The Outline of History by H. G. Wells. A Criticism. (1921)

Book Review from the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2

As Mr. Wells's history approaches modern times it lays greater stress than in earlier epochs upon changes in economic conditions and their profound effects upon social and intellectual life. The reason is, of course, the fact that the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries—the most striking and momentous economic change in the annals of man—is so conspicuously at the root of all the characteristics peculiar to "modern society" that its importance cannot be overlooked nor an account of it shirked.

At the close of Chap. XXXVI. 12, after dealing with the "Enclosure Acts" and the beginnings of the factory system, we find this, for the most part, fine passage :

  As the Industrial Revolution went on, a great gulf opened between employer and employed. In the past every manufacturing worker had the hope of becoming an independent master. Even the slave craftsmen of Babylon and Rome were protected by laws that enabled them to save and buy their freedom and to set up for themselves. But now a factory and its engines and machines became a vast and costly thing measured by the scale of the worker's pocket. Wealthy men had to come together to create an enterprise ; credit and plant, that is to say, "Capital," were required. "Setting up for oneself" ceased to be the normal hope for an artisan. The worker was henceforth a worker from the cradle to the grave. Besides the landlords and merchants and the money-dealers who financed trading  companies and lent their money to the merchants and the State, there now arose this new wealth of industrial capital—a new sort of power in the State.

Many so called Industrial Histories do not state the facts so clearly and frankly as does the above quotation. In a later chapter Mr. Wells deals at greater length with the Industrial Revolution, but while it is itself described in a fairly satisfactory manner, some of its effects upon society are missed. Little mention is made (probably by design, as will be seen later) of the horrors and miseries of the new factory system, nor of the child slaves of the factory lords. The cycles of industrial crises—among the most conspicuous phenomena of the 19th century—are not mentioned at all.

Mr. Wells treats briefly of the early trade unions but, strangely enough, omits to make mention of the Chartist movement. The life and brilliant, though Utopian, schemes of Robert Owen are dealt with at some length as being typical of the Utopian school of thought. Although the authors' misconception of the Marxian theory lead him to make some very foolish criticisms, he provides the following testimony to Marx's foresight and clarity of thought:

  A sense of solidarity between all sorts of poor and propertyless men, as against the profit-amassing and wealth-concentrating class, is growing more and more evident in our world. Old differences fade away, the difference between craftsman and open-air worker, between black-coat and overall. . . . They must all buy the same cheap furnishings and live in similar cheap houses ; their sons and daughters will all mingle and marry; success at the upper levels becomes more and more hopeless for the rank and file. Marx, who did not so much advocate the class war, the expropriated mass against the 'expropriating ' few, as foretell it, is being more and more justified by events. Chap. XXXIX. 2.

In an earlier chapter the author points out that "The 'solidarity of labour' is, we shall find when we come to study the mechanical revolution of the nineteenth century A.D, a new idea and a new possibility in human affairs."

In the light of the three quotations given above what shall we think of the following extract from an article by Mr. Wells in the "Sunday Express," 14.11.20?

  Das Kapital (by Marx) a cadence of wearisome volumes about such phantom unrealities as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. . . . when I encountered Marxists I disposed of them by asking them to tell me exactly what people constitute the proletariat. None of them knew. No Marxist knows.

Is this only confusion of thought of an extraordinary variety, or is it deliberate journalistic humbug and lying ?

A point which is worthy of comment and appreciation because it is so rare to find it recognised by a non-Marxian writer, is the fact that Mr. Wells sees in the economic needs of the capitalist class the factor which produced "popular education." After mentioning the sectarian night classes and Sunday schools of the early 19th century he says : 

  The earlier, less enlightened manufacturers, unable to take a broad view of their own interests, hated and opposed these schools. But here again needy Germany led her richer neighbours. The religious teacher found the profit-seeker at his side unexpectedly eager to get the commonality, if not educated, at least 'trained.' The student of English magazines of the middle and later Victorian-period may trace the steadily spreading recognition of the new necessity for popular education. . . . At the back of this process was the mechanical revolution . . . insisting inexorably upon the complete abolition of a totally illiterate class throughout the world. (Chap. XXXIX. 2.). 

Surely Mr. Wells missed a golden opportunity here of demonstrating the truth and utility of his great theory of "nomadization"?

In the final chapter of the history proper an account is given of the "imperialism" of the European "Powers" and of the political events which led up to the "Great War," followed by a brief but excellent record of the military side of the war itself. In dealing with earlier wars Mr. Wells makes much of "the Powers" as social forces, discusses their "rivalries," and constantly refers to the "traditional policy" of this Power or that. All this is in the approved style of the usual bourgeois "historian." The social forces upon which these "rivalries" and "traditional policies," nay, even the very existence of the "powers" themselves, are based are almost entirely unrecognised.

The author deals in the same barren way with the ''Great War." To him it was the inevitable outcome of rampant "nationalism" and "imperialism," but what these were the inevitable outcome of he does not tell us. Here again "nomadization" might have been pressed into service. That war is a necessary result of the capitalist method of production and that nationalism and imperialism are but the theoretical and political expression of two successive phases of this system, Mr. Wells fails to recognise. More satisfactory by far is the account of the material, social, and mental effects of the war. Here Mr. Wells gets nearer to bedrock economic facts. He is greatly influenced by and quotes lengthily from the "Economic Consequences of the Peace," by J. M. Keynes.

In the final chapter of his work our historian ventures a forecast of the future of society. He sees the ideal community of the future as a "Community of Knowledge and Will." This, if interpreted as a community of knowledge and interest is quite an acceptable forecast. The various details of this society which Mr. Wells enumerates we need not trouble about. Criticising Utopias of the distant future is a waste of energy. Vividly he points out the possibilities inherent in the machine. 

  This—and the disappearance of war and the smoothing out of endless restraints and contentions by juster social and economic arrangements—will lift the burden of toilsome work and routine work, that has been the price of human security since the dawn of the first civilizations, from the shoulders of our children. Which does not mean that they will cease to work, but that they will cease to do irksome work under pressure, and will work freely, planning, making, creating, according to their gifts and instincts. They will fight nature no longer as dull conscripts of the pick and plough, but for a splendid conquest.

He discusses the possibilities of and tendencies towards this ideal community, but the fact that he denies the socially constructive importance of the modern class struggle drives him to the conclusion that the only hope lies in a great revival of moral enthusiasm (which he mistakenly calls "religion") combined with "education." We also believe in. the efficacy of education —revolutionary education amongst the world's proletariat. But Mr. Wells's "education" is a universal instruction for social service. We also believe in that, but see and point out that it is an impossible dream in a society grounded on exploitation and class-rule. Such a scheme of education can and will only be achieved after the Socialist Revolution— not before.

