

The Liberals find such a similarity of outlook between themselves and the Labour Party that they can forget their own wounds in rejoicing over the “success” of Labour. For instance :—

  “There will undoubtedly be a real Parliamentary Opposition in the new House, for both Labour and the Liberals have secured the return of many of those leaders whose exclusion robbed the last House of distinction.”—Daily News, 17/11/22.

These “leaders” who have returned to adorn the House of Commons include Ramsay MacDonald (who supported the War) and Philip Snowden (who justified the use of military in strikes).

The Labour Party were determined to have these “adornments” replaced, so they scoured the country for “safe” constituencies. Blackburn, Leicester, and Woolwich were cold-shouldered and Glamorgan and Colne Valley “honoured” by the choice. The “New Leader” (17/11/22) states : “My first day in Colne Valley convinced me that here Philip Snowden had found the right constituency.” Yet although Snowden and MacDonald were returned in each case, they only succeeded in obtaining a minority of the poll. Further down the author of the above quotation makes the following illuminating statement: “I had the relative satisfaction, in the absence of any Labour candidate, of voting for a Liberal woman who opposed two particularly unsympathetic Tories.” The dear, sympathetic fellow ! This further illustrates how short is the step between Labour and Liberal.

Finally the “Observer” (19/11/22) very shrewdly summed up the position as follows :—

  “In summary, it may be said that the Labour Party has at last become national as distinct from class. And one may sleep comfortably in ones bed because the moderate reformers enormously outnumber those who would raze the social structure to its foundations.”

The “Observer” is quite correct. The capitalist class have little to fear and the working class little to gain by the return of the “Labour men” ; the past records of many of them are convincing enough on this point.

There is one important fact, however, to which we must draw attention in connection with the large “Labour” poll. The Labour Party put forward over 400 candidates, out of which 142 were elected. Of the number elected 72 were for seats gained. A glance over the list of places where seats have been gained would reveal the fact that they are just those places where a strong industrialist propaganda (propaganda against participation in Parliament) has been carried on, and where the disastrous effects of “direct action” have been experienced. For example: Aberavon, Merthyr Tydvil (2), Swansea, Neath, Abertillery—all in the South Wales coal area, the beloved “red” area of the Communists. In Durham, out of 11 constituencies the Labour Party gained 7, held 3, and lost 1! Accrington, Newcastle, Rutherglen (Lanark), Wallsend, and Whitehaven are other illustrations of Labour gains in coal areas.

Taking these facts along with the further fact that over 70 per cent. of those on the register voted, some idea will be obtained of how the pendulum is swung back from “direct action” to constitutional action.

In the case of W. Adamson, G. H. Hirst, G. Barker and T. W. Grundy, the other parties combined to make them a present of their seat. This is particularly significant in the case of G. Barker (a pet of the Communists and Plebs leaders), who played a part in the miners’ betrayal last year.

The Communists put up two candidates (W. Gallagher and J. T. Walton Newbold) officially, two others were put up in disguise (J. Vaughan and Walter Windsor), one was put up by the unemployed, of which they did not hear until afterwards (Geddes), and they backed another (S. Saklatvala), who was not a member of their Party. It will be interesting to observe the “State machinery smashing efforts” of their only successful candidate, Walton Newbold.

The Moulders of Public Opinion. (1922)

Pamphlet Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Observant readers, who are not aware of the forces behind the Press, must have often wondered why the same company will sometimes run Liberal and Tory papers or, more significant still, why the same paper will at one time support one party and at another time support the opponents of that party. An important array of facts and figures explaining these and many other apparently bewildering actions of popular daily and weekly papers, is given in the exceedingly useful pamphlet issued by The Labour Research Department, 162, Buckingham Palace Road, under the terse title of “The Press.” Why one set of papers will change with every alteration of the political weathercock—except when they change oftener—while another set remain steadfast to a given policy year in and year out, is explained here in the cold, calculating terms of finance and figures. Altogether this excellent publication, at the price of 6d., is well worth the study of every worker, whether man or woman.

"What We Want and Why." (1922)

Book Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The above is the title of an attempt on the part of six leading lights of the Trade Union world to hide their lack of any common definite object, save that of misleading the workers from the road to emancipation. We are obliged to tell the publishers [Collins] frankly that they have issued a rather expensive 7s. 6d. article. None of the contributors are particularly clear as to what they want, while as to why they want it, they are vaguer still.

