Sociology of Eighteenth Century French Drama. by G. V. Plechanov. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Part II

Part II—continued

A child of the aristocracy, the classic tragedy, unlimitedly and indisputably reigned on the French stage while the aristocracy predominated socially in the bounds assigned by the constitutional monarchy, which itself was a historic result of the lasting and embittered struggle of classes in France. When the supreme position of the aristocracy began to be a subject of dispute, when people of “the middle state” were possessed of a rebellious frame of mind, the extant literary conceptions began to appear to these people unsatisfactory, and the old theatre not instructive, enough. And then, simultaneous with the gradual fall of the classic tragedy, the bourgeois drama made itself evident. In the bourgeois drama the French “man of middle state" set his family virtues against the deeply-spoiled aristocracy. But that social contradiction, which France then had to solve, could not be decided by the aid of moral preaching. The subject was then not about the removal of aristocratic vices, but the removal of the aristocracy itself. It is understood that this could not come to pass without embittered struggle, and it is not less clear that the father of the family, in all fervent esteem of his bourgeois morality, could not serve as the model of an untiring and intrepid martyr. The literary portrayal of the bourgeoisie did not inspire heroism. And yet the opponents of the old order felt the need of heroism, were conscious of the necessity of the development of civic virtues in the Third Estate. Where was it possible, then, to find models of such virtue? There — where they searched before for standards of literary taste : in the ancient world.

So again the reversion to heroes of the old civilisations. Now the opponent of the aristocracy says no more — like Beaumarchais—“Of what concern to me, a citizen of a monarchical state of the eighteenth century, are the events of Athens and Rome?” Now the Athenian and Roman events re-awakened in the public the liveliest interest. But this interest took on another character.

If the young ideologists of the bourgeoisie were interested now in sacrificing a young princess of Aulis, they were interested in it mainly as a source of material for revealing superstition; if their attention could be attracted by the “death of some Pelopennesian tyrant,” then this attraction was due, not so much to its psychologic as its political side. Nor were they attracted by the monarchical age of August, but by the republican heroes of Plutarch. Plutarch became the text-book of the young bourgeois ideologists, as the memoirs of Mme. Rolland show. And this love for the republican heroes once more revived an interest in ancient life. Imitation of antiquity became the fashion, and it put a deep imprint upon all French art of the time. We shall note that, in addition, this same imitation weakened the interest in the bourgeois drama, because of the prosaicness of its substance, and for a long time delayed the death of the classic tragedy.

Historians of French literature frequently have asked themselves in surprise: what is the explanation of the fact that the plotters and workers of the great French Revolution remained conservatives in the domain of literature? And why did classicism fall only a long time after the fall of the old order? But in reality the literary conservatism of the innovators of that time was only external. If tragedy did not change as a form, then it suffered a necessary change in the matter of content.

Let us take Spartacus, the tragedy of Sorraine, which appeared in 1760. Its hero, Spartacus, is full of yearning for freedom. For the sake of his great idea he even refuses to marry the girl he loves, and all through the play he continues to talk about freedom and humanity. In order to write such tragedies and praise them, it was absolutely essential that one be not a literary conservative. An entirely new and revolutionary substance was poured into the old literary leather flasks.

Tragedies like those of Sorraine and Lemverre exemplify one of the most revolutionary demands of the literary innovator Diderot: they depict, not characters, but social conditions, and especially the revolutionary social tendencies of the time. And if this new wine was poured into old leather flasks, then it is to be explained by the fact that these leather flasks were overshadowed by the same antiquity, the general love for which was one of the most significant, most characteristic symptoms of the new social mood. Side by side with the diverse types of the classic tragedy, according to Beaumarchais, the bourgeois drama could not but seem too poor, too insipid, too conservative in its content.

The bourgeois drama was brought to life by the opposite attitude of the French bourgeoisie, and no longer was suitable for the expression of its revolutionary inclination. The literary portrayal accurately defined the transition of the bourgeois; therefore the characterisations ceased being interesting when the bourgeoisie’ lost these features and when these features ceased to seem pleasant.

The classic tragedy existed close to the time when the French bourgeoisie finally triumphed over the defenders of the new order, and when the love for the republican heroes of antiquity lost all social significance for the bourgeoisie. And when this time came, the bourgeois drama received new impetus, and suffered some necessary changes according to the peculiarities of the new social condition, but these changes were not important nor definite enough to prevent the drama’s asserting itself on the French stage.

Even those who refused to acknowledge any consanguineous relation between the romantic drama and the bourgeois drama of the eighteenth century would have to agree that the dramatic productions of, for instance, the son of Alexandre Dumas represent the bourgeois drama of the nineteenth century.

In the productions of art and literary tastes of a given time is expressed the social psychology; and in the psychology of a society which is divided into classes much will remain vague and paradoxical to us if we continue to ignore—as the historical idealists do, despite the best intentions of the bourgeois historical scientists—the mutual relation of classes and the class struggle.

(Translated for Modern Quarterly by Bessie Peretz.)

Concluded.

The Economic League Discover Some "Socialist" Fallacies. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why should blue papers cause us trepidation Why do we look upon them with suspicion? Seidlitz powders? Possibly. A pink wrapper would be an affront both to human intelligence and to medical science. Or is it that we associate blue papers with somewhat peremptory requests to show cause why, etc., or with polite invitations to appear at certain not greatly sought after institutions? Whatever the reason may be, I must say that the blue paper which was thrust into my hands recently, though possessing the conventional aspect of terror, did not justify the fears aroused by its presentment. But, like most productions of the “Economic League”—for it proved to be one of' their efforts—it was not only harmless, but a really fine piece of imaginative literature, which fully excuses the existence of this obscure but very “well breached” body of “economists." (What they actually economise with will be shown later.)