It is Mr. Wells's opinion that the ruling class of to-day can be persuaded by reasonable, humanitarian arguments or by far-sighted self-interest to bring about a "re-adjustment" of society which will gradually abolish exploitation and class distinctions. This opinion we cannot share. It is opposed by the whole teaching of history. No ruling class when faced by discontent and revolt ever acted in such a manner. To expect our present rulers to do so is to wallow in superstition rather than stand four-square to science.

Mr. Wells has guided us through latter-day history upon a plan of his own. He has emphasised the stupidity and ignorance of our ruling class and its political representatives, but his standard has been an idealist, not a realist one. Gladstone, a typical capitalist statesman, is declared, for instance, a "grossly ignorant man." But W.E.G. can only be considered ignorant in a relative sense. Everyone is ignorant by some standard of wisdom. Gladstone did what was expected of him by the class he represented. He conformed to the conditions imposed upon him. He was sufficiently wise for his task and no wiser. Thus he became the most popular and revered statesman of his age —he became "great."

But the great "sin of omission" on the part of Mr. Wells is that he fails to point out—in the present writer's opinion deliberately refrains from pointing out, for he must know of it—that for greed, stubbornness, and rapacity in the defence of their interests—even their most grossly material interests—the capitalist class of the present order have shown themselves worthy successors of the slave- and serf-holders of proceeding periods, whilst for political craftiness the earlier ruling classes were "children at the game" in comparison with the modern, bourgeoisie,  

Why does Mr. Wells make no mention whatever in his review of the nineteenth century, of the Paris Commune ? This was no mere political episode, but an object lesson in sociology and, as such, one of the most significant occurrences of the century. Mr. Wells is no "drum and trumpet" historian, but to him as to the common run of bourgeois historians the Commune is taboo. With its 100,000 working-class victims the Paris Commune tears aside the veil of hypocrisy and humanitarian cant which envelop the social relations of our day and reveal naked the power-lust of the capitalist class. The more recent history of the class struggle in Russia, Finland, Germany, and Hungary but confirms and strengthens our view. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive that Mr. Wells, with his knowledge, really believes in the tactic of moralising the capitalist class. In the present writer's opinion Mr. Wells knows better. But as an experienced and "successful" writer and journalist, camouflage (to be polite) is one of the tools of his trade.

#    #    #    #

In conclusion : It is one of the minor tragedies of capitalism that in this "scientific age" the scientific history of our race has yet to be written. Material in abundance lies in the archives, museums, and libraries of the world, and the theoretical means thereto have existed for close upon a century. But the capitalist class forbid. Let us work mightily for the great day when those social parasites which thus paralyse the activity of that supreme product of evolution—the intellect of man—will be banished with the dead and gone into the limbo of the past.

R. W. Housley.

A Tilt at a Travesty. (1921)

Book Review from the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Illusion, A Critical Review of the Principles of State Socialism. By Reginald Tayler. Allen & Unwin. Paper, 1s. 3d. 

It will be noted that Mr. Tayler entities his book "The Socialist Illusion" and immediately qualifies his title by describing the work as "a critical review of the principles of State Socialism." It is difficult to tell from the reading whether the author is aware of the wide difference between Socialism and the purely capitalist notion of nationalising industries under the control of the capitalist State. In places it would almost appear that he does realise this difference, though nowhere does he attempt to prove his "Socialist illusion." Instead, he shows the fallacies of State Socialism and nationalisation, though this has been done long ago by the Socialist, and far more effectively.

In a long chapter entitled "Economic Factors" Mr. Tayler labours pitifully to persuade his readers that the capitalist only gets a very small share of the total wealth produced and that he is really necessary to production. In another chapter, on "State Confiscation," he says that the Labour leaders, while denying that Socialism means confiscation, mean that and nothing else. Holding this view he should have tried to show the fallacy of trying to establish a new order of society after the capitalists had been expropriated. Instead, he devotes his space to the much easier task of showing what a financial mess the State would be in if it took over certain industries, either paying for them or guaranteeing a dividend or interest, while at the same time fixing a higher standard of living for the workers, maintenance while unemployed, etc.

"The State as Captain of Industry" heads another chapter, in which it is declared that trade, under salaried managers, would languish and die, forgetting meanwhile that the big and thriving concerns under capitalism are run in this way, and are rapidly ousting the small concerns managed by their owners. In chapter 6, where our author pretends to deal with the question of production under Socialism, it would almost appear that he is entirely ignorant of the meaning of the word Socialism, or even of many of the phrases he uses, such as "production for use," "under Socialism there would be no trade in the sense in which we understand it," etc. Under Socialism, he says, every undertaking would have to pay its way, consequently useful services, like railways, etc., will cease to be run because the extra costs of running would swallow up the small dividend now paid.

Instead of levelling his criticism at Socialism Mr. Tayler merely tilts at nationalisation, the red herring that the Labour Party drags across the path of the workers. This is the more remarkable seeing that he deliberately accuses the Labour Party of being out for confiscation, which by depriving the capitalist class of ownership in the means of wealth production, would naturally leave them in the workers' possession. His chief mistakes are due to the fact that he has failed to conceive the possibility of the working class attaining sufficient knowledge to establish a system where the means of life, being owned in common, could be operated according to a settled plan without the intervention of trade.

Under capitalism exchange, or trade, must take place because the product of labour is privately owned. But under Socialism it becomes merely a question of producing and distributing, or making available the goods and services required. Each member of the community would take part in the necessary labour and enjoy the fullest life possible under the existing conditions and development of the means of production.

Mr. Tayler sees in capitalist society the distribution of goods taking place on a basis of exchange and imagines that it is this exchange that effects the distribution. But the exchange is merely a social arrangement ; the actual distribution is a result of working-class activities. The workers first produce and then move the goods to where they are wanted. The social arrangement that imposes exchange on top of these quite adequate operations are those historically developed institutions, private, or class, ownership of the means of wealth-production—and therefore of the wealth produced— and the commodity character of human labour-power. On these trade and commerce are built up, and Mr. Tayler on page 21 exclaims, "A marvellous thing is commerce" and on page 23, "Socialists in destroying commerce would destroy the machinery for producing wealth."

True, commerce is a marvellous thing, not for the production of wealth, however, but for its appropriation by the ruling class. Commerce enables the capitalist class to realise the surplus-value contained in commodities, the difference between the wages paid for their production and their real value. Mr. Tayler has read all about surplus-value and his only comment is that "so far from there being a surplus, there is in a large proportion of cases a minus" (p. 53). And again on p. 132, "It was always nearer the truth, and is so still, that Labour received at least eleven pence in the shilling and often the entire shilling." He tries to prove these wild statements by imaginary cases of concerns that have gone on paying wages when no profits have been forthcoming, and by figures recording capitalist failures. But whether a firm fails or succeeds is not evidence that the worker's commodity is paid for above its value.

