The Psychology of Capital. (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dr. F. Aveling, M.C., Ph.D., D.Sc., is a Reader in Psychology of London University, King’s College. In the course of an article in the “Daily Chronicle” of December 6th he discusses the question, “How can we make the most of Life?”

Quite correctly he points out the lack of scientific education in the art of living—the fact that “each one of us begins where his father began instead of where he left off” —and that as a consequence we are the embodiment of inconstancy, “square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square.”

As instances of the maladjustment prevalent in modern society he remarks that “no one has troubled till recently to find out what mental equipment is required to fit a boy or girl, say, leaving school, for the life-work he is taking up, or to see that he is found an employment in keeping with his powers.”

He laments the fact that “while science has been busy conquering time, annihilating space, and harnessing the forces of external nature to our service … it has left the most vital of all human problems to the speculations of the moralists.”

Nevertheless he informs us that “it has been found possible by motion and fatigue study to shorten the hours of work in many employments with great saving in output of human energy and great increase in actual production.”

This means “the advantage of rhe employer and the employees alike, a better understanding between them, less friction and discontent in industry, a greater enjoyment of life.” Thus does our psychologist answer his question.

Let us see where he stands. Production to-day is carried on for profit. When no profit is made industry comes to a standstill. Increased production usually means increased profit. Economy in the output of human encrgy means that fewer workers are needed in order to produce a given amount of wealth, in other words, increasing unemployment.

The larger capitalist concerns with their command of the most up-to-date machinery, their scientific staffs (including the psychologists), get more out of their workers in a given time and can thus undersell their competitors. In order to remain in business at all the smaller concerns must wring more than the normal amount of energy from their particular groups of slaves, by overtime. The efficiency of some of the workers thus leads to the worsening of conditions for the rest. Particular firms may rid themselves of the more obvious expressions of friction and discontent, by these means, but so far as society at large is concerned, these accompaniments of capitalism are on the increase.

There does not appear, therefore, to be any considerable ground for the optimism of the “Chronicler,” while a little further examination will show how entirely superficial his view of life is.

The discontent of the miner is not due to the fact that he is not a railwayman or a doctor or some other form of wage-slave. Whatever form of employment the individual may prove most efficient in, he or she has to be exploited. The wage-workers have to enable their employers to annexe a surplus from their efforts. They have to produce more than their keep. That is the fundamental condition of their employment and the rock bottom cause of discontent. Other sources of trouble are incidental and supplementary. They may to a large extent be minimised by the improved organisation of capitalism without abolishing or diminishing to the slightest degree the antagonism of interests between the classes.

Does the Doctor of Philosophy suggest that the mal-adjusted capitalist might become a wage-slave? Does he propose that a bank director suffering, let us imagine, from an OEdipus complex should find surcease from his cares in the packing department of a jam factory? “Put me among the girls” may be a cure for some mental complaints, but it is doubtful if any afflicted bourgeois is likely to take up work as his calling in life in order to get there.

Again, it is readily conceivable that an investor who has burnt his fingers over, say, oil, might arrive at the conclusion that his neglectful parents were to blame in not giving him sounder advice when young. Had more attention been paid to his mental equipment he might have made a fortune in rubber shares.

That, of course, is mere speculation, but one thing is certain. He would never think of blaming his old man for leaving him the wherewithal to invest. All the King’s College psychologists in the world would not convince him that shareholding was an undesirable career in his particular case.

However mal-adjusted he might be in other respects he would cling most tenaciously to that indispensable connection with his social environment.

Dr. Aveling, of course, does not deal with these facts. He is studious of the interests of the class which pays him, and so he presents the psychological problem as an abstract question affecting all equally and in the same direction irrespective of their class position.

He betrays no inkling of a suspicion that it is the needs of his employers which give his pretended science its present-day importance.

When the capitalist class was young and still engaged in the struggle to overthrow their feudal oppressors the physical sciences met their requirements. The development of the processes of production in order to meet the growing demands of the world market, coupled with the improvement in weapons of warfare, were their chief immediate needs.

Now, having definitely established themselves as the rulers in society, they must turn their attention to the task of preserving their system and increasing the benefits which they derive from it. In this pursuit they find a constant menace in the unrest of their slaves. They can employ force when dealing with particular sections, but in order to control the working class as a whole .they must use cunning. They must employ knowledge of the minds of those whom they would control.

Hence psychology comes to the rescue of priest and politician, journalist and factory, manager. Dr. Aveling refers to the need for “regulating the emotions.” How well the prostituted intelligentsia understand that art was exemplified in the recent war. Animal passions were unleashed and fed in order that markets might be kept, trade routes protected and raw materials supplies acquired.

Actions, which would have hung or imprisoned those responsible if done in the factory, became magnified into feats of valour when performed on the battlefield. To smash a bullying foreman’s nose was a crime. To bayonet a German fellow-slave (up till then unheard of) was a duty.

Oh ! Psychology ! What wonders are committed with thine aid ! Vegetarians and beefeaters, Atheists and Christians, discovered an instinctive harmony with one another when the interests of capital were threatened.

Self-knowledge and self-control are desirable enough, no doubt, to any individual in his endeavour to adapt himself to the conditions of his existence; but to be of any value they must be subordinate to an understanding of the environment itself.

It is by their interaction with the forces of nature that men have developed their powers as a race, and it is by contact with his fellows in the daily struggle with economic forces that the individual is moulded. At present that struggle takes the form of a class antagonism. The knowledge necessary to-day is, therefore, a class knowledge. It is a class-consciousness, or if you will, a class-psychology, which results from the very conditions of social existence so long as the means of life are owned by a class.

