From America: The Panama Canal and the right of free access (1977)

From the October 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the hottest pieces for conversation in America these days is the Carter Administration’s treaty with Panama, scheduled for a pomp-and-ceremonial signing on Wednesday, Sept. 7, in Washington, with a glittering crowd of little Latin-American dictators and other dignitaries in attendance. Ownership of the Panama Canal is to be transferred to the Panamanian Government, effective as of 1999, albeit with continuing US rights in the area of military defense. As of this writing, opinion polls indicate that a sizeable majority of the US population opposes the deal and that, in the end, the US Senate will refuse to ratify. The Government is mounting an all-out propaganda blitz to win over popular sentiment and save the Treaty.

In a nutshell, the positions are: Pro: in the final analysis, it is free access and not ownership that is important. Panamanians in particular, and Latin Americans, in general, are said to feel that 75 years of US ownership of a waterway in their area is enough. Good public relations between US and the latinos demand the transfer. Con: “We” (the us Government) built the Canal and paid for it. It makes no sense to give it away to a tinhorn dictatorship. Surely American military muscle can easily handle the hostile guerrilla action by anti-Yanqui latinos, but to surrender it to Panama would be to invite trouble from the Communist world — particularly Soviet Russia — which might seize control.

There is much meat here for socialists to chew on. But first it may be helpful to have a look at some bare facts concerning the history of the Canal, facts which are easily verified in the history books. To begin with, the “sovereign” nation of Panama came into being just 75 years ago as the fruit of a conspiracy involving a French capitalist consortium, the Government of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Panamanian revolutionists who sought independence from Columbia of which the Isthmus of Panama was a part.

The French capitalist group had recently abandoned its attempt at building a canal across the Isthmus after sinking some $260 million. A major, insurmountable, obstacle for them was malaria-bearing mosquitoes that devastated the work force. Roosevelt's government now commenced negotiations with the Columbian Government to pick up the rights from the French after agreeing to pay some $40 million for their franchise and unfinished work. But the Columbian Parliament stalled, attempting to raise their ante, and the US Congress hemmed and hawed. Then, enter the conspirators, and a Gilbert & Sullivan-type production ensued.

The group of Panamanian rebel-nationalists was set in motion on the Atlantic side of the Isthmus and the flag of independence was raised. At the same time, three US warships showed up at Colon and Marines were landed to “restore order”. The entire Columbian military force on the Pacific side was bought off, privates receiving $50 a head and officers more, and the revolution was over — bloodless save for the accidental killing of a Chinaman. The news reached Washington at 11.30 in the morning of Nov. 6, 1903, and the Republic of Panama was recognised before one o’ clock of the same day.

There is much more, of course, to this fascinating tale of intrigue in high circles but the foregoing are, at least, among the more salient facts. American capitalism licked the malaria problem by draining the swamps that provided the breeding ground for the mosquitoes. In other words, rather than waste time swatting the critters or spraying them with the 1903 equivalent of Flit, the US got down to bed-rock — the source — and corrected it, a tactic we can hardly expect capitalism to pursue in its perpetual confrontation with problems such as poverty-in-the-midst-of-porential- abundance; war; discrimination, etc.

Now, what should we make of all this noise about the Canal, today? Does it really matter either to Panamanian or American workers which nation possesses the deed of ownership? President Carter tells us, soberly, that it is not ownership but free access that is really important. Aside from our feeling that this move is an attempt by US capitalism to get further out of the more overt type of colonialism, we can only wish that the majority would apply such reasoning to all of wealth-producing property. The reason that the Treaty is of no import either to American or Panamanian workers is that ownership and free access, under capitalism, is generally confined to the capitalist class, even in cases of government-owned and government-operated industry.

But in the face of this truth there is something strange, even weird, about capitalism. Whether or not the Panama Canal will actually become the property of the Panamanian capitalist class depends on how successful the political leaders are in selling a bill of goods to American and Panamanian workers in order to provide the necessary pressures on the politicians to pass and to ratify the legislation.

Socialists maintain, then, that there are three rather than two positions on the Panama Canal Treaty: (1) Agreement; (2) opposition; (3) a simple working-class declaration: It is not our property so don’t bother us. But think carefully about that point made by President Carter on ownership vs. free access. And apply it to the world situation. The answer is inescapable: World Socialism will mean the end of ownership in the sense of class ownership. And common ownership can only spell free access to all that is in and on the earth, even the Panama Canal, by all mankind.

Harry Morrison, 

WSP, Boston. 

Rise of American Civilisation, Beard 

A New American History, Woodward

New Page: Letter From America column (1977-1978)

As promised, new pages for the blog. These new pages of old Socialist Standard columns will eventually be grouped together in one page at the head of the blog alongside the pages for the current Socialist Standard columns, film reviews and theatre reviews.

Letter From America was a short-lived column written by World Socialist Party of the United States member, Harry Morrison, during the period of the Carter administration. Based out of Boston, Massachusetts, Morrison's articles focused on such subjects as America during a time of recession, US healthcare, the circus that is US politics, and America's supposed 'exceptionalism', amongst other topics. To access the individual articles, click on the months.

1977:

• Jun: The Hospitalization business by Harry Morrison
• Jul: Those “Neutral” Agencies of Capitalism by Harry Morrison
• Sep: "Making it" v World Socialism by Harry Morrison

1978

• Jan: Ethics and conflicts by Harry Morrison
• Apr: Snowbound in Boston by Harry Morrison
• Jul: Carter, credibility, confusion by Harry Morrison
• Aug: California's "Boston Tea-Party" by Harry Morrison
• Oct: Business week and the “Marxist assault” by Harry Morrison
• Dec: Those good old “Good as Gold” dollars  by Harry Morrison

An American Analysis of The Bi-Centennial Bust! (1976)

From the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

American capitalism in this year of Bi-Centennial celebration might well be summed up in a word: turmoil. Certainly, to base one’s estimates entirely upon reports by the media and to accept the superficial analysis of capitalist-dominated thinking, is to provoke the question : is American society disintegrating before our very eyes ?

For here is a nation based upon Law—we are assured —that is seemingly a Mecca for outlaws. Here exist a system of government and a political philosophy that shine as a beacon to the rest of benighted mankind, the most brilliant and the fairest system in the world of these or any previous times. Every American school-child has been made aware of this by the authors of the approved texts. And every last one of the horde of immigrant workers from Central and South America and the islands of the Caribbean (not to mention the steady stream of those from so many other lands) have heard of it, if not from their children, then certainly from other sources of “information” that abound in this “land of abundance.” Even the “wet-backs” who cross and re-cross the borders of this Promised Land, aided and abetted by employers of cheap, unskilled labour, always on the lookout for still cheaper human energy, have heard the glad tidings of America, the Land of the Free (and those who work for them).

And despite the gilt-edged assurances of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the entire American system of doing things, the turmoil exists and seems to accelerate with the passage of time.

But do not be deceived. There is nothing unusual about the troubles and woes of capitalism in America, today. Concerned supporters and radical opponents to the contrary notwithstanding, the system functions normally and there are at least two obvious tests one can make to verify this assertion : (1) Compare it with its own past by checking newspapers of the past in the microfilm department of your Public Library; (2) Compare it with what goes on, today, in the rest of the world wherever capitalism—in whatever form—is the order of the day.

And yet, one cannot be too careful when undertaking such comparisons. For it is the superficial that is readily seen, especially when observing the situation, via the media, on a world basis. It would seem that there is much more “law and order” in other nations than is the case in America, especially in the dictatorship countries, much less turmoil than in these United States. But it is not safe to make such an assumption for at least one good reason, viz., there is no country where the press (and other media of propaganda) is as highly developed, as a “Fourth Estate,” as in America. The Lords of the Press in this country have been able to maintain a large degree of independence from national government and what it assumes to be national (capitalist) interests.