But "what a marvellous thing is commerce" from the worker's point, of view! The competitive struggle for markets between capitalists falls entirely on the workers. It is they that must produce ever more cheaply by working with greater intensity for wages that are continually being reduced with the slackening of demand. It is the workers, too, that starve when there is abundance, when the markets are choked with commodities they cannot buy because they are unemployed. Truly a marvellous thing is commerce, Mr. Tayler's machinery for producing wealth—those who work it cannot satisfy their own needs, while those who own it are powerless in the face of its staggering over-production, which is the root cause of the intense conflict for markets.

Sometimes our author exposes his own lack of understanding of ordinary terms and definitions. On page 49 he says : 

  "So also the labour power expended upon a commodity is not more than one factor in its production. Take for example the machines which are used. Probably the actual construction of the machines has been the result of mechanical labour, but who knows exactly what brain power has been expended in the invention and development of the machine, and not only of the machine as a whole but of the many individual parts which in their turn have demanded the application of the brain power of perhaps scores of persons not one of whom was a mere artisan."

Here we see that his conception of labour-power is "mechanical labour" or the labour of "artisans," whereas within the term labour power is included not only low-skilled labour, but the organising abilities of the foremen and managers, and even the intellectual qualities of professionals. The fact that the possessors of such forms of energy have to sell them in order to live, places them all in the same category, i.e., purveyors of labour power. All are combinations of nervous and muscular energy. In supposing that labour power means only that combination of nervous and muscular energy common to labourers and artisans, Mr. Tayler shows a lamentable ignorance of bourgeois economics, which long ago accepted the definition of labour power given above.

Again on p. 27 he shows that he is incapable of drawing a correct conclusion from his own facts. In a paragraph too long to quote in full he supposes a group of capitalists who pool  their money, build a factory, install machinery and provide raw materials. He then says: The workmen are got together, they do their first week's work and receive a large sum collectively in wages. The capitalists have meanwhile received nothing." We might ask Mr. Tayler to whom the product of the first week's work belongs, and if that product is nothing.

But on page 51, when our author finds it necessary to show that capitalists are business-like as well as philanthropic, he finds himself in agreement with the Socialist, for he says that "the manufacturer, being a business man, buys labour power just as he would any other commodity with the hope of making a profit therefrom." His group of capitalists, therefore, were possessed of the best intentions towards themselves, even if ultimately they failed to build up a thriving concern.

Mr. Tayler's chapter on "State Confiscation" is very amusing. On page 58 he says 

  "Marx sought to prove that the capitalist was a spoiler and a robber, and the present-day followers of Marx—that is to say practically all those persons who call themselves Socialists—believe that theory. Now to take from a robber his ill-gotten gains and hand them back to the rightful owners is not confiscation but restitution." 

As Mr. Tayler throughout his work has failed to disprove the charge of robbery he cannot logically object to restitution.

On page 59 he says

  "How can anyone suppose that the notion of compensation would ever enter the heads of such people. To compensate a robber and bespoiler would be the height of absurdity. Besides, who would compensate ? Not the workers themselves, because if they had it in their power to give value for value they would be in no different position than before. And in any case to pay for the good things of life would be quite a prosaic proceeding compared with obtaining them by political power, suddenly and in immense quantities, on that great day when the shackles of economic slavery fell from the limbs of the workers." 

But Mr. Tayler is afraid to follow this line of reasoning which knocks the bottom out of Fabian and l.L.P. nationalisation schemes and at the same time renders all his subsequent remarks superfluous because they are directed against just such schemes of nationalisation based on the condition of compensation. It is significant that he does not attempt to deal with the correct Socialist position because he says emphatically, though without evidence to justify the statement, "When Labour agitators speak of nationalisation they mean confiscation, for nothing short of this would really satisfy their aspirations."

The foregoing do not exhaust the errors, misrepresentations, and contradictions contained in the book. These are to be found on every page. There is nothing new, and no argument that has not been tried against Socialism before and smashed to pieces against its invulnerable principles. All the old bogies are hashed up afresh in the struggle to frighten the workers away from Socialism. But those who understand the principles of Socialism will be quick to see how pitifully weak it all is.

F. Foan

Editorial: A Lesson in Politics (1921)

Editorial from the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reports to hand of the result of the Parliamentary elections in South Africa furnish the usual lesson to those who follow the Labour Party policy of building up a political party with unsound—because politically uneducated—material. As to the issue between the Smuts and the Hertzog, we do not feel the slightest interest in that. But if it is true, as the “Daily Chronicle” (11.2.21) states—and we have no reason to doubt it—that the former party “have already won 72 seats out of 132, . . . It has been won largely by the effacement of the Labour party, whose strength has fallen from 21 seats to 9,” then we are interested in as much as we are called upon to point the usual moral.

We have stated time and time again, even to weariness, we are afraid, the only issue upon which the workers can be organised to pursue a steady and consistently progressive path is the plain issue of Socialism. That, of course, means long years of educational work, but it is the only way. When the workers understand the principles of Socialism all side issues cease to interest them. A question such as shall South Africa become a republic or remain part of the British Empire is the sort of question politically ignorant workers can be led to butcher each other over for ages, but the Socialist, who knows that the only thing that matters is whether the workers of the world are to live under capitalism or under Socialism, is not going to be side-tracked into voting capitalist upon ANY issue.

Letter: Again—Have We? (1921)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

145 Ham Park Road,

Forest Gate, E.7.

Dear Sir, —Quite inadvertently, I am sure, you do an injustice to my good friend William Montgomery Brown in imputing plagiarism to him on the strength of "The Communist's" notice of the book ''Socialism and Christianism." You, I know, will welcome it as a sincere piece of writing on the theme of your official manifesto on the complete incompatibility of religion with Socialism. The foreword to part 1, which is headed "Communism : The, Naturalistic, This-worldly Gospel for the Coming Age of Classless Equality and Economic Freedom," is a quotation from your manifesto and clearly acknowledged at the foot of the page. You will be glad to make the amende honourable in your next issue.

I am yours truly,

George Underwood.

[Mr. Underwood encloses with the above a leaflet advertising the ex-Bishop's book and offering prizes for essays in the judging of which our pamphlet "Socialism and Religion" is to be the standard. We are glad we did not attribute plagiarism to the author.—Ed. Com.]