No metaphysical trick can get over that fact or rid us of the necessity for struggling for the emancipation of our class. That is the only road to social harmony.

Eric Boden

An Individualist’s Defence of Capital. (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily Mirror (28/10/27) introduces an article by Sir Ernest Benn with the following-headlines :—

“Why Capitalism is “Ruthless.”  

Economic law as old as Adam—not a system but a great natural force.

There are a few socialists who still imagine that capitalism is a system invented by the rich to exploit the poor.”

No man can truthfully call himself a Socialist who says, or thinks, that the Capitalist system was invented. Whatever he may call himself, or whatever the Daily Mirror may call him, however, it is plain from a perusal of Sir Ernest Benn’s article that the charge against Capitalism of exploitation is unanswerable.

Had it been possible to show that the working class is not exploited by the capitalist class, Sir Ernest would have done so, instead of stringing together a number of statements that can only be described as what he and other Capitalists wish or would like to think. He says :—

“The future of capitalism will be exactly like its past. Capitalism is not something which alters or varies or changes.

A great deal of confused thinking is caused by people who imagine that capitalism is something to do with the industrial revolution; something which can be altered by Act of Parliament ; or something which we can put off or put on or adopt or reject at our pleasure.”

For the Capitalist, of course, Capitalism is perfect. The Capitalist hates to hear his system attacked. It suits him admirably. He hates to think of the possibility of change. The snag in evolution, for him, is that he cannot apply it to the universe at large, and rule it out where his material interests are concerned. His particular method of exploitation, wage slavery, is quite recent in its general application, when compared with the system of exploitation that preceded it. Feudalism and chattel slavery, other forms of exploitation, though more enduring than Capitalism has shown itself up to the present, were short periods compared with the early Communism that preceded it.

To speak to a Capitalist of the industrial revolution is like reminding a decrepit octagenarian of his youth. That period of Capitalist history when the means of wealth production changed from tools operated by muscular energy, plus wind and water, to machines driven by steam, is generally spoken of as the industrial revolution. That period was the youth of Capitalism. Its childhood was passed side by side with Feudalism in the Middle Ages. The change —termed progress by the Capitalist—that has taken place since the industrial revolution even, is so great, so important, that it forms part of every child’s education. Sir Ernest must eradicate this teaching from the minds of the workers before he can frighten them away from Socialism by flatly asserting that Capitalism is something which does not change.

“A great deal of confused thinking is caused by people who imagine that Capitalism is something to do with the industrial revolution,” says Sir Ernest; but is it merely confused thinking on his part to say that Capitalism is the same now as then, or is it merely lying?

“Capitalism is the unhappy word invented, I think, by the Socialists to express the way we live and the economic forces that govern our lives.

The two predominant features of Capitalism are work and saving, and we cannot live without both.”

In this last sentence Sir Ernest acknowledges the debt owed by the capitalist class to the working class ; the latter being the only class that works and the only class that denies itself the satisfaction of its desires, with the result that wealth is accumulated in the hands of the capitalist class.

The working class does, in fact, deny itself the satisfaction of its desires. The workers are in a huge majority over the Capitalists. When they understand Socialism, they can, in spite of everything Sir Ernest says to the contrary, change the system. They can take over the means of wealth production, making them common property. They can arrange for the continued production of all necessary wealth and the manner of its individual appropriation and consumption.

The predominant features of Capitalism are not “work and saving,” but class ownership of the means of life and wage-slavery. Even the “Socialists” put up by Sir Ernest Benn know that the system means exploitation of the working class. Whether they think the system was invented or whether they think it merely grew, matters little. They have grasped the essential fact—exploitation. It is but a short step to discover the manner of this exploitation : the class ownership of the means of life and the merchandise character of human labour-power.

F. Foan

Answers to Correspondents. (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

F. R. Rimington (Leicester).—Your further reply to article by Jacomb will be dealt with in next issue.

F. S. Harvey (Wandsworth).—Your letter re “The Slave of the Farm” does not deal with the conditions in Canada, and is therefore hardly a criticism of the pamphlet. We note your reference to the hard conditions under which the “Australian serf” works for the farmer there, which is, however, in its main features, inevitable under private and class ownership.

Hero Worship: A Conversation With a Visitor from Mars. (Part 3) (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

(continued from last month).

“Under modern conditions,” I replied, "‘hero worship’ is no longer a vital factor in social life. Capitalist society has the semblance of stability, and the devastating elements of feudal times, war, plague and famine, rarely shatter its equilibrium. The members of capitalist society, therefore, are, in the main, more calm and reflective than men of previous and more unsettled times; reason tends to curb sentiment, and personal fascination has, in consequence, little hold. Moreover, this apparent stability rests on a system of Democracy, which is not conducive to ‘hero worship.’ The present ruling class (the capitalists) are few in number, and with the development of their economic system, their numerical strength is constantly decreasing relatively to the other class in society (the workers). The stability of the capitalists’ system depends, therefore, on the consent of the majority of the community. The workers consequently are invested with great potential power; they are beginning to realise vaguely that the ‘masters’ are not omnipotent, but rely upon their support, and this realisation tends to create assertion and shrewdness—qualities which spell death to ‘hero worship.’ In the words of De Toqueville, Marty, ‘all men who live in democratic ages . . , are apt to relinquish the ideal, in order to pursue some visible and proximate object.’ (From “Democracy in America.”)