The title of this leaflet intrigued me greatly—“Some Socialist Fallacies Exploded"—and I was astounded to find that the perpetrator was none other than (well, guess—wrong first time!) the great C. E. Ross, whose name should be a household word, but who is unfortunately unknown to the writer. Of the Indian Finance Department, too—think of that! (Whether of the League of Nations or Woolworth's, we are left to wonder.) Retired, of course. After reading a little, I discovered that the title was most apt, except perhaps in one trifling particular—due to a printer's error, I assume. (With these delicate penny-a-liner-linotype machines, the tiddy-pin occasionally jams in the collychuff, thus disconnecting the caggle-waggle—and hence misprints occur.) In this case it is apparent that the word “Socialist’' has got substituted for "Capitalist"—not that such a detail should inconvenience the Economic League, who can always plead their innocence to any charge of being fastidious with regard to such meticulous, hair-splitting distinctions.

The first item on the menu contains real mental pabulum :—

   Fallacy No. I.—All wealth is created by the labour of the working-class alone. Therefore it should be owned and controlled by that class. This is the first of the fundamental principles laid down in the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It is the real foundation of the whole Socialist creed, as all the other principles and objects of Socialism are more or less dependent upon it. It has often been called “the great Socialist Lie," but I prefer to call it a grossly misleading half-truth. It is perfectly true that labour is a most important factor in the creation of wealth, but it is not the only factor, and the principle, as laid down, is misleading for two reasons. In the first place, because it ignores the other two factors, viz., Natural Resources and Capital

I patiently waded through the “Manifesto" referred to, but I was most annoyed to find the printer had left this “ first of the fundamental principles " out of my copy, and in fact the Socialist Party has never “laid down" any such principle. To a well-attuned ear (not a cabbage-leaf flap like my own) the word “Manifesto" is acoustically synonymous with “Declaration of Principles,” and possibly would look the same to a member of the Economic League. On this assumption, therefore, the reader is invited to compare this Fallacy No. 1 with what is stated in the Declaration of Principles on the back page of this Journal. Comparisons are odious, of course, but I have no doubt the reader will note how punctilious the Economic League have been in rendering an exact replica of our principles. On the other hand, if he is of a perverse disposition, he may not! Except for the fact that the principles state that the working-class have not the spook-like quality of being able to “create” wealth, but merely “produce” wealth by expending their labour upon “natural resources” (implied by the use of the term “land"), the fact that no ethical deductions are drawn as to what the working-class should or should not own and control, and the further fact that the principles very definitely and emphatically state how the working-class can abolish classes altogether and bring into being a classless society, which will democratically own and control the “means of living" in the interest of the whole community—not in the interest of a class which has ceased to exist; except for these paltry differences, the Economic League has "edited” our principles in the pleasing fashion usually associated with their propaganda, which invariably subordinates mere expediency to unequivocal expression of the truth. It may be excusable, however, on their part to refrain from adding difficulty to their case by taking the Socialist principles too literally.

That the Socialist dog may be beaten by any old stick—and quite jolly right, too!— is again ably demonstrated in the passage which follows on from the one last quoted:

  And, secondly, because it defines labour as that of the working-class alone, by which is implied, and evidently intended to imply for the delusion of the uninitiated, the labour of the so-called wage slave only, to the exclusion of mental (i.e. inventive and administrative) labour. The omission of natural resources as a factor in the creation of wealth is significant. Without natural resources there could be no wealth, and it is to be noted that, in the creation of this essential factor, neither industrial capital nor labour had any part or lot whatsoever. Many people, besides Socialists, do not seem to realise the importance and significance of the fact that the word "Capital” is derived from caput, the head, and this, coupled with the physiological fact that all physical actions emanate from the brain, clearly demonstrates that, in the creation of wealth, the work of caput, the head, is of infinitely greater importance than that of manus, the hand.

I should hate to presume, but might j not the term "Capital” be derived from “capio—I take ”? If this should be the case, "capital” would apparently mean "I take all,” but such an expression could only have significance in games of cards, so this derivation does not seem to fill the bill.

Obviously caput, the head, is of far more importance than manus, the hand, though both might be of equal utility in, say, knocking a nail in a wall—with a hammer, I mean! But these Capitalists have developed their heads to such a degree that they could knock screws into the sides of battleships with them, and in the event of a coal dispute they would be able to provide all the necessary fuel simply by meeting and putting, their heads together, wooden they? (Steady!)

Whilst I might agree with the Economic League that the Capitalist is far too brainy to indulge in such a coarse expedient as WORK while he can buy working-class brains to perform the functions of inventors, managers, supervisors, agents, administrators, foremen, and indeed every function necessary to the effective running of the Capitalist system, yet I think they are somewhat unkind to saddle the poor chap with the responsibility for the "direction” of industry. Take the coal industry, for example. The remarks of Lord Melchett (Alf Mond to myself and other intimates) in his presidential address to the Institute of Fuel (“Daily Herald,” November 22nd), if they refer to the Capitalist in the coal industry, do not accord them the justice they deserve.