Leaders and Leadership. (1921)

From the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent appointment of a prominent official of the Miners' Federation to a remunerative government post emphasises, once again, how logical the Socialist Party is in its fierce opposition to all forms of leaders and leadership. It will, perhaps, be instructive at this juncture to examine and analyse at some length the relative position of the leaders and the led, and to trace the motives that instigate the desire of so many members of the working class to follow blindly anyone with the ability to impress upon them the qualifications generally considered necessary for successful leadership.

The Socialist, holding as he does a materialist conception of the universe, and understanding how great a part environment plays in the development of the individual, realises that the mentality of the majority of the workers is such as provides an excellently fruitful soil for the sowing and growth of the leadership idea. They—the workers—are taught from youth upward that they are beings of a low order of intelligence; that they must obey implicitly the precepts and orders of certain people who are supposed to "be much wiser than they; that theirs is not to reason why, but to do or die in whatever way their "superiors" may ordain. They have instilled into their minds from childhood by the priests of the various religious organisations the idea that the intellect must be quiescent and subservient when coming into conflict with anything that appertains to the doctrines taught.

All religions are forms of mental weakness. They embody, without exception, the desire of feeble minds to find something stronger than themselves on which they can lean and to which they can turn for help and guidance when faced by any tribulation or trial. The Press from the time of its inception has invariably used its power to impress upon the workers the fact that their place is, and should be, the lowest possible at the table of life, while at any orthodox political meeting one is made to feel that the politicians are the elite of social and intellectual refinement and the audience (if it is a working class audience) merely the residue left after the refining process by which politicians are made has been accomplished.

Teachers, priests, pressmen, politicians, all the agents employed to train and bend the proletarian mind in the direction desired by the capitalists have for generations done their business so well that it is really not surprising that most working-class men and women are in a mentally supine condition, willing and eager to follow blindly anyone with a strong and commanding personality, a glibness of tongue, or a persuasive manner. This gullibility is almost incredible, until one remembers past occasions and incidents, such as occurred, for instance, during the late European war and the General Election campaign during the close of 1918.

Thus it is easy for a would-be leader to obtain followers and an enormous ascendency over them. The material he has to work upon has been so well prepared for him that little or no difficulty is found in making people accept at his own valuation; in making them believe in his superior wisdom and attainments ; that it would be all to their benefit to follow unquestioningly whatever dictates he may give or in whatever direction he may lead ; that he is a man to be trusted, a shepherd whose only desire is to bring his sheep to more juicy pastures and better feeding places.

On the part of the leaders themselves, various motives may come into operation in the process of elevating a member of the rank and file to a position as a full blown labour leader. The motive may be a desire on his part for place and power; for a better social position ; for money and the power it gives. He may desire to escape from a hard and uncongenial task to an easier and more congenial one. He may see dangling before his eyes a position in Parliament and the emoluments that generally accompany such a position. He may realise how much more valuable to the capitalist Press (and consequently how much more remunerative to the writer) are articles written by a prominent labour leader in comparison with those written by a mere rank-and-filer. It may even be at the outset that he sincerely believes that in accepting the position offered him he is doing what is best for those from whose ranks he has risen— though in this case, the strength of the social and political environment in which he finds himself—a totally different environment as a leader from that in which he moved before— will very quickly change his outlook and bring him into line with those of his confreres who look down from their high altitude at the plane from which they have sprung and wonder how in the world they could ever have found anything in common with the denizens of such a benighted district.

In any case, whatever the motive may be, it is inevitable that directly a man reaches a position wherein he is able to exercise to their fullest extent his powers of personality, or plausibility, or rhetoric—that is the very powers that have enabled him to occupy the place he does—he is to all intents and purposes a martinet whose word is law and who is able to sway whatever way suits him the people from whom he has risen and who have themselves elected him to the position he holds.

Take the generality of labour leaders. One would have thought that long ere this their followers would have seen on which side—the workers' or the capitalists'—these men actually were. Their past record is sufficient for any impartial observer to perceive that their sole aim is their own advancement, and that they are astute enough to see that such advancement will be quicker and better obtained by keeping in agreement with the capitalists rather than by opposing them. But their followers are too obtuse to understand what is happening, or even when, in rare instances, their eyes are opened, they prefer to put up with the men they have elected rather than dismiss them and admit that they have been misled, gulled, and betrayed by those to whom they have been stupid enough to give their confidence and trust.

A short time ago a prominent trade union official and member of Parliament was subjected to a good deal of criticism from certain recalcitrant members of his union with regard to his activities on behalf of the capitalists more directly connected with his particular union. His retort to his critics was a threat to resign, whereon all criticism was immediately silenced and as a mark of confidence his salary was raised. Not only so, but soon after he was presented with other pecuniary tokens of his followers' reverence for authority and their willing acceptance of the fact of their inferiority. When one comes to consider the question, it must really be the easiest thing in the world— for anyone with few scruples and plenty of bluff to lead such a purblind and readily deluded mob as the bulk of the working class is at present. "In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king," and the workers are so blind to their own interests that the men they elect as leaders, however oblique of vision they may be, apparently appear quite god-like in comparison with the electors own humble opinion of themselves.

It is not surprising that when these "men in authority" are offered a well-paid Government position they jump at the chance of bettering themselves and throw over without the slightest compunction the rather shaky props upon which they have risen. So it will continue as long as the workers remain in their present condition of economic and political ignorance.

They must first of all realise their class position of wage slaves and ascertain why they are wage-slaves. Then will come in due course a knowledge of their tremendous strength as a social force and their organisation in the Socialist Party, which has no leaders in any shape or form, To follow blindly anyone or anything is a sure symptom of mental weakness. The training and strengthening of the working-class intellect is the first step towards the emancipation of the workers from the degradation which is the inevitable outcome of their position as wage-slaves into the freedom of body and mind desired by the Socialist, not only for himself and his class, but for all men and women—even perhaps (though this may sound fantastic) for labour leaders.

F. J. Webb

Correspondence: The "Daily Herald" Finds a Defender. (1921)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the editors.

The current issue of the Socialist Standard drifted into my hands this week, and I was somewhat surprised to find an article by "D.W.F." attacking the "Daily Herald."

It may be possible to look down upon the "Daily Herald" from the lofty pinnacle of Socialism, but is it not possible for Socialists to admit that the "Daily Herald" is in advance of the rest of the daily Press ? It may obtain funds from the co-operative societies and trade unions, and trade union officials may have a voice on the board, but is it not good for the workers that trade unionists have a voice in the policy of just one of the many daily papers ?

Why sneer at the "Daily Herald" for advancing its price from 1d. to 2d. because the capitalists will not buy advertisement space ?

Why allude to the editor as "the renegade Atheist Lansbury?" I do not judge a man by the opinions he has held, or does hold. I judge him by his works, and I venture to say that George Lansbury will go down in history as one of the few men of this generation who have accomplished something for the betterment of mankind.