“Also, the tremendous populations in industrial countries have rendered government by a few individuals impossible ; thus the committee system of government and administration has evolved, and this tends to check the undue prominence of any one particular man, and personal magnetism is subordinated to avowed principles. Thus, too, the members of the community, generally speaking, no longer vote for individuals but for political parties and the principles they enunciate ; men vote, for instance, not for Mr. Spellbinder as an individual, but for Spellbinder as a member (for example) of the (alleged) Labour Party, and if Spellbinder joined the ‘Land of Dope and Glory’ Party he would speedily lose his old adherents and receive the support (possibly) of men holding Conservative views. It is evident, therefore, that apparent stability, extensive population, and Democracy, have all contributed to the death-blow of the ‘heroic ideal.’ But, like a small boy who keeps back the best portion of his dinner to the end, I likewise have reserved the most powerful reaction till now. Lafargue, in his ‘Origin of Abstract Ideas,’ points out that the barbarian social environment engendered by war and loyalty within the clan, stretched the heroic qualities—physical strength, courage, and moral stoicism—to their limit, whilst the capitalist environment, based on private property, has destroyed the ‘heroic ideal’ and has made egotism, intrigue, and cunning, cardinal virtues. The driving force of bourgeois society is the desire to make profit, and so (except in close personal relations) men unconsciously regard their fellows with favour or disdain in proportion to whether they think they can get little or much out of them. Likewise, the motives of even the most disinterested people are suspect; the opinion that ‘so-and-so has an axe to grind’ is, I believe, one of the most potent barriers to ‘hero worship’ at the present time. Incidentally, Marty, it is interesting to know that Marx and Engels, the first exponents of ‘scientific’ socialism, were probably the first men to recognise this fact that bourgeois society is incompatible with the heroic ideals, for in their Communist Manifesto they state ‘the bourgeois has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.’ “

W. J.

(To be continued.)

Socialism and Anti-Parliamentarism. (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

REPORT OF LECTURE.

Held at Friars Hall, Blackfriars, 20/11/27.

Comrade Fitzgerald commenced his lecture by pointing out the erroneous definitions of Socialism which were being spread about by Capitalist agents in order to breed confusion in the minds of the Working Class. For that reason, he went on to say, it was especially necessary to define Socialism. Two false definitions were (1) that Socialism meant a system of sharing-out; (2) that Socialism was a system of rationing. The word “Socialism" was taken from the word “Society.” The Economic League denied there was any system in society; they claimed that there had always been one method of “getting things done" and that was the present one, which had always existed. They allowed only for changes in the details of the management of society. The Socialist, however, took the evidence in front of him and held that changes in the system had taken place. When the Socialist laid down that he was out for Socialism, he wanted a system of society where those things necessary for the maintenance of life itself would be owned by society as a whole. Socialism meant the social ownership of the things necessary to maintain life—land, railways, machinery, plant, etc. The products would be individually owned and consumed. That definition should be kept clearly in mind. The idea that we would all use the same toothbrush was sheer nonsense. Another bogey put forward was that Socialism would restrict individuality. Individuality was already restricted when it entered Society.

In capitalist society we had the contradiction of over-production with the majority of the people lacking the necessities of life. To-day the present system was known as capitalism, and the troublesome task with which it was faced was the finding of markets for its products. This was due to the fact that the things made were produced for SALE and not to satisfy the needs of society. The things necessary to maintain life were privately owned by a small section in society, a section which took no part in production. The working class changed the raw material into the finished articles. The working class received money—a medium of exchange—for their services, but they could only purchase a small portion of the things produced with that money. The rest of the products which the working class could not buy because their purchasing power was so limited, had to be exported into other countries after the capitalist class had consumed as much as it could. Even the capitalist consumption was limited and so the capitalists were still faced with the problem of over-production. The basic factor of wars was the struggle of the capitalists to find markets and routes for their products. There was no economic solution and the capitalists could only meet the difficulty for the time being by maintaining, as they are doing to-day, but in still greater proportions, those members of the working class who were unemployed. It was a fault in the working of the system. The only solution was to harmonise production and ownership by society taking control of the means of production and the instruments for the converting of the raw material into the articles we require, and owning socially, product socially—i.e., for the needs of Society and not for the profits of a class, The question was how was this to be done—there was only one manner of doing it and that was by the members of society desiring it should be so—it was not going to happen behind one's back as some people fondly imagined. The human factor was necessary to change the present conditions. The only class interested in that change was the working class—it was to their interest that the capitalist system should be wiped out. How', then, to bring about Socialism? In the ultimate—it was power. The workers had, therefore, to examine the situation and decide how they could get that necessary power into their hands. Political power was the essential for bringing about the change. There was a great deal of confusion about the meaning of political power, and a great deal of superstition. Some thought the vote was merely a bauble to amuse the working class. Others that since politics were corrupted, the workers should not dabble in them, but should devote themselves to the pure, dean, atmosphere of economic action. That action did not look so pure now—with its Black Friday of the Triple Alliance and its blacker Wednesday of the so-called General Strike. These notions, whether springing from personal experience or manufactured by people whose interest it was to spread confusion, were due to a misunderstanding of what politics meant. The working class had not grasped the historical side of the matter. They join a political party and they see underhand trickery going on that they sicken of the whole business because they do not understand politics. The ordinary dictionary told you that the word “Politics” was the name given to the “Science of the State”—that was not sufficient. Politics had their basis in the organisation of society itself and in the early days when arrangements had to be made for common purposes, those restrictions, arrangements, etc., were the politics of that time.