More so than in other nations, even in the nations of the “Free West,” is this the case. Just one example is needed: publication of “classified” government material in any other country would earn for its publishers a cell in the slammer, if not the execution block. Yet, the US Constitution guarantees that there shall be no prior restraint on the freedom of the press and this right of individual capitalists over the rights of other individuals, or even at times the interests of the total national capital, as interpreted by the government, has been upheld in the high courts. Even ordinary cases before the courts—right up to murder—can be and are “tried in the newspapers” and defendants either convicted or acquitted on the basis of stories in and attitudes created by the newspapers.

The fact is, then, that all of the sores of capitalism (and they are many) are reported and sensationalized by the media in America to perhaps a greater extent than any place else in the world. And there is another aspect about reporting that should not be overlooked. That aspect is the penchant for distortion. Newspapers and TV Newscasts are, besides a major part of the head-fixing industry, commodities themselves produced for sale on the market (to readers and viewers) with view to profit (from advertisers). Especially is this true in a country such as the United States of America where outright Government ownership is not present either in the press or the Airwaves. The message, as taken by some, of turmoil-to-the-point-of-disintegration, then, should be inclusive of a large grain of salt.

★

With the foregoing in mind, let us now look at America in this Bi-Centennial Year as it really is. It is certainly not a land in which some 220 millions enjoy a common heritage or—at least—a common interest. (Nor is this so any place else in the world). Neither is it in deeper-than-usual difficulty and ready to come apart at the seams. The first part of this estimate should be obvious to all but those unfortunates who are born blind, deaf, and speechless, and needs no elaboration. The second part can be made apparent through a brief look at class warfare and mass poverty in America over the entire period of its history; and the public libraries are well-stocked with all the documentation one would need, from old newspapers, to journals, to history books. From the rebellions immediately following the framing of the Constitution in 1787 until the continuing upheavals of these 1970s, class warfare has run rampant in this land, even when it is cloaked by racial overtones.

As for the fanciful estimates of uninformed radical activists and the fears of far-right patriots that capitalism in America is being destroyed from within, the facts indicate otherwise. This does not mean that America might not, in time, be toppled from her position of world dominance by another power or combination of powers. This is possible even if it may not seem probable in the immediate future. But the working class of America can hardly suffer economic loss from such an eventuality. For working class standards are really not tied to a nation’s position of power vis-a-vis other nations. Latest figures show per capita income (by means of which living standards are generally estimated) in America are not first, but fifth, despite her occupying the No. 1 spot in world power. Nor can the British workers, for example, look back with nostalgia to those times when Britain dominated the world and wish to return to their living standards of those “good old days”.

So let us take a hard look at the actual standards of the American working class in this year of America’s colossal 200th birthday party. And let us go to the capitalist Press for some statistical facts, rather than the fiction it so dearly loves to spew on the subject of American working-class affluence. As reported in The Western Socialist (Boston, USA) in its No. 5, 1975 issue:

In a full page spread in an issue of The New York Times, USN & WR (US News and World Report) goes after advertising. And in blowing its own horn it inadvertently blows the whistle on the Great American Myth. We are presented with the picture of a smiling family of four on a sight-seeing trip, enjoying the ‘American heritage’ by actual contact. The caption accompanying the photograph reads: “If Peter Lloyd wasn't above the Buying Point, his kids would be reading about our American heritage. Instead of seeing it.’ And the ad goes on to spell out this American message. A chart depicting the details of ‘The Buying Point’ spills the beans and it seems that one exercises his patriotic urges in proportion to one’s income — which is something we knew all along, anyway, but which is something that makes news when revealed by the capitalist press.

The Report goes on to show, citing USN & WR, that one half the households are below the buying point. Further, that the lower half gets by on but 23 per cent of the national total income. Nor should we forget that a significant percentage of that upper half enjoys its buying power through the power of instalment buying (“hire purchase,” in Britain) and are forever precariously perched on a parlous precipice, warding off a plunge.

As the WS piece concludes:

For never forget, if we are all equal under the law, in America, it is a fact that some of us are more equal than others. Those whose income is above the buying point, and especially those who actually own America, the 5 or 10% at the top.

★

The American Bi-Centennial hoop-la is accentuated, of course, by the quadrennial race for the Presidency. Adding somewhat to the confusion is the fact that the incumbent, Gerald Ford, is the first us President in history who was not elected to the office. He was selected for the Vice-Presidency, by the then President Nixon, to replace Spiro Agnew who resigned rather than face trial on graft charges. When Richard Nixon followed Agnew into disgrace and retirement from office, Gerald Ford succeeded to the accoutrements of the Presidency. Because of this new element, the Republican Convention will be “open” with the incumbent enjoying no scissors-hold on the nomination. So the bad actor from California, Ronald Reagan, is making an all-out effort to save his country from disaster!

On the Democratic Party side, the race has narrowed somewhat as far as the various state-wide Presidential Primary elections are concerned. The main ingredient for capturing the White House, in these times, is money —piles of it—and those with money to invest usually place it on a more apparent winner. But a popular syndicated humourist, Art Buchwald, has observed that one needs a beautiful mouthful of teeth to be elected President of the United States and in that respect, at least, most of the candidates qualify—right down to Hubert Humphrey and Edward Kennedy whose shadowy figures bulk in the wings, awaiting a possible bolt from the blue.

But the most important fact of life for the working class in this proud year of capitalism in America is a sad one. There is no sign on the horizon of a meaningful opposition to the system that holds them in wage servitude. Any alternative being offered to the major parties, regardless of the designation, is but a variation of the theme: Capital versus Wage Labour with a government functioning as a capitalist class. There remains the need, in America, to build a genuine Socialist organization capable of presenting the case for a wage-less, price less, moneyless, world society, Let this not take another century !

Harry Morrison

Boston Local, WSP of US

Capitalism’s road to riches (1985)

From the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Question: How do capitalists go about the business of making all that money — the legitimate' capitalists, that is? One answer takes into account the fact that they invest their capital, either in direct ownership of production plants or merchandise emporiums; or indirectly through building portfolios in the stock exchanges. In either case the process revolves around commodity ownership. Anything that can be extracted or captured from land, waters, or skies that is potentially saleable at a profit is processed and manufactured with that in mind — commodity production and distribution.

In other words, the only way potential profits and riches can be created is by manufacturing or processing items of wealth through the application of human labour power to natural raw materials. But how is that profit finally obtained? After all, what capitalists have immediately on conclusion of the manufacturing process are warehouses bulging with merchandise — products for which they have no personal need. How do they convert those wares into money and profits?

If we go to conventional wisdom we learn that the costs of production are totalled, to which a percentage is added which will constitute their profit. The merchandise will then be shipped to wholesalers, dealers, jobbers, retailers, or whoever, and each individual entrepreneur involved with the sale of the commodities will, in turn, add a percentage of hoped-for profit, thus raising the cost of the commodity to the ultimate consumer in a purely arbitrary way.

There is, too, an added emphasis that clever merchandising talent helps to separate the men from the boys, to enable those with the good business heads get the better of the rest through wheeling-and-dealing. Also, it must be admitted, is the acknowledgement of an element of luck — being in the right venture and the right place at the right time. But the bottom line on how one is supposed to earn profits is: add a percentage to one's costs.

To be sure, capital invested in production is involved in the business of increasing commodity value through the manufacturing process. And such capitalists, in fixing their selling prices, must add to the costs of the commodities that they need to purchase from other production capitalists. They add those expenditures to the other costs in their production process, and then tack on a figure representing the average profit in their industry to arrive at what Marx termed their ' price of production".

But the merchandising capitalists, who are concerned only with the marketing of finished commodities, would have no reason to jack up the cost of the item since marketing adds nothing to its value. True, they do appear to be doing just this and that is exactly how it shows up in standard bookkeeping. But it is all mere semblance of reality; the merchandisers get their profit by sharing in the surplus value that has been added during the manufacturing process.

