Answers to correspondents. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

H.—(Philadelphia.) The economic organisation of the working class is to be .Socialist—on class lines, not industrial. For articles on Industrial Unionism see the following issues of this journal : October and November 1906, April, August and November 1907, and July 1909.

This year’s T.U.C. (1962)

From the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is normal at trade union conferences for numbers of resolutions to be carried that have no practical outcome and serve no purpose except to indicate the feelings of delegates on all sorts of issues about which they protest loudly because they cannot think of anything else to do. Delegates have only to look back at the resolutions they carried last year and the years before to realise that nobody takes any notice of most of them, least of all the Government to whom many are conveyed.

This year, however, there were one or two decisions of the T.U.C. that may, for better or for worse, have some consequences that may be worth considering.

The Delegates at the Blackpool Conference were almost unanimous in supporting a resolution calling on the General Council to examine the possibility of reorganising the structure of both the T.U.C. and the trade union movement “with a view to making it better fitted to meet modern industrial conditions.” Nothing will happen immediately as a result of this resolution. The intention is that the General Council should complete its examination in time for next year’s conference, but Mr. Woodcock warned that it would take at least two years. The movers took care not to indicate the kind of alterations of structure that may be found desirable, this reticence being the only way to get the delegates to agree wholeheartedly to the resolution. As Mr. Woodcock remarked, each union is inclined to regard its own way of doing things the right one and the other fellow’s wrong. Though no particular changes were foreshadowed, one union, the Locomotive drivers, voted against the enquiry; they think it will probably recommend a merger with the National Union of Railwayman and they have no intention of merging.

Many times in its history the T.U.C. has seen delegates at its conferences pass resolutions calling for re-organisation of the unions. Not much has come of such resolutions because most trade unionists nowadays have the feeling that none of the changes likely to occur will make much difference. There was a time when trade unionists could get into excited argument about the respective merits of craft unions and industrial unions, about the benefits of amalgamation, and about giving the General Council of the T.U.C. authority to control the wage claims and strikes of affiliated unions. These causes still have their advocates, but it is all in a less heated atmosphere than once it was. Experience and disappointment have had a sobering effect. The collapse of the Triple Alliance of Miners, Railwaymen and Transport workers and the “General Strike” of 1926 have left their mark.

One of the periods of lively discussion about the trade unions was just after the first World War. In that atmosphere a resolution was carried at the 1919 T.U.C. instructing the General Council to examine the constitution of every affiliated union and on the information so obtained “to report upon what, in its opinion, is the most desirable and up-to-date method of organisation that will enable the workers by hand and brain to reap the full results of their toil.”

It was moved, seconded and carried without more than a hundred words of supporting speech by the mover, and no opposition. This could have been due to the unanimity on the part of the delegates, or to a general feeling that it was a pious resolution and nothing would come of it.

Whatever the explanation, nothing much did come of it.

The idea of giving the General Council power to control the unions has often been put forward, but has had little support in this country, most trade unionists obviously preferring to keep the power to decide on wage claims and any supporting action within their own organisation. A characteristic attitude was that of a Miners Federation delegate at the 1915 T.U.C. when opposing a resolution which had called on the T.U.C. to try to obtain an all-round 5s.. increase of wages:

“This is work for the Trade Unions themselves to tackle. So far as the Miners Federation is concerned, we should object to the Parliamentary Committee coming to us and trying to get us 5s. a week extra.”

After that speech the delegates would not even discuss the resolution any more and went on to next business.

And in 1919, when it was moved that the T.U.C. should undertake the amalgamation of all unions into one body, under control of the T.U.C., only one short opposition speech was made, but it was sufficient to kill the resolution: only seven delegates voted for it out of 851.

The opposer said: “I want to say that there is not a single Trade Union in the country that would submit to the control of the Parliamentary Committee. It is ridiculous to suppose that this Congress would ever submit to anything of the kind.”

This persistent opposition to formal proposals of a changed structure does not mean that the unions in Britain have not changed. By process of amalgamation of local unions into National bodies and of more or less associated unions into larger ones the number of unions has been nearly halved since 1913 (from 1,269 to 690), while membership has more than doubled, from 4.135,000 to 9,803,000. In 1913 about two-thirds of all trade unionists were in the small number of unions with over 50,000 members. Now membership is largely concentrated in seventeen unions above the 100,000 level. But 1913 has nothing like those mammoth unions, the Transport & General Workers with over 1,300,000 members and the A.E.U. with 982,000. Apart from the Miners who had 600,000 members in 1913 (and that was a more or less loose federation, not a concentrated body) the largest union in 1913 appears to have been the N.U.R. with 273,000 members.

While these trade union developments of half a century have been going on, and indeed inducing them, British capitalism has been organising into larger units, with employers federations acquiring more experience of handling “labour problems” and productivity techniques, and making more use of arbitration and conciliation machinery.

It is arguable whether the unions are a little more effective or a little less effective in dealing with the changed conditions. Certainly their members are dissatisfied with the results, but so they always were. Basically it is because the trade unions have never dealt with anything except the effects of capitalism, and capitalism has not changed in essentials.

The workers, including the “white collar” workers who are now increasingly entering the fold of trade union organisation, are still a class that lives by selling its labour power, its mental and physical energies, to the employers. Nothing has changed about that.

Contrasted with this country with its 650 unions, of which 183 are affiliated to the T.U.C., there are other countries in which the trade union movement has been reconstructed and streamlined or where the central trade union body has powers unknown and hitherto unacceptable here. But has it made any material difference? Are the workers of Austria, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, in any better situation?

The answer is, of course, that against the universal background of the capitalist wages system structural alterations can have only relatively small affect.

What is needed, as the Socialist has to go on repeating, is that the outlook and purpose of the working class have to be changed: not the grouping of non-Socialist trade unions into organisations of different size and shape, but the adoption of a different outlook and purpose. This aim is not the one for which trade unions exist or that they can achieve. It calls for Socialist understanding and political organisation and action, not on a craft or industrial or National basis but internationally, on the basis of the common interest of all workers in abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: A Case for Labour (1977)

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

A Case for Labour

Why do workers join and support the Labour Party of Britain? Do the workers expect the Labour Party to introduce socialism? Not really: they expect the Labour Party to bring them benefits under the existing political system (capitalism). Is this a worthwhile aspiration? The workers think it is—that’s why they join and support the Labour Party.

The next question is: Does the Labour Party actually bring benefits to the workers? Is it possible for the workers to improve their lot under the capitalist system? Yes, it is. They can struggle and get a greater amount and even a greater share of the values they produce—on the job through the trade-unions and in the political field through the Labour Party. This means that the capitalist class will get a smaller amount and even a smaller share of the values that the workers produce.

If this change in the sharing of the values produced by the workers puts the operation of the capitalist system in jeopardy, makes it unviable, so much the worse for the capitalists. The workers, at this time, simply will take over the government and the economy and install socialism. Socialism will give the workers 100 per cent of the values they create and. incidentally, eliminate the need for the Labour Party.