George Lansbury has spent his life in working for the proletariat; after years of endeavour he has established a workers' paper that makes its voice heard amidst the retrograde screeches of the capitalist's Press. If D.W.F. finds the paper not to his liking I would remind him that the circulation is only some 300,000 in a population of forty millions, therefore there is plenty of scope, and I think that instead of "crying down" the most advanced paper we have, he would be better employed in copying George Lansbury (if he can) and starting another advanced paper more in keeping with his personal views.

E. Julius Mills.

Reply:

Mr. Mills having come into possession of the November "S.S." through its having "drifted" into his hands, has let at least one item of its contents drift into his head, namely, an article by myself applying some moderate criticism to the "Daily Herald." I say moderate because the criticism would have caused greater displeasure to him had I found time to go into the subject in greater detail. For instance, I did mention that the subject of his championship boxes the compass politically in every issue, or I should rather say, nearly boxes the compass, the qualification being admissible because one point of politics is always avoided, and that is Socialism. This, however, causes no disappointment to the Socialist, who would not look to such a reactionary journal for his principles. Nevertheless it is necessary that the non-Socialist worker who is seeking knowledge shall be warned of the pitfalls set for the unwary in the shape of pseudo-Socialist journals and organisations. The "Daily Herald" coming in the former category, is exposed so that the awakening consciousness of the working class shall not be stifled through its agency. We Socialists have an objection to seeing seekers after truth progressing sideways like the crab ; we know the necessity of forward movement, and as far as we are able we ensure it. Any casual examination of the doctrines propounded in the "Herald" will show the confusion of thought with which its readers are confronted; for instance, side by side with pious protestations that Socialism is the only ultimate cure for the disabilities imposed upon society by capitalism, one will find a medley of appeals for its palliation, such as nationalisation or public ownership of mines, railways, tramways and the like.

Let me put a question to my critic. If Socialism is the only thing that can benefit the worker, how can he claim that Lansbury is "working for the proletariat" by inducing them to waste their energies in chasing will-o'-the-wisps which he and his scribes admit will not ultimately benefit the worker, which means that if all their palliatives became accomplished facts the Social Revolution would still have lo be attained? Lansbury and his gang know full well that whilst the workers are engaged in shadow-chasing those things that matter are being neglected, and this is a knowledge shared by all misleaders of the working class, from Tory Coalitionists to Lansbury and his satellites.

In reply to the query "is it not possible for Socialists to admit that the "Daily Herald" is in advance of the rest of the daily Press ?" as I said in my contribution to the November issue, the "Daily Herald" tells a little more of the truth than its avowedly capitalist rivals "when it suits the powers behind it"—from which it may be gathered that the "advance" is a mere instrument in their reactionary policy. As to whether it is "good for the workers that trade unionists have a voice in the policy of just one of the many daily papers,'' that depends entirely upon the daily paper, and when one finds that the contributors to the "Herald" are interchangeable with nearly the whole field of the capitalist Press, one is not moved to transports of delight in this regard. Let me quote a few of the luminaries of the labour firmament who scintillate from the columns of the "'Daily Herald": J. H. Thomas, John Scurr, Ben Tillett, Margaret Bondfield, Ben Turner. How long does my critic think the working class will require to overthrow capitalism if such are to be their teachers?

I deny sneering at the ''Herald" for raising its price. The Socialist Party have had to raise the price of the "S.S." recently, but not because the capitalists would not buy advertisement space. We, being a Socialist organisation, do not accept capitalist advertisements, and surely it should be obvious to my critic that the capitalist is not likely to support that which is out to overthrow him. It is significant that the "Daily Herald" gets even the advertisements that it does. Mr. Mills has probably also noticed that there has been some back-scratching just lately between the paper he champions and the "Evening News" over the new ''Advertisers Demand Nett Sales" dodge, and if he stretches his memory a little he will remember that Mr. Lansbury explained in an article on the "Russian Gold" that the "Daily Mail'' and other capitalist papers came to its aid over the period of the paper shortage. Apart from all this it is clear that journals touting for advertisements have to suit their policies to their advertisers' liking. Could Mr. Mills imagine the "Daily Herald" attacking the Co-operative Wholesale Society or Messrs. Bolsom ?

When the class conscious workers decide that the time is ripe for the Socialist daily paper they will support it and see that its welfare is not bound up with the activities of capitalist advertisers. They will want to be posted as to the progress of the movement and the steps the enemy are taking to crush it, not to read about Pelman's for Pimply Brains. They will expect and get the uncompromising hostility of the capitalist class.

No, George Lansbury has not "spent his life working for the proletariat." On the contrary, he has spent it in very effectively working for himself.

The prospect that is offered to me, as a parting shot, that I copy Lansbury—ye gods, a prospect indeed!—by "starting another advanced paper more in keeping" with my views would be very enticing if it were not for the fact that this population of 45 millions includes a few too many millions of people who think as my critic does, and who therefore stand in the way of working-class emancipation by supporting political charlatans and time-servers instead of working for Socialism. In any case, were the workers ready to start a Socialist daily it would not be for me to do it. I or some other individual or individuals might be the instruments chosen, but it would necessarily be controlled by the organised class conscious workers themselves and run according to their dictates, and not "more in keeping" with my views, or those of any other individual.

Maybe my critic has got too set in the habit of letting things "drift" into his hands and head, but if not my advice to him is that he should stop the "drift" policy and adopt a new plan. That plan is to study Socialism, understand it, and then join in the fight for the overthrow of capitalism, for the new world which awaits the proletariat when they have discarded their chains—a world in which no man shall be another's master : all shall be free.

D. W. F. 

Saving The Rates. (1921)

From the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is often stated that Labour representatives busy themselves with affairs that are of no concern to the class they are elected to represent. Indeed, they appear to go out of their way in order to give effective support to measures that are calculated to serve the interests of the class which exploits labour. A superficial examination of the workings of any municipal authority will show that its function is usually confined to matters of supervising the running of profit-making trams, gas-works, or any old thing which can be utilised for the purpose of producing a profit in order that the rate-payers (that is, the property holders) shall not be unduly pressed. Any worker, if he be candid, will tell you that he doesn't care a rap whether the streets are paved or not so long as his job is secure and a wage coming in. That is where he is chiefly interested. Consequently, whether the rates be high or low it cannot be of any concern to the worker. Being a propertyless person and a wage slave into the bargain, it cannot be held that he possesses any assessable property. Living, at the best of times, virtually from hand to mouth, his chief concern is the getting of the wherewithal to fill his mouth. If Labour received all the wealth it produces— that is, all wealth—then the story would be different. All of which is a sufficient reason why the doings of the Labour men on the v»rious municipal bodies should be condemned, since they all appear to go the same way. A recent instance at Lambeth is a case in point.