  The present methods of coal distribution in this country arc in a shockingly primitive condition.
 Coal was being dragged in small quantities, and in a quite unsystematic manner, about the towns. Two or three coal carts could often be seen in one street, each delivering a few hundredweights at a time.
  Then they had the so-called “qualities” of coal, which scientifically they knew did not exist.
  If all this could be standardised, simplified and unified, everybody would do much better. Whatever corner one touched there was an entire waste going on.
  Turning to the productive side, Lord Melchett professed to see efforts made by the colliery owners towards peace in industry. He expressed his pleasure, and added: "If they had only done one-tenth of what they are doing now two years ago, we should never have had the strike." The coal trade was faced with the problem of tiding over the present period of disorganisation and over-production in such a way that the world's output of coal when used with the greatest economy would satisfy its needs.
  Nearly 300,000 miners were unemployed, and it was said that between 200,000 and 250,000 were a permanent unemployable surplus in the industry. It was a desperate load for an industry to assume, and the general desolation caused was almost too dreadful to think about.
  Internal reorganisation should take place promptly. In what other industry would unproductive units be tolerated, such as were seen in the coal trade the world over?

One would almost think that that was said by a naughty Socialist, wouldn’t one? It may be, however, that the Capitalist "directs” in every industry but the coal industry, and the Economic League may be right after all!

But how refreshing it is to find that the Economic League can agree with us that sunshine, rain, the ocean, land, etc. (or "natural resources” so called) were not "created” by the Capitalist, and that this "is significant.” They do not state, however, whether the significance lies in the fact that the Capitalist draws most of the advantages from them, or in the fact that wealth is produced from them by the labour of the working-class alone—the Capitalist is far too busy with other amusements to bother about this one. If the Economic League can afford the sum of 2d. from their coffers for the pamphlet “Socialism,” they will find additional evidence of the subtle manner in which these Socialists “exclude” “mental” labour from their calculations. On page 2, for instance, it states :—

  The essential thing is that the member of the working-class has to sell his labour-power in order to live. Beside this salient fact all else pales into insignificance. The differences of dress, pay, education, habits, work, and so on that are to be observed among those who have to sell their working power in order to live are as nothing compared with the differences which mark them off from the capitalists. No matter how well paid the former is, or how many have to obey his commands, he himself has a master. He has to render obedience to another, to someone who can send him adrift to endure the torments of unemployment. Because he has to sell his labour-power, his whole life must be lived within prescribed limits. His release from labour is short and seldom; he has no security of livelihood; he has always to fear that a rival may displace him.

No! We have not noticed that the “abilities" of the Capitalist are used to "blackleg" on the working-class, who appear to have the monopoly of WORK, mental or physical—he does not keep dogs and bark himself.

Well, reader, the first “Socialist" fallacy having gone off with an appropriate bang, the consideration of the others can be left over for our next issue.

Sarcastigator.

Editorial: Wealth and Directive Ability. (1929)

Editorial from the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists do not question the need for organisation in industry. What we do question is that Capitalist argument that industry is, and must be, directed by Capitalists. It is, in the main, already directed by salaried employees, members of the working class. Only in the field of financial operations do we find Capitalists themselves normally engaged and even these operations are more and more being performed by paid employees. The Capitalist class own and control industry. They do not direct it. Recently certain Capitalist politicians and newspapers have disclosed some interesting facts and opinions on the “directive ability” of our masters. 

First listen to Mr. Baldwin, speaking at Saint Andrew’s Hall, Glasgow, on November 22nd, 1928 (“Morning Post,” November 23rd) :—

   Since the days when private industry gave place to the joint stock company there have battened on the joint stock companies large numbers of men connected with management, and directors, who are parasitical to industry, and nothing but parasitical.

The City Editor of the “Manchester Guardian” (November 26th) commented on Mr. Baldwin’s speech. He wrote:—

  It is difficult in public life for a man to continue to hold a post after he has, through age or other cause, become obviously unfit to carry out the duties attaching to it. But in the administration of public companies a far laxer standard prevails. It is almost a matter of tradition that once a man has been elected to a board he shall continue to hold his seat for life, and that, if for any reason his retirement is called for, he is entitled to compensation for loss of an office which, in most cases, is legally terminable by the shareholders without notice.

Then Sir Malcolm Robertson, Ambassador to Argentina, tells us that he knows of —

   directors, chairmen, even general managers and passenger traffic managers, of some of the greatest companies connected with Argentina, who have never been in South America. (“Evening Standard,” 11 December.)

Sir Henry Slesser, speaking at Denaby on December 17th, related an incident which recently happened in the House of Commons. He met a man and asked why he was looking so happy. The man replied:—

    “Lord X has made me a director in one of his companies.” Sir Henry Slesser asked if the man knew anything about the business of the company, and he replied “ No, but it is worth £500 a year.” (“Daily Express,” 17 Dec.)

It seems, therefore, that directors do not have to know anything about the company, nor do they have to be where the work of the company goes on. If, then, directors do not direct, what do they do?

Mr. E. C. Grenfell, the banker and financier, answers that question. Speaking in the House of Commons, he said (“Hansard,” December 10th, column 1813):—

   The conception of a director, merely from his name, is that he directs the company; that he has a large share in appointing people: really, that he knows all about the company. Nothing is more fallacious. A director of most companies is a part-time man who serves the company to the best of his ability by giving advice when asked.

And these "parasites,” these "part-time” gentlemen who “don’t know anything about the company,” but who give advice "to the best of their ability” about companies operating perhaps on the other side of the globe, sometimes get quite well paid. Something like £10,000 a year was paid to the directors of Marconi Company, a company which, according to the Editor of "The Times,” was "scandalously mismanaged.” (“Times,” October 6tb, 1927.)