The SPGB sees only the negative aspects of the Labour Party (betrayal, sellouts, misleadership, no struggle and education for Socialism, etc.). The SPGB sees no positive aspects of the Labour Party (an organization that organizes the workers so that they can struggle for political benefits, etc.) The workers see both the negative and the positive aspects of the Labour Party. The workers see the Labour Party as the present vehicle which will bring them toward a better life. When this vehicle ceases to improve their lot, they will alter the vehicle or change to a new, better one.

J. J. Sternbach,

New York

Reply:

Your letter is based on a number of misconceptions. All references to the Labour Party could equally apply to the Conservative Party. According to current opinion polls and recent by-election results, they have amassed more working-class support than the Labour Party, for just the reasons you give in your opening remarks. We get no further on when you assert that the Labour Party is "an organization that can and sometimes does, struggle for political benefits for the workers” when you singularly fail to give instances of any “benefits.” You will be aware that the present Labour Government’s message to British workers is that living standards must fall and wage claims are to be limited to less than 10 per cent. (they are running inflation at approximately 17 per cent.), while productivity should increase so as to encourage investment and profitability. Profits, you will note, belong to the capitalist class as do the means of wealth production and distribution and this fundamental relationship has never been seriously challenged by the Labour Party or its supporters. Your charitable view of them does not measure up to reality.

Your view of the workers gradually acquiring more and more of the share of the values they produce under capitalism is not to the point. What has not altered is the basic pattern of ownership of wealth, which has remained substantially the same since the formation of the Labour Party. While the position of the worker relative to, say, his grandfather has improved, so has that of the capitalist and his grandfather.

The reference to a "change in the sharing” of values does not take into account the capitalists’ economic considerations. While the owners have a trade and manufacturing boom they are more likely to concede wage demands; it is precisely when individual concerns are less ‘‘viable” because trade is in a depression that the capitalist will resist workers’ demands more keenly. Even before he is pushed to the limit, he will begin to lay-off men. Beyond this he may shut down altogether and wait for an improvement. Note the contrast between your view that workers will simply take over the economy and the real situation where trade-union leaders are agreeing to hold down wage demands while the Labour Government attempts to feel its way through the depression and reduce the massive unemployment figures.

It is simply not a question of the honourable (or otherwise) intentions of the Labour Party and its individual members. It is a political party committed to running a capitalist system of society. While workers can be persuaded that this is a worthwhile exercise they will be rewarded with the crumbs which fall from the capitalist’s table and told to be grateful for them. The workers are not stupid as you say; that is one good reason for continued work in putting the Socialist case.

Editors.

Organization and Socialism (1976)

From the June 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the nineteenth century the capitalist world has been swamped with organizations. Political parties, trade unions, religious sects and nationalist groups have gained mass membership or support. All these organizations have been expressions of conflict, dissatisfaction or grievances among sections of the population. Trade unions were formed to try to safeguard the interests of groups of workers against pressure on wages by the employers. As capitalism brought under its sway more and more of the population, so did the belief spread among these workers that organizations like trade unions were necessary to protect their interests. Consequently these organizations grew, both in number and support.

But the workers were wrong in believing that these organizations could solve their problems. Because the organizations were based on attempts to solve economic problems only within the existing capitalist system, they took on the character of that social system. They lost democratic intentions which existed at their origin and became bureaucratic. Leaders arose to control them. Workers found that they had to accept organizational structures which reflected the class society they lived in.

In Germany, the Social Democratic Party gradually dropped the pretensions which a small number of members had for changing society. It adopted the objectives of the German trade unions, which were to gain immediate benefits for their working-class supporters within the capitalist system. The consequence of this was that the class nature of capitalism with its division of society into capital and wage-labour, owners and producers, leaders and led, was reflected in the structure of the Social Democratic Party. A large bureaucracy arose to control the organization.

Some theorists, like Michels in his work Political Parties have seen this development as an inevitable result of organization. But in arriving at this view he neglected the type of society in which the organizations have arisen. He saw their structure as reflecting the nature of man rather than the nature of the particular society. In looking at them without accounting for either the capitalist basis of society or the reformist objectives which the organizations had, he neglected those factors which determine their fundamental structure.

Many organizations have complained of apathy among the working class. Attendance at meetings of trade unions, political parties and other organizations has declined; “Leftists” and other reformists have declared that the lack of interest displays a lack of political consciousness among people. But all it shows is the absence of understanding. “Leftists” look to the odd clauses in the manifestos of reformist parties, like the Labour Party, to try and show that these parties are not reformist but have socialist origins. They fail to see that the original role of the organizations, and one they maintain, was as an expression of the wish for reforms of capitalism. They fail to see that the leadership nature of organizations was and is a reflection of these reformist aims.

What a decline in active involvement in these organizations shows is that numbers of the working class no longer believe that devoting their time to participation in reformism is worth while. Socialists agree with them. We have always advised the working class that involvement with these organizations can never solve the basic problems of society. At most, trade unions make gains which can quickly be eroded by developments like inflation. The reforms which political parties implement are introduced largely to facilitate the further development of capitalism. Even the National Health Service, that “sacred cow” of the Labour Party, has primarily served to ensure that the illnesses which workers have do not result in an excessive loss of labour-power from productive employment.

Socialists say that in the light of the failure of these organizations to solve the fundamental problems facing the working class, people should now take a further step and put an end to the capitalist system, which has been the cause of their problems throughout the period of mass organization. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has continuously and consistently put forward that those problems can only be solved by the establishment of Socialism. Throughout the SPGB’s existence it has opposed all other political organizations because it recognizes that the aims of these organizations were limited to obtaining reforms within capitalism. But unlike other organizations, the members of the SPGB do not see the political party and its structure as being maintained within a Socialist society. It exists solely to work for Socialism among the working class in order that they themselves can abolish capitalism. Consequently the organizational structures which reflect the class basis of capitalism will not be transferred to Socialism. Because it means that everybody will own and control the means of production, instead of a minority as in capitalism, the democratic structure of Socialism will reflect the very different purpose of the society. This is the aim of fulfilling human needs, as opposed to the aim of capitalism, which is to produce profits for a minority of the population.

M. D.

Correspondence. (1906)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor.

Sir,—In The Socialist Standard for July, Mr. Anderson states in the Debate on Trade Unionism and Socialism, “he agreed with Kautsky that the political organisation must dominate the economic.” If the political forces dominate the economic forces, would Mr. Anderson have us believe that all reforms in the past have been brought about by political and not economic influences ?

Can Mr. Anderson point out where one Act of Parliament for the benefit of the workers has been initiated inside the House of Commons ? Are not all reforms brought about by agitation, such agitation being the result of economic pressure and not political force ?

If we were to have political freedom, we should still have economic slavery. But were we to have economic freedom we should not have political slavery.

Yours faithfully,

Printers' Machineminder. 

Clapton, N.E.

The Socialist Party and Trade Unionism. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first day’s Session of the Party meeting on Trade Unionism was held on Saturday, May 12, at 6 p.m. at the Communist Club, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square.

Comrade A. J. M. Gray, was elected to the Chair.

It was decided to discuss resolutions to be placed before the meeting in the order in which they appeared on the printed paper supplied to the members.

