The Extinction of Petty Enterprise. By Karl Kautsky (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Translated from the German by H.J. Neumann and revised by the Author.

1. Petty Enterprise and Private Ownership. 

Some think they are talking wisdom when they tell us ”There is nothing new under the Sun,” ”as it is to-day it has always been and will always remain.” Nothing is more erroneous and stupid than such assertions. The newer development of science shows us that there is nowhere a standing still, that in Society, as in Nature, continual development is perceptible. We know to-day that originally man lived animal-like by gathering whatever Nature offered him spontaneously. But he invented one weapon after another, one tool after another, each more perfect than the other. He became fisherman, hunter, cattle-raiser, finally settling down to agriculture and handicraft. Ever more rapid was the course of development until to-day, in the age of steam and electricity, it has become so rapid that we are able to follow it with our eyes without comparing it with past ages.

The manner in which men gain their livelihood, in which they produce those things necessary for their sustenance depends upon the character of their tools, their raw material—in one word, upon the means at their disposal for the production] of such things, upon their means of production. But men have never carried on production isolated from each other, but, on the contrary, always in larger or smaller communities, whose form for the time being depends upon the then prevailing mode of production.

From the development of production consequently follows the social development. The form of society and the relations of its members to each other are, however, closely connected with the forms of property recognised and maintained. Hand in hand with the development of production proceeds also the development of property. An example, one relating to peasant farming, will make this clear. A complete peasant farm comprises two branches of production, cattle-breeding and agriculture. Until the eighteenth century there prevailed with us universally and prevails frequently to-day, pasture farming. This necessitates, however, the common ownership of the soil. It would be folly were each peasant to have his separate piece of grazing-land, to fence it in, to keep a shepherd of his own, and so on. Consequently the peasant clings, where pasture farming is in vogue, with the greatest tenacity to the common pasture and the common shepherd.

It is different in agriculture, if the same is carried on with the simple implements of the peasant farm, without machines. Common cultivation of the agricultural land of the peasant community by all the members of the community is, under such circumstances, neither necessary nor conducive to successful production. The implements of peasant farming demand that a single individual by himself or together with a few others (in a group as represented by the peasant family) shall cultivate a small piece of land. This cultivation, however, will be carried on carefully and will yield greater results the more freedom of control the cultivator is able to exercise over his property, and the more fully he enjoys the results of cultivating and improving his farm. Agriculture in its beginning forces into existence petty industry and this necessitates the private ownership of the means of production if it is to be developed fully.

For instance, with the ancient Teutons the common ownership of the soil which prevailed so long as pasture-farming (and hunting) remained the principal means of gaining their sustenance, disappeared more and more and made way for private ownership of the soil, in the measure in which petty peasant agriculture came to the fore. The substitution of cattle-raising in stables for pasture-farming was the death-blow to the common ownership of land. Thus, under the influence of economic development, in consequence of the progress made in farming, the peasant has developed, from a communist to a fanatic in private ownership.

What applies to the petty peasant holds good with the handicraftsman. Handicraft requires no associated labour of a large number of workmen. Each handicraftsman toils either alone or together with one or two assistants, who belong to his family or his household. As in peasant farming, so also in handicraft, the single workman or workman’s family maintains a separate establishment and therefore handicraft, like petty peasant farming, necessitates private ownership of the means of production which it uses, and of the products which it creates, in order to fully developed its competency, its power of productivity. In petty industry this product of the workman depends upon his individuality, his skill, his industry, his perseverance. He consequently claims it for himself as his individual property. He is, however, unable to develop his individuality in the production if individually he is not free and does not freely control his means of production, that is to say, if these are not his private property. This has been realised by the Socialists and specifically expressed in their programme by the words “the private ownership of the means of production is the basis of petty industry.” But they hold at the same time that the economic development of bourgeois society leads of necessity to the extinction of petty industry. Let us follow up this development,

2. Commodities and Capital.

The starting points of bourgeois society were peasant farming and handicraft.

The peasant family originally satisfied all their requirements. They produced all the articles of food they needed, all tools, all garments, built their own house, etc. They produced as much as they required, but no more. Gradually, however, owing to the progress of Agriculture, they reached a stage when they produced a surplus of things, which they did not want for their immediate use. They were thus placed in a position to exchange this surplus for products which they themselves did not produce or not in sufficient quantities, products which they welcomed, as, for example, a weapon, a tool, or jewels. By the means of exchange these products became commodities, that is, products intended not for use or consumption within the establishment, in which they were produced, but for the purpose of exchange for products of another establishment. The wheat produced by the peasant for his own use was not a commodity; the wheat he sold, however, was. To sell means nothing else than to exchange a certain commodity for such a one as is welcome to everybody and in this way becomes money, for instance, gold.

As we have seen, the peasant became, in the course of economic development, a producer of commodities. The handicraftsman in his independent petty enterprise was from the first a producer of commodities. And it was not only a surplus of products that he sold, but with him production for sale was the primary feature.

But the exchange of commodities presupposed two conditions, firstly, that every single concern produced a different class of goods and that division of labour had entered Society, and secondly, that those who exchanged were free to dispose of their products, that the latter were their private property.

The more that, in the course of economic development, division of labour in various trades progressed, and private property increased in extent and significance, the more generally was production for own consumption superseded by production of commodities.

Division of labour finally resulted in buying and selling becoming a separate business, which was pursued exclusively by one class, the merchants. These derived their incomes from buying cheaply and selling dearly. This does not mean, however, that they were able to fix the price of commodities at their own discretion, for the price depends ultimately upon the exchange value. The value of a commodity is determined by the average amount of labour expended in its production. Its price scarcely ever coincides exactly with its value. The former is determined not only by the conditions of its production, as is its value, but also by the conditions of the market, primarily, by its supply and demand, in what quantity the commodity is placed on the market or is in demand. But the price is also subject to certain laws. It varies with different times and places. If then, the merchant wishes to obtain a margin between the buying and the selling prices of the commodity, as profit, he must, as a rule, buy his commodities when and where they are cheap and sell them when and where they are dear.

When the peasant or handicraftsman bought commodities he did so because he required them for himself or his family as means of production or subsistence. The merchant bought commodities, not for his own use, but to utilise them so that they might yield him a profit. Commodities and sums of money used for such a purpose are capital. It cannot always be said of a commodity or a sum of money that it is capital. Tobacco bought by a merchant for the purpose of being sold at a profit is to him capital. Tobacco bought for his own smoking is not capital.

The original form of capital was that of merchants’ capital. Nearly as old is the usurers’ capital, the profit of which consists of interest pocketed by the capitalist for commodities or sums of money lent.

Capital was produced at a certain stage in the production of commodities, of course upon the basis of private property, which, as we know, forms the basis of the entire production of commodities. But under the influence of capital private property assumed a new feature, in fact, an additional feature. Besides the petty bourgeois feature, which was in accord with the conditions of petty enterprise, it displayed also a capitalist ‘feature. The defenders of present private property point only to its’ petty bourgeois feature, and yet it would be blindness to overlook to-day the capitalist feature of private property.

At the stage of economic development with which we are now dealing, when capital was only merchants’ and usurers’ capital, there were but few features of that capitalist physiognomy visible, but these are worthy of remark.

The income of the peasant or petty handicraftsman under the reign of petty enterprise depended primarily upon his individuality and that of the other members of his family, upon his industry, skill, etc. On the other hand, the amount of the merchant’s profit depended upon the money he had for purchasing commodities and the commodities he possessed for sale. If one sells £10,000 worth of tobacco, one’s profit, other things being equal, will be 100 times larger than if one sells only £100 worth. The same applies to the usurer. Hence the income of the capitalist, as a capitalist, depends mainly upon the amount of capital he possesses.