Eight directors of the Dominion Tar and Chemical Company received £104,000 as “compensation for displacement" when the company was bought up by Canadian interests. ("Daily Express," December 6th.) When the Bodega Company was bought up by Slaters, the directors received £15,000 "compensation.” ("Daily Express," November 30th.)

Two directors of Robert Ingham Clark and Co., paint manufacturers, received no less than £170,000 in similar circumstances, ("Daily Express," December 6th.)

And while we are on the subject of the special ability of our masters, let us turn from industry to the House of Lords, the special preserve of the leisured class. Lord Salisbury, speaking in the House of Lords on November 14th, 1928, said:—

  We are called upon to take action because we are conscious that the legislation we are turning out of this House instead of being good is very often bad. It throws an enormous burden upon unfortunate litigants who are the victims of it.

He went on to describe recent legislation as "clumsy, slipshod, incomprehensible and inefficient." ("Daily Mail," November 15th.)

Lord Banbury said that "the greater part of the legislation passed in the last twenty years had better never have been passed."

What would we do without Capitalists to direct industry and hereditary rulers to legislate for us?

The Kings of Capital and the Captains of Industry. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again America’s rapid economic march illustrates the truth of the Socialist case. Twenty years ago we had occasion to point the lesson of the struggle between the Titans—Andrew Carnegie and Pierpoint Morgan. That was a conflict between two powers representing two factors in economic life. Not two individuals having a wrestling match, not a personal struggle between two great minds; but a dramatic and mighty clash between two social forces—one waning and outstripped by the economic advance, the other triumphant and in harmony with the economic trend. Carnegie’s personal knowledge of the steel industry and his life-work in personal conduct of the steel business—this could not withstand the influence of mere moneyed men, Morgan and his banking colleagues of Wall Street; men who knew not the making of steel, but who controlled vast financial resources. And so Andrew Carnegie’s Pittsburgh and other huge foundries became part of the United States Steel Corporation. Morgan won because those who controlled finance were able to buy and buy out those who knew the industry, but whose capital was smaller.

And that lesson illuminated industrial history since that day. The silent but sweeping changes in social life saw the passing of famous firms and famous names who had been absorbed by the huge financial combines. Men who boasted how much personal interest they took in the control of their business were pushed aside, crushed or swallowed up by the men who had a finger in hundreds or thousands of different businesses and who took no personal interest in manufacture. It was the day of the Big Banks, the Finance Company, the Debenture Loan or Stock, the Mortgage Bond and other strangleholds of finance that took charge of the title deeds of “the man of property and the men of industry.”

Then upon the scene emerges the ideal of all anti-Socialist arguments—the Man of Invention appears—Henry Ford. Henry Ford was a pioneer in the industry with a small workshop actually engaged in the manufacture of motor engines. The suitability of the cheap motor to the times gave a rapid and continuous fillip to Ford’s business. By using the inventions of many others and gathering round him the picked and trained brains of the workers to superintend and run the industry, Fords became the largest motor business in the world. .

Personal control and personal supervision played a good part in the early days of the business, but the time arrived in economic competition when mere personal control, brains and knowledge of an actual industry, no longer decided who was victor in the world of industry. The bankers of Wall Street, led by Morgan, heavily financed Ford’s competitors, who were able to produce a cheap car which sold quicker than Fords. Henry Ford closed down for nearly a year in 1927, while the whole factory was overhauled and new machinery installed to get out an improved car that would once more capture the market. The 1928 Ford car came and was heralded as the wonder of autos, but the power of finance in the modern world was hardly reckoned with. The great competitor of Ford was no personally conducted firm with personal savings behind it, but the General Motors Corporation, backed by the leading financiers of America—a combine which had absorbed dozens of motor companies and other firms making all the parts and trimmings of the modern car. Ford’s great asset—the use of the most modern machinery, each doing one small part and that only—this was duplicated and triplicated by the combine which had more finance than Ford. So the General Motors Co. at Detroit, Flint, and many other “plants,” completely re-planned their machine industry and laid down the best and most efficient machines with the latest speeding-up methods.

Henry Ford—God of the Individualists, Apostle of Competition, Father of the Gospel of Personal Service—finds his firm to-day losing ground heavily. The great concern opposing him—owned by men who know not engines, but who have finance and can hire the trained workers who do know engines—this General Motors Co. are able to say that their Chevrolet Car—the one put out to smash the Ford—sold 84,503 in July, against 43,094 Fords. 

Where will it end and what does it portend? The story of Morgan and Carnegie looks like being repeated. King Capital is no respecter of persons—Grow or bust, is his dictum! 

And so the firm of Ford looks like eventually being driven to combine with the large financial trust or go under. The workers will go on making cars and the bondholders will continue to reap the profits. Their employers will read stock exchange lists and thus get their knowledge of the industry. Henry Ford and his type will be shareholders in the concern which can do better by hiring hungry workers than by waiting for the working pioneer to get fresh ideas.

There is the lesson—ownership of wealth and more wealth is the winning card.

Finance buys up the personally-conducted businesses and becomes the ruler of more and more workers.

Shall the octopus grow or will the men and women who do the actual work in business and industry learn that they can run society without the parasite—financial or industrial?

Adolph Kohn

Answers to Correspondents (1929)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

E. M. (Brixton) writes at length, denying that a majority of the workers will ever understand Socialism, as before our propaganda will penetrate the workers’ minds, most of them will be submerged into the Slum proletariat—and beyond redemption altogether.

The views put forward—as to the slowness of accepting Socialism and the workers' large interest in Capitalist ideas—are not new, and they were faced long ago. But the notion that general industrial development and economic pressure does not make the workers receptive to Socialism, is belied by the facts of daily experience.