The ambitions of Mr. J. H. Thomas would, apparently, be satisfied with an efficient railway service, to be secured, presumably, by “nationalisation.” He is very keen on convincing his readers that he is not out for “aggression.” “Peace and economy” are his watchwords. The interests of the railway servants take second place with him, even if they can be said to have a place at all. He shows the waste going on under such relics of the competitive system as exist, but fails to show how the elimination of that waste would assist the employee ; and keeps dark the fact that economy under capitalism simply means getting the same amount of work done with fewer men. The concentration of the railways in the hands of a capitalist State is only a means to the accomplishment of that end. For this reason it is somewhat difficult to follow Mr. Thomas when he asserts that, “with State ownership we could see a possibility of improving the general condition of the worker” (p. 17). As he himself points out (p. 24), where State ownership exists, as in several countries on the Continent, the chief beneficiaries are the business firms who obtain concessions.

Mr. Thomas attaches very great importance to the machinery of conciliation between the workers and the bosses, yet on page 26 we are told that “no machinery can have the slightest value unless it is operated with good-will on the part of both interests.” Why should good-will obtain between parties whose interests are diametrically opposed to one another? To that question Mr. Thomas provides no answer.

He shows that the workers by strict observance of the companies’ rules could practically “stop the service” (p. 28), but “I should personally never favour such action.” He leaves it to his colleague Bromley to point out that the companies are not so squeamish. They have no hesitation in using their rules to send a man to prison if it suits their purpose (p. 176). It is the old story. The workers are advised to be peaceful and to leave their case to their leaders what time the bosses do as they like. And this is the gentleman who poses, and is accepted by the workers, as their champion !

Robert Williams, of the Transport Workers’ Federation, would have us believe that he is a Socialist, yet does not condescend in the space afforded by fifty pages to give us a clear definition of Socialism, nor any hint as to how it is to be brought about. He appears to be much more concerned to excuse and justify the treacherous activity of the leaders of the Triple Alliance, on the ground of trade depression and increasing unemployment. Although the workers were organised in much greater numbers than ever before, and he admits that the need for militancy was just as great as it ever had been, he pretends that the rout has been nothing more than an inevitable retreat carried out in an orderly manner. He fails to show that the real cause of the trouble has been the lack of understanding and mental solidarity on the part of the workers themselves; for which he, Robert Williams, and his colleagues are, in view of their opportunities, largely responsible by default. Williams advances some timid criticism of the Labour Party’s association with the Coalition during the war, and attributes their defeat at the General Election (1918) to this cause. The logical process by which he arrives at this conclusion is somewhat obscure. In any case, the Labour Party’s policy from the date of its inception has never been guided by any intelligible principle, so that Mr. Williams has only himself to blame if he has been disappointed in it. If he really wanted Socialism he would abandon the Labour Party to its inevitable fate, dishonour and disruption !

Tom Mann, in “The Case for the Engineers,” provides a little variety, inasmuch as he makes some pretence at analysing the existing order and offering an alternative ; yet here, again, the alternative is not defined with any degree of clarity. “Economic change” is mentioned, but its precise character is not stated; while as to the means whereby it is to be accomplished, we are referred vaguely to “industrial action.”

“The Politicians,” by whom, presumably, Mann means the Labour Party, are superficially criticised. Their faith in Parliament and constitutional methods is attacked, but their political treachery and duplicity are not mentioned. Mann appears to be utterly oblivious of the fact that Parliament controls the armed forces of the nation and is not likely to stand meekly by while the “men in the workshop” do as they like. The political machine is the only means whereby the workers can give public and effective expression to any common aim and purpose which they may develop as a class. For that reason the Socialist advocates its use. To leave it in the hands of the masters is sheer criminal stupidity !

Coming back to the engineers, Mann endeavours to illustrate the power of industrial action by instancing the hopelessness of asking for a rise in wages from Parliament. He fails to see that the same workers who are asking for a rise have sent their enemies to the seat of government. Are people in such a mental condition ready to emancipate themselves by any action, industrial or otherwise? Further, how can struggles on the industrial field over wages, hours, etc., lead to freedom from wage-slavery? Mann appears to hold that the industrial organisations will gradually assume control of the worshops and pay all wages, etc. Are the masters, therefore, going to surrender their profits. And, if not, what advantage will the worker obtain by drawing the price of slavery through his branch secretary?

Real control centres in the possession of the means of production, and the fight for that possession must take the form of political action. Capitalist property will exist just so long as the capitalist class are left in control of forces which protect that property.