The Borough Council formerly put out all its refuse collecting to contract. Due to pressure by the labour members it was decided to intro duce a scheme of "direct municipal enterprise." To use a less fanciful term, it was resolved that they shift their own muck. The borough engineer's estimate worked out at something like £9,600 for six months. After working the scheme the actual cost proved to be nearly £1,000 less, which made a total saving in four wards of £3,235 on the lowest tender for contract work. This is an instance of "saving the rates" in which Labour representatives excell.

It might be argued that since Labonr doesn't benefit either way, what's the odds? But it matters a great deal, because if these men were to devote the time, energy, and money spent on easing the "burden" of the master class to a different purpose—that of getting to understand the real interests of the workers and then getting others to understand—then the odds would be in our favour. As it is, the work of these individuals only redounds to the credit of the capitalist class: being the dominant class in the present system of society it follows that only its welfare is worthy of consideration. If these people are not doing their duty to the class they pretend to represent, then obviously the thing to do is to repudiate them and expose their work on every possible occasion. This applies especially to those who hold good and lucrative jobs both in the House of Commons and in the various trade unions. They believe the workers to be sheep that require to be led, whereas they are asses—for allowing it. It is time the game of "follow my leader" was played out. What is needed is not leadership, but knowledge—in large doses. This is easily accessible to the worker if he will not be side tracked by any such rubbish as benefiting by the saving of rates.

A last pointer: which is troubling the workers most at the present moment—rising rates or falling wages ?

Tom Sala

Capitalist Fears and Admissions. (1921)

From the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

The ever-increasing development of machinery—a law of existence to capitalism—begets problems faster than they can be solved. "Efficiency," the watchword of the capitalists, works with a boomerang effect through the glutting of world markets and compulsory closing down of industry, and a realisation of this sets to work the brains of professors, journalists, and individual capitalists, thinking out schemes for the weathering of commercial storms which grow more intensive in ratio with increasing productive forces.

So it is that the capitalist Press gives a large amount of space to the discussion of society's problems, and the more conscious members of the master class-draw attention to and attempt to solve the various problems.

"Printer's Ink" for November contains a report of a speech delivered by Wm. B. Dickson (President Midvale Steel Corporation) before the American Society of Engineers, in which he declares:

  "Efficiency in all lines of human endeavour is greatly to be desired, yet I fear that we are in danger of making a fetich of efficiency such as to endanger human freedom. It is a deadly menace in a people clothed with political power but stunted in body and soul by their environment. . . The tendency [sic] of modern industry is towards autocratic control of the workers through ownership of what our Socialistic friends term 'the tools of production,' which include not only the natural resources, but also the furnaces, mills, factories, and transportation systems." (Italics mine.)

Just how this autocratic control of the workers arose, exists, and is maintained has been explained innumerable times in the columns of the "S.S."

Divorced from the ownership of the necessary tools of production, the workers are compelled to sell the only power they possess—the power to labour—and in return receive wages which represent in the main only the bare necessaries needed to produce that labour power, despite the fact that their energy, applied to the materials they work with adds value to the subject of their labour. The products, however, remain the property of the masters, who proceed to realise their profits by selling the products on the market. Thus, being dependent upon the masters, the workers are enslaved and subjected to exploitation, which grows more and more intense, with the result that ever more quickly markets are flooded and more workers are thrown on their own resources—which means that they are at liberty to starve.

Lest we appear biased, let Mr. Dickson describe the process of shutting down industry. He says :

  "The merchants were driven out of business, real estate values were depreciated, and the workers were thrown on their own resources and had to break up their homes and seek employment elsewhere. None of these persons had any voice in the momentous decision, which was made in a New York office and which resulted in social paralysis in all of these communities. . . . It is the effect of the unconscious insolence of conscious power. . . By reason of this condition we have the unstable situation of a government founded on the suffrages of men who—for all practical purposes—and industrially bond men."

Coming to his solution of the problem the steel magnate declares for a "fair system of collective bargaining," and insists that the worker must be given a real stake in the enterprise, slyly suggesting that the employee should be induced to invest his savings. Also a greater measure of management must be introduced according to this capitalist sociologist, who goes on to issue the following warning to those who will have nothing to do with "industrial democracy."

  "My answer to this is that all human relations are not static but dynamic, and unless I am mistaken as to the direction and force of the tide which is now running so strongly in human affairs your choice will not lie between the present system of industrial control and industrial democracy."

Ah ! the cat is out of the bag. Of what can Mr. Dickson be afraid ? SOCIALISM ! as is obvious from his quotation from Carnegie's "Problems of to-day." 

  "Revolutionary Socialism is successfully to be combatted only by promptly conceding the just claims of moderate men."

What a noble compliment to the pseudo-Socialists who are the formulators of "just claims" and so-called working-class reforms. Like the Italian premier, Mr. Dickson would like to be able to declare that "Socialism has been prevented for at least fifty years," but because he is not confident in either his own solution or the many other palliatives which have been advocated at different times and in so many different guises, he is compelled to fall back upon the bourgeois religion of hope. He concluded his address with the following: "I am hopeful that our generation will guess the sphinx riddle, and that 'Out of the nettle, danger, will pluck the flower, safety.' "

So much for Mr. Dickson. We will now turn to another defender of the bulwarks of capitalism, Mr. Hoover, who is reported by the New York "Daily News" of November 20th as saying before the Federated Engineering Societies that 

  "the intermittency of unemployment . . the ever-present industrial conflicts by strike and lockout produce infinite wastes and great suffering. The aggregation of great wealth with its power to economic domination presents social economic ills which we are constantly struggling to remedy."

Hoover, like Mr. Dickson, is concerned with the removal of this condition of affairs which gives the workers innumerable object lessons which, with the aid of Socialist analysis, will bring them to a definite acceptance of Socialism. He asserts that employers frequently overlook the fact that "Labour organisations as they stand to-day are the greatest bulwarks against Socialism."

He also advocates shop committees "imbued with the principle of co-operation" and. discloses another "shilling under the foot," for apropos of the recent agitation on the part of master-class associations against the closed shop he remarked: "There would be little outcry against the closed shop if it were closed in order to secure unity of purpose in constructive increase of production by offering the full value of the worker's mind and effort as well as his hands." In other words, a BRAIN-SUCKING SCHEME with which the British worker is familiar under the guise of Whitley councils, Nationalisation schemes, etc.

Mr. Hoover's solution is no solution, but an aggravation of the problem, as indeed all capitalist solutions tend to be. Although they see how they are compelled to dig their own graves they are also compelled to evolve even bigger tools for the purpose. Shop committees, whether built up from the more conservative unions or the ultra-revolutionary (sic) industrial unions, will, according to his theory, serve as the instrument for removing minor points of friction in this industrial machine, as well as contribute by suggestion towards more efficient development.