One fact alone—the widespread interest in social affairs and social change, compared to 25 years ago—is patent to all. It does not follow from Capitalist development that most workers will be pushed into the slum proletariat.

The important facts to bear in mind are the growing insecurity of “jobs,” even salaried ones, the lessons of concentration of wealth going on all around us, and the proved inefficacy of the reform panaceas to affect the workers' lives for the better. The long history of workers' struggles against enormous odds proves that even the lies and chloroform of the masters fail to work in face of the glaring lessons from economic life.

Editorial Committee.

Points For Propagandists. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Workers’ Savings

In the early days of Capitalism it was possible for the man with small capital to set up in business with some chance of climbing to the top, and in consequence saving ranked high among the Capitalist virtues. Out of this developed the silly theory that the possession of wealth in the modern world denotes “abstinence" and “self-denial" on the part of the possessing class. It was effectively answered by the late Sir William Ashley, economic adviser to the Conservative Party. In his “Economic Organisation of England” (p. 157) he says :—

Phrases like these have occasioned no little mirth; it is hard to discover self-denial or parsimony as the world understands these words, in the processes by which modern capital is most largely accumulated.

Capitalist savings result mainly, not from self-denial, but from having incomes so large that it is difficult not to save. Knowing this, and overlooking the fact that the position of the workers is essentially different from their own, it is a common error for wealthy bankers and Cabinet Ministers to assume that the accumulation of funds in savings banks indicates prosperity among the workers. Every wage-earner appreciates only too well that the necessity of putting something by, out of wages already inadequate for decent comfort, is the result not of prosperity, but of the insecurity of his existence. It is therefore interesting to see that Major-General J. E. B. Seely, Chairman of the National Savings Committee, has realised this. In a speech at Leeds on December 12th he said that in November, 1928, more Savings Certificates had been sold than in any November since 1921.

  As unemployment and distress grow, savings have increased. The reason is that the British people, when they are up against something, are determined to lay something up against the dangers looming ahead. Households now living on 30s. a week are saving more than they did when they were earning £7 or £8 a week. ("Daily Mail,” 13 December.)

And what a commentary on Capitalism. Here we have one of the wealthiest ruling classes known to history financing a huge national organisation in order to persuade its wage-slaves, starving on 30s. a week that they ought to save!

Statements of Fact.

There are, perhaps, different standards of accuracy and reliability observed by different Governments and newspapers, but during the War every Government and the Press of every belligerent country was engaged in faking and suppressing news, as well as in downright lying. In consequence, most people are inclined to be sceptical about some, if not all, of the "facts” they read, especially if they are "official." 

So much so, that the "Daily News” on November 28th referred to the numerous letters received by all the newspapers, asking if the bulletins about the King’s illness were genuine or whether something was being kept back. The "Daily News,” as usual a little pompous, informed its readers in heavy black type as follows:—

   “The Daily News"—speaking with high authority—feels it a duty to say, and to emphasise, that the bulletins published about the King’s health are statements of fact 'and that nothing has been kept back.

Subsequently we were told of the anxiety which the King’s condition had given rise to in these early weeks, and it appears that what the "Daily News” felt it a duty not only "to say,” but also ”to emphasise,” was one of those "statements of fact ” like the war-time "victories” which were more costly than defeats and were almost invariably followed by "withdrawals”  "according to plan.”

Patriotism and Profit.

The ‘‘Daily Mail,” so solicitous for everything British and so anxious to preserve British industry and provide work and wages for British workers, remarks that—

increasing numbers of British investors and speculators are seeking investment opportunities abroad, and particularly across the Atlantic. ("Daily Mail,” 27 November, 1928.)

Knowing the Britishness and integrity of the "Daily Mail,” you will expect, as a matter of course, that the Editor will denounce this investment of British money in American industries and will particularly express his abhorrence of speculators. On the contrary he announces that— 

each day we shall publish . . . a concise review . . . of the investment situation in New York, with helpful hints as to American and Canadian securities from the British investor’s point of view.

The National Income.

Sir Josiah Stamp and Professor Bowley ("The National Income”) have shown that the total real national income in 1924 was approximately the same as in 1911, or, in other words, the value of the wealth produced (including incomes from abroad) had increased by the same percentage as prices. As population had in the meantime increased slightly, this meant that the total purchasing power per head of the population was slightly less than in 1911.

The national income is now definitely increasing again. Mr. G. D. Rokeling has recently conducted a further enquiry for the "Economist.” It is published under the title, "A British Index of National Prosperity, 1920-1927,” with a commendatory Introduction by Sir Josiah Stamp. (Published by the "Economist.” 2s. 6d.)

In it Mr. Rokeling estimates (page 31) that the real national income has increased between 1920 and 1927 by about 8 per cent. The increase between 1924 and 1927 is 6.7 per cent. After allowing for the increase in population, this gives an increase per head of the population of 5.3 per cent, between 1924 and 1927. The “Economist” (October 6th, 1928) considers that this estimated increase is probably slightly less than the actual increase.

Edgar Hardcastle

What is the Use of Parliament? (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lessons of the German Naval Revolt.

Those who have learned by experience and observation that the big political parties, Liberal, Labour and Conservative alike, offer no hope of improved conditions for the workers, often conclude that the failure of these Parliamentary parties is evidence of the uselessness of Parliament and the danger of Parliamentary methods. This is a wrong conclusion. It is not Parliament as a piece of political machinery which has failed; it is the three political parties which have failed. They have failed even to attempt to use Parliament for the purpose of establishing Socialism. No single M.P. of any party in this country has ever been elected to Parliament as a Socialist, for the simple reason that there is no single constituency in which a majority of the workers want Socialism. We say that when the workers are Socialists and are organised in the Socialist Party, they will use their votes to obtain control of Parliament because this will give control of all the machinery of administration and control of the armed forces. While the Capitalist class have control of Parliament and the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc., their position is secure and we are helpless.