J. Kent accordingly moved the following resolution :—

“Whereas The Socialist Commonwealth will be established by the conscious act of the revolutionary working class wresting from the master class the ownership and control of the means of wealth production, for which conscious act the working class must prepare by organising industrially and politically, and, whereas existing working-class industrial organisations, being based upon the superstition of the brotherhood of capital and labor, and representing only sectional interests, are stumbling blocks in the revolutionary path, the S.P.G.B. while re-affirming that ‘The first duty of the Socialist Party is the teaching of its principles and the organisation of a political party on a Socialist basis,’

“(1.) Declares war on existing Trade Unions and their leaders.

“(2.) Urges its members, while not neglecting their ‘first duty,’ to advocate the formation of an industrial organisation based upon the irreconcilable antagonism between the capitalist class and the working class, and having as its object the taking over and administering of the means of wealth production ; such industrial organisation to be affiliated to or working in complete unison with The Socialist Party, thus ensuring that the class struggle shall be waged as effectively as possible on both the industrial and political fields.”

In moving his resolution, J. Kent said that if the trade unions were stumbling blocks in the revolutionary path, those stumbling blocks had to be removed. He thought that recognising the necessity for political action, the Party should affirm its decision to organise a political party on a Socialist basis. The Party, however, had never laid it down that we should carry on war on the existing trade unions, but had merely opposed the trade union leaders through its press and through its propaganda. The economic organisation should either be affiliated to the political party, or should work in unison with it, or otherwise, it would be as well to abandon political action and simply carry on an economic fight. It would be absolutely necessary for the action of the one on the political field to be supported by the action of the other on the economic field, and the action of the one on the economic field to be supported by the action of the other on the political.

Phillips seconded the resolution.

A. Anderson moved to amend the resolution by inserting “Socialist” before “industrial organisation” in lines 3 and 7 of clause (2), which was accepted by the mover and seconder, and to substitute “and controlled by” for “working in complete unison with” in lines 8 and 9.

Anderson said he agreed with Kautsky that the political organisation must dominate the economic. The political must control the economic or the contrary would occur. He did not want to see repeated the farce of the S.L.P. in America and the S.T. and L.A.. or the tragedy of the S.L.P. in England and the I.W.W. Dix seconded the amendment. Barker asked whether it would be possible for men and women to join the political organisation and not belong to the economic and vice-versa.

Anderson replied that in joining the S.P.G.B. members of the working class would join it in both its political and economic aspects. They would pay subscriptions to THE organisation—that organisation comprising both wings.

F. S. Leigh asked whether, in the event of a union being formed, a workman refusing to join the political party would be compelled to become a blackleg.

Anderson : If he did not adhere to the principles of the party he would not be fit to join it. T. A. Jackson said he had always understood that we had to capture political power and then to proceed to the administration of the means and instruments of production. The difficult point was that while present Society existed the wage-workers would be compelled to join permanent or temporary trade unions. Trade unions were a necessity under capitalism.

With regard to the leaders of the trade unions, a trade union leader was what the rank and file allowed him to be. A trade union was the arm which the worker instinctively raised to protect himself. As Marx said in his “Value, Price and Profit,” “if the workers did not struggle to maintain the price of their commodity they would rapidly become degenerated into slaves incapable of revolt.” If the resolution was carried the only logical course open to the Party would be to withdraw all its members from the existing trade unions. What it was necessary to wage war on was the economic ignorance which rendered these trade unions ineffective.

It was our purpose to wage war upon their faults and the source of their faults—their economic ignorance. It was necessary that the political party should dominate the economic. When the workers had been educated by the political party they themselves would see to it that their trade unions were no longer ineffective. 

Neumann said he was opposed to Kent’s resolution. When war was declared on the unions war would be declared on the leaders. But he did not agree that the declaration of war on existing trade unions was an anti-trade union declaration. There was no reason that these existing trade unions should not be Socialist trade unions. If war was declared on the unions, however, it would be impossible for the members of the S.P.G.B. to remain inside the existing trade unions. This attitude was impracticable at the present time, because it was a question of their daily bread that members of the Party should be members of the trade unions. He would not support the resolution because it was unsound.

Cole asked had Jackson ever been in a strike or conducted one. The trade unions were not organised to fight the capitalist class, but to protect the capitalist system and support it. He supported Kent’s resolution.

Fitzgerald said that the S.P.G.B. was the first party which had at its inception held meetings on the trade union question. If we declared war on the existing trade unions we should be waging war upon them in every shape and form. Certain members of the Party had to remain in trade unions. The question was how could war be best waged on the wrong basis on which the trade unions were organised. If men were engaged in a works at 30/- a week, and 5/- per week reduction was threatened, they would naturally come out to resist that reduction, then what would be our position ? At present we could do no more than propagate the right idea inside and outside the trade unions in favour of the proper method of organisation. He was opposed to the resolution.

Fairbrother said that if men were on strike our position was to support them, yet all the time to point out how they were wrongly organised. The unions should be based on the class struggle. The economic organisation was more important than the political. The political was but the reflex of the economic. The L.R.C., for instance, had got their position on the back of the existing trade unions, not by any fight on the political field. If the workers were organised on the class struggle on the economic field he could not conceive their action on the political field being anything but that of Socialists. The majority of the working class were outside the trade unions, and the trade unions could not permanently improve their conditions as long as the condition of the unorganised mass outside was not improved.

A. W. Pearson asked whether Fairbrother wanted the Party members to be allowed to join an economic organisation not affiliated to the Party. If members and non-members of our Party were to be admitted to an economic organisation they too would soon find themselves in the House of Commons as political mountebanks. The union advocated by Fairbrother would allow members of other parties to come into it and so dominate it on the political field. If the Party was to form an industrial union it must be formed to act in unison with the Party. Barker wanted to know what was to be done with members of the Party inside the existing trade unions in view of the proposed war on the unions. He was opposed to the position laid down by the resolution.

T. W. Allen said he proposed a revolutionary economic organisation which would soon know how to deal with those who wanted to “wangle” who came into that organisation. The organisation should not be affiliated to the political party until the class consciousness of the workers would bring about unity on the political field. That the working class were ignorant was the effect of certain causes. The labour leaders wilfully betrayed the interests of the workers to the capitalist class. The present trade unions were based upon the idea of the finality of the capitalist system. Under the present unions one section of the workers went into the fight with the capitalist class whilst another section black-legged upon them. When a sturdy, sound, economic, revolutionary organisation had been formed, then the political would come as the reflex of the economic.

A. Anderson replied that the trade unions were shams and frauds and delusions. Just as long as you had a separate organisation from the political party the movement would be sidetracked whether it was called the I.W.W. or any other combination of initials. Since the trade unions were stumbling blocks in the revolutionary path, they must be fought. It did not follow that if it was decided to oppose the unions that the members of the S.P.G.B. should be immediately called out of the existing trade unions. As the political party controlled the members of the political party so also would they control the members of the economic organisation.

J. Kent replied that the resolution urged that the members should advocate an economic organisation, not immediately proceed to organise it. The time had arrived when we should go beyond the words of the manifesto, and advocate the formation of a Socialist industrial organisation. The trades unions, as Marx said, failed because of the guerrilla warfare they were carrying on. Had we not said in the columns of the Party paper that the proper organisation of the working class was their organisation as a class. Further, no organisation would be effective that was not affiliated with or working in complete unison with the political party. If you were going to form an organisation apart from the political party, then in that way lay danger.