Always tinged with the insatiable greed for wealth, the solutions offered by the master class fall short, as that very profit lust is the expression of the causes of the problem and it cannot be solved without their self-abolition or without the working class organsing for that purpose.

While production is social the product is privately owned, and as the workers can only absorb wealth according to their meagre purchasing-power, and the master class cannot dispose of the surplus wealth even by indulging in stupendous orgies of waste, distributing centres become choked with wealth and the cycle of unemployment and starvation in the midst of plenty is gone over again until the wealth is gradually absorbed and the channels once more freed. Private ownership, then, is the root cause of the problem; and it is at the root cause we must strike.

Capitalism is rotten, as is evident from a glance over the headlines in any newspaper. Crime, disease, oppression, starvation, indicate the social and economic bankruptcy of the system of private ownership of property, and we of the working class can confidently go ahead to wield ourselves into the party which shall take the helm and usher in the system that, for the first time in the history of man, shall make freedom possible. While the masters are futilely trying to "pluck the nettle," we Socialists shall continue the educational work which makes the roses grow on the cheeks of a working-class party determined to make use of the political power with which we are clothed and digging out the weed of capitalism which chokes most that is best in human relations.

We declare with Engels: 

  "To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement—Scientific Socialism."

Atlantic

My Lady Tells 'Em Orf. (1921)

From the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ingratitude is a most despairing fault. Whenever or wherever it rears its ugly form combat must inevitably be given by those among us of culture, tone, and gentility. Small wonder then, that my good Lady Bathurst should feel so distressed at the alarming evidences of working-class ingratitude around her. So disturbed is she in her contemplation of the dire effects of their ungrateful attitude that the kindly lady has spared a few of her precious moments to rebuke them, gently but firmly, in a letter to the Press.

Let us hope that their ingratitude is not so hopelessly ingrained that they will not feel at least a tinge of gratefulness for the solicitude so potently portrayed in this generous admonition. Hear her !

  Nowhere in the world was so much done for the working class as in England. Privileges and gifts were showered upon them by the Government, by local authorities, and private individuals. Clubs and halls, hospitals and libraries, were maintained for them, but she had noticed of late years these things were accepted as a matter of course ; they were not in the least grateful."—("Daily News," 15.1.21.)

The charm of this rebuke lies in its restraint. Who could have been surprised if her ladyship had adopted a tone more curt? Even violence of expression the circumstances would warrant. Her ladyship's late lamented friend Lord Fisher would doubtless have done greater justice to the theme. It is quite possible the time given to penning this kindly warning to the workers might have encroached on a visit to the opera, or perchance have delayed her in allowing her maid to dress her for a ball. Surely the reasonableness and charity of my lady cannot be lost on those workers she has had to chide, and the spirit of her homily will not go unheeded. Let those workers see to it that in future no such cause for complaint is left to agitate this generous lady. Remember, she and her class never show ingratitude toward you, the workers. True, they never show gratitude either, but where's the need ? You plough their land for them ; you till the soil ; you burrow your way into the bowels of the earth and bring to them minerals for their use and wealth for their aggrandisement. You sweat yourselves and stint yourselves in your mad haste to procure and fashion all that makes their lives an orgy of enjoyment. You starve your minds and bodies and your children's minds and bodies, so that they and theirs may have pleasure and leisure. You shed your blood, you mangle your limbs, you surrender to the tortures of the factory hell your progeny in their service. And yet they need not show you gratitude ! They need not even show you decency.

On, on, fellow workers, will you go in your hopelessness, and idle parasites will lecture you in their mocking tones until— —. Until you learn the simplicity of your emancipation ; until you see the hope that lies in your dormant mighty strength, and, rousing yourselves, you sweep away for ever the subjection of your class. In the consummation of your mission you will have rid your contemporaries of the pest of indolent ladies and their patronising insolence will have been forgotten.

W. H. S.

Rural Poverty. The Situation Reviewed. (1921)

From the February 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Just Ask for What You Want.

Under the heading : "How to Overcome Poverty in Rural Districts," the Daily Herald for Saturday, the 18th December, reports a meeting of a Trades Council at Halesworth in Suffolk, at which agricultural workers' representatives supported a resolution requesting an immediate increase in wages. The reason for this request is clear enough. The agricultural workers of Halesworth find that the cost of living continues to increase, and it becomes more and more difficult to live on the wages they get; they therefore ask that the Agricultural Wages Board, a body set up under the Corn Production Act, shall order an increase of the minimum wage at present applicable in Suffolk. So far so good, but the supporters of the resolution do not explain why they expect the Board to order this increase, nor what they propose to do should they refuse. Apparently no explanation is considered necessary.

It might be said that the Corn Production Act was intended to "secure for able bodied men wages which, in the opinion of the Board, are adequate to promote efficiency, and to enable any man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such a standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."

Who are to Decide the Standard ?

That is true, but it is as well to remember that the problem of deciding what is a decent standard was not to be left to the workers themselves to decide. It will be useful here to consider the conditions which necessitated the Corn Production Act, and the motives of its promoters, and to return later to the particular problem of the Suffolk workers.

The capitalist or employing class lives by exploiting the workers ; this means that out of

the whole product of their labour the workers receive only a part, and not a large part. Speaking generally, they get sufficient to enable them to work and to bring children into the world who will carry on when they are worn out—just like horses, with the one great difference that a horse costs money and must be fed and tended even when temporarily not required to work, while men cost nothing and can be stood off when work is slack, because their employer is under no obligation to keep them, and knows that they can be replaced at any time. In any industry, therefore, the employers are primarily interested in the exploitation of their own employees. Their interests are served by having production as high, and wages as low, as possible, even to the extent of injuring the health of the workers. An individual employer does not have to consider the health and fitness of future generations, and in consequence physical deterioration has been the lot of the workers in every land under the present system of society.

The Bespoilers MUST Protect Against Themselves.

However, the more far-sighted capitalists and their advisers realise the necessity of protecting the more helpless workers against a too ruthless exploitation, in order to safeguard the future of the race and in particular so that they can effectively resist the attacks of other countries in time of war.

The rivalry which exists between national groups of capitalists occasionally becomes so acute as to lead to open war. The workers are then called upon to defend the interests of their masters, and if it is desirable to have efficient factory hands it is doubly so to have alert, fit, and capable soldiers to stand the strain of modern warfare. It is,for these reasons that Factory Acts and the statutory limitation of hours and other restrictive measures are introduced, often in face of the bitter opposition of sections of employers who will suffer immediate loss, or who fail to appreciate the need for them. The minimum wage clause of the Corn Production Act was intended to give the agricultural labourer the same amount of protection as had already been granted to town workers.