To whom do they sell?

The population of industrial and trading nations are made up, generally, of two major elements: capitalists, or employers of labour; and the working class. While there are members of the population that seemingly fit neither category professionals who work on their own for fees, artists, insignificantly tiny business people who hire no help — but their totals are minuscule as against those of the main segments and their income aggregates would be more in the category of working-class levels than capitalist.

Looking at the working class as customers for commodities, the maximum they can afford to consume would have to amount to the total of their wage/salary income. They can hardly spend more without getting into deep trouble which, to be sure, a noticeable percentage of them manage to do from time to time, egged on by the flood of huckstering in the press and over the broadcast media. But there is one outstanding flaw in the argument that profits arise from sales to the wage and salaried section of the population. If that were so, would it not seem practical for the employers of labour to force frequent pay raises in order that the workers might have more to spend on profit-generating merchandise? It should be apparent that the driving rationale of capitalist production is to produce more cheaply in order that commodities can be sold for less with similar, or greater, profit. So the working class, whose labour power applied to raw materials is the source of all wealth, is forever being forced to modify their wage increases while increasing productivity — which is equivalent to accepting a wage cut, even if indirectly. That is the bottom line for the employer.

Profiting from one another?

Now what about that capitalist market? It goes without saying that the capitalist class is the consuming class, although not because of the total values of the necessaries and the luxuries that they buy for themselves whether for simple, personal use or for purposes of conspicuous consumption. The bulk of capitalist purchasing is in production goods needed to operate the industries that turn out and distribute commodities. There are tons of ore and metals of all sorts extracted from ore; there are forests and timber and lumber, crude and refined oil. coal and gas. So individual capitalists indeed seem to get rich from selling to one another.

But we run into another problem when we dig below the surface of what is happening in all that commercial activity. Certainly capitalists do get richer when marketing is enjoying boom times but do those riches arise directly from the sales? The trouble with that theory is simply that it is not possible to sell without also buying. Even a manufacturer of men's trousers must buy buttons or zippers and thread and equipment and machinery of all sorts. So what the wily sales staff would gain for the trousers capitalist would be lost when the equally shrewd people from the firms that supply the accessories and equipment go to work.

There is no question about capitalists needing markets in order to make money. But the profits do not emanate from sales. All that is happening in the area of marketing is a re-distribution of profits that have already been produced. That fact was noted a long time ago by the American author and scientist Benjamin Franklin who wrote: 

Trade in general being nothing else but the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is . . . most justly measured by labour.

(The Works of B. Franklin &c. edited by Sparks. Boston. 1836. VoI.ll. p.267.) (Quoted in Capital, Vol I. p.59 footnote. Kerr).

In other words Franklin, like others before him, anticipated Marx in observing that value arises from labour not exchange. Marx, like all scientists, took hold of something already known and added to it, in this case, exposing the legalised swindle of surplus value and wage slavery.

The source of the profit

Actually, it should not take too much reflection to understand why it seems to be so difficult to detect the fallacy in the theory that profits arise from the sale of the commodity. In a society based on production for profit it is even perplexing to most that the question need be raised. From the time we are old enough to comprehend, the proposition that profit is made by adding a percentage to cost, at the selling stage, is seen as self-evident and is taught in the institutions of learning from primary grades on up through university level. Even that common assertion, especially by discount merchandisers, that they buy for less and consequently are enabled to sell for less than their competition, does not alter the fact that their profit is supposed to be traced to their mark-up from cost.

And yet, on dose examination, the concept breaks down. Try asking yourself this question, for example: would you be willing to pay £7,000 or more for a shiny new car at a showroom if you were told that a part of that value was added in the dealer's business office simply by putting pencil to paper or fingering the keys of a calculator? The truth is that every penny of value had been added to that car when it had been inspected at the factory for shipment to the dealer.

Every penny of profit that is garnered by the various entrepreneurs involved with the sale of the car comes from the surplus value that had been extracted from the workers engaged in its production. The production capitalists cannot gobble up all the profit that is left after the expenses associated with plant operation have been subtracted.

To leave nothing for commercial capitalists they would be compelled to market the commodity themselves, thus tying up capital that would be better earmarked for production. It makes more economic sense for industrial capitalists to share the loot with merchant capitalists. This they do by selling their commodities to the merchandising capitalists below their full "price of production"; the merchant's mark-up brings the final selling price which the consumer pays up to a level representing costs plus the average rate of profit in full. But this profit has been created in the manufacturing process as surplus value. When the commodity in which it is embodied is sold this surplus value already created by the labour of the working class is converted into a monetary form: profit. Profits are made in the process of production and only realised on the market.

Harry Morrison

(World Socialist Party of the United States)

On second thought: From the Western Socialist (1994)

From issue 11 of the World Socialist Review

The main flaw in the industrial union as a means of emancipation is the fact that a labor union, in order to gain any sort of recognition, must open its doors, even to the point of compulsion, to any and all workers in the industry it seeks to control. If it does not do so it will not be in a position to control anything. If it does its membership must be dominantly made of workers who are not socialists.

Even if the “political arm" were 100 percent socialist, how could they hope to be backed by a union whose membership were predominantly non and anti-socialist? And if it is argued that the socialists of the “political arm” would educate the union members to socialism, this merely knocks De Leon’s theories for another cocked hat. This would certainly demonstrate once more that the political party does not arise from the industrial union.

The truth of the matter is that unions of any kind, whether craft or industrial, arise out of the relations of wage-labor and capital. They can only be used as weapons by the workers in resisting the pressure against their living standards by the capitalist class. They are the means the working class must use under this system to sell labor-power at its value. It may be argued that industrial organization is superior to craft unionization, but even if this is so it only applies in so far as it concerns a capitalist society, for no union could possibly be carried over into socialism. The material conditions for their existence will be absent in a society devoid of economic classes.

“The Socialist Labor Party” HARMO, July-August 1948

Letter: The Root of Roots (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Root of Roots

Your article under the above title, written by Harmo, caught my attention as I feel it misses the particular significance of the “roots phenomenon” in race relations in Britain today. The quotation your correspondent gave from Kautsky that “the study of the past, far from being mere dilettante antiquarianism, will become a powerful weapon in the struggles of the present . . ." is indeed apt, but he did not, it seems to me, draw an important conclusion from it. I don’t believe that most black people are unduly concerned to prove “racial purity” as is implied by your writer who correctly points to the miscegenation which has existed from time immemorial. The point is that the slave background, common to so many in the USA and the Caribbean, has left black people with a feeling of disorientation, not of belonging—in short, of “rootlessness”.

Historically therefore the story of slavery is important in leading present day peoples to struggle for real equality, but psychologically the study of one man’s own history may be equally important in helping oppressed groups not only to a better awareness of the injustices of the past and the need for social change, but also to a confident awareness of their own great cultural tradition which is only slowly but surely becoming evident particularly in studies in the African continent. Thus the study of history may not only be informative but also may have a profound psychological part to play in the struggle for equality.

D. C. Mayer

Romford

Reply:

Our article did not imply that most black people are unduly concerned to prove “racial purity”—the reference was made to Haley (the author of Roots) and militant “Afro-Americans” who do pursue this line, and who invariably do so for commercial or political reasons. You say black people have a “feeling of disorientation” and "rootlessness” and if we are, for the sake of brevity, to assume some positive meaning from such phrases, is not this “feeling” common to the Irish, Polish, Italian and other elements —including the native Indian—which go to make up the American population?

The mistake is made by some in assuming that "a feeling of disorientation” reflects a form of almost instinctive desire to get back to “roots”. As our article pointed out, this is likely to prove a most difficult exercise in itself. It also fails to take into account the effects of capitalist society which, with its lack of social plan, its requirement for the free movement of labour coupled with reversals in this policy, so-called national rivalries and shifting alliances, in itself creates insecurity among members of society as a whole.