The labour power and capacity of the individual are limited, as is also the amount of products a workman is able to create under certain circumstances. It cannot exceed to any degree a certain average. Money, however, can be accumulated to any amount, to that there is no measurable limit. The more money one has, the more accumulates when it is used as capital. Thus the possibility of acquiring immeasurable riches exists.

But private property produced yet another possibility. Private property in the means of production implies the lawful possibility for everybody to acquire such and also the possibility of losing it, that is to say, of losing the source of their existence, and thus sinking into abject poverty. Usurers’ capital already presupposes want. He who possesses what he requires will not borrow. By exploiting the helpless position of the necessitous, usurers’ capital becomes the means of precipitating want.

The acquisition of wealth in idleness, the immeasurable riches of some, the abject poverty of others, are features perceptible in the capitalist physiognomy of private property. But they were hidden as long as merchants’ and usurers’ capital were in the first stage of development. The worst feature—poverty—became apparent to but a small degree, the lack of property remaining the exception and not the condition of large numbers of the people.

There were other exploiters, besides the merchant and usurer, as for instance, the feudal lord in the middle ages with whom we cannot deal here without diverting too far from our subject. And all those exploiters, the merchant and usurer included, were dependent upon the existence and success of petty enterprise in town and country. The proverb, that if the peasant had money, everybody had money, still held good. Commerce did not destroy petty enterprise, but sometimes even extended it. The usurer whilst draining his debtor of his resources, had no interest in absolutely ruining him. Poverty—the loss of the means of production —did not appear as a regular social phenomenon, but as a particular misfortune caused by an exceptional calamity or exceptional incapacity. Poverty in such cases was regarded as a divine trial, or as the punishment for laziness, carelessness, and so on. This conception still prevails largely in petty bourgeois circles, though now dispossession has become an occurrence of an altogether different character to what it was formerly.

(To be continued)

A Tory candidate on Socialism. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Major Adams, late Tory candidate for Woolwich, has been at pains to explain his objections to Socialism to some of his electors. In the historical portion of his address he is reported to have said that the French Revolution was caused by the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau, and that its constructive “failure” was the failure of Socialism.

In point of fact the writings of these two individualists had little effect upon the revolutionary movement: their opinions, in common with the ideas dominating the French Revolution, were the outcome of their economic environment. The growth of commerce and industry in France rendered feudal restrictions increasingly unsuitable and unbearable, and Feudalism was abolished that “Freedom” should reign. The Revolution brought in the classic age of Laissez-Faire and devil take the hindmost; the tyranny of capitalism under the mask of freedom.

Free competition, not Socialism, was the objective of the French Revolution. To imply that such an inherently capitalist revolution was Socialist is a fine example of historical ignorance.

Next in the lecturer’s consideration of scientfic Socialism he fell foul of the theory of value. “Labour,” he said, “was to be measured by its scarcity or utility, not, as Marx said, by time.” Truly, the scarcity of labour would make a curious measure of it.

The Major, however, gave a concrete example of his meaning by saying that “if a man came across a diamond while mining, according to Marx the diamond would have no value because no labour had been expended upon it.” Presumably the man was mining for carrots, for if he was mining for diamonds some labour certainly was expended on the diamond.

The whole thing, however, is a travesty of the theory of value, for value does not depend upon the labour of one individual. Value is the amount of labour that is socially necessary to produce an article under the prevailing conditions of production. If one can produce a commodity in say two hours that it takes in general three hours to produce, its value will be three hours’ labour, nevertheless ; whilst if an article can usually be produced in two hours but a few men take four, two hours’ labour still represents the exchange-value of the article.

If a diamond exchanged according to its usefulness it would not be so highly prized as it is now. The search or mining, cutting, etc., of a diamond, call for the expenditure of a great deal of human labour, and this makes the diamond’s value. If diamonds, to take a classic illustration, could be made by mixing cheap chemicals in a glass of water, diamonds might be ten a penny.

A thing may have considerable use-value but yet have no exchange-value—air is a familiar example ; but the exchange-ratio or value of a given use-value is determined by the labour required to produce it. Price, of course, fluctuates around value according to supply and demand, but the labour cost of production mainly determines both supply and demand in the last resort.

Major Adams seems to have hardly a nodding acquaintance with his Marx, for he gave him as saying that laborious work should be paid most wages, whereas Maix contents himself with analysing and explaining the laws of wages. Neither does Marx speak only of manual labour, for there is no manual labour without some intellectual labour, and no intellectual labour without some degree of manual labour.

The different prices or wages of the various kinds of labour-power are mainly due, apart from historical standards of life, to the fact that they require differing amounts of labour to produce and perpetuate. Thus the more skilled worker required in the production of his power to labour, not only a more protracted period of training or education than his unskilled fellow, but also a higher grade of living to maintain his skill or fitness. The spread of machinery and automatic devices is, however, bringing labour nearer to one common level, sometimes, indeed, reversing the places on the labour market of “skilled” and “unskilled” labour power.

The Major’s objection to Socialism that it would be impossible to fix the different values of labour-power is, therefore, cut from under his feet in two ways; firstly, by the levelling influence of the systemization of industry, and secondly by the fact that under Socialism the category of wages is abolished. The remuneration of the workers ceases to be the cost of their subsistence and becomes the product of their labour. All having equal facilities of development and culture, the difference between the various workers becomes merely one of convenience, and though some occupations may, during the few hours that it may be necessary to toil, be less pleasant than others, the balance between the supply and demand of labour may be simply adjusted by shortening the hours of the least attractive, or lengthening those of the most sought after.

Our critic is concerned that the capitalist should obtain a reward for his “intellectual labour.” The intellectual labour of the modern capitalist would appear to be confined to a study of the Companies’ List and of the prices on ‘Change. The whole of the useful labour in his concern is being done by hired workers, from the manager to the shop boy.

“A comparison of the modern labourer with 100 years ago shows,” says Major Adams, “that the surplus value of labour did not altogether go into the pocket of the capitalist.” The fact of it being surplus value at all shows that it had already gone to the capitalist class. Further, according to an eminent statistician, the wealth of this country has increased eight times during the last century. Now with modern intensity of toil and insecurity of employment, will the Major assert that the working class has materially benefited by this increase ? The very increase in the wealth wrung from the workers enables the possessors to purchase wage-saving machinery that augments the poverty of the working class by depriving them of their livelihood.

“Under the Socialistic system,” we are told, “any accumulation of capital would be forbidden. There would be no pictures painted, no statues carved, no books written.”

Major Adams is either himself confused or tries to confuse his hearers ; for what is capital ? Capital is wealth used as a means of obtaining profit. With the abolition of the profit system, capital is abolished, but wealth remains; and the accumulation of social wealth for social use becomes the function of the community. Wealth, being no longer confined to a degenerate few, but being at the command of those who create it, the misery and degradation of the many which now prevents them appreciating and demanding the use and collective possession of fine pictures, statues, buildings and books, is abolished ; and art, instead of being the reflex of the unhealthy and irrational tastes of a few, becomes the beautiful expression of the healthy, vigorous, and well-balanced life of the people.