Some of our critics question this view. They say that it is unnecessary and useless to obtain control of Parliament. Unnecessary because the workers can themselves gain military dominance by force of arms and by winning over the existing armed forces; and useless because control of Parliament does not give power over the armed forces. The possibility of the working class organising their own military force has often and recently been dealt with in these columns. It is an illusion and a dangerous illusion.

Our attitude on the second question, the power of Parliament, is worth some elaboration. In the modern Capitalist democracies the State has come to control a vast, intricate and continually growing machinery of administration. Not only does it control legislation—the making of laws—but also their administration by hundreds of thousands of civil servants and local government officials, and their enforcement by the courts, the police and, in the last resort, by the armed forces. Every phase of modern life, the ownership and transfer of property, the production of wealth, transport, building, commercial and financial operations, education, hospitals, sanitation, public health, all these activities are carried on under regulations prescribed by the Government and, in the final analysis, under conditions which they determine. The life of modern Capitalist society is organised round Parliament as its centre of power. Parliamentary control carries with it the power, more or less directly and speedily, to promote or suspend activity in any and every branch of social life. By organisation and by use, the electorate—now the vast majority of the adult population—look to Parliament as the depository of the organised power of society, and by law, by organisation and use, the employees, civil and military, of the central and local authorities derive their authority from the Government which, in turn, is dependent on a Parliamentary majority.

Each individual in this great civil and military machine goes on doing his particular job under the authority of the official or officer above him in the scale. Legally, neither a civil servant nor a soldier can plead in defence of an illegal action that he was obeying the orders of his superior, but within the framework of the law each man realises that his position and security are guaranteed so long, and only so long, as he acts with such superior authority. Should occasions arise when instant obedience is required to an order the legality of which is in doubt, the man concerned can only use his own judgment as to whether or not the final authority, the Government, will back him up in the course he chooses. This is simple when the general attitude and intentions of the Government are well known. Each individual is a part of the machine and everything is done to cultivate immediate response to decisions of the central authority. This is why the soldier will normally face almost certain death rather than the penalty, possibly less severe but absolutely certain, which will follow if he takes the very difficult step of acting on his own initiative in defiance of orders.

By its very nature, however, this elaborate machine weakens and fails if there is an obvious weakening or disunity at the centre of things. If a Government fails to act decisively in an emergency, or, having taken a decision, reverses it, or allows subordinate military or civil authorities, or even some of its own members, to act on their own responsibility in defiance of its decisions, if any of these things happen the individuals who make up the Army, and less urgently the civil servants, are put in a state of confusion or are faced with the difficult problem of having to choose between rival authorities, with the possibility of backing the weaker of the two. In the case of a subordinate civil or military official defying the supreme authority, the decision of the soldier or civil servant is not in doubt. He backs the .supreme authority. Where it is the Government itself which is divided or paralysed, his natural course is to take no decision at all if it can be avoided. Hence the failure of authority and decision at the top immediately affects the morale and effectiveness of the whole machine.

It is to obtain this enormous advantage given by possession of the central directing machinery, and the authority resulting from control of Parliament, that Socialists seek to gain a Parliamentary majority.

A useful illustration of the importance of such control is given by the revolt in Germany in 1918, which resulted in a regrouping of the Capitalist governing circles, and the dropping of the Kaiser and. the Monarchy, figureheads which had outgrown their usefulness.

In 1918 it had for a year been increasingly obvious to more and more persons influential in German political and industrial life, that the Allies must win the war. There was as much, and probably much more, war-weariness among the civilian and the fighting population than in the chief Allied countries, but in Germany, as here, the practice of keeping the Government and Parliament in touch with public opinion by means of elections and more or less free speech and a free press, had ceased to operate in the ordinary peace-time fashion. Capitalist opinion on the War was more divided than at any time since 1914, and those who favoured peace at almost any price were able to bring their views to bear directly on the Government. Acute differences of opinion among prominent politicians were openly expressed and debated. The new Government, under the Chancellorship of Prince Max of Baden, had for some time in the autumn of 1918 been negotiating for an armistice.

More than a year earlier, in the summer of 1917, there had been determined efforts to stir up the German sailors to mutiny, and there were, in fact, outbreaks on various ships. At that time, however, the German Government was still fairly representative of the mass of the population, and still united on the determined prosecution of the War. In consequence, the revolt failed to spread and was easily stamped out.