Mr. Noah Ablett illustrates from details of his own experiences the destructive conditions under which the miners toil. When, however, he deals with remedies he becomes extremely confused. He condemns private ownership on account of the antagonism of interests which it involves, and yet advocates a programme of reforms which will become meaningless as soon as private ownership is dispensed with. One is thus driven to the conclusion that by the elimination of private ownership he simply means “nationalisation,” which, for reasons already stated, can offer no gain to the workers. In order to make this clearer, let us proceed to Mr. Bromley’s article.

Mr. Bromley covers much the same ground as J. H. Thomas, but gives a more definite description of what “nationalisation” amounts to. On pages 186-7 we read, “two unions very carefully drafted a Bill for the complete nationalisation of the railways. . . . It proposes the purchase of railways stocks and shares through the medium of Government Stock . . . charged on the State railway undertaking and the Consolidated Fund, which shall bear such a rate of interest as would enable it at the time of issue to be realised at par.” Thus “nationalisation” simply transforms the capitalists . . . concerned from shareholders in a private concern into Government Stock holders still living on the workers by means of the rate of interest !

Mrs. P. Snowden deals with the competition existing between the sexes in the working class. Her “ultimate ideal” is the “payment for work, irrespective of sex, of such a wage as no man or woman would be afraid or ashamed to accept” (p. 214). Albeit, she has previously pointed out that the existing “industrial system does not scruple to play off women against men in attempts to lessen the costs of production by reducing the wages bill” (p. 212). She wants the capitalist system minus one of its principal and essential features, the subsistence level of wages. Curiously enough, on page 261, discussing the necessity of finding work for an ever-increasing number of women, she says that “This can only be done satisfactorily when the social system of the present has given place to a new order, in which all the instruments of labour are in the hands of the community as a whole.” The force and significance of this admission do not appear to strike her, however, as she proceeds on the next page to propose all sorts of ameliorations in the worker’s lot without the slightest hint as to how they are to be accomplished. Further, she advocates the technical education of women and girls, apparently blind to the fact that hundreds of technically trained men are at the present moment searching in vain for a purchaser of their labour power. She fails to point out that the women, no less than the men, of the working class need to realise that they are slaves. This is the essential preliminary to any improvement.

So long as the capitalist class control the means of life, every economy and every improvement in the education, health, and technical ability of the workers, male and female, only results in their becoming more productive slaves. The fruits of their increased productivity go to the masters and not to themselves. This is the central fact ignored or obscured by these so-called leaders of labour.

Whether the workers follow the Labour Party “to nationalisation” plus reforms, or the Industrialist leaders to “workshop control” plus reforms, they are doomed to disappointment. The only road to emancipation is the conversion of the means of life into the property of the whole people. To this end we call upon the workers to organise consciously, and politically for the capture of the machinery of government.

Socialism, undiluted and unadulterated, is what the Socialist Party wants. As to why we want it, only look around you. Millions of willing producers are compelled to be idle while they need food, clothing, housing, etc., and the means exist ready to hand whereby they can produce them ! Generations of workers have put their faith in legislative reforms and strikes, but we are as far away as ever from economic security. 

The Social Revolution offers the only way out. Muster, then, under our banner, with a view to its speedy accomplishment.

Eric Boden

£1000 Fund (1922)

Party News from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Plebs" and Pounds. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the temporary boom that followed the Armistice began to decline, the capitalist class instructed its agents in Press and on platform to give forth “reasons” for prices remaining high in this country, despite the wage reductions that were being enforced in all directions. One of the favourite "reasons” put forward to explain this apparent puzzle was "the inflation of the currency.” Tory and Liberal politicians, as well as economists from Cassel to J. A. Hobson, repeated this parrot cry without offering the slightest evidence in support of it.

The Labour Party conducted a so-called investigation into the matter of high prices and borrowed, without examination, the assertion of “inflation,” and gave it as one of the chief causes of those high prices.

An article appeared in the July, 1920, Socialist Standard, which, among other things, made a brief reference to this point of ‘‘inflation.” This called forth some correspondence that was dealt with in the September and November, 1920, and April, 1921, issues. The question was raised once again by a correspondent in the June, 1922, Socialist Standard, and answered in the same issue.

This answer has evidently upset some of the self-styled experts, as two issues of the "Plebs” Magazine (July and September, 1922) have been forwarded to us, that contain the complaints of certain correspondents about the "Plebs” repeating, parrot-like, the stupid assertion on "inflation.”

We have never accused the statesmen of the Labour Party of being guilty of any economic knowledge—Marxian or other— but the "Plebs” claims to be a journal for the spread of Marxian education, and it is the "organ of the National Council of Labour Colleges.” If their treatment of this question of "inflation” is a sample of their knowledge, it certainly shows the value of Labour College "education.”