Socialism, we are also informed, will increase misery by removing the responsibility of parents for the bringing up of their offspring, thereby causing the population to unduly increase. The Major should have explained why it is that, in general, the easier it is for persons to bring up children ; the less forethought for children becomes necessary as we go from the poorest to the wealthiest in society—the smaller is the number of children to the family. Those upon whom, according to the Major’s theory, forethought is most strongly enjoined by the necessity and difficulty of bringing up their children, these, the poorest, have the largest families. Evidently the more wealth, health, and leisure are spread among the people, the more forethought and enlightenment should we find.

Our critic also stated that Socialism would destroy individual liberty and the rights of minorities, but the Major’s assertion is clearly comprehended in the light of the class struggle. Just as capitalist interests are opposed to those of the workers, so the capitalist idea of liberty is opposed to that of the working class. From Major Adams’ point of view Socialism does not mean individual liberty, because it would necessarily curtail the liberty of the capitalist to batten upon the misery of the many. When the capitalist professes such a tender regard for LIBERTY it is not usually because he is anxious about the freedom which the working class have not got, but rather about his own liberty to exploit and grow fat upon the toil and sweat of the people.

The tyranny under which the working class groans, the unending and hopeless drudgery that is their lot, these Socialism alone can end. It will abolish also, it is true, the liberty of the capitalist to grind the faces of the poor, but it will establish the basis of true freedom for mankind by abolishing class antagonisms and class tyranny, and uniting all in a bond of labour with common interests.

The hypocrisy of the assertion, from such a source, that Socialism would disregard the rights of minorities, becomes apparent when we reflect that an unscrupulous minority rule to-day by cunning and by force, and usurp to themselves all the good things of life created by the labour of the people. It is the cry of the capitalist brigands to the just power that is rising to end their crime.

Unity being found upon essentials by socialised production and distribution, government becomes, under Socialism, little more than the administration of things in the common weal. By the liberation of the mass of mankind from excessive toil and lack of leisure, each is enabled to develope to the full his individuality. Where all interests point one way coercion finds no place. Since at last the people rule, arid it is unprofitable to the vast majority to exploit a few, the best guarantee of liberty to each individual becomes the guaranteeing of the like liberty to every other individual.

The Major’s last objection is positively childish. In order to avoid work under Socialism, people would pretend to be sick and the hospitals “would very soon be full of idlers,” he said. This, too, in spite of the fact that by the more efficient organisation of industry by the elimination of the waste of competition and of the senseless luxury of “Society,” and by the utilisation of all capable of work in the community, the amount of toil would be enormously reduced, and its nature made pleasant and healthy. If there were a grain of truth in that objection to Socialism we should find to-day, with the tremendous provocation of exhausting toil and demoralising conditions, that not a single Sick Benefit Society could exist, because the greater part of its members would be malingering. That the very reverse of this is true even to-day shows the utter foolishness of such an objection to Socialism.

Indeed, the Major’s objections are so obviously feeble that, were they not so common, we must almost apologise for dealing with them. We know his real objection, it is that he is placed on the shoulders of toiling humanity and does not envy their lot. He finds it good to be alive in his place, and has no wish to change; for he might have to work. Besides, quoth he, a bird in the hand is better than a bird in the bush. The Major therefore makes it his duty in serving the class whose interests are his, to prove to the workers by Euclid and other means, that a bird in his hand is best for them.

F. C. Watts

Editorial: The parliamentary manoeuvres. (1906)

Editorial from the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The results of the elections call for little comment. With the assistance of a couple of most effective war-cries the Liberals have successfully played upon the credulity of ignorance and have been returned to power in rather greater numbers than was anticipated. The meaningless piffle of “Hands off the people’s food,” when so large a number have no food and the remainder barely sufficient to maintain their efficiency as profit-producing machines; the hypocritical indignation carefully simulated against Chinese Slavery in South Africa while the wage-slavery of old England passes unnoticed—these two, augmented by a few subsidiary cat-calls anent Education (having reference to the squabbles of rival religious bodies entirely), the Drink Traffic (treated not as a problem resulting from poverty but as the exact and absurd opposite), and the like, have inspired the working class to one more exhibition of well-nigh unmixed folly (a rather greater exhibition than usual), and have encompassed the overwhelming triumph of almost everything capable of standing on two legs and wearing a Liberal label. On the flood, a few dozen persons, mostly made up so as to resemble as nearly as possible the genuine Liberal article, have floated into political position, and will doubtless use their best endeavours to qualify for eulogy as men of “moderation of demeanour, decency of manner, free from swagger and assumption, and with respect for the audience they address in the House of Commons,” which, on the authority of Mr. John Morley, are the characteristics and qualities of the “Labour” representatives who, by the grace of capitalism and the stupidity of their working-class constituents, were able to affix “M.P.” to their names during the life-time of the last Tory administration.

The Liberals' blank cheque.

The Liberals have gone in absolutely programless and unpledged, and may be relied upon to abide by the conditions of their election. Certainly it will not be possible to fairly accuse them of violation of the solemn (!) undertakings of the hustings if, at the end of their tenure of office, they have no more than a small, clean sheet of working-class legislation (so-called) to show for their alleged labours. The working class, whether they were conscious of it or not, have, as a matter of sober fact, presented them with the blank cheque for which they appealed, and though it will doubtless occur that some of the “Labour” representatives, if they get the opportunity and can do so with becoming respect, will bring forward some of the reform propositions with which their election addresses were mildly besprinkled, and although the Liberal Party, being astute enough to understand when the moment may be considered opportune for a graceful concession, may be pleased to accept such measure (duly modified, of course) they may be relied upon, having the blank cheque, to spend it mainly in the maintenance of the status quo. And as the status quo means, on the showing of capitalist statisticians, abject poverty for at least a third of the entire working class population, and precious little more for the other two-thirds, and as the great bulk of the reform measures the most advanced candidate advocated when seeking election may find a place upon the statute book without appreciably disturbing the status quo, the wealth producers are unlikely to find, even in the most favourable circumstances, that their last state is better than their first was. Then perhaps they will in time-honoured fashion particularly if the Tory party have managed to find an attractive cry—return again the “Peace with Honour” gang, as distinguished from the “Peace, Retrenchment and Reform” crew. But that is on the knees of the gods. Meanwhile it will be our business to continue to combat by all the means at our disposal, the forces of stupidity and knavery which have operated to produce the confusion of working class thought manifested so unmistakably in the election results, confident in the knowledge that the pressure of economic circumstances must sooner or later, and sooner than many suppose, compel the consideration of the issue we alone of the political parties of England present, must effect the adoption of the attitude we alone take up.

The issue.

With characteristic honesty the principal organ of Nonconformity was at pains to delude a sufficiently deluded electorate into the belief that the issue of the elections was to be Social Reform versus Tariff Reform—Social reform being, as every perfect ignoramous in political history will be aware, a Liberal party speciality implying great happiness and prosperity for the working class ; Tariff Reform, spelling poverty and wretchedness for the working-class, being the sole objective of the Conservative Party. This issue the “Daily News” argued should impel every member of the working class to oust Toryism and all its apostles and instal Liberalism surely upon the Governmental benches.

Unfortunately for the “Daily News,” however, every student of political history knows that the Liberal Party’s record of reforms does not at all compare to the disadvantage of the Tory Party’s. Unfortunately too, the Liberal Party of to-day has no programme of Social Reform at all. The Pawky Bannerman in his much be-lauded pronouncement of policy at the Albert Hall, well maintained his reputation as the compleat shuffler (or if the term pleases better, political engineer) talking airily round a number of subjects without giving anything in the nature of a definite undertaking regarding any of them, preferring, statesman-like, to leave it to his enthusiastic followers in Press and on platform, to construe his remarks as they thought fit. Unfortunately still further, it would signify exactly nothing if the Liberal Party had a set programme of reform measures just as it signified nothing when the famous Newcastle programme was elaborated and upon which the Liberal Party last secured power. If anybody was in doubt before that election as to whether the programme was manufactured for the purpose of catching votes or not, the subsequent action of. the “Party of Progress” in deliberately breaking the promises they unquestionably had full power to redeem, must have entirely removed that doubt. And unfortunately once more, even if they had been honest enough to pass their reforms, the working class would not under the conditions then and now existing,—have benefited tuppence. All of these reforms have been passed in other capitalist countries without result and all of them will doubtless be passed, after many of the usual sham-fights between the two capitalist factions, in England.