The amendment was carried by 30 votes to 20.

The amendment having thus become a substantive resolution, the vote was taken and the resolution was carried by 30 votes to 26.

(To be continued.)

Correspondence. (1922)

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

Dear Editor,

The relative merits of the Socialist Labour Party and Socialist Party of Great Britain have been discussed for weeks by a few Marxian students without coming to any satisfactory conclusion as to which party propounds the correct principles that deserve working class support.

Under these circumstances it was thought wise to present some of the views expressed by the supporters of the S.L.P., so that your party may oblige with an answer in an early issue of your Standard. They say that your party is very inconsistent, as proven by the back numbers of the Socialist Standard and Manifesto. On page 17 of the latter, to top of page 18, we find as follows :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class, with the object of ending the capitalist system and establishing the Socialist Commonwealth.”

The inconsistency is obvious, they say, when one sees in that statement that your party recognises the necessity of an economic organisation, based upon class; and at the same time in actual practice only believe in a political organisation.

The proof of this is seen when one reads clause 6 of your party’s “Declaration of Principles.”

The irony of the situation, say they, lies in the fact that your party should see the necessity of the economic organisation, and then publish matter in your Socialist Standard to absolutely ridicule the said type of organisation. For instance, in the February, 1919, Standard, under the title, “Where we Stand,” on the bottom of page 54, is a brief statement as follows : “How long it does take some people to discover the absurdity of their sophistries ! We pointed out the idiocy of organisation by industries years ago.” Then, again, is that statement in agreement with the brief statement at the end of article called “What the Workers Do Understand,” in January,1921, Standard, which read as follows :— “Educated in these things, and organised on the industrial and political fields, they will seize political power and wield it, and its forces, for the paramount purpose—the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth.” Why mention “organised industrially,” if it is an idiotic act?

These super-intellects say that you are all “at sea” on another point of importance. You state in your Manifesto, page 18, as follows : “Emancipation, not palliation, must be the watchword of the workers, as it will be when they become Socialists.” Lower down on the same page is as follows : “Its tactics must be aggressive as well as defensive, and its aim revolutionary.”

Do the two statements clash ? Are not the tactics of aggression on the side of palliation? Have not the workers through their industrial unions been aggressive, which aggression has only palliated their conditions? Apart from that, it is highly questionable whether (even if the Trade Unions did adopt the Socialist attitude, as you state) they could, and successfully, adopt an aggressive and defensive attitude.

Your party seems to think that it is a “wise tactic to be always ready to defend working class interests, irrespective whether conditions are suitable or not, as is shown in the article “The Betrayal of the Miners” (in the Standard, May, 1921, page 138, halfway down second column), which reads as follows : “Had the rank and file of the Triple Alliance understood even their ordinary Trade Union interests, they would have stood together and fought to the fullest extent of their power against this attempt to worsen their conditions.” Obviously, your party thought that had the Triple Alliance acted and taken that defensive attitude against the interests of the employers, all would have been well. This means a sectional strike (which your party ridicules). We may ask : what hope of success was there had it taken place, under the conditions then existing? This would have been putting the so-called economic power of Triple Alliance against the political power of the masters. Obviously, had it turned out to be a fight between the two powers, the former power would have been beaten by the latter power, by the ordering, if necessary, of the police and soldiers to act against the workers. Again, such a strike would prevent the normal distribution of the food supply, which is necessary for the workers; and under such circumstances the shortage of food would be sufficient to force the workers back to the workshop. These very same factors of a political nature would also work against the workers’ organisations, should they adopt a palliative or an aggressive attitude.

So, in conclusion, the persons interested in this controversy would be highly pleased if you would endeavour to give your reply to the same in the November Standard.

I remain, yours for Socialism,

Edward Littler.

Answer to E. Littler.

For convenience of reference, we have numbered the paragraphs in above letter that call for specific answers.

No. 1.—The Declaration of Principles lays down the minimum essential factors of the Socialist position. For instance, that Declaration says nothing about carrying on the propaganda for Socialism—yet the S.P.G.B. does it.

Conceivably, Socialism could be established by the political organisation alone, but the economic organisation alone would be quite powerless to establish it. In actual fact, as the conditions allow, both organisations will be used by Socialists for the attainment of their object, though the seizure of power, the greatest by far of the factors at our disposal, will be carried through by the political organisation. Thus no inconsistency in the position of the S.P.G.B. is shown in our correspondent’s statement.

No. 2.—On this point the questioners are so blind that they cannot see that their query is already answered in the quotation they themselves give from our Manifesto, which says :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class.”

The organisations we have ridiculed have never been based upon the class position of the workers, but have been those supported by the S.L.P., which consisted in the mass of supporters of capitalism, and which the S.L.P. claimed could “take and hold” the means of production against the armed forces under the control of the masters.

As we have pointed out on various occasions, economic development has travelled beyond the limits of “industry” in numerous directions, and, therefore, the workers’ organisations must cover a wider area than the “industry” even to “keep pace.” The quotation from the Socialist Standard of January, 1921, is of no help to the S.L.P., as the word “industrial” is used here to denote the whole economic field. This is clearly shown by the context.

No. 3.—No ! The two statements do not clash, as even a superficial reading would show. To emancipate itself, the working class must become revolutionary, because it must carry through a revolution before emancipation can take place.

The workers have been no more “aggressive” in the so-called “industrial” unions than in the ordinary “craft” unions, though the failure of such “aggression” would be a blow at the S.L.P., which supports these unions—not at us

No. 4.—While we are always ready to defend working class interests, the phrase “whether conditions are suitable or not” needs explaining. The reference to the article on “The Miners’ Betrayal” is beside the point. The miners were being attacked, and the railwaymen and transport workers were being threatened with an attack. In such conditions, the business of the men concerned, obviously, was to fight together—as the article says—to the extent of their powers. There was no question here of pitting the economic organisation of the Triple Alliance against the armed forces. This ghastly policy, propounded and defended by the Industrial Unionists and the S.L.P., is one we have denounced on scores of occasions. Under some conditions even a sectional strike is better than no struggle at all, and the members of the Triple Alliance would have prevented some of the conditions being imposed upon them that they now suffer under, had they struck on “Black Friday.” How far the interference with the normal food supply would affect the struggle is mere guesswork. Partly it would have depended on the length of the strike. Every strike of any size causes inconvenience and sometimes suffering. But to follow the above argument to its logical conclusion means that the workers must accept anything the masters choose to impose, even though it may mean greater suffering than would be entailed by a strike !

On the economic field the workers’ powers are limited, and in the ultimate, can always be beaten by the possessors of political power. But, as Marx has pointed out, these everyday struggles, with all their limitations, are a product of the system, and cannot be avoided unless the workers are ready to sink below “cooliedom.”

A little further information on the position of the S.L.P. may perhaps be interesting.

In the Socialist, 15/4/1920, they state in the editorial, with reference to the actions of certain prominent members who had broken away from the organisation :—

  “The whole trouble is that a self-condemned Unity Committee, who had more or less “bossed” the Party for the last four years, found themselves up against the rank and file of the S.L.P. in their efforts to compromise Revolutionary Socialism.”