By October, 1918, the situation had vastly changed. Prince Max personally had favoured the opening of negotiations a year before, and his appointment as Chancellor signified the growing influence of the Capitalist interests whose views on the question of peace had the backing of a majority of the population. (At the ‘elections shortly afterwards the German Labour Party alone secured nearly 50 per cent, of votes. and there were other parties as well which had dropped their earlier enthusiasm for the War.) Thus Germany had a Government still carrying on the War, but with members some of whom were known to be lukewarm in their enthusiasm for it. In these circumstances the German admirals, including Von Scheer, the “Victor ’’ of Jutland, who was now Chief of the Admiralty Staff at Berlin, drew up plans for a great naval action by the whole German Fleet. (See obituary notices and articles on Von Scheer in “Manchester Guardian,’’ “Daily News’’ and “Daily Express,’’ November 27th, 1928; “Manchester Guardian,’’ October 30th, 1928; and for a general account see “Die Tragodie der altem deutschen marine,’’ by E. Alboldt, Berlin.) The officers were willing and eager, but many of the crew, as in 1917, were dissatisfied and tired of the War. The order was given on October 29th for the Fleet to put to sea on the following day, and in spite of the desperate nature of this last attempt to smash the Allied naval supremacy, the order would have been obeyed, like innumerable other desperate war-time orders, if the decision had had behind it the unimpaired weight of the supreme authority, the German Government. It became known, however, that the German naval authorities, both the admirals afloat and the naval staff, had acted without the .knowledge and consent of Prince Max and the Government. The minority of active revolutionary and anti-war propagandists among the crew thus had, and seized, a decisive argument which they had lacked in 1917. The thousands of sailors who would passively go to almost certain death on the order of the Government because it was in accordance with political habit and training to do so, would not raise a finger on the unauthorised command of their superior officers or the supreme naval staff. The order was withdrawn on October 31st, but the authority of the whole naval disciplinary system was broken. The news spread, and opposition to the War and to the Kaiser and politicians who still favoured war was openly expressed among the soldiers and the civilian population. Within a fortnight the Armistice had been arranged. The Kaiser abdicated, and new elections in due course gave full power to a Coalition Government including the German Labour Party united and possessing authority which Prince Max's Government lacked. The new Coalition was strong enough to take in hand the crushing of the small minority of Socialists and to reform the German Constitution on the lines desired by the Capitalist interests which had risen to the top in place of those which had been dominant in 1914.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Champions of Labour! (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

After continually telling us recently that the Labour Party is a third Capitalist Party, we are somewhat amused to find the Communists in the new edition of “Communism is Commonsense” giving us the following:

   Originally we claimed the right to belong to and work in the Labour Party merely because we were a part of the working-class movement, and the Labour Party, formed as it was mainly from the trade unions on a free federal basis, was intended by its founders as a common organisation for the whole workers’ movement. But to-day we demand affiliation to the Labour Party, and our members in the trade unions try to get their union to support Communist affiliation, for a wider political reason, viz., that only the Communists can effectively lead the workers against the reactionary leadership of the Labour Party. The workers in the Labour Party need our Party to champion their cause against MacDonald and Co. (p. 23).

“Only Communists can lead the workers” ! ! considering the brilliant array of leaders of Communism pushed into jobs and afterwards denounced for being worse than the other leaders.

What the workers want is knowledge, not leaders. What the Communists in the Labour Party want is the leaders’ jobs.

Marxism To-Day. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The above is the title of a series of articles in the widely read magazine, “Current History,” for October, 1928.

These articles comprise a discussion by three writers—Prof. Laski, Morris Hillquit, and Prof. Carver, who holds the Chair of Economics at Harvard University. With the threadbare apologies of arguments used by Prof. Carver against Marx we are not now concerned. Neither shall we deal with the theory of Hillquit that Marxism is “essentially evolutionary,” especially as “Father” Hillquit, of the Socialist Party of America, forgets to supply any evidence to support the title of his article.

The position held by Prof. Laski and the following he has among many workers may make it worth while to call attention to some of the Professor’s statements. The title of his contribution is "The Value and Defects of the Marxist Philosophy.” While he says something about the value of Marxian philosophy, he never once attempts to show the defects of the Marxian view. In other words, he used the name .of Marx to support a number of policies, but never attempts to show that Marx accepted them.

He says Marx developed the strategy of Communism, and this was it:—

   "The Industrial Revolution brought with it the massing of the workers in the factories; trade unions developed in consequence to protect the interests of the workers. As these come to realise that their divorce from the means of production keeps them in subjection to the Capitalist regime, they become increasingly hostile to it.
   “They develop accordingly a growing class consciousness. Their solidarity finds expression in a revolutionary party which becomes dissatisfied with small concessions and insists upon the seizure of the State.
   “There then develops the final struggle with the Capitalists, who to retain power will stop at no means, however violent or brutal. The workers accordingly are driven to retort in kind. They seize in open warfare the institutions of the State and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, which by its iron rigor controls the transition from a Capitalist to a Communist Society. The period admittedly is one of bloody conflict, since no class—witness the Civil Wars in England and the French and Russian Revolutions—will peacefully submit to its own suppression. Since, therefore, the master class cannot be persuaded to surrender by democratic means, the class-conscious workers are the spearhead of the proletariat who drive the latter to victory.”

Where does Prof. Laski get this from? What he has done, no doubt, in order to find some arguments against Marx, is to neglect Marx and Engels’ writings and simply borrow from the manifestoes and theses of the Bolsheviks and father the lot on to Marx.

Marx and Engels, after laying bare the evolution of class society, insisted, as long ago as 1848 in the "Communist Manifesto," that the emancipation of the working class could only be achieved by the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority. In the same manifesto the workers are told that their first step must be to win the battle of democracy.

Right through their writings they insist upon the need for political action to accomplish the Social Revolution. The belief in violence as the road to Revolution was denounced by Marx and Engels in their attacks on Bakunin and his general strike and insurrection mania. The Bolshevik dream of a minority winning power for the rest of the workers was scathingly answered by Engels in his article (printed in The Socialist Standard) on "The Programme of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Commune.”