The Development of Politics.—In the regulations of the tribal communities we have the first stages of the development of the political machine. The technical term for a meeting of the tribes was “the Phratry.” Tribes would be organised according to their conditions of obtaining a living. Some would live by plunder and others by agriculture. Beyond the Tweed, we find the terms “Highlander” and "Lowlander” still surviving. They had their origin in the two methods of organisation, i.e.. The Highlanders for plunder, and the Lowlanders for agriculture. We have remnants of this type of tribal organisation in India on the North-West Frontier.

In this country we can go back to the days of the Anglo-Saxon invasion when the Anglo-Saxon tribes divided the land between them, probably, into the different “shires” that exist to this day. A unit of division was very often one hundred soldiers, one of these divisions in use to-day is “The Chiltern Hundreds." It was interesting to remark that the only way for an M.P. to resign from Parliament to-day was by applying for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds which are non-existent, otherwise he was technically unable to resign.

The first form of National Council was the Witenagemote composed of representatives of the different shires. In the 13th Century Simon de Montfort summonsed together the first "Parliament" for the consideration of ways and means of carrying on wars. It was then too that the towns were first represented. In King John’s time we found the Barons holding a council and refusing to suffer the despotic John to tax as he pleased, and at Runnymede the Magna Charter was signed, which provided among other things that no man should be sent abroad without his consent.

The Position with Regard to Kings.— Foreign writers were apt to point to the instance of the deposition and beheading of Charles the First as unique in English History, but this king had a predecessor in King Richard II, who was deposed during the year 1399, and superseded by Henry IV, who was crowned by a “general election” of the barons. So the Right of Kings was not only challenged, but brought to its logical conclusion. The 16th century marked intense development in politics. The merchant class was rising; the New World had been discovered; enormous markets were opened for produce and commerce and enormous areas were found for plunder. Trouble began to brew over the demands of King Charles I that finally led to a rupture between the King and Parliament. It is interesting to note here that Charles had formed stores of ammunition near the Border in preparation for a war with Scotland. When the clash between the King and Parliament came, the Parliament sent its officials to seize those stores, which was promptly done. Colonel Hutchinson in his “Memoirs," has reported an amusing incident where the authority of Parliament set the authority of the King at naught, and the official sent to take the supplies for the King was denied by the officer in charge who wanted Parliament’s authority first. The King was beheaded.

The rigid rule of the Puritans led to a temporary reaction, and then the Restoration of Charles II. But the Stuarts had learnt little and James II tried to restore the “Divine Right of Kings." This led to the Rebellion of 1688, and the placing of William of Orange—as William III—on the Throne. But William was only made King on condition that he accepted the Constitution that kept the real power in the hands of Parliament, and he signed a declaration to that effect. This illustrated the power of Parliament and the importance of political power.

In 1832 the Reform Bill was passed, which completed the control of power by the capitalist class. Political machinery, is, therefore, the method of managing the affairs of any given society. It is not a bauble—it is a factor grown out of the development of society itself.

To-day, the workers perform all the useful functions in society. Occasionally a capitalist may amuse himself by going into the office to dabble in business, but as a class, the capitalists preferred to spend their time at the gambling tables of Monte Carlo or yachting in the Mediterranean, etc. Some people said that it was the capitalist class who provided the brains. What, then, happened when a capitalist died? Surely in such a case the business must die with him —but what did we find?—more often than not the business went on better than during his life, at all events it did not immediately die. The truth was that brains were bought, and the brains were supplied by the working class. Since the capitalist performed no useful function, the logical deduction was that those who did all the work should enjoy the results. Why didn’t they? It was not a question of numbers—the workers were in the majority. Why didn’t they take control of the means of production for themselves? Simply because if they had attempted to do so they would have had to meet the forces of the Nation—the army, the aircraft, etc. The army, however, is composed of working men, and even the officers, bar the fashionable regiments like the Guards, are working men—they sell their "professional services” for their livelihood. How, then, did the capitalist control the Army? It was a question of supplies. First, the law sanctioning the Army, etc., is passed by Parliament. Then the supplies necessary to maintain and increase these Forces are voted in the Annual Budget. Lastly, the instructions and general orders are sanctioned by Parliament before they can be put into operation, The control of the Fighting Forces is therefore in the hands of those controlling the political machinery.

Another point, not so well known, is that a Standing Army—for more than a year—is illegal in this country. How then does this Army continue in existence ? By the following method. Every year a Bill called the Renewal of Expiring Acts Bill is passed in the House of Commons. One of the items in that Bill is the renewal of the Army. So that even to continue the Army the control of Parliament is necessary. Since 1867, when the Ten Pound Franchise Bill was passed, the workers have had the majority of votes. The workers, therefore, have ample means to get control of that machine politically. The anarchist says Parliament is no good.

The Anarchists.—There are two sets of Anarchist Groups, one believes that an individual should be entirely free and that action should be confined to economic lines —i.e.. striking, etc. That a General Strike would wipe out capitalism. They ignore the fact that the first people to suffer are the working class, who have the smallest supplies. A General Strike, therefore, means General Starvation.

Moreover they are quite unable to show how unarmed workers could face the fighting forces, particularly with the latter’s powerful modern weapons of destruction.