That is a peculiar admission for a self-styled Working Class Party ! If the party is so constituted that one group could boss it for four years, what is to prevent other groups successively bossing it ad infinitum?

Further on in the same editorial they write :—

  “Send in your resolutions to your Executive. Indicate your wishes, strengthen your Executive’s hands in the good work it has carried on since it took up office in September, 1919, when it placed the control of the Party and its Press in the hands of the rank and file.”

According to the above, the control of the party and its Press was not in the hands of the rank and file until September, 1919. A startling admission this, after an existence of 15 years !

After the revolutionary action of placing the party in the hands of the rank and file, an article appeared in the Socialist on the miners’ strike. The following are some extracts from it :—

“THE MINERS SHOULD NOT STRIKE.

My advice to the miners is, don’t strike. Why should you? ”Take and hold” should be your slogan. You have a splendid opportunity at this juncture Work the mines for yourselves. MINERS, SEIZE THE MINES. Is it possible—It is.”

Then follows instructions to the miners to issue a statement saying that on and from a certain date the mines will be worked by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. Coal to be reduced by 14s. 2d. per ton, and miners’ wages increased 2s. per day. So easy ! How simple these people are ! And what would the masters be doing while this little transaction was taking place? The same as they do in a strike : bring the armed force to bear on the situation. But the S.L.P. have provided for this :—

“The Army will support you. Call for the support of the Army.

Let your call be “All Power to the Workers.” If you do this you will win hands down.”

Simple, isn’t it? What wonderful childish nonsense ! Anyhow, the subsequent action of the Army and Volunteer Force, when a railway strike was expected, should have knocked that idiocy out of their heads.

It would be interesting to find out what the S.L.P. mean when they state in their Platform :—

  “Whilst the working-class are compelled to organise to capture the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be worked in the interests of society as a whole.”

Money is the means of exchange. They then are working for a system under which money will exist. An elementary knowledge of money would tell them that it can only exist where buying and selling exists. In other words, where private property exists. According to their platform, then, they are not out for Socialism.

In spite of all the noise they make about industrial action, they themselves are not clear as to what their own position is. Since the inception of the S.L.P. the columns of the Socialist have been largely occupied with the disagreements of members as to the position on industrial unionism. From last January onwards a discussion raged, under the title of “The Problem of Policy.” Finally, at their Easter Conference, they decided to support the “Workers’ International Industrial Union.” In an editorial on the Conference (Socialist, 27/5/22) they say :—

  “It has cast a glance at the past and has viewed with disdain its many errors now, and we hope for all times it will never compromise truth to make a friend, and never withhold a blow at error lest it should make an enemy.”

Apparently they keep finding themselves out—yet they “keep on doing it !” Where knowledge is lacking, foolish deeds will flourish.

The S.L.P. have decided to support the W.I.I.U., but in the Socialist (8/12/21) the political policy of that organisation was. stated as follows :—

  “By electing a Political Committee whose duty it will be to safeguard and further the interests of the W.I.I.U. in the political field, and who will take instructions from the Branch and report activities at each Branch Meeting.”

This surely signifies that another political organisation will exist alongside of the S.L.P. If so, where does the S.L.P. stand? Which of the two bodies is supposed to be correct?—both evidently can’t be.

In a Manifesto on the Russian Famine (Socialist, 22/9/22), they recommend the starving workers of this country to send “Food, clothing, boots, medicines and locomotives to Russia.” Would it be any harm to suggest that “Charity begins at home”? The best way to help the starving Russian workers is to push on the advent of Socialism as rapidly as possible, and not to contribute a few pence to be used by the Co-operative Society, as the S.L.P. suggest. Ironically enough, they were calling upon the workers to contribute to save the S.L.P. Press shortly afterwards !

The following tit-bit is an illustration of S.L.P. Logic :—

  “And economic organisation is a necessary requisite to enforce the aims or wishes as expressed by the political organisation at the ballot box. . . . Organise, therefore, on the political field to capture political power and sweep aside the ”robber burg” of Capitalism.”— Socialist, 8/6/22.

If the “robber-burg” of capitalism has been swept aside, where does the “enforcing” come in? Note the phrase, “aims or wishes.” Perhaps the aims differ from the wishes !

Editorial Committee.

A Word on Organisation. (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

An organ is something that works. Or­ganisation is the assembling and arranging of the parts of a compound body in a manner for use; that is to say, that each part may co-operate with the others to a given end, the whole working as one organ. A tree, with its multitude of diverse cells, is an example of exquisite organisation.

In the same way, when men and women organise themselves they are proceeding to work together, with an agreed objective. They are forming a single body, of which each individual is a part; and should any part deviate to pursue some different plan, the advance of the whole will be hindered by just so much. The body may be very small, or it may be immense; the same remains true.

When a man joins a party, therefore, he automatically proclaims himself as in agreement with its declared aims. No amount of disclaimer or qualification does away with this fact. The outsider assumes, and is justified in assuming, that the aims of the party represent his ideas. The members expect, and have a right to expect, that he will conform at all points to its principles. Why else is he there? If, once admitted, he proceeds to advocate principles which do not agree with those of the party, the members will only act consistently in expelling him. The inside of the party is not the place for such an advocacy, and the application for membership was a ruse : he did not join for the purpose of working with others for an agreed object. Moreover, the outsider has good reason for not attending to his message, since he proclaims one thing in his words and another by his actions. What is true of the individual in relation to parties, is true of parties in relation to federations.

The application of this? The S.P.G.B. is sometimes asked why it does not seek affiliation with other bodies professing themselves socialist or labour. The foregoing is one reason, and in itself would be sufficient. The programmes and actions of these various parties have been frequently examined in the pages of the Standard. None of them agree with our idea of socialist principle. Therefore affiliation, if obtained, would be unfair to their members, confusing to those out­ side.

The other reason is that the movement towards working-class emancipation would not be strengthened thereby. We want the greatest possible number of our fellow workers with us ; but purely formal organisa­tion is useless in any sphere of action. Organisation must be the expression of a real unity of purpose, whether the purpose be the felling of a tree or the building of a new society. The more momentous the work, the more important it is to remember this. In the case of the class war, formal unity is worse than useless. It is a pretence and a danger. If it were possible to form a vast and disciplined organisation of workers with their present degree of class-consciousness, it would be but a more convenient instrument of exploitation for the master-class. In short, organisation must follow education, not precede it.

This is true alike on the industrial and political fields. In industry we workers must learn the meaning of the tasks which emerge in the daily fight over conditions of labour. That we cannot hope to placate the exploiter, nor look for impartial arbitration. That we have to expect capitalist aggression —with fleeting exceptions, progressively more vigorous every year. That we have but one weapon on this field, the strike, and even that will fail us whenever the master­ class decides to fight an issue out. That to make the best use of the strike we must have, not many unions for one industry, nor one for each industry, nor even one for each national group—but a world-wide workers’ union. And that this day to day struggle must be waged, not for us by leaders, but by us through delegates.