Therefore, the “Daily News” in endeavouring to convey the impression (1) that the Liberal Party is the Party of reform. (2) That the Liberal Party’s programme is the programme that the “Daily News” in somewhat ambiguous terms set out. (3) That the Liberal Party’s alleged programme if carried would beneficially affect the working-class and that, therefore (4) the issue was Social Reform v. Tariff Reform was guilty of misrepresentation on all counts and flat lying on at least two of them. For the intelligent working-class the issue was and is poverty versus comfort, misery versus happiness, slavery versus freedom, Capitalism versus Socialism and the overthrow of the first and the realization of the second will involve the extinction of all political parties representative of capitalist interests including even the great Party of Progress, the Liberal Party itself.

Is the Materialist Conception of History sufficient? (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

[The completion of a correspondence between two members of the S.P.G.B., the first portion of which appeared in the November issue.]

Dear Comrade.

I do not see why we should be concerned because your friend says it is utterly impossible to view Sociology as a picture, for if he means that, it is impossible to look at Sociology from an entirely detached point of view (that is, quite objectively), then I am not aware of its possibility having been maintained. But why is Sociology indicated in particular ? Why not Biology also ? If it is impossible in one case, it must be impossible in the other, or, indeed, in any branch of natural science. That the difficulties are greater in some cases than in others is obvious, but the difference is less than is usually supposed.

There is, however, this difference between Sociology and Biology : regarding the animals human interests are practically identical, hence there is comparative uniformity of human views respecting the animal world; but regarding society, with its parasites and workers ; class interests, (and consequently class views), are hopelessly in conflict. The modern social scientist must take his stand on the side of

THE CLASS SOCIALLY NECESSARY

if he is to be logical in his philosophy. In the domain of Sociology to pretend to face society in the interests of all its classes is idiotic, confusing, “ethical” and hypocritical, whilst logically it is an impossibility. To stand for the reconciliation of opposing class interests, except by the abolition of classes through the triumph of labour, is either to confusedly deliberate or to deliberately confuse.

If, then, it is impossible to really objectively view things which we can only know and judge by subjective means, must we therefore abandon all attempt to discount subjective interference and get as near to a detached view as our human limitations will permit? Obviously not, for the detached point of view remains the counsel of perfection, the ideal scientific viewpoint.

That few even attempt to attain to this, or that none can completely so view social, physical or biological phenomena, simply means that to err is human.

In getting at the truth of any matter the observer is hampered by his physical shortcomings, by the limited knowledge accumulated to his day, by his interests or by the phase of life most to the fore in his time. A few men rise to such a height in their perception of truth that their works are enduring and stand as landmarks of the different stages of human knowledge. Aristotle, Roger Bacon, Darwin, Spencer, Marx and Lewis Morgan, are some examples of this in the domain of science.

To know and discount personal disturbing influences, and to get a point of view as nearly detached as possible, must be the aim of every true scientist. What other plan has your friend to propose ? Does he propose that we should bury our heads in the sands of our narrowest environment because it is impossible to get a perfect view of the universe ? Or does he hold, as we hold, that

ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE ;

that while in Sociology (which, as I have said, is the most subjective of sciences) the difficulties of a scientific point of view are increased nevertheless, for a generalization to be even relatively true it, must be the result of, or in harmony with, an even and thorough view of each department of human knowledge at that epoch?

You say that the Socialist propaganda, which is necessary to the revolution, has little economic significance, and that the creation of a demand for Socialism is an intellectual rather than an economic process. We have here the shadow of our old friend—an uncaused effect: for if the intellectual process is not caused by the influence upon the individual of the conditions of existence, whence does it arise ? The fact that the Socialist propaganda (the demand for Socialism) arises in every country with the development of capitalism, is, in itself, a sufficient answer to our question. Further, to expect that Socialist propaganda can be the motive force changing economic conditions, is really to reject the materialist conception of history as explained by Marx in the extract I sent you.

Economic conditions (i.e., methods of wealth production and distribution) change gradually and independently of the will of man. They evolve by pressure on the means of existence and along the line of greatest economy, the line of least resistance, and thus form the real cause of intellectual and then political revolution. The Socialist propaganda and demand for Socialism is brought about by the decreasing harmony between the social (political) system and the economic mode of producing wealth (associated industry). The demand for Socialism is Nature’s preparation for the compulsory adaptation of the social organism to this economic change, a re-adaptation that must take place if humanity is to advance.

Strictly speaking, Socialism is not a revolution in economic conditions, but is a

REVOLUTION IN THE SOCIAL SUPERSTRUCTURE

which the ruling class has created in harmony with its material interests; the ruling class itself being the creature of economic necessity. Socialism changes (or rather abolishes) the class which controls, and the manner of profiting by, associated industry ; destroys attempted barriers to the further development of this, and places the social organism in a position of healthy reaction with its economic environment. The demand for Socialism is, then, in the main, the direct effect of the pressure of economic conditions on the individual organism. Just as a writer is great, and is understood, when he sees more fully and shows more clearly what others are being forced to (inarticulately) feel and believe, so the Socialist propagandist, more deeply impressed by economic conditions and social contradictions, voices more fully and clearly what others are economically being led to think, and so brings their aspirations to a focus. Thus the demand made by economic and social conditions on the individual organism is voiced again in the class struggle which can only end with the destruction of the social system that is growing more and more out of harmony with the economic basis of society.

In your first letter you said : “The point is, then, to demonstrate that the all important, the dominating factor in society is its economic conditions.” I endeavoured, briefly, to demonstrate that economic conditions (the how, where, and quantity of the necessaries of life) undoubtedly do form the dominant, and root factor in all life. In your second letter you say : “It is undoubtedly true that the ultimate explanation of any force or condition in society is to be found in the means adopted by men to satisfy their material wants.” But you add: “When you have explained the origin of man’s ideas as arising through economic and material channels, that does not explain the possible reaction of these intellectual forces on the economic and material conditions.” The problem, though essentially the same, is restated. Let us examine it.

If it is admitted that the origin and ultimate explanation of man’s ideas, social relationships, and intellect itself, lie in material conditions: if, in fact, the evolution of the human family from

THE EARLY SPECK OF PROTOPLASM

(which differed from the substance around it only in that it could absorb fresh substance and broke in two when its size became too great for the cohesion of its material) is due to, and is explicable only on the ground of the varying nature of the struggle for existence, then the rest follows as a logical consequence, for it is evident that the “ego” (or whatever fanciful name one may give the individual), is but the result of past conditions of the struggle to obtain the necessaries of existence. Obviously, therefore, the intellect can only reflect or redistribute under the pressure and through the channels of present economic conditions the influence of past conditions. The reflex or secondary action of the “ego” must, then, ever remain inferior in intensity and effect, but tend to be similar in direction, to the material conditions of life which cause and modify it. Intellectual, like all other forces, tend to run in worn channel’s ; and this fact of the “inertia of the mind” would cause mankind to continue always in the same rut were it not that changing conditions compel mankind to readapt itself to them. Intellect in itself would perpetuate, but not innovate, if changing material conditions did not compel it to change the direction of its activities.