In attempting to discuss any question, the first thing to be done is to settle the facts of that question and then use those facts to build up one’s case. In the question under discussion obviously the first point to be settled was “Has there been an inflation of the currency in the United Kingdom? ” The inquirer will be astonished to find that neither the Labour Party nor the "Plebs” have made the slightest attempt to examine—let alone settle—this fundamental point. Such is the slovenliness of the "Plebs” in dealing with statements devised to deceive the working class. In these circumstances a brief re-statement of the case will be useful.

The currency of a country consists of the article, or articles, that are chosen by general consent and experience to act as measure of value and medium of exchange. At first this is usually an ordinary commodity that is in general use. When the number and complexity of the exchanges grow to .a certain point the need for some guarantee of the invariable quality and weight of the medium of exchange is felt. This duty, sooner or later, devolves upon the Government of each country, and is usually done by stamping the articles concerned with some special device. The stamped article now takes up a new position in the commercial world and is removed from the place of an ordinary commodity to function exclusively as the measure of value, medium of exchange, etc. It thus becomes the currency of that country. Once the main use of a currency is understood the “problems” connected with it will be easily understood.

As the currency is used as a medium of exchange, it is evident that the amount of currency required at any given time will be determined, first by the total of the prices of the commodities exchanged at that time. This quantity of currency will be modified in practice by the amount of credit given by the sellers, which defers payment to some future date; by the number of payments falling due for articles previously sold; and by the speed at which the currency circulates. Thus, if £1 makes 52 moves in a given period—a year—it will circulate £52 worth of commodities in that time. Cheques, bills of exchange, etc., all add to the factors modifying the quantity of currency required, but these do not alter the main argument. Each country finds by experience the quantity of its own currency required to cover the total of the exchanges and transactions during a given period. This quantity will vary from time to time, particularly in the relative sense, but under normal circumstances these variations are easily met.

Previous to the declaration of war by England upon Germany in 1914, the quantity of currency used in the United Kingdom was £214,000,000. One immediate effect of the declaration of war was a sudden increase in prices of numerous commodities. Before any alteration of the currency was considered, let alone carried into effect, this increase of prices made an increase of the currency necessary to carry on business. Every increase in prices since has called either for an increase of currency or for some financial readjustment. In no case has the currency of this country been issued in excess of the business requirements. Yet this simple, glaring fact has been ignored both by the Labour Party and the "Plebs,” although it is fundamental to the question under discussion.

The new currency issued took the form, mainly, of Treasury notes. But mark here an extremely significant point. The Act authorising the issue of these notes says :—

  (3) The holder of a currency note shall be entitled to obtain to demand, during office hours at the Bank of England, payment for the note at its face value in gold coin which is for the time being legal tender in the United Kingdom.

And this portion of the Act has remained unaltered up to date.

Any student of economics knows that a convertible paper currency cannot be inflated by reason of its convertibility, and this fact alone shows that the statements of the "inflation” mongers are entirely false. But even those who are not students of economics can find proof of the fallacy of "inflation” in another way. That is to compare the increase of prices with the increase in the quantity of the currency. As shown above, an increase of prices, apart from the modifications mentioned, will require an increase of currency. What has happened in this country? According to the Government Report on "Currency Expansion, Price Movements, etc.” (Cmd. 734), the following changes in prices and currency have taken place in the United Kingdom. Both prices and currency in 1914 are taken as 100, and the increases on that figure on March, 1920, are given thus:

The retail prices of food were under Government control, and thereby prevented from rising as high as market conditions would otherwise have allowed.

These figures show that so far from any "inflation” having taken place there has actually been a relative decrease in the quantity of the currency. Perhaps the quidnuncs of the "Plebs” will try their skill in explaining that little fact? But how do they answer the questions already put to them by their correspondents?

In the first case they say:—

  If our comrade would like a summer holiday as the guest of His Majesty she has only to change her £1 currency notes into gold sovereigns, smelt them or sell them by weight for export. If she did succeed in doing this secretly she would find that a gold £1 outside of England bought more than a paper £1. Even inside England she would find people who would give her more than 20s. for it.—(Plebs., July.)