We have always stressed the need for men and women to both study, and learn from, history. Any real study will reveal that the vast majority have a common solution to problems, including racial problems, which in capitalism are falsely made to appear as group problems to be dealt with in isolation. If you feel that there is a psychological barrier to be overcome before members of the working class can understand and work for the establishment of a society based on common ownership, it is not one erected by Socialists.

Editors.

Black History (1972)

Book Review from the December 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Red and Black, Marxian Explorations in Southern and Afro-American History, by Eugene D. Genovese, Allen Lane. The Penguin Press 5.00

This book is a compilation of some eighteen previously published essays by Professor Genovese and, like books of this nature, suffers a bit from disjointedness, even from an occasional contradiction. But it is not this in the book that really bothers us. It is, rather, the Genovese approach to the Marxian method of interpreting history. His opening chapter: On Being a Socialist and a Historian and his concluding essay: On Antonio Gramsci (head of the Communist Party in Italy in the early 1920s; arrested and imprisoned for the last eleven years of his life by Mussolini) should be read carefully as one sees, in starkness, the utter contempt or, at best, condescension of the self-appointed intellectual “Marxist” for the mental potentialities of ordinary working people. To Genovese, leadership—presumably of intellectuals — is certainly the most important factor in educating the working class to the urgencies of Socialism. He approves of Gramsci’s vision of the ideal party:

“A party justifies its historical existence when it develops three strata: (1) a rank-and-file of ordinary men whose participation is characterised by discipline and faith; (2) a leadership, which provides cohesion; and (3) cadres, which mediate morally, physically, and intellectually between the other two.”

Of these strata he stressed leadership:

“We speak of captains without an army, but in reality it is easier to form an army than to find captains. It is surely true that an already existing army will be destroyed if it lacks captains, whereas a group of captains, co-operative and in agreement on common ends, will not be slow in forming an army where none exists.”

But this is not Marxism nor was it really new with either Gramsci or Lenin. It is the sort of theory which Marx and Engels consistently fought against throughout their careers. As far back as 1848, in their Communist Manifesto, they made clear that: “The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority.” (Our emphasis). The Marxian case rests, indeed, on the theory that the ideas of man (not merely of leaders) are basically determined by the mode of production and that it is the business of working for wages for an owning class (not the preachments or captaincies of great men) that will cause workers to organise for Socialism.

The foregoing should not discourage the student of Socialism from obtaining the book (if he can afford it). There is much of interest to be gotten from the essays on the blacks in America notwithstanding the incredible misunderstanding of the Marxian method. Genovese, for example, sees American blacks as embracing “genuine ingredients of a separate nationality, even as they form part of a general American nationality … (and that) it is no longer possible to believe that a class can be understood apart from its culture, or that most modern classes can be understood apart from their nationality.” But what, after all, is a nationality? In the final analysis it is a group split into people with rival and conflicting interests. Even in the case of American blacks, where the percentage of capitalists is undoubtedly smaller than usual, the struggle between and within the classes is apparent. Black bourgeois pit themselves against one another as well as against the white bourgeoisie, and against the black (or white) workers they hire. Black workers, on the other hand, must also compete among themselves—as well as with white workers—for jobs.

It should also be pointed out that Genovese does a creditable job in showing the limitations of the economic determinists both of the non-Marxist and professed Marxist varieties. Creditable, that is, to the extent that he does not go overboard himself in an opposite direction. Certainly historians such as Charles and Mary Beard (who were not professedly Marxist) could be categorised as economic determinists and yet their analysis of the factors motivating the South to secede in 1860 was not as “narrowly defined” as he would have it. For the tariff did play a major role in antagonising the cotton planters who had an enormous stake in trade with England, Genovese and even Marx to the contrary notwithstanding. And the Homestead Law was certainly not in the interests of a ruling class that was based largely on latifundia-type labour, a wasteful sort of labour which, together with a one-crop economy, burned up land quickly and helped generate competition between North and South for frontier areas. The spread of homesteading certainly did offer a threat to the South.

Part of the problem of Professor Genovese seems to be his obvious lack of understanding of the basics of a capitalist system. Even his attempt to label the southern slave economy bears this out although he does correctly show that it was certainly not feudal, as so many professed Marxists maintain. Unfortunately, despite his grasp of the form feudalism, he declares that economy to be as different from capitalism as it was from feudalism. In fact the ante-bellum South had a system of plantation capitalism. True, the relationships were not [wage-labour and capital] but, rather, chattel-slave labour and capital (although there were many wage-slaves too). Nevertheless, unlike the classical systems of slavery and of serfdom, production was organised for sale on the market with view to profit. The production of cotton, tobacco, and (following the government’s ban on slave-importation) slaves themselves, was not carried on primarily for the use of the ruling class. A backward and inefficient type of capitalism, yes. But nevertheless capitalism.

Harry Morrison

(World Socialist Party of the United States)

Blogger's Note:

Not sure what happened but this review was a bit garbled in places and there were no corrections in a later issue of the Socialist Standard. It happens.

Sheharazad's thousand and second tale or would you let your daughter marry a green hair? (1964)

A Short Story from the November 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Know then, oh glorious king! that in days of yore and in times and tides long since gone there existed a strange and wonderful land known as Vespucci. The inhabitants of that country, as was universally the case even in those days, were divided into rich and poor, but this fact was not that which made Vespucci a strange and wonderful land. There was a different sort of division among the people that cut across economic status and which, confusing as it may seem to us, was the cause of much more confusion than it is easy for us to imagine. For the Vespuccians were also divided according to the colour of their hair.

Not that they had as many divisions as there are colours! No! There were but two general divisions—those with green hair (the minority) and all the others regardless of colour and combination of colour. A Vespuccian might have but a faint tint of green in his hair against a background of any other colour or combination of colours, but the green tinge officially stamped him as a Green Hair. He might have no green hair visible whatsoever yet he was classified as a Green Hair if both or either of his parents were officially Green Hairs. Only if he chose to hide the fact that there were Green Hairs in his background could he pass as a Normal Hair when, of course, the green in his hair was not visible. There were a few of the Green Hairs who disappeared from the census each year but by and large the divisions were constant.

Vespucci was also divided geographically into Upper Vespucci and Lower Vespucci and although there was a common law for all citizens which was inscribed in a book and interpreted, from time to time, by a group of nine old Cadis in the capital city—a town named Dryington— the separate sections of the country also had sectional laws pertaining to Green Hairs, written laws in Lower Vespucci, unwritten laws in Upper Vespucci. In Upper Vespucci the Green Hairs were, for the most part, segregated in housing and schools in a de facto manner while in Lower Vespucci the segregation was maintained as a matter of law. And this arrangement lasted for many generations with segregation carried out fairly generally and even in the armed forces and the prisons.

But certain developments began to take place in the economic life of the nation, developments which caused a great stir throughout the length and breadth of Vespucci. On the one hand a growing number of Green Hairs began to earn more money than had been the case hitherto and, at the same time, to get more education. On the other hand the larger manufacturers and merchants of the land found it expedient to expand into the more backward areas where more underprivileged Green Hairs were to be found and these big moneyed interests felt that a greater degree of stability among the working population (Green Hairs and Normal Hairs alike) was in order.

The wealthy Vespuccians, like the rich of our own times, were altruistic and never had other than the general welfare at heart. And so the group of top-ranking Cadis decreed in their wisdom that the arrangement that had, up until now, been legal was no longer legal and that all Vespuccians regardless of the colour of their hair were equal under the law, the only inequality , henceforth, to be that which is natural and normal and fitting—the inequality caused by the possession or non-possession of money in large quantities.