We shall not have advanced far on this road to industrial solidarity before we are forced to see that the utmost we can do by these means is to resist attacks on our already poor standard of living. We cannot improve our standard to any appreciable extent, much less entirely free ourselves from exploitation. To do this we must take the vast machinery of production into our own hands. And since this is an issue which our masters decidedly would fight if they could, we realise that direct action on the industrial field will no longer suffice for us. We do not intend that the capitalists shall be able to starve us by commandeering the food supply, nor slaughter us by using the army and police. While we hope that in that day our fellow-workers in the armed forces will be with us—while we are going to do our utmost to make them so—we do not mean to take risks by allowing the capitalist class to give them orders. We find that we need political power. We need an assembly of workers’ delegates, with a mandate for socialism ; and we organise in the Socialist Party with the object of getting it.

Thus our industrial and political activities must be two sides of one movement : the industrial for safeguarding conditions with­ in the capitalist system, and probably forming the basis for the industrial organisation of the Socialist Commonwealth ; the political for the expropriation of expropriators.

These things we have to learn, and only on the basis of this knowledge can organisa­tion proceed.

A.

Industrial organisation. The Socialist View. (1923)

From the August 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Evidence is continually forthcoming that the subject of industrial organisation, while of considerable interest to many workers, is also one upon which a large amount of ignorance and confusion exists. The reasons for the existence of any form of organisation among those engaged in industry, the power of the workers so organised, and the ultimate object of such organisation, are misconceived alike by the avowed reactionary and the alleged reformer, together with many a so-called revolutionist.

Why do Trades Unions exist? The reactionary, if he allows that they should exist at all, considers their sole legitimate function should be the prevention of disputes between the workers and their masters. In his view the workers should maintain expensive officials, with unlimited authority, for the purpose of pursuing a peace-at-any-price policy. The reformer regards the Trades Unions as a convenient basis for the formation of a political party of place-hunters. He considers the sufferings of the workers and their struggles on the industrial field as the driving force behind the careers of the leaders. He forcibly condemns any activity which comes into conflict with this supreme aim.

Outside the Socialist Party there is not a single political party which does not subordinate the immediate interests of the working-class to those of the master-class and their lackeys. But even among those who frankly reject all political parties (the Socialist Party included) confused ideas are current. While some exaggerate the Trades Unions into the sole conceivable agent of working-class emancipation (or, alternatively, some other form of industrial organisation), we have on the other hand those who pretend that any form of organisation is unnecessary. We are told that the workers will so improve their conditions of life by economic action that the capitalist-class will automatically lose control of the means of life and disappear. The workers are thus tempted to neglect their essential task of organising to secure political control of the forces, military and industrial, which at present determine their condition.

The Socialist observes that there are to-day two social classes; the working-class, by far the great majority of the population, has no share in the ownership and control of the means of life, and consequently exists by the sale of the only commodity it possesses (i.e., the power to labour) to the master class; the few who do own the means of life, who, by the use of this power in the process of production, secure possession of all other commodities. From the sale of these commodities the master-class draws the means to support its luxurious existence. The relationship between the masters and the workers centres immediately round the sale of labour-power, and, ultimately, round the ownership of the means of life. The relationship is essentially one of struggle, and it is of this struggle that the organisations of the classes, industrial and political, are born. The industrial organisations arise from the immediate struggle over the price of labour-power. The masters organise to obtain it as cheaply as possible ; the workers organise to sell it as dearly as possible. The struggle results in the workers getting on an average sufficient for the maintenance of their class, as such, that is as a slave-class doomed to minimum rations in return for an ever-increasing maximum output.

The development of industry by means of inventions and improved methods of production results, not only in yielding an increasing share of the product to the masters, but in the concentration of capital and consequently in the greater bargaining power of the masters. Yet in the face of the worsening of their economic position, the workers’ organisation lags far behind that of the masters in efficiency. The cause lies in the ignorance of the workers. To combat this ignorance is an essential function of the Socialist Party.

We point out to the workers that their interests as vendors of the commodity labour-power are opposed to those of the masters. This knowledge is essential to any improvement of the industrial organisation of the working-class; but, further, we show that even with the most perfect form of industrial organisation conceivable under Capitalism the price of labour-power cannot rise for any length of time above the subsistence level of the slave. If the workers wish to enjoy to the full the fruits of their labour they must abolish their commodity status. They must obtain possession of the means of life. This can only be done by means of political organisation.

The economic organisations of the master-class do not secure to that class their property. Without the machinery of government at their back title-deeds, bonds and share-vouchers would be so much paper. That and nothing more. Behind the letter of the law the armed forces of the State are ready to execute swift judgment on the law-breakers of the working-class, it is not in industrial organisation, then, that the hope of the workers lies. Necessary it undoubtedly is as an essential feature of capitalism, and the very existence of the working-class itself, but more than that, under capitalism, it cannot be. It is a weapon of defence covering an unavoidable retirement in the face of economic development.

What the workers need is to turn industrial defeat into political victory, with the sole object of establishing Socialism, i.e., a form of social organisation owning in common, controlling democratically, and administering the means of life in the interests of all.

Eric Boden

The Capitalist New World. (1919)

From the January 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

By this Sign.

The "War that will end War" is over, and on the strength of this an immense explosive trust, called Explosives Trades Ltd., has been formed with an authorised capital of £18,000,000 (vide "Daily Chronicle," 2.12.18). If all wars are to end the combination of the 29 firms forming this company for the production of explosives is somewhat perplexing. If munitions of war are still to be manufactured on a large scale although, there are to be no more wars, then the only conclusion one can come to is that they are to be produced for the keeping of the peace—that eternal "order" the capitalist cries for when working men attempt to interfere with his profit-making career. 

On a superficial examination we are driven to the conclusion that those who raised the cry that this war would end war were liars—that in reality it was only the commencement of war on the grand scale.

When we come to look below the surface, however, we see that there is just a possibility that the war crowd were not quite such liars as we thought. Perhaps, after all, it is the end of wars as understood by the capitalist mind—a struggle among the robbers for the largest share of the spoil. Perhaps they think that the end of this war will enable them to settle their local differences and thus be left free to pursue their policy of exploitation to the uttermost parts of the earth, with only one barrier—the growing class-consciousness and revolutionary tendency of the world's working class.

Bullets Still Needed.

This being so their old enemy the workers, now growing to formidable proportions, neither so docile nor so pliable as of yore, having eaten to the full of capitalist bullets and capitalist gratitude, must be suppressed and kept within a certain prescribed relation to their masters. Hence the wheels of the munitions of war machine, the instrument of suppression, must continue to whiz merrily round, and "pile up the war material" continue to be one of the watchwords and orders of the day.

Hands Off Profits.

Proof that there is at least a grain of truth in the above forecast is shown at every turn. Sir Charles Macara, writing in the "Daily Chronicle" (18.12.18) bears witness to the intended great trade revival, and also reflects the deadly fear of his class that their profits may fall through a too rapid fall in prices. While workers are finding it difficult to obtain necessaries in the shape of food and clothing this cotton magnate writes:

  "These raw materials, which contribute so largely to the production of clothing for the inhabitants of the globe, have been raised owing to the vicissitudes of war to almost unprecedented prices, and I hope the Allies will act together in controlling these commodities and distributing them equitably.
  Further, it is in the interest of all just as important to prevent a too rapid depreciation in the price of these raw materials as it is to prevent a further undue inflation."

Workingmen have lost homes, limbs, and lives as a result of the war, but for God's sake don't let the capitalist lose a penny piece of profit !

Poor Sir Charles groans at the fact that wages were increased instead of bonuses being given, as the latter are more easily knocked off. He hopes :

  "The nations of the world would only fully realise their interdependence and organise capital and labour, work together in developing the undeveloped resources of the world."

Ready to Sweat.

Sir Charles need have no fear : the devil looks after his own. The process of organising capital and labour has already begun. The war has splendidly shown the capitalists how maximum of output can be obtained with the minimum of labour.

Contests have been held among workers for turning out work at the greatest possible speed. Women, have been introduced into numerous employments previously banned. "Unskilled" labour has been diffused among "skilled" in a way hitherto untried. Undertakings of all sorts are being fused, bringing further economies in the cost of production. Small firms have been wiped out by the thousand.

An Industrial Fatigue Research Board has been set up to determine the most economical ways of applying labour.

 "The Board's Investigations will be directed towards finding the most favourable hours of labour, spells of work, and rest pauses, and they hope to receive help from both employers and workers in their enquiries." "Daily Express," 20.12.18. 

  "The nation that secures the most efficient production will be dominant in the new world on whose threshold we stand. That nation will be the one whose workers are the most contented, the best nourished, and the most physically fit. Keen, eager work—with the real heart and the real joy in it—judiciously blended with healthy exercise and sane recreation, gives the secret, the "open Sesame," to success. Our final word to the professional fatigue victim —there will be a terribly long rest in the next world." —"Daily Express," 20.12.18. 

  "Appointed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Committee jointly, it will consider hours and conditions of labour and methods, and how they cause fatigue, having regard to industrial efficiency and the health of the workers.
 The Board will investigate, organise and promote by research, grants or otherwise, investigations in different industries, to find the most favourable hours of labour, spells of work, rest pauses, and other conditions applicable to the various processes, according to the nature of the work and its demands on the worker." "Daily Chronicle," 20.12.18.

The meaning of all this is to transplant the military system into the industrial world still more completely, to develop as efficient an industrial army as our masters can so that the greatest possible amount of wealth can be produced and the smallest possible part of it returned to the workers in the shape of wages.

Our kind and loving masters, having laid their plans for a production of wealth (and profit) previously unheard of, standing as they do on the threshold of a new world of untold treasure, find one bar to the realisation of their ideal. This bar is the growing discontent and revolutionary tendency of the workers everywhere. They therefore must strengthen their military power and hold secure their political supremacy.

The situation in Russia fills them with anguish, and they are sending soldiers from all quarters to quell the revolution as quickly as possible. Classing themselves as the "Saviours nf Society" and the champions of democracy, they pour vituperations upon the Bolsheviks and invite all comers to assist in saving Russia from destruction. The destruction they fear, however, is the destruction of the debts owed by Russia to European and other capitalists and the spreading of the revolution to other countries with the consequent break-up of the capitalist regime. They therefore fall over each other in their anxiety to smash up and discredit the Bolsheviks.

What the workers may expect in the future is illustrated by the following which is reported from Amsterdam : 

  "Serious rioting has occurred in Bottrop as a result of the Westphalian miners' strike. A large crowd of demonstrators proceeded to the Gladbeck pits with a view, it is supposed, of wrecking the works, but the military intervened and fired machine guns among the strikers, killing some and injuring others." —"Daily Express," 20.12.18. (Italics mine.)

Now more than ever the need to get behind the guns should be obvious to all workers. The masters still control the military machine, and so long as this is so they can, in the last analysis, defeat all attempts of the workers to alter the basis of society. Working men and women must therefore organise politically to obtain control of the political machinery from which all power emanates. They will then be able to render the capitalists' dream of a new world but the stuff that dreams are made of.

Gilmac.

Gilded Capitalism. (1921)

Book Review from the August 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Guild Socialism Re-Stated."by G. D. H. Cole. 6s. Nett.

Among those whose wont it is "to meddle and muddle and fuddle" in vain efforts to "evolve" wage-slavery into something more palatable to the working class, Mr. Cole is indeed the king. After colossal endeavours to construct a scheme in which society would "afford the greatest possible opportunity for individual and collective self-expression for all its members," our author produces, complete with all its trappings of class division and contradictions, its hideous countenance of war which is hell and "peace" which is worse— capitalism.

Somehow or other our author noticed the "aspirations" of the workers. These "aspirations" he and his select circle of guildsmen have discussed until there is placed before us the plan whereby the social organism, impelled by the logic of his arguments, will flow into the mould that Mr. Cole has been able to "devise and create."

The latter objects to the class character of capitalism. He eliminates it. This or that economic prop offends his eye. Out it comes. It is painted—and replaced. The result is— Guild Socialism.

Without any consideration whatever of productive forces, economic structure or development, Mr. Cole calmly constructs his social edifice. This he whittles away until it will fit nicely and squarely on the economic structure of capitalism, in a manner favourable to "small scale producers." Then he impudently takes the existing trade union movement, and alters its shape and policy until it will furnish him with the means of "transition."

The author bases his case on what he himself terms an assumption : that society is to be regarded as a complex of associations held together by the wills of their members, whose well-being is its purpose. Doubtless this assumption gained weight with the author after thoroughly surveying capitalism to-day. For us it is enough to know that society's members are held together and their relations decided by the manner of gaining a livelihood.

On this "assumption" he builds his system. With him there is no question of "Historical foundation, economic structure, Socialist result." Mr. Cole starts from the top. His system when completely established, will be built "on the basis of large scale production and the world market." "Industrial organisation" will "develope the tradition of free communal service," then will come, "from producer and consumer alike, a wide-spread demand for goods of finer quality," which will bring about "a return over a considerable sphere, to small-scale production."

Our M.A. is certainly amusing.

The system of society we live in is a veritable hotch-potch of antagonisms and contradictions. It is class-divided. Those who make life possible exist, half fed, half clothed, half sheltered. The drones live luxuriously, debauched and useless. The poverty of the workers, the wealth of their masters, the class cleavage, the contradictions of capitalism, all have grown with the development of the productive forces. The capitalist class cannot control these forces, which tirelessly strive to break through their capitalist "shell." But working-class agency is needed. Mr. Cole sees the danger.

Back to "small scale production" !

The words "evolutionary" and "revolutionary" we told are capable of bearing a variety of interpretations. Revolution implies force, though not, in our author's opinion, necessarily on a large scale. By "evolutionary" some mean "political," but "there is also a wider sense in which 'evolutionary' tactics can denote a method applicable not merely to politics, but to every sphere of social action, economic and civic as well as political." The policy, then, should be the maximum use of the "evolutionary weapons" plus the minimum of "revolutionary action." The more evolution the less revolution.

Doubtless the reader will be pleased to hear of these new "interpretations." We, however, are quite content with the meanings implied when the words are used in other branches of science. The word evolution expresses the fact that "Nature, and all things in nature" (contrary to old beliefs) change. Evolution does not imply any particular manner or method, of change. What is more, scientists who fully admit the process of change are to this day, in various branches of science, seeking the How and the Why.

Further, evolution does not imply that an organism must necessarily change every moment of its existence. "If there is no perceptible change in environment an organism may remain practically the same for ages" (Dennis Bird). It should also be remembered that it is folly to apply the laws governing evolution in one phase of nature to any and everything.