This "answer” is such a sheer evasion of the question that it is difficult to believe it can be other than deliberate. It is on a par with suggesting that an inquirer should commit a burglary in France for the purpose of finding the cause of the fall of the mark in Germany! For, as even the editor of the "Plebs" might know, it has been illegal to melt down currency coins all through the centuries that Coinage Acts have been in existence. Moreover, it is illegal at present to export gold from the United Kingdom without a Government licence. This is also the case in America. But the second statement clinches the position, as it shows that the "Plebs” editor realises he is unable to show any "inflation” in this country and so has to advise his correspondents to go abroad to test the matter. And where in England, may one ask, can more than 20s. be obtained for the Gold Sovereign? Only among illegal thieves and receivers of stolen property. In all the enormous mass of normal trade and commerce of this country the £1 Treasury note will purchase just as much as the gold sovereign. Which is another fact completely disposing of the tale of "inflation” here.

But now a more serious query, of the absurd position of the "Plebs,” is sent in, this time from a Social Science class apparently connected with the Labour College.

The tone adopted in the second answer is distinctly different from that used in first one. A whole class is, seemingly, a more serious proposition from a business point of view than a single reader, though the same display of ignorance occurs when we are told :—

  If enough currency notes were issued then they would exchange precisely on the basis of the socially necessary labour needed to reproduce them. —(Plebs., September, 1922.)

But why are they not exchangeable on that basis now? Immediately because of their convertibility. And once more the correspondent is referred abroad to find out if “inflation ” has occurred here !

The answer in the June, 1922, Socialist Standard is mentioned, and we are told :—

  The Standard writer, instead of simply answering a question, recites his little piece about how the S.S. has always denied inflation; and it is his remarks apparently which have worried the Bentley class.—(Ibid.)

The above is not quite correct, for we have not merely denied “inflation” here, we have proved it had no existence. Then follows a paragraph in the “Plebs” admitting almost all our arguments as being correct, though they had denied them by implication previously, but trying to save the wreck of-their case by saying:—

  But increase in credit and increase in currency react upon each other and it is certainly wrong to deny that inflation of currency was not a factor behind high prices in our own country. The fact that the “Fisher” is convertible does not prevent inflation for it is only convertible in theory.—(Ibid.)

How does the “Plebs” editor know that the Fisher is “only convertible in theory? ” He does not say, and for the simplest of reasons; because he has not a tittle of evidence to back his baseless assertions. The reader can be left to judge the value of the “Plebs’ ” unsupported word when pitted against an Act of Parliament.

Note how the bombastic assurance of the first reply, with its jeering suggestion to the single correspondent to commit a couple of illegal acts to prove an empty assertion, has given way to an admittance that the bulk of our case is correct, and only the weak—nay, childish —remark “it is certainly wrong ” to deny “inflation,” in the second answer. “Wrong to deny” a statement proved to be false ! What logic?

As a matter of fact, it was for those who postulated “inflation” to have given proof of their contention. Not one of them attempted to do so. Instead they merely repeated like parrots the unsupported assertions of the agents of the capitalist class. And as a specimen first of bombastic ignorance and then of a shuffling crawl, the “Plebs' " answers on currency take front rank. 

Jack Fitzgerald.

Christmas Shops. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

In England Christmas is our one surviving festival. Others have fallen into neglect as we have left behind the manner of social life in which they flourished. Christmas lives, despite the passing of its religious significance, because humanly it is as dear to men of the twentieth century as to those who, five hundred years ago, brought ia the boar's head with ceremony and rejoicing. While people love to play as well as work, to practise hospitality, to remember and be remembered of friends, so long will Christmas or something like it be set in our calendar.

When November was scarcely half spent, the shops began to make their special display. Now as I write the wares of the world are heaped behind the shining windows. Like so many Aladdin's caves, they will yield their store to him who has the golden key: to all others the frail glass pane is a barrier impassable.

And who are they that can command the best and largest share? Those who took no part in producing it. Is there not something strange, comrades, in this? Alaskan furs, Chinese silks, ivories of Japan, Sheffield cutlery, Spanish, Arabian and Tasmanian fruits, do not create and convey themselves, even at Christmas time. That which shaped, transported and arranged them was your work, and that of your fellows in all corners of the earth.

These goods and the pesters that advertise them, the factories where they were made and the machines within the factories, the engines and ships that carried them here —you made them all. Yet your part in the season’s celebrations is to watch more fortunate folks enjoy them, and feel your own needs more bitterly in the face of inaccessible plenty. You who have distant friends and families—why cannot you visit them? You fathers and mothers of children, do not even their small delights mean the sacrifice of something necessary to yourselves? There are young men and girls among you who dreamed of homes of your own; and this winter finds you further off than ever from your desire. Was there ever a situation so topsy-turvy? Would you credit, if you did not know by grim experience, that having done so much, you should stand outside the windows, and those who made nothing in their lives should go in and buy? Wouldn’t it sound like a crazy tale? In a sane order of life, would not the very contrary be the reality—the idle without and the workers within? Add to this that the idle are maided and valeted, driven about, entertained and guarded by you, and surely you and they appear as characters in a tragic farce! If a crowning absurdity were lacking, it is supplied by the presence of multitudes who are not even allowed to work. The strength and skill that could provide anew, even after the spoilers had helped themselves, must remain locked in their shoulders and fingers, wasted and wanting.