There was no great rush, however, to obey the new law on the part of the Lower Vespuccians and several years passed with no more than a token breakdown in the segregation pattern and even this in a restricted area of the Lower section. So great discontent became generated among the Green Hairs of Lower Vespucci while, in the other part of the nation, their fellow Green Hairs decided that de facto segregation would also have to go. They felt that their children were getting an unequal education and they resented the social inequality which was their lot despite there being no written laws on the matter in their area. And so they, too, began to demonstrate and to demand rights.

As of now, Your Highness, the affair should not seem to be too confusing. The Green Hairs were discriminated against in every manner and they were organizing to do something about it with the help, let me add hastily, of a number of Normal Hairs. They demonstrated in the streets, they picketed places of employment, they argued with school boards and with politicians, they boycotted stores, and many of them were subjected to various degrees of brutality by the forces of law and order. All of this is understandable. The Green Hairs wanted “Freedom” and they shouted to the rooftops that they wanted it now. But despite the fact that everything seems to have been quite in order, a certain confusion begins to develop in the story and seems to hinge around the meaning of the word Freedom, and also of the word Equality.

The Green Hairs were by no means united in their fight for Civil Rights. There were a number of organizations which represented them and which ran, in attitudes, all the way from conservative advocates of passive resistance—meek and humble followers of Christianity in its meek and humble forms, down through the more militant sects of that Infidel Religion, and even to the followers of the one, true, faith, the Muslims (Green Hair Muslims). And even the chosen of Allah were to become divided on the basis of militancy and action between the followers of the old leader, Mustapha Prophet, and the adherents of a younger and more fiery leader, Roderick Zee. But despite the divisions and differing attitudes there seemed to be one thing in common among the organizations of the Green Hairs and that was their universal agreement in a “practical” interpretation of the meaning of the terms Freedom and Equality. And this will best be explained by recounting the following adventure of a colour-blind Vespuccian who spent much time among the Green Hairs.

Our hero, who we will call Ali McKhan, chanced one day to step into the office of the largest of the Civil Rights groups, the National Brotherhood for the Aid of Green Hairs. He felt impelled to have a look at some of the literature of this organization and he entered into conversation with an official named Emmanuel Prince. “ Right at this moment,” he was told, “ Our main concern is in breaking down discrimination in housing. We are attempting to compel landlords in all neighbourhoods to rent to Green Hairs, and real-estate brokers to sell to them regardless of how snooty the neighbourhood.”—“ Very interesting,” remarked McKhan, “but tell me something. I know a lot of Green Hairs in the Ghetto and I'm certain that most of those I know can't afford to pay the rents in the better neighbourhoods and certainly don't have enough money saved for a down payment on a house in the swank sections. What about them? ”

Prince waved a deprecating hand, “ We can't be concerned with those people. The trouble with a lot of my fellow Green Hairs is that they just don't have the initiative to better themselves. Let them stay where they are.”

“ But,” argued McKhan, “ It is my understanding that there are some new and wonderful machines on the scene today that make it possible to produce an abundance of food, and clothing, and houses, and everything else. Don't you think it would be better if your organization tried to get all Vespuccians, regardless of colour, to see that it is now easy to produce enough for everybody and that something should be done to change the present basis of production for sale — change it to a system where everybody can have free access to their needs? Don't you think that nobody would pay any attention to colour of hair under such conditions? That all Vespuccians would become colour blind? ”

“My dear fellow,” snapped Prince, “ You arc obviously some sort of Red. What we want is freedom and equality. The freedom to rise on the economic ladder and an equal chance with Normal Hairs to compete for his freedom. How can you have freedom if you do away with poverty? And we don't want everyone to become colour-blind. We’re proud of our colour. We are a rich mixture of great ancestors and we have a glorious history. Furthermore, we are loyal Vespuccians and we demand nothing more than our rights under the Constitution of our glorious nation.”

So McKhan sadly bowed his way out and went down the street in the direction of the Green Hairs Freedom Now Society. “They’re a militant bunch, not like that other gang of phonies,” he muttered. But on the way he suddenly noticed a bright sign with a star and crescent over the doorway of a building. He straightened his shoulders and pounded fist in palm. “ The devil with the rest of them. This is the real McKhoy, the headquarters of Roderick Zee, the New Muslim Leader. (The name was formerly Zed, but the new arrangement called for a revolutionary change.) This bunch will really understand what freedom and equality mean.” And he went in.

Fortunately for McKhan, Roderick Zee had overcome the old dislike of being friendly with Normal Hairs and he found the young Green Hair Muslim to be not only enthusiastic but affable. “ \Yes, my friend. What we Green Hairs need in order to attain freedom is a country of our own. We demand that the Vespuccian Government give us an area where we can set up our own government and produce and distribute for ourselves. We want Separation, and we want it now, even if we have to organize rifle clubs among the Green Hairs "

McKhan was dubious about the separation bit and even more dubious about the rifle clubs. “Seems to me," he interposed, “ that it will take more than rifles to offset the weapons of the Vespuccian Government. And what's this business about separation into your own country? I like the idea of producing and distributing for yourselves, but why restrict this to Green Hairs? Don't you think it is possible to produce enough for everybody, regardless of colour of hair, to have all they want if we stop holding back the machinery and produce for use?  Of course, we would have to abolish private property universally, though, and not just for Green Hairs"

Roderick Zee's eyes bulged in horror. “ Get rid of private property? ” he screamed. “ What in the devil are you talking about? ” Didn’t you hear me say we want Freedom Now? How can we have freedom if we don’t have the freedom to own private property and hire other people to work for us - Green Hairs, of course. We don’t want any Normal Hairs in our factories.”

“But,” argued McKhan, “why would anybody want to work for you if they were producing for themselves? I thought people worked for other people just because they have to in order to eat, because they don’t own the means for producing things. And you say they—all of the Green Hairs—will own their own factories and workshops and still most of them will go to work for some of them? Its all quite confusing.” He was still mumbling as he was led out the door.

And so you see. Oh Illustrious King, that the Vespuccians, regardless of the colour of their hair and regardless of the animosities between the Green Hairs and the Normal Hairs, did have a common belief in the meaning of freedom and equality. They understood that unless one could rise above his fellows, climb over the bodies that form the broad base on the bottom of the economic pyramid toward the narrow apex at the top, there can be no freedom. This was the basis of Vespuccian Ethics and Vespuccian Religion and Vespuccian Morality and Vespuccian Law, and it was written in a big book in the capital city of Dryington and interpreted, from time to time, by nine old Cadis.

H. Morrison.

From America: Business week and the “Marxist assault” (1978)

From the October 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Business Week, Avenue of The Americas, New York City, should urge its writers to do their homework. In its issue of July 17, 1978, the Economics department does a review (or comment) on a new attack on Marxian economics, co-authored by four British self-styled Marxists (Barry Hindess, Paul Hirst, Athar Hussain, Anthony Cutler) entitled Marx's ‘Capital’ and Capitalism Today. The magazine’s caption reads: “A Marxist Assault on Marx” and the writer wastes no time in displaying his own ignorance of the barest essentials of the Marxian system.

Item: . . . the labour theory of value . . . holds that products are worth as much as the amount of labour that goes into producing them.

Stated thus the proposition is easy to refute. Why would a “product” (commodity) with more labour incorporated in it because of inferior production technique have more value in the market than a similar commodity produced with modern efficiency? It would not and Marx knew this. That is why he insisted upon using the phrase “socially necessary labour time” and explained it with thoroughness as the average labour time needed to produce an article under normal conditions of production and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. Commodities are not produced for some intrinsic pleasure in production but to sell and realise profit for their owners. Competition in the market place dictates that labour time in the factories be socially necessary.