This is important, let us insist upon it. Given the individual organism and the laws of its economic environment, it is obvious that the organism (which, with its experience, has been moulded by past conditions of life) will endeavour to play out its course along the line of least resistance and will continue into present conditions, in so far as they are similar to the past, the action forced on the individual by past environment. And since by pressure on the means of life, natural selection of the most economic methods, and the consequent

MODIFICATION OF THE ORGANISM,

(individual and social) the line of least resistance continually changes its direction, the organism (social and individual) must adapt itself (be adapted) to the changing economic conditions or lose its place in the economy of nature.

Now it will be seen that although with growing complexity of structure the individual grows more powerful and his influence on surrounding conditions appears to grow in importance; yet the individual can never become greater in power than the material conditions of which he is but the creature and reflection, for the secret of his growing power is the growth of his power to adapt himself to, and become more pliable before, these same material conditions.

You object to my analogy of the clay balls because it leaves out the reaction of the individual on his environment. But the analogy was not made to illustrate that. It simply illustrated the fallacy of the “identical environment” idea, and showed how some may be Conservatives and some Socialists in a given society. A purpose that I hope the illustration has served. An analogy is, of course, a comparison between different things which have nevertheless some features in common. Hence no analogy can be perfect, and argument by analogy is dangerous. It is enough for the purpose if the analogy illustrates (for it cannot prove) the working of some general law. In my example it was only the formation of individuality, or the cause of individual differences, that was illustrated.

You ask for an illustration of the reaction of the individual on his environment, and you suggest an excellent example the colonies. Let us take, in the first place, the animals transferred by the white man to the “colonies” during historical times. We find

EXAMPLES OF INDIVIDUALITIES

(or I should say, organisms) developed by conditions in the broader and more differentiated area of the old world, running feral in the new. The horse, the result of continuous natural selection in the old world, transplanted in its developed form to the new world, found itself more adaptable (intelligent) and better fitted to obtain the necessaries of life than the native animals whose economy and distribution were consequently considerably altered. The rabbit, developed by the keener old world struggle for existence, transferred to Australia, found itself more fitted to exist than many of the natural inhabitants because the latter were the creatures of a less diverse or more restricted environment. Thus the animal and vegetable economy of Australia became modified by the reaction of the rabbit’s inherited nature upon it. So the human inhabitants of parts of the old world, their individual and social organisms the results of a keener and more varied struggle for existence, were economically forced to introduce themselves and their superior naturally selected methods of production into America and Australia, where their greater adaptability and more efficient means of obtaining food and shelter caused them to oust the less adaptable native populations, and to develop afresh on lines determined by their newer material conditions.

We see, then, that at bottom it is the methods of wealth production and distribution which determine the existence or extermination of races, the development of their intellect and the societies they form. Any known more profitable method of production will inevitably, in the long run, take the place of the old.

In grasping the reaction of the individual on his environment,

A PATHOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATION

may help us. A man, let us say, living under conditions inducive of typhoid fever, catches that disease and communicates it to others, thus spreading the effects of his own environment. If many live in typhoid-giving circumstances there will be a severe epidemic: indeed the disease will probably break out at several independent centres. But if very few live under conditions inducive of typhoid fever, there will be no epidemic and the disease will rapidly disappear. Hence individuality only gives a little longer life to an effect produced by external causes, for if the same causes are not operative elsewhere, the disease finds no food to live upon and is starved out.

The spread of Capitalism to Japan is another illustration to hand. In Japan, development from a kind of Feudalism to Capitalism has been very rapid. The visits of merchants, the settlement of Europeans bringing their methods of production, with them to Japan and starting factories with the cheap labour available, combined with the existence of the requisite degree of energy and adaptability on the part of the Japanese, and the favourable natural resources and geographical position of the country, enabled the more efficient methods of production to rapidly oust the old and brought about a change (a feature of which was a revolution) in Japanese society that placed it in harmony with the changed economic basis, and with the interests of the new class thereby given power.

The Socialist propagandist also propagates a policy, a class interest, created by circumstances. If the same circumstances are acting around, the ideas propagated spread in milder or more acute form. If the same causes do not operate around the propagandist, his efforts will make but an eddy that will rapidly die away. Our propaganda is, then, simply the means of giving definiteness, cohesion, and conscious expressions to the direct effects of economic and social pressure.

THE PROBLEM OF MAN’S CONSCIOUSNESS

now begins to assume truer proportions. For just as the social organism in a more or less embryo stage may be seen in the lower social animals, and in higher and higher forms as we go from the most primitive folk to the most civilised nation: so man’s well developed consciousness may be seen in lower degrees of development among the less developed organic beings. Man’s intellect can only put together things he has seen or known, but he can put them together in new order and form fresh patterns. By the process of reasoning (that is to say, by mental comparison) man can, to some extent foretell the results of certain actions if he has known similar results to occur (even though separately or partially) in the past. Growing to grasp the essential oneness of Nature and her inviolable order, and finding that he cannot alter her course to suit his phantasies, but that he is Nature’s plaything and his sane wishes are Nature’s wishes, man realizes that his salvation lies in knowing Nature and in more completely adapting himself to her in all her moods, for, if the forces within him fail to respond to the forces without, he is annihilated.

Thus the pressure of economic necessity, acting on the individual and on society, brings man’s consciousness into line with the new conditions of the struggle for life. The seeking of self interest, necessarily common to all sentient beings either individually or socially, brings humanity into contact with the obstacles that bar its path. An increasing number of the class economically necessary, by contact with the obstacle in the line of their interests and helped by the teaching of those who have explored it more fully, become conscious of the existence of the barrier and of the necessity for its removal. Economic pressure continually swells their ranks till a sufficient number of the rising class have become conscious of their mission, and aided by the ripeness of material conditions, throw down the obstacle to their progress with a crash.

Taking human society we can then say in view of the organic unity of the human family, that changing conditions of wealth production compel human beings to change the form of society in adaptation to the economic change, and therefore that all over the world and in every historical epoch, varied by climatic and racial conditions, “the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily following from it form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch.”

F. C.Watts

The Class Struggle. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Great stress is laid on the dictum that Communism is not a mere party doctrine of the working class, but a theory compassing the emancipation of Society at large, including the capitalist class, from its present narrow conditions. This is true enough in the abstract, but absolutely useless, and sometimes worse, in. practice. So long as the wealthy classes not only do not feel the want of any emancipation, but strenuously oppose the self-emancipation of the working class, so long the social revolution will have to be prepared and fought out by the working class alone.

The French Bourgeois of 1789, too, declared the emancipation of the bourgeoisie to be the emancipation of the whole human race; but the nobility and clergy would not see it; the proposition—though for the time being, with respect to feudalism, an abstract historical truth—soon became a mere sentimentalism, and disappeared from view altogether in the fire of the revolutionary struggle. And to-day, the very people who, from the “impartiality” of their superior standpoint, preach to the workers a Socialism soaring high above their class interests and class struggles, and tending to reconcile in a higher humanity the interests of both the contending classes—these people are either neophytes, who have still to learn a great deal, or they are the worst enemies of the workers,—wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Frederick Engels, 1892.

Election Items. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Northampton Branch of the S.D.F. ran two candidates with the object of securing a solid vote.

* * * *

The Southampton Branch of the S.D.F. complain of “the mean trick of the Liberals in bringing out a second candidate in order to defeat us.”