The other set believes that syndicates should be organised by the workers in the industries for the purpose of taking over these industries and that each section should be confined to its own trade, i.e., the bakers—the bakery, the miners—the mines, etc. This was known as Syndicalism. It was absurd to isolate the workers in that manner—to put the miners in charge of the mines, the sewermen in charge of the sewers, and the lunatics, presumably, in charge of the asylums. (Laughter.) Production was social, the miner depended on the baker for his bread, and the baker depended on the miner for his coal, etc.

About 1905 a scheme was formulated in Chicago that had for its method the “taking and holding" of the means of production without a political party. The body then formed was called the Industrial Workers of the World. When asked how they could hold the means of production the answer usually given was “by locking out the capitalist.” As the capitalist is hardly ever in the factory this did not seem a very hopeful procedure. When asked what power the workers could bring against the armed forces they had no answer, though later on they developed the notion of physical force— a piece of sheer lunacy while the capitalist control political power. The Anti-Parliamentarists, such as Guy Aldred, who ranted about the uselessness of the political machine, were unable to find a substitute. The Socialist Society, in its first stages, may have to maintain a standing army, and it will be the workers then who will determine that question. Having this control, through the political machine, the workers will be able to obtain and distribute what they require.

The Workers and the Dogs. (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Greyhound racing! A baby sport, which has not yet seen its first birthday, yet the turnstiles have recorded 4,500,000 spectators. Why? It is because of its comparative cheapness and ease of access, that it attracts the working class.

At first sight, one would imagine that, beyond making a contribution to the Exchequer in the form of Entertainment and Betting Taxes, the sport had little to do with politics or class interest. But, according to the Morning Post (26/10/27), greyhound racing and its effects on the working class formed the subject of a discussion the previous evening at a dinner of the Thirty Club at Claridge’s Hotel.

A viewpoint was put by a Mr. Philip Emmanuel, who deprecated greyhound racing because, he said, it tempted the poor man to lose more than he could afford, to the detriment of his family. How eager for the welfare of the working class are these people who dine at first-class hotels. Or did the gentleman really mean that money spent on racing, instead of food and clothing, would lessen the efficiency of the wage-slave to produce profits for the master class?

Brigadier-General A. C. Critchley contributed the following to the discussion:— 

  “If you can give the working man something wholesome to talk and think about, it stops a lot of Communistic nonsense, which occurs simply because there is nothing else to do. Greyhound racing, properly handled, is one of the greatest counter irritants to Socialistic revolution we have yet seen.”

This soothing effect of sport and other pastimes has often been pointed out by us, but it is so uncommon for a Capitalist representative to admit this fact frankly. Of course, General Critchley only did so from self-interest; he is a director of the Greyhound Racing Association. The statement explains the apparent generosity of Capitalists who donate sums of money and trophies to sports clubs, and resist with all their might an attempt by their employees to secure a slight increase in wages.

H. M.

Editorial: Where Bolshevism Fails. (1928)

Editorial from the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ten Years that prove our case.

It may appear paradoxical to write of the failure of a movement which has controlled the political machinery in the largest country in Europe for a decade. Success or failure, however, must be measured in relation to the avowed object of the movement. In England we have had, for generations, a movement (known as the Co-operative) which claimed to supersede capitalism. In fact, it has developed into a department of capitalist society. Similarly the Soviet Government employs wage slaves (like any other State), produces commodities for sale at a profit and arranges concessions with other capitalist concerns, private or national; at one time feared and execrated by capitalist politicians it is now treated on level terms at World Councils of the Powers. Why?

The Bolshevist coup of November, 1917, was no miracle. It was in line with the general history of Russian conditions for a century past. The development of industry, and, consequently, capitalist society had been held in check both by external and internal forces for generations. Britain and France had throttled expansion in the Baltic and the Black Sea, while the new capitalist power, Japan, put the finishing touch on the process in the East.

Capitalist industrialism must have markets, but the population of Russia consisted (and still consists) of millions of peasants producing mainly to satisfy their own requirements. Such surplus as they raise is under pressure from the tax-gatherer. According to Trotsky, "More than two-thirds of the consumption of the scattered peasant holdings is excluded from the market, and only the lesser third has any influence on the economy of the country.” — "Towards Socialism or Capitalism” (page 43).

Depending upon such immature productive resources the Tsarist bureaucracy plunged into the war with Germany (a highly industrialised nation) with the inevitable result that three years later its armies melted away, underfed, ragged, ill-armed and ill-equipped, to listen to the agitators. Revolt and the collapse of the governmental edifice followed. Party after party attempted to stem the rising tide. The Bolsheviki alone had the organisation, discipline and insight which enabled them to ride the storm.

Overthrowing Kerensky and his facing-both-ways supporters they endeavoured to obtain the support of the workers along parliamentary lines. Failing in this they proceeded to disperse the assembly by force and have "dictated" by the same means ever since.

Their leaders. Lenin, Trotsky and the rest had studied Marx and professed Socialism as their ultimate object. This, however, does not distinguish them from opportunist parties in other countries.

This programme upon which they gained the support of the army was certainly not Socialism; nor could any army establish Socialism, except under the direction and control of a Socialist working class, and this in turn could not have been found in Russia in 1917.

The army, drawn mainly from the peasantry, wanted to get back to their villages. Along with the workers in the towns they wanted food, and an end to the war in which they had no interest. The Bolsheviki promised them these things.

Although the new régime excluded all other parties from control, it dished them by stealing their programmes. Thus it legalised the Social Revolutionary Party’s ideal, peasant proprietorship, and eventually by means of the New Economic Policy opened up the avenues of development for the petty bourgeois elements in towns hitherto championed by the Mensheviks. It nationalised the large industries by the simple process of confiscation and then paid the capitalists to restart them (vide Trotsky’s book quoted above, page 38). The unreadiness of the workers themselves to assume ownership and control provided the dictators with both the opportunity and the excuse for the policy of compromise, economic and political, which they have since followed.