But this is by no means the worst of the Business Week article. The writer, by an exercise of common horse sense, could nave attacked the credibility of the “Marxist” professors by exposing their naïveté. It does not necessarily follow that one must be pro-Marx to expose faults in anti-Marxist critiques.

Item: ‘There is no such thing as a general theory of prices or production,’ says Hirst of the University of London. ‘The way in which firms make calculations depends on each particular situation,’ he adds.

But of course individual firms must be concerned with one particular problem: achieving profitable increase in capital expended. A knowledge and understanding of general theories of the source of such increase is unnecessary to achieving one’s goal although factory managements succeed best that learn how best to milk their work force. Somehow, even without book knowledge, they realise that the source of their profits is not the prices of their commodities in the market place but the value over and above wages paid, created gratis by the workers.

Except that this seems to be what bothers the professors most about Marxian economics. Capitalism, they contend—according to Business Week—is not one enormous factory. Marxists, they say, neglect such areas of activity as the huge service sector and the vital banking system:

Item: But the most glaring error in Marxist economics, they say, has been to ignore the role that money, credit, and financial institutions play in the economy . .

For example, they point to the variety of financial activity in which companies engage, such as foreign exchange speculation, in addition to production. And they further argue that the expanded role of government monetary authorities and their influence on the banking system, as well as the availability of credit, play a key role in how much profits companies earn. Indeed, government now has the clout to bail out companies that would otherwise go out of business were competition to prevail.

Indeed! The most glaring error of the professors— and of such experts as are found in the Economics department of Business Week—is the ignoring of the role that class has always played in capitalism. The total national capitalist, from away back, and the total international capitalist, in this country, have functioned as the final arbiters in the affairs of individual companies and industries through their states and their international financial and political institutions.

But what has all that to do with the source of profits? Long before the times of Marx, certain economists (Benjamin Franklin among them), observed that what took place in the market was an exchange of equal values. Whence, then, came the profit? Having the clout to determine whether or not a business will survive is not the same thing as producing profit. Such is obviously not the function of banks and governments.

And then the confusion of Business Week and the British “Marxists” becomes confounded because, accepting the myth of socialist nations (Russia, China, Poland, Cuba, etc.) they blame the “marked slowdown in economic growth” of some, such as Russia and Poland, on a blind adherence to Marxist economics.

Item: ". . . By adhering to a narrow interpretation of Marx’s theories, these nations have pursued one-dimensional development programmes, pumping up production in such industries as steel and heavy machinery, while neglecting to improve agricultural yields, expand the production of consumer goods, or provide better cultural and recreational services. According to some Marxists, these countries have sacrificed the socialist ideal for the sake of rapid industrial growth.”

Now why should anybody believe that Marx’s Capital offers a programme or an understanding of how production can be organised within the relationships of wage labour and capital in a manner as to benefit all, or anything more than a minority, of the population? Certainly there were no nations professing to be Marxist or socialist in Marx’s time, no national propaganda machines teaching that wage-labour and capital relationships can be socialist as well as capitalist. He did not have that idiocy to contend with and there is nothing in Capital to indicate that he foresaw such a turn of events.

Yet the woods and streets are filled with true believers of that myth, from plain men and women on the street to economics professors and business magazine writers. The answer to the question of why these “socialist” economies fail to equal those of the more traditional capitalism is not nearly so important as why or how state capitalism gets tied to the analysis in Capital and touted as socialism.

The emphasis of most “socialist” nations on production of capital goods and heavy industry (China and Cuba are cited as exceptions where the “socialist ideal,” presumably, has not been “sacrificed for the sake of rapid industrial growth”—despite the overt attempts of both nations to overcome backwardness) indicates only that they are by very nature capitalist. What is the number one object of capitalist production? As Marx so well put it:

Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! . . . Therefore, save, save, i.e. reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value, of surplus-product into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth. But what avails lamentation in the face of historical necessity? (Capital, Vol. 1, p. 652 Kerr Ed.)

Whether by traditional bourgeoisie or state bureaucracy functioning as bourgeoisie the primary object still holds.

And yet, out of this concentration on production for the sake of more production eventually must come a mass realisation that the floodgates of abundance for all—the socialist ideal—can be opened simply by abolishing the relationships of wage labour and capital and introducing a world wide system of production for use. That is the message of Capital and Marxism generally.

Harry Morrison

(WSP-US Boston)

The Home Owners (1956)

From the September 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Reproduced from the “Western Socialist," Boston Massachusetts, May-June, 1956).

This is the saga of American home-ownership and American home-owners—of that not inconsiderable percentage of theoretical homeowners in the United States who are a part of the working-class. Let us begin with a scientific generalization.

The working-class, we Socialists maintain, is a propertyless class which owns nothing but its labour-power, its ability to produce. In exchange for this labour-power which the workers sell to the Capitalist class they receive back on the average enough of the necessities and the luxuries to keep them producing and reproducing themselves as a class. Home-ownership is certainly not to be figured as a part of the cost of producing and reproducing labour-power.

In the face of appearances, however, this would seem to be rather a bumptious statement insofar as the American working-class is concerned. There is, without doubt, a mountain of paper in the form of deeds and titles of ownership to homes of all types which might be found in the possession of American working -people and the ledgers in the nation's registries of deeds will bear this out. On the other hand, however, there is another mountain of paper in the form of first and second mortgages. liens and attachments and so forth reposing in the nation's banks and finance companies which fairly well serves to uphold the validity of the Socialist claim and which exposes working-class home-ownership for what it is—an illusion.

The “Propertied” Working Class

Since the introduction of the G.I. Bill of Rights which arose out of World War II, nominal home-ownership among the American workers soared. Despite die astronomical heights to which the price of property rose since that conflict, it became possible for a G.I. to purchase a home with a down-payment which varied from nothing at all to a mere 5 per cent. of the selling price. The banks would put up a portion of the money and the Government through its Veterans' Administration would guarantee the rest of it.[1] Nor does the fact that the G.I Bill does not extend its benefits to non-G.I.'s excepting in the case of the numerous instances of artful transfer of such privileges by G.I.'s to others, exclude another large portion of the working-class from the ranks of home-owners. For in many cases at least a large part of a down-payment can be raised by the “buyer” by means of a second mortgage—in most cases a short term loan with a long rate of interest

And so we find that a large percentage of the American working class has become and is becoming “owners” of real estate, even landlords. Just how little average equity the worker has in his home is another matter, however, which does not need too much research to unearth. First of all, we have the first mortgage. An article in the Boston Sunday Globe for June 10, '56 tells us that there is an “unprecedented debt of nearly $90 billions on home mortgages . . ." This mortgage debt, we are informed, “is being repaid by American families with remarkably low rates of fore-closures." Be this as it may, the picture looks something like this:

Let us say our worker buys a home for $10,000 (a pretty shabby sort of deal at today's market) and that he gets his loan at 4½% interest. If he pays $60.00 per month for principle and interest it will take him 21 years and 11 months to pay off the loan.[2] But this is not the whole story by any means, for the city or town gets its cut and in most cases these taxes are added to the monthly payments making the total in this case more like $80.00 per, rather than $60.00, and which also means that the $10,000 home has within the span of a typical 20-year mortgage, just about doubled itself in cost. 

It never rains but it pours

“The course of true love never runs smooth,” they tell us, nor for that matter is the course of a 20-year mortgage any smoother. A home, like its owners, does not get any younger as time goes on. In fact, figures show that almost 50% of them are at least as old if not older than the workers who buy them and in the years to follow there is much to be done in the way of repair. This section is not required reading for those workers who are able, after a hard day's labour at the shop or where have you, to repair or replace the roof, paint the sides, instal or repair the plumbing, heating equipment or electric wiring, build a fence, grow and trim a hedge, etc. This applies rather to the overwhelming majority of our fellow-worker home-owners who are too exhausted, or too inexperienced to do the work of a dozen craftsmen in their spare time. These make the grist for the Home Improvement milk with their "easy payment” plans backed by the Government's Federal Housing Authority or by various Home Improvement Plans sponsored by individual banks. These can tie them up for periods up to five years in amounts ranging up to $2,500 plus interest. Providing, of course, one's credit still warrants such a loan. For those who have slipped and have fallen by the way-side, credit-wise, there are the second mortgage and other types of friendly finance companies which ask no more than an arm and a leg in return for the loan.

In the face of the continuing debt which confronts the worker “home-owner” in the years his mortgage has to run, fortunate indeed is the fellow who does not lose his status and revert to that of tenant in name as well as tenant in fact. In recent years there have been a fairly insignificant number of foreclosures—insignificant when compared with the vast increase in nominal home-ownership. According to the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. for 1955, pg. 457, estimated non-farm real estate foreclosures for continental U.S. ranged from 68,100 in 1926 to a high of 252,000 in 1933 and a low of 10,453 in 1946. The figure for 1954 was 26,211.

This data was taken from approximately 1,400 counties, cities, townships, or other governmental divisions. It represents the number of properties acquired through foreclosure proceedings but excludes voluntary deeds of sale in lieu of foreclosures or defaults on real estate contracts. And this last item is by no means inconsiderable. Anyone who has engaged in the so-called art of salesmanship in the home improvement field has become cognizant of the fact that a not insignificant percentage of "home-owners” become delinquent in their mortgage payments or their payments on the roof, side wall or combination storm and screen windows, with the result that they are either foreclosed or jump clear with a few dollars fa lieu of foreclosure.

That so-called Common Stake

The nominal home-ownership by American workers will no doubt continue and even to expand as time goes on. To a considerable extent and especially in the case of that large number of workers who "own” city tenements, they in effect act as rent-collectors and maintenance-men for the banks that hold the mortgage. It certainly works fine for the Capitalist class to have a working population, a large part of which has such a tangible stake in the nation as a real-estate deed even if the balance on the mortgages, the outstanding F.H.A’s, attachments and liens just about obviate the tide. Anything that adds to the feeling of a common bond between the workers and their masters is a wonderful thing—for the masters; especially when it costs them nothing. To the extent that such "ownership” exists the illusion helps to hold back worker class-consciousness. The working-class home-owner is less likely to favour strong action against his employers in a strike for example. His 20-year mortgage and his F.H.A. notes loom darkly before him and help influence his actions.

This sort of thing, however, can but help to hold back the tide. It can not prevent it from ultimately sweeping in to engulf the Capitalist system, to finally relegate it to the history of past societies. The vast majority of workers, even in America, may aspire to but will not be able to attain even the spurious type of home ownership we have been discussing. Capitalism is a system which provides real property ownership only for the Capitalist class.

Harry Morrison

[1] Last year 30% of all houses were bought with V. A. guaranteed private loans, although out of a total of 14.5 million G.I.'s of World War II more than 10 millions have taken advantage of this feature. (National Real Estate and Building Journal, May, 1956.)

[2] From a table published by “Changing Times" for February, 1956.

Obituary: Ennis “Cheerio” Clarke (1971)

Obituary from issue number 1 (1971) of The Western Socialist

Ennis “Cheerio” Clarke was born in Walmsley, England, about 1895. His parents moved the family to the Boston, Massachusetts, area sometime prior to the World War I period where Ennis remained until the late Thirties when he settled in the town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island. He made his living for many years as a professional photographer and, in a small way, as a dealer in philatelic stamps.

“Cheerio.” as he was known to just about all who knew him to any extent, met members of the World Socialist Party during his Boston days and found our political philosophy conformed with his own. He remained a member of the WSP and a convinced socialist until his death on Nov. 9, 1970. at the Veterans Home in Bristol. Rhode Island. As a draftee in World War I, where he was stationed for the duration in a training camp in So. Carolina, “Cheerio” was entitled to Veteran benefits. He was in and out of the V.A. Hospital in Providence, R. I. for a number of years before his death, the victim of cancer. He had never married.

“Cheerio” was also an accomplished amateur musician and performed creditably on the banjo, guitar and mandolin. He was well-known and liked in E. Greenwich as the following excerpt from a letter to this writer from one of his close friends, Don Rice, will attest. Our correspondent, who now lives in Ohio and edits a Quarterly “Journal of American Opinion” — SCHISM — writes:

“Trips back east won't seem the same now, without being able to stop by his studio-apartment for a visit. More than any other person, he was responsible for opening my eyes to the possibilities of alternatives. There were many in East Greenwich who were influenced by his youthful readiness to challenge old fogies one-fourth his age. He went on the wagon once for years; we kids got him drinking beer again, going out to bars or just sitting up in his studio playing guitar and singing. It never seemed odd to us at nineteen and twenty and twenty-one to have as a member of our crowd a man in his sixties. Though “Cheerio” didn't neglect those his own age. It was always great fun to sit on the courthouse wall listening to him argue with two of his regular cronies; a part-time policeman and a Jehovah's Witness. He was considered a harmless crank by many in town, but those of us who knew him well, knew that he was a good man deeply concerned with correcting social injustice and the inequities of modern life."

Which we, his comrades, would only amend by pointing out that “Cheerio’' went beyond a desire to correct “social injustice,” something that most people would profess to favor provided it could be done within the framework of capitalist society. “Cheerio” was a revolutionist in the most meaningful sense of the term, even organizing propaganda trips to E. Greenwich by his Boston comrades in order that those in E. Greenwich who cared to listen could hear and debate the case for a brand new way of life with others than himself. There were, over the years, a few such trips when at least two carloads of WSPers made the 65-mile trip from Boston.

In his final days, “Cheerio” was able to have visits from a number of his comrades, including Gilbert McClatchle of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who was in our area last September. He was also enabled to see consummated his wish that his possessions should go to the World Socialist Party. Several of us made the trip to E. Greenwich where we removed many items, including a valuable stamp collection and a number of musical instruments, all of which are adding much-needed funds to aid socialist work.

Those of us who knew him, including this writer who visited him on a number of occasions over the last few years, will miss him. I can attest, as one who has examined much of the voluminous correspondence accumulated by Comrade Clarke — in the capacity of a sort of literary executor — that he has done his part in spreading the case for socialism. He has made his mark in the World Socialist Movement.

Harry Morrison

Aaron Smith . . . In Memoriam (1973)

Obituary from issue number 3 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Once again it is our sad duty to report the death of a comrade. Aaron H. Smith of Los Angeles, a dedicated member of the World Socialist Movement, if ever there was one, passed away in April of 1973 after a lengthy illness.

"Smitty" first Joined the World Socialist Party in New York City in the Thirties and was a member of the N. Y Local until he settled in Los Angeles in the Mid-Forties. In L. A. he served for a number of years as local secretary and contact member in the directory of The Western Socialist. He was one of those socialists who will be long remembered by his comrades both for his socialist understanding and his wit. He had travelled a bit on the World Socialist trail, having made the scene in Canada. Britain and in Vienna as well as at least two visits to Party Conferences in Boston in his later years.

I first met "Smitty’’ in New York City in 1939 when I was but a fledgling socialist. He was one of the comrades who reinforced my own understanding. He was particularly fond of the taxation question and adept at explaining that it is a capitalist, not a working class problem. Old timers of Boston Local still remember and talk of a lecture he gave on the subject at one of their forums in the Thirties. He broke up his audience as he demolished the theory — prevalent then. too. with radicals — that the poverty-stricken working class pays taxes.

"Smitty" was an upholsterer by trade and when he settled in L. A. he earned his living refurbishing and restoring office chairs, bar stools, etc. He became, as he termed it. a "tacks expert.” I can still see him in my "mind’s eye” (I had settled in L. A. a few years before he arrived) a mouthful of tacks and an upholsterer’s hammer in his hand, plying his trade and joking about his "tacks" expertise.