What is the explanation of it all? You know before I tell you. It is that this wealth of good things is not here for the purpose of satisfying human needs. It is here because its production and sale pays someone. The very toys, naive and roguish things as they are, were born to serve this all-important end of profit. That is the way you allow the business of production to be arranged. What does it matter to the corn broker and the wool dealer that you need food and clothes? The question is, Have you the means to buy? And if your wife would look lovely in a silken dress, how does that concern the silk importer or the modiste? Your whole livelihood is what you can get by selling your strength and skill. And since the corn, wool, or silk merchant (or whichever other of their class employs you) purchases them for just as much as will keep you alive and moderately fit, you never will enjoy more than a mean living—so long as you serve a master.

Are you satisfied? Perhaps you would have matters no otherwise I said you allow the present arrangement. Do you know, comrades, that is absolutely true? That you can change matters whenever you determine? Look boldly and searchingly at the men who exploit you. It is they who depend on you, not you on them. Without your lifelong service they would cut sorrier figures than you, waiting your turn at the Labour Exchange. What has bewitched you, that you allow yourselves to be shorn? I think I know the lie that keeps you hopeless. It is as old as the relation between oppressor and oppressed, and it runs: “Thus things have always been.” And your lifetime is too short and too full of care for you to learn that it is a lie. Have done with it now. Lift your heads and take a look back—and forward. There was a time when this class that now sits on your shoulders was fighting to throw off its own Old Man of the Sea, and was denounced by the Old Man—the nobility— just as it denounces your spasmodic struggles. It was resisted, as it means to resist you, but it won, and its victory was not accidental. It won because it commanded and could develop something which the feudal land-owners could not: the labour power of a proletariat—people like you and me, who have no property and must find employment in order to live. This new productive force, our labour, was an infant then; to-day a giant, too big for our masters to manage. We can produce far more than they can sell. Now we arise and resolve that capitalists with their “private enterprise” must give way in their turn to us. We do not fight at hazard either. Our victory also is sure, because we control a new force. We can develop what the lords of capital cannot: our own labour power, the labour power of co-operatively associated men and women. Isn’t this a destiny worth fulfilling? Determine that next Christmas shall not find you spreading the feast for others and stealing humbly into the shadows to famish and grieve. Thirty years ago William Morris demanded:

  Why, then, and for what are we waiting? There are three words to speak ; we will it; and what is the foeman, but the dream-strong wakened and weak ?

Now our masters no longer even dream that they are secure. You have shaken their rest by the noise of your discontent, never yet articulate nor united enough to be very dangerous, but loud enough to prevent their ever sleeping again. They listen for the word you will presently say: “We have no more use for masters. We declare the land on which we labour and the instruments we use, to be ours; and every man who would share the common wealth must also share the necessary work, were he fifty times an Inchcape or a Coats!”

Then, when Christmas morning brightens on a world possessed by the workers, the day will be a festival indeed.

A.

Military Preparations for the Great War (1922)

Book Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Military Preparations for the Great War," by E. D. Morel. Price 6d. Labour Publishing Co., Ltd.

This is a useful restatement of the facts and figures relating to amounts of money spent by the Great Powers on preparation for war from 1905 onwards.

Most of these figures and criticisms were published in a previous pamphlet entitled Truth and the War, but it is well to put those facts forward again on account of the bearing they will have on the formation of opinion on the Reparations question. One quotation will be sufficient to show the kind of material Mr. Morel handles. On page 21 he states :—

  But the most astounding fact which French publications reveal is that when the war broke out the French Army alone was numerically as strong as the German ! (Italics in original.)

It is a pity that so useful a collection of facts and figures, not easily accessible to the workers, could not be published at a cheaper price. Sixpence for a 30 page pamphlet looks a lot to the wage worker.

Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power? (1922)

Book Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?’. By N. Lenin. Price 1s 6d. Labour Publishing Co., Ltd.

The above is an article written by Lenin in October, 1917, in answer to the claim of the opponents of Bolshevism that the Bolsheviks “would not attempt to take complete power on their own initiative.”

Though written so long ago, this appears to be its first publication in English. Lenin’s reply rebuts the claims of his opponents, in his usual vigorous fashion, and the fact that five years later the Bolsheviks are still ruling in Russia justifies the position he then took up.

In this article, Lenin makes the claim, often repeated afterwards, but now definitely refuted by the publication of the Russian Soviet Constitution, that the Soviet system is superior to the political system in the Western world:–

 “In comparison with bourgeois parliamentarism it is a step forward in  the development of democracy which has a historical world significance” – P. 43 (Italics ours.)

The absurdity of this claim has been fully exposed in the Socialist Standard, July, 1920; while deference to democracy is now treated by the Bolsheviks and their supporters as “an out-of-date shibboleth”, “a bourgeois notion”, etc.

Another piece of evidence supplied by the article is on the view held by Lenin and his party at the time of the Revolution, that the workers of the Western world were practically ready for the social Revolution. On page 101 he says:–

 “It [the Russian Revolution] will conquer the whole world, for in all countries the Socialist transformation is ripening.”

It is our great regret that even now, let alone then, the mass of the workers are so far from the mental development necessary for the Socialist Revolution.

Letter: Have We Socialisation? (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editorial Committee of the
 Socialist Standard.

Comrades,

An article appearing in this month’s Socialist Standard over the initials J. D., entitled “Remedies,” needs your careful attention; an otherwise admirable article is marred in its conclusion by the astounding statement that the remedy for unemployment, poverty and overwork suffered by the working class is the socialisation of the means of production and distribution. Since how long has the socialisation of those means been the one remedy for the above mentioned social evils, poverty, etc. ? Seeing that capitalism and its mode of production has long since achieved the aforesaid socialisation of the means of production and distribution, what is there to trouble about; and why, like other journals still working for this end, such as Justice, Labour Leader, Socialist, continue to agitate and advocate and waste time over bringing about what is already accomplished? It is better to be exact than misleading in our teaching, and if J. D. and yourselves will show in our next or some succeeding number of the Socialist Standard that the only remedy for poverty, unemployment and overwork lays in the direction of social ownership and democratic control of the means of producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community, you will have done what is necessary so far as the article needs correction; and in the interest of truth, and of the hitherto good name of the Socialist Standard, I trust you will see the necessity of giving the correction as prominent a place as the statement that caused me to write you.

Yours fraternally,

Hy. Martin.

P.S.—The exactness I mean is not in the metaphysical sense.

Reply.

Mr. Martin has discovered a mare’s nest. The means of production are socially operated because the laws, methods of management, and the interaction of the various members of society who take part in wealth production, are all adapted to serve the present economic system.

But both the means of production and the products are privately owned. Hence there does not exist the Socialisation—or the making into a social system—of the means of production and distribution. This can only exist when social operations are combined with social ownership of both means and results of production. In other words, when Socialism is established.

Editorial Committee.

A "Royal" Solution of Unemployment. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

  The Prince, like many other people, is seriously concerned at the unemployment question and the distinctly gloomy outlook for the winter, and has studied recent official statistics on this closely during the past few weeks.—Daily News, 15/9/22.
   Economies are being made at the Royal Mews. The team of black horses which draws the King’s coach on State occasions, and was substituted for the famous but expensive cream horses, is to be dispensed with. A number of men will go at the same time.—Daily News, same page, same date.

We wonder if this “number” was included in the “recent statistics” studied by the Prince, or will they be the subject of future study—say about two years after the discharged men have starved to death?

A Thousand Years Hence. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Your party will be all right about a thousand years hence. What the people want is something now, something practical." Thus was I advised by a Labour friend of mine, when discussing the Watford Municipal Election. So that I felt the very least I could do was to suspend my thousand year effort for an evening and go and listen to the people who were “going the same road as myself, but doing something practical on the way." I am glad I went. I will tell you, as nearly as I can recollect, what they said.

The first speaker informed us he was not much good at the “speechifying business," but he hoped to improve in time. We could see by referring to their Election Address that Labour stood for more houses. The housing shortage was a scandal as well as a disgrace. And they wanted lower rents, too. Also more open spaces for the children to play in. And many other things. But above all they wanted everyone’s vote next Wednesday. (Applause.) The next practical man hesitatingly informed us that, like the previous speaker, he had not the gift of the gab. He briefly and haltingly read the items in the Address that he and Labour stood for, and assured us before abruptly sitting down, that although (like the previous speaker) he was not much good at the speechifying, he was much better at debate. The third practical man suffered, it seemed (like the previous two speakers), from the defect that he was no good at the oratorical business. But he knew what was wanted. What the town was crying out for was more houses, lower rents and more allotments. He and his wife found that if the end of the week found two shillings in their joint possession, they counted themselves amongst the fortunate. Therefore an allotment was a necessity. It enabled them to live on his meagre earnings. True it took all his spare time, and meant much hard work, but he was prepared to give that. Liked it, in fact. Another thing we wanted was a Municipal Market. The building of this would relieve the unemployed problem. It would also give the small trader a better chance. It would reduce the cost of living, by making competition keener, a thing that was good for everybody. And so on. Anyhow, don’t forget to give us your vote next Wednesday. The next speaker made no apologies. He had the gift of the gab—and very little else. A well-groomed appearance and a hatred of the S.P.G.B. are comprised in the latter. In three sentences he was purple-necked. Someone (“Why doesn’t he come and say it to my face?") had described him as a Bolshevik and a disrupter of the British Empire. "If that is repeated in your hearing, gentlemen, tell them that when the call came in 1914, to rally in defence of our rights and liberties, I just took out the old khaki (it had been there twenty-three years, gentlemen) and joined my old unit, and travelled many thousands miles to fight for King and Country.” (Loud applause.)

He eventually left this subject and turned to the Housing Question. We were thrilled to learn first, that he also had an allotment, situated in the Public Park. What had this to do with the Housing Problem? Listen. He had been horrified and disgusted, and also ashamed to take his daughter through the park on a Sunday evening, when the grass was dotted in all directions with couples engaged in courtship. The provision of ample housing accommodation would enable these young couples to either get married, or do their courtship in the privacy of their parents’ houses. (Loud applause.) After an engaging solo upon the trumpet, entitled “What I have done for you,” this fiery revolutionary sat down. The next speaker shared the prevailing epidemic, and was bereft of the gift of the gab. He was, however, in favour of a wider High street. Visions of distracted women with prams, doing their shopping in a High street filled with homicidal motor ’buses, were held up as good and sufficient justification for giving him our votes next Wednesday. We turned from this harrowing picture to listen to his successor, who regaled us with a list of the Trade Unions, Federations, Councils and Societies, of which he was a member. He particularly stressed the fact that he had been a member of the Hearts of Oak for twenty-three years, so that he was eminently the person to look after the interests of friendly society members. Eight women had signed his nomination paper. Who could doubt after that, that here was the man Watford was crying out for. Therefore next Wednesday, etc., etc,!

The last speaker, a thirty years' member of the Ancient Order of Foresters, an old Trade Unionist and a keen Co-operator, told us that the recent incorporation of Watford as a borough was as much the reward of Labour efforts as anyone’s. We were told that the immediate results were practically nil, but it was a necessary step towards becoming a County Borough. Arrived at this last dizzy eminence, we were assured that we should be able to have our own policemen and other advantages. The poor old Housing Question was again soundly thrashed, although his plea for more and still more houses seemed rather discounted by the tales he told us of numbers of families being ejected from existing houses because they could not pay the rent.

Yes! I am glad I went. I know what to tell my Labour friend when next we meet. I shall tell him that should ever a doubt arise in my mind of the correctness and stability of the S.P.G.B., one visit to their meeting would restore my faith. If these are the men who are going our way, they have a long way to go to catch up. Most of them have turned into taverns along the wayside, and whilst partaking of very small noggins of  "something now,” have given up the prospect of attaining something worth having. After listening to an evening of problems and policies and programmes, and after ruminating over previous programmes years and years ago, it is good to sit down and reflect on the crystal clear position of the Socialist Party.

The only thing wrong with the poor is their poverty. They are poor because they are robbed. They are robbed because the rich own the earth and the fulness thereof. The poor have to hire themselves to those who own the means of living. The price of their hiring is called a wage, and is based upon the cost of keeping dusty death at bay. This is their sole share of the wealth they produce. They can alter this state of things whenever they like by taking possession of their means of livelihood. The armed forces would, if possible, prevent them. The armed forces, however, are established, maintained and controlled through Parliament. The workers elect the Parliament. Therefore, to control the armed forces and to alter the basis of society; to become masters of their means of living, the workers must capture the political machine. If they widen all their High Streets, cover Great Britain from shore to shore with alternating patches of allotments and houses, turn all their towns into boroughs, abolish rates altogether, and achieve all the splintery planks in their Labour programme, they will have “got something now,” but they will not achieve Socialism. And until Socialism is attained, the workers will remain poor; poor because they are robbed. Capitalism is based upon the robbery of labour. “Labour” believes in its palliation; Socialism in its abolition. That’s all.

Peter Quince.