In foreign affairs, intrigue has been the weapon with which they have endeavoured to make terms with other capitalist powers.

Ostensibly they set out to initiate a world-revolution, ignoring the enormous amount of propagandist spade-work that still remains to be done before any such event is likely. Again the unreadiness of the workers of the world furnished them with the opportunity and excuse for entering into negotiations with the leaders of the "Second International,” whom they professed to be out to smash. Their "sympathisers” throughout the world, who suddenly conceived a respect for the magic of the name "Communist,” similarly commenced by attacking the Right Wing leaders both of Labour Parties and Trade Unions, and wound up by calling upon the workers to support these self-same leaders at the polling-booth. Where Marxian phraseology has appeared to meet their requirements they have used it only to disregard its real meaning whenever that has proved inconvenient.

The high-sounding phrases with which the movement proclaimed its alleged mission to the world have long since degenerated into empty verbiage, repeated parrot-like by the hot-headed "enthusiasts” who encumber the pathway of the scientific revolutionary party.

In Russia the proletariat (i.e., the wage-earning, working-class) is in a minority. Hence any movement on their part is a "minority movement.” In Britain the same class is in an overwhelming majority. It only needs to organise consciously and politically to have its way. Yet we have in this country a "minority movement”! What interests does it represent?

In Russia dictatorship is the traditional mode of government. It is made possible by the unorganised conditions of the majority of the population whose outlook is local rather than national; where politics are concerned the peasants "leave it to others.” In Britain the wage slaves have struggled for and gained legal and political rights which serve as a stepping stone to the control of society along democratic lines.

The Bolshevist movement has failed to teach the workers of Western Europe and America anything new concerning their position and has assisted but little to help forward their education in the task ahead of them. It has fogged the issue by introducing controversy over points long ago settled so far as this country is concerned. Let the workers study the history of their class and they will discover that the methods advocated by so-called Communists were tried and scotched by the ruling class over a hundred years ago.

When the army was quartered among the workers at the time of the French Revolution and the workers themselves were seething with discontent brought about by the advent of the machine industry then, if ever, was the time for seducing the troops from their allegiance. Destitute of political rights, it appeared in those days the only logical policy. Capitalist statesmen, such as Pitt, however, foresaw the danger to their class and segregated the army in barracks. To-day there is only one road to political power and economic emancipation. That is the slow but sure road followed by the Socialist Party. 

Sex relations in Russia: Are they revolutionary? (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Bolshevik writer on literature and sex, well known in America, Mr. V. F. Calverton, waxes very enthusiastic on “Red Love in Soviet Russia,” in his magazine, The Modern Quarterly (Nov., 1927), an American journal cultivated by “Red intellectuals.”

The "Red” writer has just returned from Soviet Russia, and admires the "realistic candour" with which Russia is meeting the sex problem.

He quotes at the outset the usual rubbish of Capitalist distortion, such as the following from the "Yellow” morning paper, the New York American of June 12th, 1927, on "Marriage in Russia":—

A Provincial Control Commission of the Communist Party in examining a member as to his conduct and life, something that is often done, asked him about his morals and sex relations. He replied that he was happily married, had a beautiful wife, loved her, and was faithful to her. The Commission expelled him from the Party on the ground of "holding to small bourgeois principles.”

This type of lie has almost died out here, but in America it still survives. On the other hand, the view is widespread that sex relations in Russia are changing in a Socialist direction, but the evidence advanced does not support that view.

The writer of the article claims to uphold the materialist view of history—but drops it when he deals with sex relations. What material environment is there in Russia upon which new sex relations can flourish? Small private property in the villages and a mixture of State-controlled and privately-owned businesses and industries in the towns! And withal a struggle to maintain pre-war standards of production and to find work for all the able-bodied.

Mr. Calverton deals with some of the changes in woman’s position in Russia, and argues that "woman has been emancipated from her subordination to man, which she still suffers in the 'civilised' Western world.”

Marriage in Russia is now a civil function, but the ecclesiastical aspects of it are destroyed. Thus argues Mr. Calverton, but he omits to mention that besides the civil contract, marriage may be celebrated in all the churches in Russia where religion is "reformed,” but still strong.

We are next told that when a woman marries in Russia “she is still a free woman.” This high-sounding phrase, when explained by him, means the domestic code “does not establish community of property between the married persons," and that change of residence of one of the parties does not oblige the other to follow. Surnames of children may be that of husband or wife, as the couple may decide. The man cannot shirk responsibility for the children, and in case of divorce, we are told, a third of the man’s salary is requisite for the support of each child.

These changes are not revolutionary. “Property rights” of woman have become commonplace in capitalist countries with the entry of woman into business, etc.

Changes as to names and separate residences may be written into statute law, but, like many of the laws which Russia passed in its early Bolshevik days, they must remain dead letters if they conflict with economic conditions. The housing question in Russia is very acute, and to point to laws which allow separate residences for married people only brings up the question, when will even the married workers living together be able to get adequate accommodation in a country where rich and poor still have a real meaning and a real existence?