But it would take much more than a necessarily brief obit to do Justice to Comrade Aaron Smith. All we can do here is bid him a sad farewell in the Journal of his Party.

— A Boston comrade

No Conspiracy . . . (1973)

From issue number 3 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Atlantic Monthly prints our letter to editor (March, 1973)

Sir:

In “Laud" (January Atlantic), David Black describes the World Socialist Party as ". . . a pure Marxist conspiracy so innocent that they were not banned from agitating on Boston Common during World War II.”

Not so. There is a World Socialist Party, with headquarters in Boston. Furthermore, we certainly did “agitate" on Boston Common for many years prior to, during, and subsequent to World War II. We were, in fact, the only avowedly socialist political party in the United States with all-out opposition to all belligerents in World War II, a statement we can document.

David Black does us an injustice by labeling us a “conspiracy." We have always proclaimed our aim: complete abolition of the wages, prices, profits system and the immediate establishment of world socialism — and this object has always been emblazoned on all of our official literature, including our Journal The Western Socialist. Our position is based upon political action and we advocate as the means to our end the ballot and all other democratic procedures. We have always rejected the advocacy of violence or of any action based upon minority, "vanguard" organization.

Furthermore, we were not included on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations during and following World War II, not because of any supposed “Innocence" on our part, but because we could not possibly be identified as friendly to any foreign power.

There was, nevertheless, an attempt made to ban us and other groups from free speech on Boston Common during World War II. The attempt fizzled and resulted in a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that no authority had the right to issue permits to speak on the Common, simply because such right existed (and still exists) at all times providing there is no incitement to riot.

Harry Morrison

National Secretary

Letter to The Western Socialist (1973)

From issue number 2 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Dear Sir:

I received and thank you for your letter, and the copies of “The Western Socialist." You wrote in the letter. “ . . . we insist that the image De Leonism holds of the nature of a socialist society is not consistent with revolutionary Marxism."

In the program, “Stravinsky Remembered," on WGBH-TV on Feb. 26, when someone accused the distinguished composer, the late Igor Stravinsky, of changing his mind on an important matter, Stravinsky replied that he had not changed his mind, but that he had gained additional knowledge. Thus, it was with De Leonlst and pre-De Leonist Marxism; and, thus, the Socialist Labor Party can call itself Marxist as well as De Leonist.

In your "The Western Socialist," No. 4 — 1967, article, “The Socialist Labor Party & Religion.“ you quarrel with the views of the SLP in regard to religion. If I should want to learn the facts about plumbing, I would speak to a plumber; if I desire to learn the facts about Socialism, I consult a true Socialist; and if I wish to learn about religion. I similarly would consult a clergyman. Karl Marx is not a proper person to consult about religion. He was an expert in regard to economics, true; but he had little if any Insight into the true meaning of religion, as he was not a devout believer in any religion. As did many German Jews of the time. Marx's family, for reasons of expediency alone, had renounced its Jewish religious heritage, and had ostensibly adopted Christianity. Therefore, Marx was neither devout nor warmly devoted as a Jew or as a Christian; and, therefore, he cannot well be considered an authority in regard to the nature and meaning of religion. Marx’s words on economics bear truth and authority; his words on religion are merely his unfounded personal opinion.

The World Socialist Party Declaration of Principles, number six, states, in part: "The working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government." When you advocate "conquest of the powers of government." without utilizing the country’s electoral process of the ballot, you become unjustifiable, and thus conspiratorial, subversive, and beyond the law. This is not true of the Socialist Labor Party.

As for your organizing “consciously." you will agree that the workers are mere wage slaves; and. thus, they are subject to the crippling and emasculating evil effects of the slavery. Aristotle wrote: “The slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority; and the child has, but it is immature . . slaves stand even more in need of admonition than children." ("Politics:' Bk. I: Ch. 13.)

I believe this to be the chief obstacle to the success of the Socialist Movement of today. This does not mean that the Socialist Movement cannot succeed, but that it must grow through its assimilation of additional and more fundamental knowledge.

The French philosopher and author, Jean Jacques Rousseau, wrote: "Our country cannot well subsist without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.”

Finally, Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, stated: "A man that seeks truth and loves it must be reckoned precious to any human society.”

I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Louis Frankel 

Response:

The copies of The Western Socialist to which our correspondent alludes had articles dealing with the Socialist Labor Party in which the following points, among others, were demonstrated:

(1) The SLP picture of socialism in operation, viz an "industrial union government,” is not in harmony with the goal of scientific socialism.

(2) The SLP attitude on Religion. i.e., that it is a "private matter” is inconsistent with an understanding of the Marxist Materialist Conception of History.

Mr. Frankel chose to ignore the other points and to answer the first with a quotation from Igor Stravinsky, the second with that old saw about the cobbler sticking to his last, and bolster his overall weak case with citations from the writings of others that are strictly in the category of non sequitors.

(1) To begin with, the gaining of additional knowledge and its application is fine providing such knowledge is not in conflict with one's original intentions. The aim of world socialism (and socialism on a national level is a bad dream) is the abolition of class society and the ending of the nation state. The goal of DeLeonlsm is the changing of governments, congresses and parliaments from geographical to an industrial union orientation. Not that the SLP is altogether consistent or sound on that policy, either, as their long drawn confusion over the nature of the Soviet economy and sympathy with it bear witness. [1] World Socialism must bring with it the change of government. itself, into an administration over the affairs of man, rather than over man, himself. And such a society could only bring with it a condition in which the very need of unions - of any sort — would be inconceivable

(2) The Marxist Joseph Dietzgen, in the Preface to his The Positive Outcome of Philosophy had an apropos answer to this gem of wisdom, to wit:

“If any one should feel justified in telling me: 'Shoemaker, stick to your last!’ I would reply to him with Karl Marx: 'Your non plus ultra professional wisdom became enormously foolish from the moment when the watchmaker Watt invented the steam engine, the barber Arkwright, the loom, the jeweller Fulton, the steamship.' “

But to believe that one must be a clergyman to understand the origins and purposes of Religion is truly to have the faith "of a little child” which is what, the clergy is wont to tell us, is needed to accept the Scriptures. We do not know whether or not Mr. Frankel is actually a member of the Socialist Labor Party but we must note that his faith in the word of "God” as relayed by the various clergy is not inconsistent with membership in that organization and it speaks volumes for the "scientific” attitude of the American DeLeonists.

And now Mr. Frankel leaves the area of defense and goes on the attack! He notes that our Principle No. 6 calls for conscious and political conquest of the powers of government, suggests that we do not call for the utilization of the "electoral process of the ballot.” and charges us with being “conspiratorial.” Alas. The superficiality of his study of socialism, generally, is only matched by the lack of attention he gave our journals in particular. We have never advocated any other means to our end but the ballot (although we never support non- or anti-socialist candidates or measures). In fact, one of our Party Rules states emphatically that one who advocates violence in the struggle for socialism cannot be a member of the World Socialist Party.

Nor does he help his case against us by quoting Aristotle. For Aristotle lived in a different era, an era in which slaves were not a potentially revolutionary class, a class that could have an interest in a higher society. It is a different story with the slaves of capitalism, the wage slaves. They are the "grave diggers" of capitalism and of class society in toto. Chattel Slave society, under which Aristotle lived, was a dead end social system that was by no means universal at the time and which created no revolutionary class. But just as Feudalism created the instrument of its own overthrow—the bourgeoisie—so has Capitalism created its own revolutionary class, the modem proletariat, or working class. Mr. Frankel’s problem is that he has his eras mixed. In fact, he might find it profitable to spend more time on the socialist classics than he seems to spend with classical and bourgeois philosophers.

Harry Morrison

[1] See the Western Socialist, No. 6—1962.