By revolution is meant a complete change. "The man who says that the secret of progress is 'evolution, not revolution,' may be talking very good social philosophy—I have nothing to do with that—but he is not talking science as he thinks. In every modern geological work you read of periodical 'revolutions' in the story of the earth" (Joseph McCabe). "The records of those old revolutions of the earth's surface are contained in the stones beneath our feet" (Prof. Geikie).

Human society has evolved. Its evolution is distinctly marked by each of those totally different systems that we know as Primitive Communism, Chattel Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism.

Each system of society functions from a certain basis—the productive forces at a particular stage of their development. Each system flourishes while there is scope for these forces to evolve. When, however, the productive forces are fettered, the conflict between the classes that are the human expression of economic development, reaches its culminating point. The class next in the order of social evolution overthrows the existing system. The new one is born. But as Boudin (who has been speaking of philosophy and science) says: "There is a continuity of human society itself notwithstanding the changes in the form of its organisation . . just as there is continuity in the economic structure of human society notwithstanding the different 'economies' which were prevalent at different stages of its development."

So to Mr. Cole's twaddle of "evolutionary weapons" plus "revolutionary action," "working-class economic power," "productive control of industry," and so on, we will say that working class activity on the eve of revolution will be determined, as now, by the conditions of capitalism.

The book is all confusion and camouflage. The charms of its author's Utopia inspire contempt. Financial problems, provision of capital, regulation of incomes and prices, coercive functions, railway season ticket holders' associations, telephone users' associations, leaders, discipline, and authority— each and all to satisfy the "aspirations" of the workers !

"Have I not assumed the case against equality of income?" Yes—and yet emphatically no (p. 72). Does Guild Socialism claim to be international ? "It is hard to answer ' yes' or 'no' to that question" (p. 208).

Our author may increase his output; he may persistently continue to white-wash the class war. He may blare "Return to small-scale production," or Primitive Communism, or any other old thing. The workers will organise politically; the workers will abolish capitalism; the productive forces will be unfettered. The private ownership of the means of life, with its corollary, production for profit, will give way to common ownership and production for use.

A. H.

Whose Brains? A Question For Mr. J. R. Clynes (1946)

From the December 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having landed themselves in a false position by taking over the capitalist government, while professing sympathy with the working class, the Labour Party have no alternative but to adopt the capitalist policy and attitude towards the workers. Hence their repeated appeals for harder work combined with restraint in wage demands. Some of the Labour leaders are doing their best to inject into the workers’ minds a sense of humility by comparison of their tasks with those of big business. Mr. J. R. Clynes, for instance, on a recent occasion, caused immense satisfaction to leader writers in the Press when he gave utterance to the following:—

  "Workmen, for the most part, move in a narrow circle, and are not in a position to measure the service of others. They cannot know the part which brains play in the pursuit of trade and business.” (Daily Sketch, 19/3/46).

In modern industry the intricate sub-division of labour makes it well nigh impossible for any one section of workers to know much about the details of other sections. But there is one fact of which they can all be aware, that their combined efforts are responsible for all the wealth produced. Furthermore, the real brainwork involved in securing trade and business is done by members of the working class. Commercial travellers and advertisers push the goods on the market. Office clerks keep records of sales, costs and overhead charges, and prepare the balance sheet for the director, who reads it and congratulates the share holders.

Nearly all concerns to-day work on orders. When orders fall off it is not long before workers become redundant. So that when the trade and business chasers fall down on their job the workers bear the brunt. It works like that. No orders, no work; no work, no wages; no wages, no orders. For if wages cannot buy back the wealth produced, the dole certainly cannot. But what about the director? If he moves at all, he most certainly moves in a narrow circle. He sanctions an increase in the number employed when orders come in. He deplores the necessity to sack them when orders fall off. To the share holders he is either a financial genius or an attractive figurehead. At general meetings he informs the shareholders, with an assumption of dignity and a natural complacency, that they have the double satisfaction of earning a rich reward and serving a public need. The ordinary shareholders, knowing little or nothing about how it is done, take their reward and look round for like opportunities to serve the public on similar terms. We search in vain among this dividend-hungry crowd for any evidence of brains being actively engaged in useful work.

   "Managers, superintendents, designers, inventors, directors and the like are far removed from the workers’ sphere,” says Mr. Clynes.

As far as managers and superintendents are concerned, this statement is untrue. .They are normally drawn from the rank and file and still belong to the working class. They understand and supervise the technical processes, performing a useful function all the more efficiently because of their training in the actual work. But their main task is to keep down costs, and they have at their command foremen in every department to speed up workers and machines. The foreman's aim is to become a manager, and the average worker knows in his own mind that he is quite as capable as his foreman to induce or drive his fellow workers. In a concern where understudies are ready to take over from the highest to the lowest none are far removed except that some understudies are appointed and some are not.

Designers are men and women who have qualified in art schools and technical colleges for the job. They work, for the most part, in studios and workshops under the supervision of someone who has acquired his skill in the same way. In fabrics, pottery, motorcar and shipbuilding this practice is general. The designer knows only the one job. The actual work of production is as much a sealed book to him as the supervising. He works for wages, is dependent on wages for a living, and is consequently a member of the working class.

Inventors to-day are in much the same position. They work in groups under supervision, a method that has been largely accelerated during the war. They have been regularised as a section of the working class and are exploited in the same way as the rest. Inventors no longer work independently, except in an amateurish way on gadgets of a personal kind, or for minor purposes in the home, etc. In their present position and status their ability can be directed into the channels required by their masters. Their relation to the capitalist has changed but little. The capitalist has always sucked their brains. In the old days they suffered from the lack of funds to enable them to drive a bargain, or were deliberately cheated of their inventions.

All this applies with equal force to the scientist. All have been brought under the wing of big business Their value has been assessed according to what it costs to produce them, no doubt enhanced because they are in short supply. But competition for such jobs Increases in proportion as work in the lower grades becomes more arduous, insecure and unremunerative. Mr. Clynes continues:—

  “The complex aspects of industry and its national and international problems are beyond the man. The tendency to look at our national problem from just our own group standard is nearly a common mistake."

That tendency is most strikingly in evidence in the attitude of the Labour Government towards the workers. They promised an era of prosperity under Socialism if returned to power, only to find themselves confined within the narrow limits of the same old capitalist system, which they are bound to defend in the face of ever-growing resentment and hostility from the workers.

  "Community interest is often upset by the vigour of a class prejudice."

In this last statement Mr. Clynes has managed to include two quite contradictory ideas. There can be no community interest in a society made up of two opposing classes, which is the actual condition in every capitalist country. Where, as in society to-day, one class owns the means of life, the rest, the working class, are enslaved. A class that is enslaved must be hostile to the master class, though, as yet, they only show it by demanding an increased share of the wealth they produce.

Mr. Clynes’s assumption of community interest is based on the lie that the capitalist class provide work and wages, thus enabling them to live. They provide neither. Wages are paid out of wealth previously produced and taken from the workers, and if orders do not come in there is no work to be provided.

There can only be a real community of interests when the working class carry their antagonism to its logical conclusion and organise for the sole purpose of establishing community ownership of the means of life.

F. Foan