* * * *

The Southend Branch of the S.D.F. issued a ” No Vote ” manifesto.

* * * *

The Plymouth Branch of the S.D.F. supported the Liberal Candidate (vide Daily News).

* * * *

The Stratford S.D.F. issued an “abstain from voting” manifesto and endeavoured to hold a meeting, but were broken up by Masterman’s supporters.

* * * *

J. J. Terrett held meetings in Stratford Grove in favour of the Liberals and made collections for the S.D.F. war chest.

* * * *

Dan Irving and Geo. Belt both signed the L.R.C. declaration and then the L.R.C. declined to adopt them.

* * * *

The S.D.F. delegates at the Amsterdam Congress gave as their reason for not affiliating to the L.R.C., that the L.R.C. refused to allow its candidates to run as “Socialists.”

* * * *

Geo. Belt, the S.D.F. “Labor” candidate for Hammersmith, issued a leaflet denouncing the Liberals for refusing to “arbitrate” as to who had the greater right to be the candidate, and expressing his willingness and desire to “arbitrate.”

* * * *

“Justice” describes Liberals as “liars” “thieves” etc., and it is with “liars” and “thieves” that they would arbitrate.

* * * *

John Burns is at a loss to decide whether his success was due to the manifesto against him issued by the Battersea S.D.F., or to the telegram wishing him success which the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F. member) sent, and which was read at Burns’s meeting at the Latchmere Baths on Wednesday, January 10th.

* * * *

John Burns returned the Countess’s compliments by telegraphing to the Camborne Liberals, “The Socialist have bitterly opposed me.”

* * * *

The Camborne Liberals got their own back by “taking it out” of Will Thorne.

The Countess then tripped over on her motor car to sympathise with “poor Will,” and stayed at Upton Park “quite twenty minutes.”

* * * *

If the Stratford S.D.F. deserved to be publicly reprimanded and apologised for, as was done by Councillor J. Jones at Stratford Town Hall, for engaging Mr. E. E. Hunter, a once expelled member of the S.D.F. to do “dirty political work” for them, what punishment is deserved by Councillor Jack Jones for engaging Mr. J. J. Terrett, a thrice expelled member of the S.D.F., to do his “dirty political” work at Camborne ?

The Pillory. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

While all other parties regard election campaigns as a nuisance . . we revolutionary Social Democrats enjoy the opportunity of fighting the enemies of the proletariat.

Justice, 13.1.06.

We should never have thought of contesting (the Southampton Election) but for the undertaking voluntarily made by the Liberals with the Trades Council only to run one Candidate.

Justice, 20.1.06.

So that if the undertaking had not been made, the S.D.F. would have denied themselves the enjoyment of fighting the Liberal enemy of the proletariat. There’s self-sacrifice for you !

“Williams and Gribble fought well and Jack in particular was gaining in popularity every day. . . So far as the calculations of those who are supposed to be excellent judges of elections went our chances were exceedingly favourable.”

Yet—

“Something went wrong with the works of the voting machine however, and just at the critical time a considerable portion of our people must have given their favours to the Liberals.”

Northampton S.D.F. Rept. Justice, 20.1.06.

The popularity of picturesque personalities is a poor thing to build up a working-class party upon. Anyhow, it was not strong enough to prevent a considerable portion of our people from falling from grace. Moral.—Build always upon the rock of Socialism and your people will never fail you.

“To us the chief value of the present contest is educational ; and that is why our interest is virtually centered in the small band of uncompromising avowed Socialists. . . . It is because of our deep-seated and long held conviction of the utter hopelessness of anything short of open and implacable warfare against party and privilege and capitalism that . .. . we repeat our advice to our friends to vote solid for the Socialist Candidate and to abstain from voting where no Independent Labour or Socialist candidate is standing.”

Clarion, 12.1.06.

Anything short of open and implacable warfare against capitalism is utterly hopeless. Therefore, we should abstain from voting except for Independent Labour Candidates. Yet not one of the independent Labour Candidates is either an avowed uncompromising Socialist or at open and implacable war with Capitalism. Therefore, they are utterly hopeless. Dear ! dear! And this is a clarion call.

“London, long-suffering, patient London, has made a wonderfully clean sweep of its ruck of ground landlords, contractors, gas and water shareholders, electric trust candidates and municipal reactionaries generally.”

S.D.S., Labour Leader, 19.1.06.

“The main part of their (the Liberals’ and Tories’) business is to mislead the people. They find out what questions are most likely to excite the prejudices and appeal to the passions of the mob and then play upon them. . . They are bound to be found out, but they are buoyed up with the hope that when that time comes some other question will arise. If not then the worst that can befall is the defeat of their party, and their rents and profits and legal fees mill be quite as secure us before”.

J.K.H., Labour Leader, 12.1.06.

One of the faults of the young men who write for the “Labour Leader” is that they think their own contributions are the only things of value in the paper and never read the other fellows’ stuff. Now if S.D.S. had but read J.K.H. the week previously when J.K.H. for some unexplained cause happened to be writing sense, he might have avoided making such a dismal exhibition of himself.

The significant feature of the elections so far is the big vote polled by Socialist and Labour candidates who were run independent of both capitalist factions.

ELECTION RESULT.

Camborne.

Dunn (L) 4,614

Hewitt (C) 2,384

J. JONES (S.D.F.) 109

Why this falling off in the big vote? Is it because the Camborne Candidature was not independent of both Capitalist factions ? Is it because it was dependent upon one of the Capitalist Factions ? Who said Tory gold?

Blogger's Notes:

Like the previous month's column (also titled 'The Pillory'), the  "formatting of this article in the original issue of the Socialist Standard neatly puts the contradictory statements side by side (see below) to give the full impact of the ILP/SDF opportunism and double talk. Sadly, I can't do the same on the blog and, as you can see, the quality of the scan isn't the best anyway."

Also, the ILP newspaper, the Labour Leader, which is mentioned in the piece, is labelled under 'New Leader' on the blog. That's 'cos the newspaper went through a number of name changes in its history . . . Labour Leader . . .  New Leader . . . Socialist Leader . . . and, finally, back to Labour Leader again when the ILP rejoined the Labour Party in the mid-1970s.

Finally, my educated guess is that the 'SDS', the ILP columnist quoted in the Labour Leader, was 'S. D. Shallard'. I'd never heard of him before now, but I was able to hunt him down via a quick look through David Howell's history of the early ILP. Another source mentions that Shallard originally had plans for a career in the Church, but "after a spell of employment in the Woolwich Arsenal had become a professional journalist and socialist lecturer". Beyond that there is little info about him on the internet.

Party Notes. (1906)

Party News from the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Bexley and District Branch has been officially formed and commenced its public career on January 17, when J. Kent delivered a lecture under its auspices at Coverdale Hall, Bexley Heath.

* * *

Similar meetings will be held on the 3rd Wednesday in each month, the speaker for the present month being A. Anderson.

* * *

In the Summer a vigorous campaign will be conducted, the Broadway, Bexley Heath, being an almost ideal spot for open air meetings.

* * *

The arrangements for the debate between our Comrade Fitzgerald and Mr. Doody, representing the Southend Branch of the Social Democratic Federation, are being proceeded with. It is expected to take place some time this month or early next.

* * *

The statement which appeared in several Tory papers to the effect that one of Mr. Shirley Benn’s nomination papers was signed by the Secretary of our Battersea Branch was untrue. This is what happened. W. E. Clark was met by an agent of Mr. Benn’s and induced “on the spur of the moment,” as he regretfully admits, to sign a nomination paper. At the following meeting of the Battersea Branch (Jan. 15) Clark was, of course, expelled.