He quotes Madame Kollantay to the effect that what is revolutionary in Russia’s sex relations is “the creation of a collective responsibility,” “feelings of comradeship,” etc., but no facts are adduced to show its real existence, any more so than in any capitalist State. Engels’s book, "The Origin of the Family,” is quoted, but no deductions are drawn from the important point made by Engels, that once capitalism is overthrown, the new race growing up under new conditions will fashion their opinions and practice without any regard to what we to-day consider should be their course.

The fact that statute law cannot escape from the dominant influence of material conditions is admitted in the Russian Code quoted in the article :—

Only time and experience will show how many of the provisions of this code belong to the transitional category, features which are destined to vanish with the more perfect establishment of the Socialist order. In certain clauses, however, there is clearly to be discerned a conscious recognition of conditions and habits of life surviving from the old order. Such survivals are inevitable at this time when neither the economic nor the psychological transformation is complete. There are provisions respecting property and income which will inevitably be subject to obsolescence or amendment. The law of guardianship, essentially revolutionary as it is, is yet no more than a first tentative approach to the realisation of collective responsibility for the care of the young. The laws of marriage and divorce still bear traces of the passing order, frank and sensible acknowledgment of the existence of certain economic and psychological conditions only to be overcome when the complete change is accomplished.

All children in Russia are legal. Compared with Czarist Russia, this is an advance, where children were counted illegal where a church marriage had not been performed. And even in this country the interests of property are gradually legalising children born out of wedlock.

A great deal is made of the fact that in Russia divorce can be obtained upon mutual consent on the grounds of incompatibility. Again, if we compare this with Czarist days, it is an advance, as under Nicholas adultery was necessary to obtain divorce. But modern capitalist States are modifying divorce law, and in Puritan America divorces in many States are granted on the slightest pretext.

In Russia Birth Control literature is plentiful. So it is here and generally throughout Europe. With the difference that most people here can read it, but Russia still suffers a large amount of illiteracy. From the Rev. Mr. Malthus (Christian apologist for a ruthless war on the workers) down to Charles Bradlaugh (atheist defender of capital) and on to reformer Marie Stopes, we have had plenty of Birth Control propaganda, and mostly by individualists—clearly showing that it has little revolutionary interest.

Abortion in Russia is legal, but the high birth rate and the low economic development in Russia doubtless plays a large part in welcoming anything to reduce births.

Between 1922 and 1924 more than 55,000 legal abortions were performed in Russian State hospitals. The backward mental development of Russia’s peasantry—her most fruitful populace — necessitated scientifically performing what was generally done in a dangerous way by those who feared every new mouth to feed. The widespread practice of abortion in Russia still shows that birth control literature may be cheap, but the practice of birth control methods among a backward people still very slow.

These reforms may all be well carried out in every capitalist country without in any way weakening the fabric of capitalism. And where they are carried out in some degree as in U.S.A., the individualist and reactionary views of those who are in favour of them is notorious.

Prostitution in Soviet Russia is still strong as it must be in every country where the workers are poor and private property owners are prosperous. All the freedom of marriage laws on paper cannot override the effects of economic life.

The battle with the brothel keepers in Soviet Russia is dealt with by the official journal,  "Izvestia” (November 11th, 1926), quoted by Mr. Calverton.

In 30 States in one year 715 houses of prostitution were opened, chiefly in Moscow, Leningrad, Samara, and Stalingrad. Unemployment of single women was found to be one of the greatest dangers. The "Izvestia” (November 11th, 1926) states that over 32 per cent. of the prostitutes are occupation house workers.

The Soviets decreed that single women should be laid off last in the event of unemployment. Houses for the Reformation of Prostitutes were opened, and the Commissar of Public Health says that prostitution is on the decline. No figures are quoted to show this, but in any case the causes are still there and the attempts at reforming are little in advance of the Salvation Army.

Summing up the general sex relations, it is obvious that there is nothing beyond the process of reform from the barbaric condition of Czarist laws to laws more suitable to capitalist development.

International Socialism, on the other hand, will not deal with effects of capitalist conditions, but lay the economic foundations upon which new sex relations will flourish, freed entirely from the trammels of property and economic insecurity.

Adolph Kohn

Karl Marx and his critics: Do profits grow on thistles? (1928)

Book Review from the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class," by N. Bukharin, (Martin Lawrence, 7/6 net.)

Since the days when Marx analysed the Capitalist system of producing and distributing wealth, laid bare the secret of value, and demonstrated how surplus value is obtained, the agents of the master class have been engaged in numberless attempts to “explain” why the Capitalist is entitled to his profits. A legion of Professors of Political Economy have entered the lists against Marx, with disastrous results to themselves. Journalists and publicity writers have tried their hands where the experts have failed, with even more lamentable results.

One of the most boomed of the Marxian critics, whose general work on Economics ranks, perhaps, higher in Capitalist estimation than that of any other economist of modern times, was Böhm-Bawerk, head of the “Austrian” School of Economics. He was not only a Professor of Economics, but also Austrian Minister of Finance for some time. Thus, to his theoretical knowledge lie added experience of practical affairs, and this would lead one to expect in him a most formidable opponent. Many years ago he loudly proclaimed the discovery of a “great contradiction” between the first and third volumes of “Capital," but the “discovery’" caused hardly more than a flutter before it died.

His two best-known works are his “Theories of Interest,” where he claims to show the failure of all the attempts to explain interest by previous economists, and his “Positive Theory of Capital,” in which he sets out to state the source and reason of interest.