Why the Act was passed.

The Act itself owed its origin to the famine that threatened the Allies, and this country in particular, in the early years of the war. An acute shortage of shipping, aggravated by the haphazard attacks of the German raiders, and later by the sustained submarine war, had been required to teach our rulers that a larger proportion of our food supply could and must be produced at home. They decided that farmers had to be induced to plough up grass land and in this and other ways to increase considerably their corn acreage, and as corn-growing had been declining for many years owing to the cheapness of imported corn, the inducement took the form of guaranteeing prices at a high level for a number of years. It was, of course, out of the question to compel farmers to assist in smashing Germany without reward ; that was reserved for mere property less workers.

Capitalists "Getting Wise."

The experiences of war had taught our militarists and the Government's agricultural advisers one or two other things as well. The medical examinations had revealed a startlingly low level of fitness among rural workers. Little and poor food, bad housing, and heavy work at too early an age, had had a disastrous effect on a once virile country population. What could not be done for the workers' own benefit had to be done in a hurry when it was a question of "food for the guns" in our masters' war.

Besides this the more wide awake of the agriculturists had made another discovery : that it does not pay to employ unhealthy and undersized workers. Experiments in Hampshire showed that the agricultural workers had sunk to so low a level there that higher wages and piece rates would not lead to greater production. Generations of under-feeding and bad housing had robbed labourers of the Southern counties of the vitality required to enable them to respond to these forms of inducement so successful elsewhere.

Just think how distressed Thomas and Clynes and other pro-capitalist Labour leaders must have felt at the idea of workers who couldn't increase their output and their employers' profits !

So it was done! The Corn Production Act says that the agricultural worker must have a decent standard of life.

What was meant, of course, was that just enough should be given to make it possible to get more profits and better soldiers. Poor Sir Frederick Banbury, gallant old Tory that he is, had a horrible nightmare when he thought this innovation might give the land workers leisure to think, and to be extravagant. "What is necessary," he declared, "is that you should have your labourers content with their position and have their minds intent upon their work," and "I know for a fact . . . there were men doing casual work who earned from their point of view quite enough in four days to enable them to do nothing for the remaining two days."

No Need for Uneasiness.

But he need not have worried. The minimum fixed upon was 25s , which has since been increased with rising prices to 46s !

The Government were soon satisfied that sufficient had been done to meet future military requirements. When Lloyd George, with the assistance of some millions of soldiers, and at the cost of a million workers' lives, had won the war, they recovered from their first panic. They were also satisfied that the agricultural unions, whose rapid growth they had foreseen and desired, could be trusted to see that at least the most hideous features of rural degradation were to some extent removed. As a matter of fact agricultural wages have increased by a greater percentage than those in most industries since pre-war days.

Now that the object of the Act has been considered there comes the question of the working of the machinery it set up to deal with wages. There is in every county a committee composed of equal numbers of representatives of farmers and workers together with some neutral members. These committees are advisory only, and a central board sitting in London alone has the power to make orders, against the wishes of the district committees if necessary.

The Real Object of the Scheme.

These Halesworth workers, like many others, appear to think that their representatives merely have to ask for an increase and explain the justice of their case to get what they want. They think it is just a question of the disposal of votes that settles the amount that shall be paid. The farmers' representatives will be expected to oppose any application just out of cussedness, but if the neutrals do so too it will be ascribed to their anti-labour bias. Both farmers and labourers frequently ask for the removal of some or all of these neutral members. That is because they both fail to understand the idea underlying Trade Boards and Arbitration Courts so much in evidence in recent years. Their real object is to prevent stoppage of work and generally to remove friction and promote the smooth running of the wheels of industry. It is true the method hasn't always been a success either here or in America, or in Australia or other countries where it has been extensively used. That, however, can be put down to some extent to the indiscreet way some Governments have introduced it. It has been so far successful that there is no likelihood of its being abandoned.

What Does Matter.

The workers suffer when they strike, but this doesn't matter in the least to their employers if it were not for the fact that the latter suffer too. The employers have the State behind them and all the chances are in their favour, but even if they were certain of victory they would still prefer a less expensive way of settling disputes. A stoppage of work means no profits, idle machinery, unfulfilled contracts, and the loss of markets to home and foreign competitors.

The ability of the workers at any given time to get a larger share of what they produce depends, not upon the eloquence of their representatives, but on their powers to demand it. A whole intellectual armoury of moral arguments will fail to convince an employer of the justice of a claim if the labour market is overcrowded. If he knows that there are a dozen men willing to take the place of each of his employees for the same or less wages, he will also know that he can reduce wages with impunity. Well organised workers will take advantage of every favourable opportunity to get higher wages, and will fight to prevent any reduction. These are the occasions when strikes are likely to occur, and Arbitration Boards and similar bodies aim at eliminating that risk.

A Useful Function.

In agriculture the District Wages Committees serve to gather information about the strength of feeling on any particular question. The representatives of farmers and labourers themselves are in a position to know what action their members will be prepared to take. When one side makes a demand on the Central Board it will almost certainly be opposed by the other. The neutral members, under the skilful guidance of the independent chairman, and acting oil reports from the District Committees, will then endeavour to effect a compromise. They must decide on a figure sufficiently high to take the backbone out of the discontent of the workers, and sufficiently low to be accepted under protest by the employers. Both sides then report their "victory" to those they represent, and everything goes more or less smoothly until further increase in prices produces more discontent.

A Bad Outlook.

Just now there is commercial stagnation everywhere. Expectations of the break in prices which, was, according to the Daily Herald, to be the beginning of the new world for the workers, and rumours on every hand of impending bankruptcies, are adding thousands to the already immense army of unemployed. Seasonal unemployment, which meant the standing off of older men and boys at this time of the year, has been a constant feature of rural life, but this has now been aggravated by the competition of unemployed town workers, many of whom, of course, will only recently have left the land for better paid factory jobs.

The Nett Result.

The net result is that agricultural workers are not now in a position to demand more money, and the land workers at Halesworth, like those in almost every country, like the workers in every industry, must remain discontented. The most closely organised and highly skilled trades will fight hard, but their success can only be moderate indeed. In the capitalist system repeated unemployment and continual poverty and insecurity are the lot of the workers, and no sectional struggles against its effects can be of lasting benefit while the mass of them support the system through their failure to understand their position in it.

The immediate task of the workers is to study the structure and origin of capitalism, and to learn that there are no short cuts to emancipation ; that the solution of the problem of poverty in every industry and in every continent is the same—the abolition of the system of society which requires that the great majority shall be poor in order that a favoured few may live idle and luxurious lives.

Edgar Hardcastle