* * *

We are sorry to lose any member, but in such matters as these, prompt action is absolutely necessary. No distinction can be drawn between one who thoughtlessly and one who deliberately departs from the straight line of conduct which we of the S.P.G.B. have mapped out as the only one that can be safely and successfully pursued by the working-class if they are to work out their own emancipation. All the time, our class must “wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.”

* * *

H. B. Holding, a Tottenham Fabian, has agreed to debate with our Comrade Anderson “after the election.” The arrangements are being made by the North London District Council.

* * *

Peckham Branch held a good “No Vote” meeting at Deptford Broadway on Sunday the 17th Jan., despite the attempts of local S.D.F. members, who were supporting Alderman Bowerman, to “hustle” them.

* * *

Romford Division, with the aid of Comrade A. Anderson, also held a good “No Vote” meeting on Wednesday the 17th Jan. at Barking Broadway.

* * *

It is not true, as has been asserted, that Mr. E. E. Hunter has become a member of the S.P.G.B. He has returned to the S.D.F. fold, through the Stratford Branch of that body.

* * *

Our General Election Manifesto was well distributed and has been the means of bringing the Party before the notice of a number of persons, who have since written us for further information. No doubt practical results will follow in the near future.

* * *

By arrangement between the West and South West London Branches a Social Evening will be held at Sydney Hall, York Road, Battersea, to-morrow, February 4th. The proceeds will be devoted to the general funds of the Party.

* * *

Back numbers of the Socialist Standard can be had through any Branch Secretary.

Books Received. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Rules and Conduct of Debate, is a useful manual of procedure for all who take part in public society, and other meetings. Sixpence net; Ellis & King, 175 Highbury Hill, N.

Labor (St. Louis). Weekly People (New York).

The Land of the Free! (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A dispatch from Dayton, 0., reports that 300 employees of the National Cash Register Co. were discharged because they failed to attend a meeting to listen to addresses on the labour situation by the company officials. The meeting was called by the company because of its decision to refuse the demands of the Typographical union for an eight-hour day. This is the concern which advertises itself as the “model employer of labor,” because it furnishes bath towels, pocket-handkerchiefs and hair curlers to its employes. In return for these kindnesses the company exacts complete obedience from its slaves, as shown above. This only makes clear again that the capitalists will grant everything (even higher wages sometimes), but freedom to the workers, for with freedom will come an end of exploitation. The capitalists are dictators because they own the tools with which the workers must earn a livelihood. When the workers own the tools the despotism of capitalism will cease, and only then.

Labor (St. Louis).

A rash promise. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

I do not pretend to accept as gospel the principles you have laid down. If, however, any practical proposal (on unemployment) came before the Cabinet from Mr. John Burns or anyone else, no one would be more eager—TO LISTEN—than I.

John Morley.

Answers to Correspondents. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hoi Polloi.—Thanks for contribution. We regret that the pressure of important matter upon our very limited space prevents us giving it a place in our columns.

P. Lamb (Chelsea).—There is no truth in the rumour that E. E. Hunter, late London Organiser of the S.L.P., has joined our ranks. We understand, on the contrary, that he has returned to the fold from which he was expelled some time ago—the S.D.F., to wit.

SPGB Meetings. (1906)

Party News from the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New “Force” in Politics. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

So! We are, it seems, to rejoice in the advent of a new force in English politics. We are to observe “the descent of a bolt out of the blue” and be happy. We are to note that “Labour” no longer sits on the “doorstep” but is inside the House of Commons and will do things. We are even to accept the fact as a sign of victory for—Socialism! Well! This is interesting. Because in our ignorance we thought this sort of  “Labour” force descended from the blue, or, to be more accurate, ascended from the black, very many moons since. We seemed to have recollected even of a “Labour” minister in a Liberal administration before Mr Burns. It is true these old-time “Labour” representatives received the support of the Liberal Party. True also that the Rt. Hon. Thomas Burt was for very good reasons persona grata with Liberalism. But then so also was and is Mr Burns, the chairman of the “Labour” group in the last parliament. And is it not the indisputable fact that with few exceptions, the present “Labour” members were the unofficial candidates of the Liberal Party and were backed by most of the local Liberal associations? Then why should we rejoice?

Weighed in the balance

What if this sort of “Labour” representation has got inside the House of Commons in rather larger force than usual (which we suppose is what our enthusiastic exhorters mean when they have called upon us to be glad)—what then? Have they some greater power behind them by which they will be capable of performing greater deeds than their predecessors? What power? Are they not the nominees of an organisation whose members have not reached the stage of political development wherein they can dissociate their interests from the interests of the capitalist political factions? Are not these “Labour” members’ wages therefore dependent upon the manner in which they approach the measures introduced by the capitalist parties? Can they freely attack these measures and the parties introducing them and be sure that their action will not be misunderstood by those who pay the piper? If so, what becomes of the argument in favour of the strict independence of the LRC candidates on the ground that if they were associated with the Liberal Party (for example) the Tory members of the LRC would break away? If not, are they not obliged to give their support to capitalist legislation (unless, of course, that legislation is so glaringly anti-Labour that even the members of the LRC could appreciate it) for fear the contrary action would be misunderstood? Are they not for the same reason forced to proceed with exceeding circumspection in their endeavours to induce the capitalist government to adopt measures they (the capitalist government) do not desire to adopt?

Found Wanting

Is it not the fact that the majority of these “Labour” representatives are themselves, in everything but name, Liberals, and, not understanding the reason for the position of the working class, cannot act as champions of working-class interests? And is it not undeniable that those who do profess to understand, and who at other times are prepared to call themselves Socialists, have repeatedly obscured their Socialism in order to secure the position (as when they stood for election) and confused the minds of those whose intellectual clarity they are supposed to desire, by associating themselves with the representatives of capitalism for capitalist objects? Then what can be expected from these more than their predecessors? What is the use of their separate party and separate whips? The fact is that nine out of ten of them have been elected in alliance with the Liberals; they are by education and sympathy Liberals; they are paid by an organisation overwhelmingly Liberal, and they may be expected to act, as Crooks and Shackleton and Henderson, and in a slightly modified manner, Hardie, have all along acted Liberal. The man who expects more from them is likely to be disappointed; the man who regards their return as a victory for Socialism simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Why the “Labour” men will not do

Our position is that these men, whatever their intentions, are actually retarding the development of the only organisation of the working class that can enter into effective conflict with the forces of capitalism, because they obscure the fact that this conflict exists always in industrial affairs, and do not insist that it must be waged upon the political plane also. By association with capitalist representatives in both political and economic affairs they induce the idea (which capitalism does everything possible to foster) that the hostility does not exist, yet until that fact is grappled with and clearly understood there can be no material improvement in the workers’ condition. It is unfortunate, of course, that the workers do not understand. It makes the task of those who are concerned with the overthrow of capitalism, and the emancipation of the working class from wage-slavery, very difficult. The results of their work seem so very slow a-coming. And some of them tire and drop out of the movement, and others—the Irvings and the McNabs of the SDF for example—curse the stupidity of the working class, while others again—the Hyndmans and Quelches and Hardies and the rest—weary of the work, endeavour to secure some immediate consolation by pandering to the ignorance they once may have thought to dispel, and so simply increase the difficulties in the way.