To reach this explanation it was necessary to state a law of value which, incidentally, would expose the hollowness of Marx's theory on the same subject. Here, however, the famous Professor was unable to do anything better than come to England and borrow the late Stanley Jevons's theory of “Final Utility,” published in 1871. A few minor alterations were made, and the title changed to “Marginal Utility,” and then the theory was announced as a brand-new solution of the tantalising problem of value. It is this theory of value that Bukharin criticises in the volume under review.

According to the Marginal Utility theory, value is determined, not by the ordinary utility of any article, but by the utility of the article sold by ”marginal” pair of buyers and sellers that effect a sale in a given market. This is explained as follows. Sellers come into the market, each with a different price in his mind that he is prepared to accept rather than not sell at all. Buyers also come into the market, each with a different price in his mind that he will pay rather than go without the article. It is clear that if the highest price of the buyers is less than the lowest price of the sellers, no sale will take place. Also, if the highest price of the sellers is below the lowest price of the buyers, it is clear that all the articles will be sold. In practice, it is assumed that the lowest selling price will be below the highest buying price, and the actual point of contact will lie somewhere between these two figures. This point of contact forms the ”marginal” price and determines the price of all the other articles of the same kind and quality in that market. In this theory the different prices demanded are taken as representing the different degrees of utility the articles have for the different buyers. Therefore the price at which the actual sale takes place—the "marginal” price—expresses the "marginal” utility of the articles and so determines their value.

It is easy to see that here there is complete confusion between value and price, a confusion that runs throughout the whole of Böhm-Bawerk’s writings; whilst two other points in the theory strike the reader at a first glance. One is that we are here given our old friend, "Supply and Demand," in a slightly different dress, as the explanation of price, for the “marginal" pair are the same couple who effect a sale under the theory of Supply and Demand. The other point is that value, according to this theory, is entirely a question of individual estimates, or, to use the technical term, it is subjectively determined.

On the first point, it is plain as a pikestaff that this “marginal" theory has no connection with the facts. As far as the vast majority of the articles produced for sale are concerned, the prices are fixed beforehand and there is no question of bargaining at all. One does not go into a modern store and start arguing what price one shall pay for an article. The price is there already "marked in plain figures" for the customer to see. Moreover, it would be absurd to suppose that the “marginal” utility or "subjective valuation" of a given article will be alike at different places at the same time. But the prices are the same. And there still remains the criticism that was used against the older theory, namely: When Supply and Demand equal each other, what then determines the price? When the prices of the "marginal” buyer and seller are equal, what determines that price? This question is not even mentioned, let alone an answer attempted, by the Austrian School.

On the second point, that value is a “subjective" question, it is evident that as each individual’s “subjective" estimate will be different from the others, we have here no actual basis of general value at all. Such an “explanation" is a good illustration of the mental bankruptcy of the apologists of the Capitalist class. But it is on the question of interest that this bankruptcy is most clearly seen, and for good reasons.

Capitalists' profits form the danger zone of orthodox economics. It is useless to deny, however “subjectively,” that profits exist. So they must be "explained.” But how? Every apologist answers differently, until Böhm-Bawerk feels impelled to write a large volume to show that they all are wrong. Then what is his explanation? Truly wonderful.

The Capitalist has resources and can buy raw materials, machinery and other plant necessary for the production of articles for sale at some future time. The worker has only his labour-power to sell, and as he is without resources he cannot wait till that  "future time" when the articles will be sold. Moreover, in common with other people, the worker places a greater value upon a present satisfaction or utility than on a future one. The difference between the present and the future valuations is the source of the Capitalist’s interest, and the justification for that interest is found in the time the Capitalist waits before receiving it. An illustration may make this point clear. For the sake of simplicity we will only deal with the worker’s part in production, leaving on one side the question of raw material, plant, etc.

Let us assume that it takes a month from the beginning of the manufacture to the selling of a given article, and that the article sells for 20s. As the worker cannot wait for a month, he would consider the present value of a smaller sum—say 15s.—as equal to the future value (a month hence) of 20s. So the Capitalist, who is a thought-reader, advances the worker 15s. to-day for work that will produce 20s. a month after. There is, of course, no robbery, as the worker is quite ready—nay anxious—to take the 15s. to-day rather than wait a month for 20s. If the worker could wait the month, he would receive the 20s., and interest and profit would vanish!

Why does he not wait? Because he has no resources, says Böhm-Bawerk. Exactly. But why has he no resources? Here Böhm-Bawerk becomes suddenly shy and offers no explanation. The answer is simple. It is because he is forcibly prevented from obtaining any resources by the power in the hands of the Capitalist class.

It is not a question of the worker’s "subjective” valuation of either present or future utilities at all. It is the fact that the only alternative he has to accepting the Capitalist’s terms is starvation. As the worker is forcibly restrained from any access to raw materials or machinery and tools to work upon that material, he is unable to accumulate any resources and must therefore sell his services day by day. It is the difference between the value the worker produces and that value that he receives, that forms the source of surplus value. Interest and Profit are parts of this surplus value, and hence are the result of the robbery of the worker by the Capitalist.

These and several other questions, such as the “abstinence” of the Capitalist, and whether he “advances" the wages of the worker, are dealt with very fully by Bukharin in this volume. The book, however, is one for the student rather than for popular reading. German writers, as is well known, are very fond of cumbersome words and long and involved sentences. Böhm-Bawerk’s writings follow the national model, and Bukharin, apparently, enjoys using the same sort of phraseology, with the result that the book presents a somewhat fearsome appearance to the lay reader. As a technical criticism of the Austrian School, the book can be fully recommended to all who refuse to he frightened by the terminology used.

Jack Fitzgerald

The Shadow Show (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard