What Bernard Shaw thought 60 years ago (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The division into classes with various standards of comfort which always occurs among slaves, and which is due to the necessity for educating and maintaining the slave who is a doctor or barrister very much better than the slave who is a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water, makes the highly skilled slave despise the unskilled, the unskilled hate and envy the skilled ; makes the upper regard classification with the lower as an intolerable degradation, and the lower spurn classification with the higher as a hypocritical effort to reconcile him to his inferiority. Organisation of the proletariat, and recognition by them of their common interest, is thus defeated by class feeling, which is always bitterest among the worst off. It is doubtful whether dukes habitually despise beggars; but it is certain that butlers despise scullions, artisans labourers and professional men tradesmen. The solicitor’s daughter must not know the young lady from Peter Robinson’s nor will the “amalgamated engineer” permit his wife to demean herself by visiting the spouse of the carman. The proprietors, on the other hand, though their properties vary in size, seem to understand that they belong to the same class ; and so, whatever petty jealousies and disputes as to precedence may arise between them, they are always united against the proletariat. There is a saying that a man can be no more than a gentleman (a gentleman being one who lives by robbing the poor). There is no such saying as that a man can be no more than a worker : there is on the contrary, a widely spread feeling that he cannot be much less, short of being a convict or a pauper. Hence the proprietors succeed in maintaining their privileges against enormous odds in point of numbers. The proletariat, excepting the fragment in the trade unions, are a mere mob ; and even the trade union regiments seem to mistrust one another far more than they hate the enemy, to whose ranks everyone of their individual members is eager to desert if a commission there be offered to him.”— (George Bernard Shaw in “Our Corner,” September. 1887).

From the front. (1912)

From the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in dealing with the “labour unrest” at the Church Congress, suggested that in order to achieve industrial peace, the employers should get in personal touch with their men, see the conditions of their work and of their home lives with their own eyes. Also that the workmen should try and understand the conditions under which business in these days of international competition has to be carried on. But why not an actual change of places ? The worker would then understand the real function of the capitalist—luxurious loafing—while the capitalist would be able to enjoy the benefits that are said to be inseparable from “honest toil.” Both suggestions are equally practical—and nonsensical.

* * *

Referring to the attitude of the Church towards “labour unrest,” his Grace said: “There is above all the disputes and passions of men, a will of ‘God’—that conscience knows it, and that obedience to it is, and keeps all things, right.”

Conscience knows it—God’s instructions are so unmistakable—yet the Archbishop says the Church “has no commission from its master to take sides, or to invest any particular scheme or policy with his authority.” And this in spite of the fact that, in his own words, “capital is responsible for the condition of the labour it employs—in railways and factories at home, or in rubber plantations abroad,” and that “even now multitudes of children are born into an environment where the only chances are downward.” And the Church still claims to be on the side of the oppressed.

How pitiful these high humbugs appear in their futile endeavours to reconcile their interested attitude with their creed !

* * *

Bernard Shaw has at last told why he “left off lecturing on Socialism.” He says : “Nine-tenths of the art of popular oratory lies in sympathising with the grievances of your hearers.” When his audiences were no longer of the working class he changed his tune.

The lesson is clear. Shawism is for the shirkers, while Socialism is for the workers.

Bernard Shaw is not by any means the only one to adapt his principles and bend the truth to suit his audience. Prominent Labour men have said more than once that “those who pay the piper call the tune.” As this is said in tones of reproach, because the workers do not pay, we can only infer that all “Labour” men are capitalist agents.

The Welsh Messiah, too, subscribes to the Shavian creed. When advocating social reform—greater economy in administration—he tells his audience that “seven per cent. of the people in the great cities live in a state of chronic destitution. Thirty per cent., or nearly one third, live on or below the poverty line.” Or: “There is something wrong—where the labourer, working hard from morning till night in spring, summer, autumn and winter, in rain and sunshine, only to receive his eleven shillings a week in vast areas in England—in a country where you give thousands of pounds to men who do not labour at all.”

These are extracts from his speeches, called to mind by their publication in “Better Times.”

When the question is one of taxation, however, he claims that all sections profit equally by good government, and all should, therefore, contribute.

* * *

For downright contradiction the above is hard to beat ; but the same gent goes one better than his previous best. His “good government,” on another occasion, becomes a class government guilty of legislating in their own interests. He says : “There are about six million electors in this country at the present day, and yet the government is in the hands of one class. It does not matter up to the present which party is in power, you have practically the same class governing the country.”

* * *

Women’s Suffrage is the cry of the Pethicks and the Pankhursts, who want votes for propertied women. In their efforts to enlist the sympathy and support of working class women they tell them that their wages are lower than men’s because they have no political power. With political power, they say, women would become a force to be reckoned with, and would be able to demand higher wages and better conditions.

This bait, however, will not do for the women in the hosiery trade. They are actually afraid of higher wages. According to the secretary of the Hosiery Union, Leicestershire, “women are paid a lower rate than men in every branch of the trade. We want them to demand the same as the men, but they insist on the difference and say : ‘Oh, no, in that case we shall not be wanted.'”

Sir Alexander King, Secretary of the Post Office, has threatened to discharge women and employ men if the demand for the same wages is conceded. Women engaged in many occupations are in the same unhappy position. They dare not demand high wages, even when they do the same work as men, because they would be sacked and men would do the work. Men, however, demand higher wages and sometimes get them, only to find themselves, sooner or later, in the same position as the women, because machinery has been introduced.

Truly, almost every move of the workers on the industrial field is trumped by the masters.

* * *

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has discovered in a New Zealand Government report, striking confirmation of his own views on Tariff Reform. According to this instructive report the cost of living has risen because of Tariff Reform, 16 per cent. On this statement he builds up a case against Protection—a case which collapses like a house of cards when one remembers that the rise in the prices of the necessaries of life in Free Trade England, over the same period, is according to Professor Ashley, 24 per cent. Pity the blind!

* * *

The quarrel between Liberals and Tories over Banbury’s amendment, although not likely to make them forget their mutual interests and their opposition to the workers, nevertheless revealed the hooligan nature that is always one of the characteristics of those who live by plunder. As far as it went it should teach the workers that the so-called respectable and cultured class can be as vicious and vulgar as Parisian bandits. It is on record that Mr. Will Crooks did much to ease the situation by a timely rendering of “Auld Lang Syne,” while Mr. Barnes told an interviewer that the Labour Party would do their best to preserve the Parliamentary machine. Labour Members render yeomen service. They are especially good at dispute settling in the interest of the class that employs them at £400 per year—for Auld Lang Syne.

* * *

A censor of cinematograph films is the latest precaution taken by the representatives of the master class. Pictures that show the way “not to successfully burgle” are to be taboo, presumably because they excite the spirit of emulation in the minds of ambitious youngsters. By the manner in which such freaks are magnified, the worker is almost encouraged to believe that there is no such thing as unemployment and poverty leaving thousands only the choice between starvation, crime, or the workhouse.

* * *

But not only must property be protected—capitalist morals have to be safeguarded. The respect and veneration with which the workers have been taught to regard their rulers must be preserved. With that object in view pictures are to be excluded that represent royalty, aristocracy, judges or other State dignitaries in ludicrous or undignified positions. Yet with all their care, discontent becomes greater, and Socialism—the end of all things capitalistic—makes steady progress.

F. Foan

This Month's Quotation: George Bernard Shaw (1937)

The Front Page quote from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Let as therefore dismiss the fear that persons of exceptional ability need special inducements to exercise that ability to the utmost."

G. B. Shaw

This Month's Quotation

The quotation in the panel on the front page is from Shaw's "Intelligent Women's Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism," Pelican Books Edition, P. 322.

Blogger's Note:

The Shaw book quoted from was reviewed in the August 1937 Socialist Standard by Edgar Hardcastle.

The Development of Socialism in England. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

And the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

If you wish to fix the responsibility for the growth of the Socialist movement in England, you have only to go to the organs of the various parties claiming to stand for working-class interests, and your thirst for definite knowledge is immediately slaked. The policy of the Independent Labour Party, says the Labour Leader, has been and is the most potent factor in the development of the Socialist idea. The work of the Social-Democratic Federation made Socialism possible at all, says Justice. To the Clarion is the credit mainly due, says the modest, unassuming editor of the Clarion. If there is one organisation more than another that has made Socialism a live issue it is the Fabian Society, says Bernard Shaw, the “organ” of that pseudo-intellectual body; while a writer in the New Age, a “Socialist” paper standing for the interests of a couple of rather bumptious young “Shavers” (a term preferable to “Shavians” as descriptive of the admirers of the great and one and only G.B.S.), has discovered that “the Daily Mail in six months taught the English people more Socialism than all the Marxist and Reformist teachers had expounded in half a century.”

So once more you pay your penny and accept whichever assertion you prefer ; although if you are already a Socialist you will know that neither statement is true. The Socialist idea has developed through the increasing

PRESSURE OF ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCE

operating to the detriment of working-class well-being, and producing in the working-class mind a spirit of revolt to which the Socialist propagandist has made appeal with the irrefutable logic of his message.

These Socialist propagandists may have been in all the organisations mentioned or in none of them. But if they were in those organisations they have the satisfaction of knowing that the Socialist idea has not developed in England in anything like the degree it might have done if the organisations had not existed at all. Our bodies referred to will of course not agree with me—unless he is prepared to sit down and weigh the matter up calmly and dispassionately. Then he must see that the appeal of his advocacy of Socialism has been largely, and in many instances entirely, nullified by the association of himself with his organisation, and the association of his organisation with proposals that, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la, have nothing to do with the work of a Socialist party as such. These proposals—”palliatives” as they are called—offer no explanation of the economic hardship the worker is in revolt against; they would leave him, as a class, in exactly the same position as he was before, even if were, after much labour realised ; and if they are piled upon his attention in annual multiplication, until the Socialism which the Socialist propagandist set out with a high heart and in all honesty to preach as

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERED,

has receded to a position of comparative unimportance. Socialism has become a matter of no immediate moment. The wood is obscured by the trees. The stepping-stones (which are not necessarily stepping-stones at all) have smothered the goal they are supposed to be leading to.

It is all very well for our Socialist propagandist, tied up to an organisation of the kind referred to, to protest that his party is out for Socialism “same as us,” and that therefore the only question at issue is one of method. The protest simply evades the point. It does not meet it. The point is that Socialism is the only thing that matters to a Socialist party; that the Socialist is therefore entirely concerned to induce the working cluss to accept the same conclusion; that if he is not doing that he is fostering an illusion—because he must know well that all the palliative mongering in the world doesn’t matter tuppence from a purely working-class point of view. All the proposals on all the “reform,” “stepping-stone,” “half-loaf” programmes that muddle-headedness ever gave birth to, while they might palliate a little hardship here or there, wouldn’t necessarily advance the revolutionary idea ; wouldn’t necessarily make a single Socialist. Whereas, if attention was entirely concentrated upon Socialism, and all energies were directed to the organisation of the working class upon the lines of distinctive class interests, the political heavens would simply

RAIN PALLIATIVES.

Isn’t that obvious from the statements repeatedly appearing in the press of the capitalist parties ? “Social Reform, a policy of sound constructive proposals for the amelioration of the admittedly hard lot of the deserving working population must be our object,” “against the principles of Socialism only the confidence of Labour in the determination of the Government ——,” etc., etc., etc. The phrases are familiar enough. What is the first thing a Government in a funk sets itself to do ? It flings out a half-loaf to the “deserving working class,” or rather it breaks the half-loaf into crumbs and holds them ready to throw. That is generally good enough. When it isn’t they are thrown out—one at a time.

You can make a lot of crumbs out of a half-loaf. And it takes a long time to throw them all out. Not that it would matter much if they were all thrown out at once. Altogether, they will only make a half-loaf; and as somebody said somewhere, “We are after the whole damned baker’s shop !”

Very well. What do we want to palter and fritter our time and energy away on crumbs for ? Let’s go for that baker’s shop. Let’s upset the complacency of the profit-spinners and put a holy terror into their souls for a change. It will be worth while. As it is they sit quite calmly, holding the key to our baker’s shop, and laugh —how they must laugh—while you, my friend of the S.D.P., I.L.P., or whatever it is,

WASTE YOUR SUBSTANCE

in riotous advocacy of the things that don’t matter. The working class cry for the bread of Socialism, and you offer them—a stepping-stone. Or if you don’t personally, your organisation does. And that’s what I mean when I say that it would have been better for you and your work for Socialism if your organisation had never existed. You have preached the pure milk of the word, and your organisation has come along and watered it. And I hope you. are properly grateful.

Yes, Socialism has advanced in England somewhat. That is undeniable except by those who are interested to maintain present conditions. And they only deny it with their mouths. And because of this, all the parties are rushing in to claim credit for the result—especially those who have contributed least to it.

So that even in this they are at sixes and sevens. Even in this, supposing them inquisitive enough to refer to their party organs for information, the workers would be confused. Each of them has been the “principal factor,” and neither of them is right ! The Socialist idea has developed in spite of their organisations. Had they been composed entirely of Socialists, and taken Socialist action consistently, the Socialist movement might to-day have been far greater, far more powerful. Because Socialists organised are far more powerful for Socialism than Socialists fighting a lone hand. When, however, the Socialist voluntarily curries the sins of a non-Socialist organisation, like an Old Man of the Sea, on his shoulders, he becomes well-nigh impotent.

That is why the Socialist Party of Great Britain came into existence. We want our

WORK FOR SOCIALISM TO TELL

—to bear all the fruit it can. We know that, organised, we are stronger than we should be as individual units. We found the other organisations unsatisfactory. They were simply confusing the working-class mind by non-Socialist, often by anti-Socialist action. We refused to accept responsibility for their sins. The working class wanted a clear issue set before them. Socialism and the significance of the class struggle contained the issue. We knew that that issue was so simple that the wayfaring mind was as capable of appreciating it—more capable in fact—as it was of appreciating the pointless issues of “Reform” propaganda. We knew, therefore, that the justification of the “Reformers,” viz., the inability of the working class to assimilate Socialism, was piffle—honest or otherwise. We formed our Party, and because it is the only Party that insists upon Socialism and Socialism alone, we claim it as the only Socialist Party. Because the other parties are continually insisting upon something other than Socialism, and because we hold with all our minds and strength that in doing it they are putting the progress of Socialism to a disadvantage by obscuring it and confusing the issue it raises ; we are in opposition to them, accepting their maledictions, their misrepresentations, often their deliberate lying (I am sorry it should be necessary to say that), as evidence of the

CORRECTNESS OF OUR POSITION.

We do not make our claim as the only party in Great Britain that may logically and justly accept the name and the responsibilities of a Socialist Party, in any spirit of braggadoccia. There is nothing to brag about. Nor is it brag to assert that; because we are the only Socialist Party. We have during our short existence done more within the limits of our powers to educate the working class and develop the Socialist idea than any other party. The fact is obvious if the premises are conceded. If the premises are not conceded, wherein are they wrong ? That is the question we put to the honest S.D.-cum-I.L.P.’er or anyone else. If they choose to answer we shall always be delighted to argue with them, and give them fairer play than their parties and organs are prepared to give us. We can afford to do that because our position is impregnable, we believe, and in any case, having no “leaders” we stand to lose nothing. The other crowds prefer to ignore us, or vilify us, or in some other way endeavour to do us injury because they know their positions are far from impregnable, and because their leaders have

A GOOD DEAL TO LOSE.

Well, we are the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the others are wrong even upon so simple a question as the causes of the development of Socialism in England. What have our critics got to say about it ?

Alec James.

Speak with forked tongue (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

Bernard Shaw has at last told why he “left off lecturing on Socialism.” He says : “Nine-tenths of the art of popular oratory lies in sympathising with the grievances of your hearers.” When his audiences were no longer of the working class he changed his tune.

The lesson is clear. Shawism is for the shirkers, while Socialism is for the workers.

[From “From the Front”, Socialist Standard, December 1912]

Rays. (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

In “Justice” (2.1.09), Mr. H. M. Hyndman enters his protest against “modesty,” and boastingly gives a list of his aristocratic relations and friends who have had more or less close relations with Indian affairs. The list includes titled hired assassins of every degree, military swashbucklers, capitalist political and literary hacks, Lords and Ladies of English high society, and a few Indian natives who had found favour in the eyes of their country’s enemies—truly a noble and notable gang of associates to boast of while posing as a Socialist,

* * *

The writer then proceeds to tell us how clever HE was, how HE had provided a Conservative Government with an Indian policy, which they put into practice, and how he “had been assured that he had rendered a great service to the State,” and had been offered “all that any man could get in this country.”

* * *

Doubtless all this is true. In fact, judging by the present painful position in which the Indian people find themselves, we are inclined to believe that some scheme of his has been in operation, and after reading his shameful confessions, we shall view with more suspicion than ever any future proposals emanating either from H. M. Hyndman or that coterie of his disciples who still call themselves “The Social Democratic Party.”

* * *

However, not to be eclipsed, but to dim the self-constructed halo round Hyndman’s head, up springs the gentle George Bernard Shaw, to trumpet forth in the columns of the “Observer” (10.1.09) his services, and those of the Fabian Society, to the capitalist class. According to G.B.S. it was the Fabian Society (in other words himself) who supplied the Liberal Party with the Newcastle Programme, which served so well to delude the working class for twenty years ; and when it dawned on those far-seeing and obliging Fabians, that to have a programme without meaning to carry it out meant disaster to their Liberal friends, they prepared the way for a Party (the Liberal Party) without any programme to carry out. Now it is rumoured that the Labour Party require a programme, and again the Fabian Society is at hand. Yet the one and only George need not worry. Those Liberal-Labour lambs won’t do anything rash. They don’t really need a programme. What (from a working-class point of view) they really need is called “cremation.” Nevertheless, George Bernard Shaw is going to Portsmouth to provide the freaks with more Fabian foolery. ‘Tis a mad world, my masters, but it spells tragedy for the toilers.

* * *eade

“Mr. Ben Tillett has fallen foul of the Parliamentary Labour Party (to which he is affiliated and under whose auspices he has agreed to stand for Parliament) and in a pamphlet just issued, charges them with libelling their class in connection with the Licensing discussion, and says that Henderson, Shackleton and Snowden have ‘out-Heroded the worst ranters.’ The present leader of the party, ‘when a Gospel-Temperance-Liberal Election agent, was of little importance,’ whilst Shackleton, ‘as a useful but obscure trade union official, was of little consequence ; now he is the darling of Cabinet Ministers, “hot gospellers,” temperance fanatics and educational endowment thieves,’ and so on and so on.”

* * *

Commenting on the above “John Bull” asks (23.1.09) “When Labour men fall out, how are the workers to get their due ?” The answer to this is, of course, by choosing to understand Socialism and trying Socialist delegates instead of “Labour Leaders.” This answer is equally applicable to the question “How are workers to get their due ?” whether the “Labour men” fall out or not. For united or divided they are just as impotent to effect any advancement of the cause of that great working class whom they have they the impudence to claim they represent, while in fact they merely represent its ignorance and credulity.

Random Notes. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bernard Shaw has a three column article in the Clarion upon “the moral of the L.C.C. elections,” one column and a half of which is devoted to his showing, mainly on the evidence of the return of Sidney Webb and Frank Smith, that the results of those elections do not spell defeat for Socialism. The other column and a half is mainly devoted to supporting the contention of Robert Blatchford, that the results of the elections do spell defeat for Socialism ! And yet we are urged by the quidnunc and the cognoscente to believe that Shaw is not merely the farceur he has been represented, but, on the contrary, is a desperately earnest person.

o o o

The Tribune (April 1st) quotes this from the report of the Executive of the S.D.F. to their annual conference :—

“It is necessary here to call attention to the conduct of Mr. John Burns, who, as President of the Local Government Board, has now gone back entirely upon his former opinions, and the most hypocritical employer of sweated labour, with a predilection for conventional Sunday-school morality, might well envy the power of glib pharisaical cant which the “man with the red flag” can now always bring to bear upon the unemployed question.”

o o o

and this is the S.D.F. conception of correct tactics on the unemployed question :—

“This conference further calls upon the Government at once to amend the existing Unemployed Workmen Act to such an extent as to provide useful and remunerative work for unemployed men, and to make sufficient grants from the Imperial Exchequer to local authorities to enable them to give employment to all citizens in need of it.”

o o o

And then reflect that Burns is at the head of the Governmental department which must deal with the call “to provide useful and remunerative work,” etc. And that the Government is, according to the S.D.F., representative of capitalist interests. And that, also according to the S.D.F., capitalist interests absolutely rely upon continued labour redundancy. So, we will call upon the capitalist Government to put into operation the pharisaical cant of their obedient servant, the ex-“man with the red flag,” in order that the unemployed upon whom capitalist interests depend, may obtain the work that the capitalist Government cannot provide !

o o o

Sweet, isn’t it ? Likely to have an exceedingly enlightening effect upon the working class the S.D.F. allege they are educating—what? Don’t tell the unemployed that the capitalist Government can do nothing for them. That would be the truth, of course, but it wouldn’t be good “tactics.” Therefore we will lead them to suppose that the Government can do something for them, and we will call upon the Government to do that something which they cannot ! So will our reputation as practical politicians grow.

o o o

May the beneficent fates turn the hungry eyes of the uneducated working-class unemployed away from such tactic-struck educators. And may the same beneficent fates turn the brains of those well-intentioned S.D.F. rank-and-filers in order that they may see their own stupidity in following with such pathetic fidelity the fatuous leading of their purblind—or is it pharisaical—captains. We offer the beneficent fates aforementioned, the columns of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD as a medium for the expression of their powers. Indeed, the S.D.F. man may rightly regard these columns as the instrument which the fates are using to divert his path from that abyss of political impotence toward which his unthinking steps are being urged by the tactical grotesques he hails as leaders. If he will not so regard these columns, he must needs gang his ain gait (I hope that’s good Scots) and suffer the penalty which “baffle-headedness” always invokes. And he may count himself a fortunate fellow if he awakes from his somnambulistic perambulations before he finds himself up to his neck in a slough of despond, being pelted by the objurgatory brickbats of a long-suffering working class.

o o o

At the annual dinner of the athletic club of Messrs. J. Lyons & Go’s employees, the chairman (Mr. Isidore Gluckstein) in responding to the vote of thanks to the directors of the Company for the support they had given the club, remarked that they were pleased to encourage athletics among their staff because “outdoor sports not only bettered a man physically but enabled him to do his indoor work all the better.” So. Scratch the benevolent director and you find the hungry capitalist. It is good for the men that they should be physically robust. It is also good business for the employer. And the greatest of these (to the employer) is the good business.

o o o

The Paris Herald reports the death, in Pittsburg, of John Brislin, the inventor of modern rolling mill machinery. John was a boyhood friend of Andrew Carnegie, and John thought, when, in conjunction with Anton Vinnac, he perfected his patent, that his old pal, Andrew, who was in the steel business, would see him through all right. Instead of which, John and Anton had to take action against the Carnegie Steel Company for stealing and working their patent. They estimated their invention to be worth 40,000,000 dollars. Andrew’s company offered them 100,000 dollars. They refused and the States District Court gave a verdict in their favour. Then old pal Andrew’s company took the case to the Federal Court of Appeal which, being a court of commercial justice and Andrew’s company easily having the most money, naturally reversed the order of the lower court. Having no more money to fight, Anton died of grief and John lost his eyesight and Andrew by the grace of God and the poverty of his old pal, waxed fat upon the invention that didn’t belong to him and began to make a name as a philanthropist and library purveyor. Recently John received a letter from Andrew in which Andrew seems to have held out some hope that Jobn might expect some justice soon and John was so shocked that he died of heart failure.

o o o

Under Socialism of course, it will be impossible for genius to reap the reward due to it. It is only under capitalism that genius can hope to secure adequate recognition. All the same I don’t marvel that John died.

o o o

“There is no other movement in the world, unless perhaps the Christian Church, which numbers among its professed followers so many who fail to understand or appreciate, the meaning and application of its fundamental teachings, as does Socialism in England. This is the more remarkable as the points in dispute are scientific facts, capable of the fullest and most complete demonstration.”

E. J. Lamel in “Justice,” 6.4.07.

Many a true word spoken even in Justice. We entirely agree with Mr. Lamel, but cannot allow the exception which he makes in favour of the S.D.F., to which he belongs.

o o o

Our objection to the S.D.F. is quite as strong as Mr. Lamel’s objection to the pseudo-Socialists who will have none of the S.D.F. because that organisation refuses “to accept an anaemic, milk-and-water ‘Socialism’ as the genuine, full-blooded article.” And our objection to the S.D.F. is for very much the same reason. S.D.F. “Socialism” is anaemic and milk-and-water as Mr. Lamel will find if he will peruse fairly the statement of the position set out in the Manifesto of The Socialist Party of Great Britain (price Id.)

o o o

It is curious, too, to find a writer like Mr. Lamel, who seems to pose as an exponent of the scientific view, making reference to the private ownership of land and capital, as though the common ownership of capital, like the common ownership of land, was conceivable. He speaks of the predictions of Marx with the air of one who has Marx at his finger-tips. But if he really knew his Marx he would not confuse (as he appears to do) capital with wealth.

o o o

Nor would he fall into the error common among those unscientific persons whom he so vigorously trounces, that the working class which “suffered the most” in prosecuting the South African War, “now has, directly or indirectly, to pay the piper.” As a matter of fact the working class temporarily benefited by the industrial incentive which the war gave. And if it is true, as Mr. Lamel states (a statement in which the “scientific Socialist” will concur), that the working class “has to rely for its livelihood upon the proceeds of its labour” (read labour-power) “sold as a ware,” it will be interesting to know how the working class can ”pay the piper,” having regard to the fact, accepted by all “scientific Socialists,” that competition for work reduces the average working-class return to a bare subsistence level.

o o o

These points are urged, not with a view of scoring off Mr. Lamel’s ignorance, but rather with the idea of suggesting to Mr. Lamel and those who stand with him, that just as the S.P.G.B. has been at pains to establish itself on what Mr. Lamel may regard as the minutiae of Marxian economics, so it has been at pains to discover the error of the pseudo-Socialist Parties in order that it might, by dissociating itself from such error, and the confusion which it must inevitably work, present a clear issue to the working class.

o o o

This clear issue is absolutely necessary to enable the working class to begin to build up that organisation upon which it must rely in the struggle of the future. That is essential to class-conscious action—the only action that can effect working-class emancipation. Wherefore, to Mr. Lamel and all those whose desire it is to do all that men may to forward the revolution, we throw out the challenge to show us wherein our position is unsound. Failing that—and in the three years of our existence it has not been done once—we insist that the S.P.G.B. is the only Party of the workers, and that in it all Socialists (the term connotes a scientific appreciation of all the facts of the economic situation and needs no qualification) should be organised for the purpose of giving effective assistance in the working-class struggle for freedom.

o o o

At the meeting of the London Central Unemployed Committee (April 5th)—

“Mr. Lansbury said he thought it was time the Body seriously considered their position. THEY HAD FOOLED THE UNEMPLOYED LAST WINTER. They had the amusing spectacle of Parliament voting £200,000 and setting up in London elaborate and costly machinery, and yet they had not been able to spend that money in providing work.

They had registered the unemployed, investigated their birth, and “inquested” them up and down London, and the result had been that a petty few thousand had received a few weeks’ employment. He protested against the way in which things were being managed and against the man at the head of affairs and the whole of his wretched department.

He protested against the return of £90,000 to the Treasury and against the man who was doing it. The Liberal Government was fooling the unemployed.”

o o o

And this is the organisation brought into existence by the Government measure for which the S.D.F. claimed credit ! This is the abortion which was hailed by “Labour” members, (and those who want to be “Labour” members,) as something very like a revolution. For the first time, we were told, Parliament had recognised its duty towards the out-of-work. For the first time the legislature had admitted its moral obligation—and so on. We pointed out at the time that the thing was a fraud—must be a fraud and could not by any chance be any other. And now Lansbury comes along to say that the unemployed has been “inquested” and “fooled” and that practically nothing had been done or could be done,

o o o

What now ? Well, if the unemployed are not sick to death of the dreary business ; if they are content to believe that their self-styled representatives in the House are doing everything needful or possible ; if they can still manage to find spiritual sustenance from the faith that is in them—faith in others doing what they require—if these things still are, then the next step will be the step that was taken last. And it will be productive of the same result. But if the unemployed recognise the futility of starving and insist for themselves upon the right to the things which are life, then, although the unemployed problem will not be solved, they will not be hungry.

o o o

There is no solution for the unemployed problem short of Socialism. The working class sooner or later must recognise that and organise accordingly for the overthrow of capitalist domination. But in the meantime? Well, in the meantime they will get the equivalent of nothing unless they evince a determination to refuse to starve quietly—unless, in short, they constitute themselves a menace to the peace of mind of the master class. We are no advocates of rioting because an unarmed mob versus a well disciplined, well armed force means immediate defeat for the rioters. The most powerful menace to official complacency is the growth of a class-conscious working-class organisation. Given that and a refusal to be satisfied with promises or with anything short of the extirpation of capitalism, and doles will come tumbling down as manna from heaven. Take the doles in your stride but do not allow them to divert you from your purpose a hair’s breadth. Concentrate upon THE WORLD for the working class and, as the scriptures have it, all other things shall be added unto you.

Alegra.

Editorial: That Blessed Word—Unity! (1906)

Editorial from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard 

With Easter comes the Annual Conferences of those bodies which, with fine contempt for the meaning of words, call themselves Socialist, and with the conferences come also the customary demands, appeals, and entreaties for unity. And, indeed, there is no real reason why these bodies should not unite, seeing that in practice they do not differ. It is true the S.D.F, say they could not join the L.R.C. if it were ever so, because the L.R.C. is a non-Socialist body and an alliance might involve them in non-Socialist action. But as the S.D.F. is continually taking, not only non-Socialist, but anti-Socialist, action, that does not seem an insuperable objection. True again the I.L.P. say that they cannot join with the S.D.F. because the S.D.F will not join the L.R.C.—a sort of argumentative circle which might be vicious were any vital principle involved. True again neither S.D.F. nor I.L.P. will join with the Fabian Society because George Bernard Shaw, who is the Fabian Society, often makes it clear that “he dunno where he are,” nor would they, presumably, join that other “Socialist” organisation called the Clarion Cycling Club, whose many thousands of members may also be members of Liberal or Tory Party, although S.D.F., I.L.P., and F.S. may and do support at their discretion, Liberal or Tory candidates.

Therefore we say these objections are not very strong from our point of view. We only venture to remark that the unity of these bodies would not affect the question of Socialist unity because they are not Socialist organisations. A Socialist organisation is one which, starting from a clear understanding of the position of the working class, and their irremediably antagonistic relationship to the capitalist class, translates that antagonism into clear and consistent action to the end that the unenlightened working class, having a clear issue set and kept before them, may the more readily comprehend that issue and the more rapidly organise themselves for the specific object of the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Socialism. If there are any members of other Parties endorsing that view, their place is clearly with the Party that holds it—the Socialist Party of Great Britain. There is no other Party in Great Britain whose name so unmistakably expresses its position; there is no Party whose principles are more clearly defined or whose actions have always so consistently, logically and unequivocally translated those principles. Socialist unity, therefore, is achieved by membership in the S.P. of G.B. and although it is true, as the Countess of Warwick has so accurately pointed out in a contemporary, that the S.P. of G.B. does not include the S.D.F., the I.L.P., the F.S., the Clarion groups, and the others, there is no reason why, if the members of those organizations desire Socialist unity and not only the unity of non-Socialist Societies, and are prepared to adopt a Socialist attitude, they should not withdraw from their various separate bodies and enrol themselves with us. We only insist that they shall sign a declaration of adherence to the principles set out in column 1 of the first page of this Journal and never depart from the position such adhesion involves, even though the chances of “getting their man in” were never so rosy. Who then is for SOCIALIST unity ?

This Month's Quotation: George Bernard Shaw (1936)

The Front Page quote from the December 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The most fundamental question today is the one we never mention. The extirpation of the legalised idlers who live by robbing the poor."

G. B. Shaw.

It’s that time of year again (2023)

From the December 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Many people complain that the Christmas sales campaign starts too early. But as the market is stimulated to grow, and as it grows, so will the effort to exploit it. This might mean an even longer sales drive in the future—wasn’t there a story about a business man who said that Christmas was good business as long as they kept religion out of it?’ 

(Socialist Standard, December 1965).

Although it appears to have been so three months ago because that’s when Christmas commodities started to appear in retail outlets. Even more than the rest of the year the mantra is purchase, buy, consume, spend!

It’s no wonder that alcohol consumption soars and family rows escalate in this period of joy and peace. Coping with capitalism creates enough stresses on a daily basis in itself but, at this time of the year, especially for parents, but not just confined to them; they increase many-fold life’s everyday pressures.

Sympathy must go out for one to the residents of towns served by Medway Council in Kent because it has ‘cancelled all its Christmas lights this year just to save £75,000. Medway Council in Kent announced the “sad and difficult decision” after identifying a potential overspend of £17 million this financial year.’ Local folk have labelled the Council ‘Scrooge’ (Sun, 10 October).

Think that can be filed under the heading of ‘First World Problems’.

Snowflakes

It’s very hard to get through this period without Charles Dickens and A Christmas Carol impinging in some way or other. George Bernard Shaw, channelling Scrooge, (before the ghost’s visitations) in a 1946 letter to Reynolds News expressed his vehement opposition to Christmas:

‘I am sorry to have to introduce the subject of Christmas. It is an indecent subject; a cruel, gluttonous subject; a drunken, disorderly subject; a wasteful, disastrous subject; a wicked, cadging, lying, filthy, blasphemous and demoralizing subject. Christmas is forced on a reluctant and disgusted nation by the shopkeepers and the press: on its own merits it would wither and shrivel in the fiery breath of universal hatred; and anyone who looked back to it would be turned into a pillar of greasy sausages’.

Perhaps Santa let him down as a child. Proper pantomime villain, boo, hiss? Did Outraged Christian of Easily Offended inundate the letters page with their outrage? The latter-day aficionados of Christmas are rushing to social media to express their umbrage at a particular seasonal advertisement.

Speaking of outrage, there’s always a competition amongst capitalist enterprises to ‘win’ the best Christmas advertisement. The purpose being to maximise sales in the ‘golden quarter.’ Back in November an ‘edgy’ anti-Christmas advertisement from Marks and Spencer apparently upset some as M & S were forced to apologise because the destruction shown of party hats in an open fire was deemed to be an insult to Palestine. How, you ask? The colours of the hats were also those of the Palestinian flag! Even socialists know that red and green are traditional Christmas colours.

This is surely taking taking offence to the level of the absurd. The events across the world in 2023 are more demanding of offence, outrage and umbrage.

A world of dread and fear

John Donne’s 1624 Meditation XVII piece, No Man is an Island seems particularly relevant almost four hundred years on:

No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man

is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine;

if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe

is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as

well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine

owne were; any mans death diminishes me,

because I am involved in Mankinde;

And therefore never send to know for whom

the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

As in other years of mass bloody conflicts the bell has tolled for far too many in 2023 in places other than Europe.

Almost forty years ago Band Aid released a charity record, Do they know it’s Christmas? in response to famine in Ethiopia. The lyric included, ‘It’s Christmas time, There’s no need to be afraid, At Christmas time we let in light and we banish shade’. And ‘There’s a world outside your window, And it’s a world of dread and fear’. It is to be fervently hoped that, over the intervening weeks, the chilling prospect of more ‘dread and fear’ will not have spread to a far wider arena.

"Well, if you knows of a beter ‘ole, go to it"

In 1961, at his presidential inauguration, John F Kennedy said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.’ Sixty plus years on this exhortation would seem to now mean ask what you can do for the capitalist state engaged in armed conflict with the full support of the capitalist state where you reside – or else. A reminder that the global working class have no country. Patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, even if is it being forced upon many; but many, even if they do not, as of yet, understand that socialism is the only viable solution, are resisting the brainwashing and propaganda. But, without the realisation that socialism is the only alternative, nothing will change.

When the working class of many states were engaged in capitalist wars in the early part of the twentieth century, black humour was much evident as a way of coping with great adversity.

Bairnsfather’s 1915 cartoon of two British soldiers under fire in a foxhole with the caption ‘Well, if you knows of a better ‘ole, go to it’ is an example.

Well, we do know of a ‘better ‘ole’. It’s a money-free, leader-free, state-free society where conflicts and wars are forever abolished and consigned to the dustbin of history.

Dave Coggan

The Pillory. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“‘What we want now is money. Get it—honestly if you can, of course—but get it. . . We will take all of it we can get for our present electoral contests.’

After this barefaced appeal will the S.D.F. candidates still pretend to be shocked at the suggestion that they are being financed with Tory money ?” 

Camborne Liberal Election Leaflet

The above leaflet is a specimen of the stuff which was distributed at Camborne. . . A number of similar leaflets against the S.D.F. were issued during the recent elections. 

Justice comment,17.2.06.

If the “similar leaflets” contained the same sort of “stuff,” wherein lies the cause for Justice’s complaint? The “stuff” is reproduced from the columns of Justice. It is Justice’s own particular “stuff.” What are we to conclude ? Is it that in Justice the “stuff” is “literary matter” and only becomes “stuff” when used against the S.D.F. ? If so, who is to blame—the writer of the “literary matter” which is “stuff” or the reproducer thereof ? Justice should be more explicit. However, “stuff” is a good word. Let it stand.

“. . . Our only hope lies in successful political action. Yet the majority of our organisation seems wholly destitute of political aptitude. . . I feel I have done all the good I can do in the detail work of the organisation.” 

H.M.Hyndman, resigning from S.D.F. E.C. Aug. 1st, 1900. 

“If any branch of the S.D.F. thinks proper to nominate me and the delegates choose to elect me, I am quite ready to rejoin the Executive of our organisation.” 

H. M. Hyndman, Feb. 3.06.

The question now arises—is this change of view due to the improvement of the S.D.F. or the deterioration of H.M.H. ? The evidences of the former are not very perceptible ; and the enthusiastic S.D.F-er will indignantly repudiate the suggestion that his organisation ever changes. “As it was in the beginning,” etc. On the other hand the same enthusiast will let off all sorts of rhetorical fireworks in protest against the suggestion that H.M.H. has deteriorated. Ah! Well! It isn’t the only S.D.F. problem the S.D.F-er cannot solve.

“. . for the man of cool, calculating, reflective mind, there had been Bernard Shaw’s candid acknowledgement on a Burnley platform that through all these years Hyndman had been right in his uncompromising course, and the tactical error had lain with the Fabian pursuing a permeation which did not permeate.” 

Justice, 20.1.06.

“The Fabian Society is always right. . . The stupendous and abysmal incapacity for public affairs (of the Social Democratic Federation) and the absence of all sense of proportion and even of humour . . are beyond all words . . I apologise to the universe for my connection with such a Party.” 

Bernard Shaw, 2.2.06.

No comment necessary except, perhaps—! !

“He (Keir Hardie) has pursued a very difficult course with indomitable courage and unswerving independence and steadfast fidelity. . . His position as leader of the new party . . will call for the constant display of those qualities by which he has gained the position. The right man in the right place.” 

Justice, 17.2.06. 

“Keir Hardie is now a statesman. He thinks of peddling reforms in periods of generations.” 

Justice, 11.2.05.

“The genial Keir . . . weaves ‘facts’ out of imagination in somewhat alarming style, and suppresses inconvenient others in a manner worthy of a Liberal or Tory cabinet minister.” 

Justice, 10.6.05.

“We Social Democrats . . . are ready and eager to render them (the new Labour members) any assistance we can outside the House of Commons. . . They have undertaken a very heavy responsibility. We hope and believe they will rise to the level of the occasion.” 

Justice, 17.2.06.

“It is not easy to see what useful purpose they (the Labour members) serve . .They rally to the support of the opposition and vote steadily against the Government at the bidding of the Liberal Whips; but that any ordinary capitalist Liberal could do. . Things have come to a fine pass when a Liberal paper complains of the supineness of the Labour members.” 

Justice, 20.5.05.

“The fact is these Labour members have mistaken their position. They no longer regard themselves as agitators . . . To them the House of Commons appears . . a sort of haven of rest, entrance into which is the guerdon of a life’s work accomplished. Their constant prayer appears to be ‘give peace in our time, O Lord.’ They are clothed with dignity as with a garment and they object to having their ease disturbed.” 

Justice, 3.6.05.

“Even the most friendly critics . . speak with ill-disguised contempt of these elected persons who pose as the representatives of the great working class, yet, as we have repeatedly pointed out, will neither do anything for the people themselves nor, if they can help it, will let anybody else do any thing . . Crooks, Henderson, and Shackleton, of the much advertised Labour Representation Committee, display equal caution, not to say pusillanimity and cowardice . . The ‘Labour Party’ as it stands, or grovels, in the English House of Commons, is merely an appendage to the capitalist parties, whose politicians use it systematically to gull and humbug the workers.” 

Justice, 27.5.05.

So we are to “hope and believe” that the men who for years have been only distinguished from capitalist members by pusillanimity and cowardice and supineness ; who have done nothing for the people ; who formed a grovelling appendage to the Liberal Party ; will rise to the level of the occasion. And why ? The pusillanimous cowards of the last Parliament have been returned to this. Only there are more of them. Are the new men better than the old ? How ? Does Justice want us to play the fool game of waiting for results we know are sure ? Is experience no use at all ? Or is Justice’s change of front intended to pave the way for the return of the S.D.F. to the L.R.C. from which so many of its members regret having withdrawn and whose financial and other assistance they so earnestly desire for their own candidates ?

Before the Election.

“NO SLAVERY UNDER THE FLAG.

THIS INFAMOUS CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY’ REPEALED.”

After the Election.

“The word slavery had been employed, not so much as an accurate representation of it, as a descriptive term.” Lord Crewe.

“They all knew that at the time of the elections many things were said which ought not to have been said. I do not dispute that the Chinese were well treated and well fed.” Lord Ripon.

“What they were now doing was not finding some way of getting out of the question of Chinese labour. They had to avoid even the appearance of being unfair to any section of the community, because anything done at the present moment would leave behind it the root of bitterness, which might be fatal to the prosperity and happiness of the Colony. At the present time they had not the information necessary to enable them to come to a decision. The particular method by which they would obtain their information they had not yet determined upon.” Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.

Note to the working class—Sold again !

Answers to Correspondents. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

W. W. — Yes, We saw Shaw's Clarion article and found it as to almost one half lies, and as to most of the other half, blether. We know of no writer who can lie more readily and no writer who can cram so much blether into a given compass. The smartness of some of his fooling is of course granted and so long as it is understood as fooling, there's not much harm done. But quite a number of people seem anxious to believe that behind the fooling there is a desperate earnestness and a set purpose, which may, indeed, be the case, only the purpose hardly ever succeeds in penetrating the top crust of foolery. We should not worry about him. You doubtless noticed that part of his article flatly contradicted other parts, and you will find that future articles and speeches will just as flatly contradict all of it. His one consistent belief is in the infallibility of the Fabian Society and as this Society is practically Shaw, the belief is natural.

Blogger's Note:

I wonder what the article was? I guess one could do a deep dive over at archive.org and see if there is a collection of his journalistic writings from this period online, but it would be purely speculative. It would be funny if the Socialist Standard was talking about this article - especially as I dug it out a few years back to put online as a funny dig against impossibilists - but that dates from March 1905, and I'd be shocked if they were referring to an article that dates from a year before. Maybe all will be revealed in later issues of the Socialist Standard in 1906?

Halo, Halo (2023)

The Halo Halo! column from the October 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life’ (George Bernard Shaw Androcles and the Lion).

#    #    #    #

La République est laïque. The Republic is secular. French women want to play football. Bon. They petition to continue their religious repression by wearing hijabs when playing. Not bon.

French Football Federation says Non! If you want to play, remove them. Bon. The decision has to do with separatism rather than the obvious one, if in situ, how are they going to head the ball? How are you going to slow a forward who’s got a yard in pace more than you, with no hair to grab? Female basketball players are also prohibited from same. Who knew basketball was played in France? (BitterWinter, 30 June)

#    #    #    #

Is female Islamic sport haram (forbidden)? An ‘expert’ says no, providing no men can see it, participants wear modest, covering clothing and the sport does not lead to any argument or conflict. Also, don’t copy female unbelievers’ hairstyles, clothing or names (Islam Question and Answer 18 September 2015). Some good stuff from the Imam there; no arguments or conflict. Pity religions don’t follow their own advice.

#    #    #    #

It’s not all levity at Halo Halo. ‘A German woman who joined the Islamic State (IS) group has been jailed for nine years for crimes including keeping a Yazidi woman as a slave. She was also found guilty of crimes against humanity and membership of a foreign terrorist organisation. A Koblenz court said the 37-year-old had abused the young Yazidi woman for three years while they lived in Syria and Iraq and that encouraged her husband to rape and beat the woman. “All of this served the declared purpose of IS (Islamic State), to wipe out the Yazidi faith,” said prosecutors. In 2014, IS fighters stormed into Sinjar and thousands of men and boys over the age of 12 were summarily killed after being given the ultimatum to convert or die. Some 7,000 women and girls were enslaved and subjected to brutal abuses’ (BBC 22 June).

#    #    #    #

Isn’t it odd how some religions eschew ‘love your neighbour’?

#    #    #    #

A devout young female Mormon relates how, at age nineteen, she was sent to Argentina as a missionary, and was ecstatic to do so. Whilst there she says she developed horrendous health issues. She claims that indifference was shown to her health problems by the Mormon official in charge. When she asked for proper medical help the response given was, we’ll say a prayer for you. An acolyte of Mary Baker Eddy, do you think? She, and her family, are no longer members of the Mormon organisation (tinyurl.com/36xfsu49).

#    #    #    #

The Mormons were founded by Joseph Smith following a visitation from an angel. Information regarding their wealth is hard to come by but like all ‘churches’ it’s beyond the dreams of avarice.

DC

Books and Booklets. The Philosophy of a Farceur. (1905)

GBS in 1905.

Book Review from the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw.

Said my friend of the Civil Service, “You should read Shaw. He will broaden your outlook. You are too narrow and bigoted and pedantic. Marxists always are. Shaw faces facts, he doesn’t blink them. His philosophy embraces them all. Read him !” Then came Mr. Bettany in the Bookman to say “Bernard Shaw … is a profoundly and persistently earnest person.” So that I began to feel that perhaps Shaw had not been fairly treated. It occurred to me that the gorgeous buffoonery of certain of his contributions to newspapers and magazines, or the desperate nonsense of “Fabianism and Empire” which represented the sum total of my knowledge of Shaw’s work, were probably not fair material upon which to base an estimate of a man’s position. Alternatively it was suggested to me that if his position was as faulty as I then thought it, it might have happened that Shaw had considered the error, not to say the silliness, of his ways. How else could the opéra bouffe Shaw become the profoundly earnest Shaw ?

Therefore I have recently read the book specially commended to me as an example of the profoundly earnest Shaw, the Shaw of the great and all embracing philosophy, the incisive logician, Shaw. I have read “Man and Superman” and I’m glad I obtained the copy from the free library and risked none of my hardly earned siller in a purchase. 

The book consists of—

(a) An epistle dedicatory to A. B. Walkley.

(b) The play “Man and Superman.”

(c) The Revolutionist’s Handbook.

(d) Maxims for Revolutionists.

With regard to (a) there is nothing to be said except that I’m sorry for Mr. Walkley and hope he knows what Mr. Shaw is talking about. If he does—and as Mr. Shaw claims him for something in the nature of a kindred spirit he may—he is probably the only one, apart from Mr. Shaw (although I am inclined to make no exception of Mr. Shaw even), in that happy (or is it unhappy ?) position, he is the Superman !

(b) Is of so much importance to the elaboration and explanation of Mr. Shaw’s theme that it can he taken out of the book entirely as extraneous matter ! The play, with the exception of an interlude in Hell, in which Don Juan holds prosy converse with the devil upon various philosophic issues greatly to the discomfort of the latter has no material connection with the conservation of the Life Force which Mr. Shaw is concerned to expound, and seems to have been introduced to fill the book out and to give the writer an opportunity for the manufacture of a few grotesque situations, a few flouts at what is known as respectability, a few gibes at convention and a few sneers at Socialists of the type that Mr. Shaw has specially created for his own amusement, a type that exists only in the perverted imagination of Mr. Shaw and the imaginations of those who swear by him—like my civil servant—and who, although they heroically assume the label “Socialist” for certain genteel and cultured functions at which they can pose effectively as personifications of heterodoxy and advanced thought, know so little of Socialism and its champions that they are unaware that their leader has, to utilise a useful colloquialism, “sold them a pup.”

Mr. Shaw’s method in this, as in his other efforts, is the method of the iconoclast run mad. Every conception of good, every aspiration to the higher and nobler, is, in common with the expressions of convention and orthodoxy, transformed into idols only to be knocked down and danced npon. The false and the true, the just and the unjust, meet an identical fate. Why not ? Mr. Shaw has a reputation to maintain. He is expected to do these things. And he will continue to do them until the “intellectuals” whom he patronises and who patronise him, have found another god to break the idol, Shaw.

The play consists in great part of a tilt against the marriage convention. The man (Tanner) who is aware of the operation of the Life Force which makes man the quarry and woman the eternal hunter, has fled from the woman (Ann) who, animated by the same force, has marked him out as the predestined father of the child she is to bear. She has overtaken him, and their courtship, so sacred a proceeding to orthodoxy, finds expression thus—

Tanner—And do you care for me ?

Ann—Now, Jack, behave yourself.

Tanner—Infamous, abandoned woman ! Devil !

Ann—Boa-constrictor ! Elephant!

Tanner—Hypocrite!

After which they marry ! Their offspring might easily have been Councillor McAllen if heredity can transmit a predisposition to the use of similar language.

However, the play in this case is not the thing. The thing is

(c) The Revolutionist’s Handbook. In it Mr. Shaw sets out his gospel and his philosophy. To him nothing matters except the production of the mentally fit. Physical fitness is subservient to, although he is obliged to concede that is necessary to the mental. And Mr. Shaw, the facile and the incisive, works to his conclusions by the extraordinary process of swallowing the propositions of those whose opinions he derides as unsound and unscientific, although he endeavours to cover the weakness of his position with a profusion of “flashy” words and pseudo-cynical comments sufficient to gladden the hearts of the shallow pates who hail him genius.

We learn that although revolutionists make too much of the obstacles set up by property, the very first condition to the production of the Superman is that every person should be trained and nourished as a possible parent; which implies the abrogation of property because property in the hands of a class means the subjugation and enslavement of the propertyless, and produces the very conditions that constitute the problem, creates the very obstacles to the effectual handling of it.

Again, the practical abrogation of property and marriage, the two institutions having the greatest hold upon the mass of the people, yet the two which must be broken down before it is possible to successfully experiment in the procreation of the mentally fit, will, we are assured, occur without being much noticed, and this notwithstanding that “God himself cannot raise a people above its own level.” On the one hand one of the greatest changes of all is to be effected without the people knowing anything about it, and on the other no change worth talking about can be wrought except by the consent of these same people, a consent that is dependent upon understanding, as Mr. Shaw is at pains to emphasize with predictions of catastrophe, unless we can have a democracy of Supermen ! Which seems as intelligent a presentation as the Keir Hardie idea of Socialism coming as a thief in the night.

From whence then will the superfine mental mechanism of mankind come, and how ? Mr. Shaw apparently doesn’t know, but he is sure it must be born of a woman (which isn’t exactly profound) and must be the result of careful investigation and experiment (which isn’t exceedingly helpful).

He talks of possible human stud farms, either privately or State controlled and the like, but he does not deal with the question of first importance in this connection, viz., how every person is to be properly trained and nourished as a possible parent.

The whole of his argument elaborately evades this point. We are treated to page after page of the usual fantastic and irrelevant flummery that will doubtless satisfy an “intellectual,” but will hardly mislead a serious student even of elementary political economy.

The fact is of course, that only by the removal of the obstacles set up by the present form of property ownership can the conditions favourable to the birth of super-witted men aud women be secured. And those obstacles can only be removed, as it would seem Mr. Shaw is obliged to allow, by an intelligent democracy understanding the underlying causes of the present property relationship and ready to apply the remedy.

And what are those underlying causes ?

They consist of the private possession of the machinery of production and the consequent oppression and exploitation of the non-possessors of that machinery. And the remedy ? Clearly the public ownership and control of the machinery from which alone the property owner derives his power, and the exercise of which results in the creation and aggravation of the problem Mr. Shaw set out to deal with.

We cannot move a step without being forcibly brought up against the obstacles raised by property. Mr. Shaw may squirm and wriggle and throw off a cloud of words in his endeavour to escape facing the results of the contention which his desire to score off the low-bred Marxists has led him to make. But he will have to come back in the last resort to their position, and although he will no doubt carry off his own humiliation by a display of rhetorical fireworks of super brilliancy, he must eat his leek, nevertheless.

I read Shaw for the improvement of my mind, but Shaw has no material wherewith to broaden it. His wonderful philosophy based upon a recognition of the persistence of the Life Force is absorbed with the first milk of every student of biology. His indictment of convention and orthodoxy has no merit of originality. His pessimistic estimate of the possibilities of the working-class population is no more than the outcome of a superficial survey of industrial evolution, a survey that takes no serious cognizance of the dependency of all expressions of human activity upon methods of production, and that therefore neither appreciates the fact that the stupidity and apathy of the working-class are directly tracable to their centuries old subjugation, nor that the removal of the forces that keep them in subjection (the obstacles set up by property) will ensure their rehabilitation as—if Mr. Shaw pleases—potential supermen. Mr. Shaw has no message for the earnest enquirer after the truth. He has built his reputation upon an extensive vocabulary, a literary smartness that serves only to lead him into impossible positions, and a certain ability to lampoon. With sublime and characteristic conceit he has repeatedly asserted his capacity to bury the reputation of Marx. It would be wiser if he first of all took the trouble to read him.

The final few pages of the book are made up of (d) Maxims for Revolutionists, some of which are smart enough. But they suffer from the Shavian lack of discrimination already referred to. The method is easy enough. We take an accepted maxim, such as, say, “Honour thy father and thy mother and thy days shall be long in the land,” and we change it into “Don’t worry about the honour due to your father and mother or your days are not likely to be very lengthy.” It would be no difficult task for a man with some skill with the pen to manufacture a few such “maxims.” Set among some of the genuine articles it would, I doubt not, puzzle many of the most enthusiastic disciples of Mr. Shaw to divide the sheep from the goats.

However, the book will, I expect, find lodgement in the flats of the faithful and on the shelves of “culture.” It is by G.B.S., and G.B.S. happens to be the thing just now.

A. J. M. Gray

Editorial: Fabian Fallacies, or the Sorrows of Bernard Shaw (1944)

Editorial from the March 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fresh from a vain attempt to show that our Transatlantic comrades of the “Western Socialist” do not understand Socialism, Mr. G. B. Shaw has enlivened the columns of the Times (February 1, 1944) with a letter teaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer how not to suck the financial eggs of capitalism, and the Foreign Secretary the A.B.C. of using Quislings to run the new European governments to be set up at the heels of the departing Germans. Though the connection may not be obvious, the two pieces of advice are based on the same old Fabian principle that you cannot destroy an existing system unless you already have experts and machinery to operate a new one.

Mr. Shaw has raised the flag of revolt on behalf of the downtrodden dukes of England, the impoverished millionaires, and the payers of Excess Profit Tax. He and other rich men are being ruined by excessive taxation. So he implores the Chancellor to exempt from surtax “all legitimately earned incomes exceeding £20,000,” re-introduce the income tax three-years average system to meet the hard case of “the wretch who makes £21,000 in one year, and a bare subsistence in the years preceding and following,” and “abolish the Excess Profits Tax root and branch.” So long as we have pampered rich, he says, “we must pamper them for all they are worth, and far from crying that nobody must profit commercially by war, make war the most profitable of all businesses until it ends in victory.”

A paragraph from Mr. Shaw’s letter will make his argument clear, especially if read in conjunction with a statement made by him in a further letter to the Evening Standard : —

“It may be finally desirable to get, rid of landlordism; but while we have landlords let us have rich ones, and encourage them to be richer, rather than poor and persecuted ones. And what applies to private farming enterprise applies to all enterprises.” (Times, February 1).

“The question at issue is whether private factories are to be closed and private farmers evicted before the Government is ready to carry on the work they are doing without a day’s intermission. I say no.” (Evening Standard, February 10).

His advice to the Foreign Secretary is based on the same principle, that when governments are overthrown on the Continent new ones will not be able to function unless they retain the services of the trained functionaries who have served the previous German-controlled governments. Shaw has in mind men like the late Admiral Darlan, “the citizen who will obey and faithfully serve the established government of his country, no matter how often it changes.”

It is not our concern to enter into discussion about Shaw’s advice to the Cabinet—probably they appreciate the force of his arguments as well as he does. What we are concerned with is a deeper issue, one that Shaw ignores.

On the surface, the Fabian Society has been a superb success. Its ideas moulded the Labour Party and I.L.P., and some of its leading men reached high office and wielded great influence in the Labour Party and in Liberal and Labour Governments. It has claimed that those who rejected Fabian theories have never made any headway. What, then, were the theories .of the Fabian Society? They are well stated in “The History of the Fabian Society,” by Mr. E. R. Pease, its secretary for 25 years (published in 1916 by A. C. Fifield). Professing Socialism as its aim, the Fabians rejected the view “Make Socialists and you will make Socialism” (the view held by the S.P.G.B.), and declared instead that Socialism was a principle already in part embodied in the constitution of capitalist society. As Fabians and Fabian ideas permeated other parties, this Socialist principle would, they said, gradually be extended. Mr. H. G. Wells, who quarrelled with them over this, defined their attitude fairly enough when he said that they believed “the world may be manoeuvred into Socialism without knowing it” and that “society is to keep like it is … and yet Socialism will be soaking through it all, changing without a sign.”

Mr. Pease says in his “History,” “The work of the Fabian Society has been not to make Socialists, but to make Socialism” (p. 255).

Then the Fabians believed in government by the expert —”what it demanded was partly, indeed, a more efficient and expert central government . . . but primarily an expert local civil service in close touch with and under the control of a really democratic municipal government” (p. 248). Critics of the Society used to charge their largely civil service membership with being concerned with creating careers for themselves. As one leading member once said, “The government of the future will be by experts, and we, naturally, want to be the experts” (Mr. H. Snell, quoted in the Socialist Standard, February, 1907).

It will be noticed that Mr. Shaw is still worried about having somebody, the experts, to carry on in place of factory owners, landlords, farmers and government officials, and this brings us to the utter failure of 60 years of Fabianism. They were going to smooth the road to complete Socialism. Writing in 1889, Mr. Shaw declared that the transfer of private property to the nation had already been in progress for 15 years (“Fabian Essays,” p. 180), yet now, after a further 55 years, making a round century in all, we are told in effect that we are helpless to do anything because the propertied men in control are still indispensable. Shaw’s slogan now is “Dukes are better landlords than needy freeholders” (Times, February 1, 1944).

The Fabian experts half a century ago, like their Labour Party imitators afterwards, had a vision of municipal and state enterprises extending everywhere under their guiding hand and driving private concerns out of business. Wages of workers in the nationalised undertakings would rise, and landlords and capitalists would disappear. Mr. Shaw airily rounded it off thus in his “Transition” (Fabian Essays, 1889, p. 199) : —

“It is not necessary to go further into the economic detail of the process of the extinction of private property. Much of that process as sketched here may he anticipated by sections of the proprietary class successively capitulating, as the net closes about their special interests, on such terms as they may be able to stand out for before their power is entirely broken.”

We shall not be accused of exaggeration if we say that something seems to have gone wrong with the time-table. This has not escaped the notice of the Fabians, and Mr. Pease and Mr. Shaw have both had their say about the actual results of Fabianism. Mr. Pease wrote, in 1916 : “It must be confessed that we have made but little progress along the main road of Socialism. Private ownership of capital and land flourishes almost as vigorously as it did 30 years ago. Its grosser cruelties have been checked, but the thing itself has barely been touched” (p. 241).

That is as true now as it was in 1916, and note, too, that whereas in 1889 it was the Fabians who were very cleverly—as they thought—permeating the Liberal and Radical parties with their reform programmes, now the boot is on the other foot, and it is the Liberal Sir William Beveridge who is permeating the Labour Party with his scheme for removing a new batch of grosser cruelties in the campaign to make the world safe for capitalism.

Mr. Shaw lias been just as frank as Mr. Pease. In reply to the question whether Socialism had made progress during his lifetime, he replied to the News-Chronicle (January 6, 1936) : —

“Yes; but it is the capitalists who exploit it for their own profit everywhere except in Russia . . . The Socialists here broke down the old capitalist policy of laissez-faire, and showed that State help was indispensable in modern industry. Accordingly, the capitalists now will not build a Queen Mary unless the State helps them out; and mines are registered as Public Utility Societies instead of private ventures. Excellent Socialism for capitalists; but the sailors and miners get nothing out of it.”

So after half a century of building “Socialism for capitalists” but without making Socialists, we find that things are very much as they were. Vital change is still impossible because there is something lacking. We must, says Mr. Shaw, bolster up our dukes and landlords, pamper the rich, and depend on Continental Quislings to keep capitalism going. There is something lacking; Socialists are lacking. The Fabians never held with making Socialists, yet it is surely obvious that if the enormous effort devoted to advising the capitalists how to adapt their system to the changing circumstances of the past half-century had been devoted to making Socialists here and abroad, Mr. Shaw’s twin problem would be non-existent and his advice superfluous.

The early Fabians, the I.L.P. and the Labour Party were wrong, and the S.P.G.B. was right. The problem was not, and is not, one of extending state and municipal capitalism—(incidentally the present drift is towards monopolistic public utility corporations under some sort of state supervision, not towards state operated enterprises)—-nor is it one of finding experts and superior brains. There is no lack of able and experienced workers in industry, farming and the civil service to carry on, nor was there 60 years ago. All that is lacking is a Socialist working class to give orders to its delegates in Parliament and on the local councils for the ending of the private property basis of society. Socialism is still not here, but that is only because the workers are still not Socialists. What society needs now, as when the Fabians began their slow march to nowhere, is not Fabian experts to show the capitalists what changes are necessary to keep capitalism going, but a majority who understand Socialism and are determined to achieve it, through gaining control of the machinery of government.