The irreconcilable few

Only the few remain in the forefront of the fight, waging unceasing battle for their class. These are they who, belonging themselves to the working class, have been at pains to obtain information as to the causes of the ignorance of their fellows; who have seen how, for generation after generation they have been oppressed and misled, sent off upon a barren quest by one set of supposed friends, confused by the actions and instruction of another set; now buoyed up with the hope of happiness, now plunged into the apathy of disappointment and despair. Knowing these things the few set out with no delusions upon the score of  the reception their propaganda will receive at the hands of their class, and are not downcast and peevish when the results desired fail to materialise as quickly as they wish.

We of The Socialist Party of Great Britain are of this few. Our mission is simple. We have to proceed with our educational propaganda until the working class have understood the fundamental facts of their position—the facts that because they do not own the means by which they live they are commodities on the market, never bought unless the buyers (the owners of the means of life) can see a profit to  themselves in the transaction, always sold when the opportunity offers because in that only can the necessaries of life be obtained. We have to emphasise the fact that no appreciable change is possible in the working-class condition while they remain commodities, and that the only method by which the alteration can be wrought is by the working class taking the means of life out of the hands of those who at present hold them, and whose private ownership is the cause of the trouble. Before this can occur the workers will have to understand the inevitable opposition of interests between them and the capitalist class, who, because of their ownership of the means of life, are able to exploit them, so that they will not make the mistake of voting into power, as they have always done hitherto, the representatives of the interests of those owning the means of life, because those who dominate political power dominate also the armed forces that keep the working class in subjection.

The justification of hostility

Therefore are we in opposition to all other political parties, holding on irrefutable evidence, that these other parties are confusing what must be clear to working-class minds before a change can be effected. This is our mission, and we shall conduct it with all the energy we have at our command. We know that the row we have to hoe is likely to be a long one. That does not affright us—because we know that were the row twice as long it would have to be hoed. There is no dodging the duty. There are no short cuts. Naturally, however, we wish the work to be covered as soon as possible, and that is why we oppose and expose those gentlemen who, sometimes with the best of intentions, blur the issue that must be kept unblurred, and so prolong our labours.

That is our position. If it contains flaws we shall be glad to hear of them. Meanwhile we regret that the entrance of the “Labour” men into the best club in Europe is not a Socialist victory and cannot be a Labour triumph. Labour only triumphs where Socialism wins. Meanwhile also, those who thought that the entrance of Burns into ministerial position would result in administration to the advantage of the unemployed should note that the Local Government Board has refused to sanction that portion of the loan applied for from Tottenham which was intended to meet the difference between the cost of work performed by a contractor and its cost if executed by the local unemployed. And those who thought that the advent of a new Liberal administration implied a large-hearted and sympathetic Labour policy should observe that sixty men have been sent to prison for five days each, and fifteen to one month each, for taking up collections in the street during unemployed demonstrations.

A. J. M. Gray

Notes of Interrogation. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lord Durham and Sir James Joicey, both large Colliery owners, sent letters to Mr. Thos. Burt, miners' candidate, wishing him success and enclosing £100 each towards his election expenses. Why?

#    #    #    #

Mr. C. D. Hodgson, Liberal, declared he had spent £10,000 in fighting elections. Why? 

#    #    #    #

Every responsible member of the capitalist Liberal Party has disposed of all the really awkward questions relating to the condition of the working-class by the easy method of referring to the appointment of Burns to the L.G.B. Why? 

#    #    #    #

The "Daily News” says the election was fought not upon what the Liberals may or may not do, but what the Tories have done. Why ? 

#    #    #    #

Mr. W. C. Steadman (Sec. Trades Union Parliamentary Committee) and Mr. Isaac Mitchell (Sec. Federated Trade Unions), were strongly supported in their election campaign by these well-known democrats and Labour sympathisers: Lord Carrington (Board of Trade) and Sir Edward Grey (Foreign Office). Why?

Important Notice. (1906)

Party News from the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our next issue, which will be published on March 3rd, will contain a further instalment of "The Extinction of Petty Enterprise," by Karl Kautsky, also an article on "Independent Labour at the Polls," showing the extent to which "Labour" candidates have compacted with the Liberal Party for the purpose of securing election to Parliament, etc. Readers should ensure an early copy by forwarding 1s. 6. to the S.P.G.B. Offices, 1a, Caledonian Rd., Kings Cross, London, N., for which sum The Socialist Standard will be sent post free to any part of the world for twelve mouths.

*    *    *    *

P. Gillies was expelled by the Tottenham Branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain at their meeting on January 28th, for supporting the Liberal Candidate for the Tottenham Division at the recent parliamentary election.

Another Quack Remedy. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the multitudinous “remedies” for the unemployed problem, one wonders why it should exist at all, or, at any rate, why it is allowed to assume the alarming proportions it does each winter. Notwithstanding stone yards and emigration, Queen’s Funds and the rest, however, the problem remains, and what is more important, increases. But at last the "first practical proposal” has been made. It emanates from that quarter from which one would anticipate “practical” proposals.

The Salvation Army! A sum of £100,000 has been placed at the service of the Army to finance a scheme for putting “a certain section of the deserving poor” “back to the land." Without going into details, the nett result of this “practical proposal" is to create about 200 small holdings of 5 acres each, on which the unfortunate settler will have to work to produce (a) £25 per annum which will be demanded of him as rent; (b) 5 per cent. interest on the sum advanced, and (c) his own livelihood in competition with the larger and more economically organised farms both here and abroad. After 40 years he becomes a "peasant proprietor.”

So far as these potential peasant proprietors are concerned, their unemployment can, if they succeed in complying with the conditions, be accepted as cured; nut for such a scheme to be boomed in the Press as, in any way, a solution of the problem of unemployment, is, misleading and untrue.

For, after all, what leads to this unemployment? Why is it that no one among the ranks of the employers of labour will employ these people? Simply because they cannot do so and conform to the necessities of the system, i.e., show a profit. And this, because the system has developed so as to expose, in bold relief, its essential contradiction, and by virtue of the private ownership of the means of living, and its necessary corollary, wage-labour, to increase with its development, the disproportion between the amount produced and the amount received as wages. It is the accumulation of this difference that produces the glutted market, the depression in trade, the economic crisis, the "over-production ” and the "unemployed problem."

Such a result being the necessary outcome of the capitalistic method of production, how can the effect be removed, and the cause of the effect retained? It is an answer to this riddle which well-intentioned people try to find by means of such artificial arrangements as that mentioned above. For my part, I accept the inevitable, and believe that if capitalism produces the results alleged against it (and they cannot be denied), then to remove the results you must remove capitalism.

The purchasing power of the bulk of the community is limited to their wages. Their wages represent a declining proportion of the wealth produced. The proportion of the community so affected increases. Therefore, the surplus, over and above wages, represents an increasing proportion of wealth which goes to a decreasing proportion of the community. This is the prime cause of unemployment The new scheme (if indeed it can be called new) in no way tends to rebalance those proportions, but, if anything, to enlarge the disproportion. It is, therefore, no solution of the problem.

To attempt to solve an “unemployed problem” that is produced by the capitalist mode of production and yet retain the mode of production is folly and a criminal waste of time. Capitalism out of its own inherent weakness is rapidly preparing its own downfall by the production of such problems as that of unemployment. That downfall is inevitable. There is no escape from it. Upon its ruins only an intelligent working-class may construct the newer system which, by the organisation of the production of wealth for the satisfaction of the wants of those who produce it, will preclude the possibility of such anomalies as the general poverty problem of our time, with the more acute poverty and unemployment always attendant upon it, necessitating, as it at present does, abstinence and starvation in the midst of  plenty, and because there is plenty.

Dick Kent