Even if Prof. Laski attempted to use the fragmentary writings of Marx and Engels on the class struggles in France between 1848 and 1850, he would have to face the fact that both Marx and Engels recognised that conditions were the determining factor in laying down a policy. So that when these battles were over they recognised the need of a different policy. And their activity in favour of universal suffrage and the organisation of the workers is plain evidence of their realism. Read! Mr. Laski, Engels' striking preface of 1895 to Marx’s "Class Struggles in France,” and see there how he recognised that no minority action, no violent attack, no clever seizure of State, could ignore the need for Socialist education and organisation of the working class for political control of the State.

In no publication did Marx urge that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a necessary step under modern conditions for the world’s workers.

In semi-feudal countries with a large peasantry, where the wage workers were a minority two or three generations ago, the phrase dictatorship was used in outlining policy. But in most cases Marx preferred the phrase used in the Communist Manifesto and also in the Programme of the Communist League of 1848—"the Rule of the Proletariat.” And the dictatorship referred to was not, like in Russia, a dictatorship of a few, but, as Engels indicates in the preface to the "Commune of Paris”—a "dictatorship" which relied upon universal suffrage. Mr. Laski should know that in modern countries with a majority composed of wage workers, the phrase "dictatorship of proletariat” has lost its meaning. It is out of date. For if the workers are the majority, how can there be a dictatorship of the majority!

But Professors are always trying to put Marx right, and so next month we will see how Prof. Carver does it.

Adolph Kohn

“What Would We Do Without Leaders?” (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October. 22nd, 1928, Mr. Andrew Fisher died; peacefully, and "full of years and honour." Three months later occurred the death of "Jerry," an old ram well known in one of the great American stock-yards. Mr. Andrew Fisher, affectionately known as "Andy," and the old ram were both "leaders." Mr. Andrew Fisher was a "Labour” leader, "Labour” Prime Minister of Australia in 1914. He achieved fame by coining a phrase which was well known, if not exactly cheering, to the troops during the Great War. This was his pledge, on behalf of Australia and the Australian workers, to fight to "the last man and the last shilling.” Some 200,000 Australian Trade Unionists enlisted, and many thousands were killed, wounded or missing in keeping Mr. Fisher’s pledge. Mr. Fisher was not one of these. He preferred pursuits less strenuous and dangerous than war. We are told by a writer in the "Manchester Guardian" (October 23rd) that "the only relaxation he allowed himself was an occasional game of golf." The German humorist who said that the pledge meant England’s determination to fight to the last Scotchman, evidently did not know that Mr. Andrew Fisher was a Scot.

"Jerry" was a leader of sheep. He used to lead them to the slaughter-house, just like "Andy,” but he was one up on his Labour colleague. Whereas "Andy" at most only sent 200,000 Trade Unionists into the Army, "Jerry” scored some 7 million among his kind of sheep. And while some of Andy’s victims came back, more or less whole, none of Jerry’s sheep ever escaped to tell the tale. On the other hand it has to be admitted that Jerry only succeeded in getting his sheep to commit suicide. Even Jerry might have failed to get them to murder each other, as did the world’s workers in their masters' war.

Jerry and Andy were both highly esteemed by the Capitalist class. Jerry was valued and popular in the stock-yards, and Andy was offered (but refused) a knighthood.

Jerry and Andy both died peaceably in their beds.

Mr. Siegfried Sassoon, in a poem called "Base Details,” has portrayed the type of non-combatant military "leader” :—

If I were fierce, and bald and short of breath,
   I'd, live with scarlet Majors at the Base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death,
   You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
   Reading the Roll of Honour. “Poor Young Chap,”
I’d say—"I used to know his father well;
   Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.”
And when the war is done and youth stone dead.
   I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed.

And any workers who "don’t know what they would do without leaders ” and are wondering how the Capitalist class will get their "cannon fodder” for the next great slaughter, will be relieved to learn that Australia soon found a suitable successor to Mr. Fisher. Less than two weeks after Andy’s death, Mr. Theodore, director of the Australian Labour Party’s campaign in the elections, referred to the action of his party in supporting the last war, and added:—"No one can impeach the Labour Party on its loyalty to Australia, Great Britain or the Crown. Whenever the test has been applied. Labour has never flinched from doing its duty.” ("Manchester Guardian,” November 18th, 1928.)

What would the Capitalist class do without "Labour” leaders?

Edgar Hardcastle

Lessons from the American Elections (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The results of the elections for President make interesting reading. The Communists, masquerading as the Workers' Party, had a programme of immediate demands or reforms running into considerably over 100 and calculated to sweep the country. They polled 40,000 votes, or less than half the membership they claimed when they began in 1919 and before they adapted their name and programme to appeal to the masses.

The Socialist Labour Party polled 21,000 votes, against 30,000 four years ago. Their periodicals were full of "Electionitis," although the S.L.P. believes that "only the trade unions can set on foot the true political of labor," a claim which they have fathered on to Karl Marx, but can't find where and when he said such a thing.

With a party like the S.L.P. claiming that religion is a private matter, in a country chock full of belief in spooks they should have polled a heavy vote. The Socialist Party of America received about 250,000 votes, or about one-quarter of what they received when they ran Debs for President. With a long reform programme appealing to Labour as well as to "all classes," they can't stop their vote from falling.

To trim their sails a little more, the Socialist Party of America have recently decided to eliminate from the application for membership form, all references to "class struggle," "Capitalist Class," and "collective ownership," and replace this with a sentence affirming belief in independent political action.

These bodies with popular appeals and reform programmes are continually asserting that their method is one calculated to get the masses with them, but as these Election results show, the policy of dangling political carrots in front of the workers fails.

In America, Al Smith, the Democratic Candidate, was able to offer all kinds of captivating reform  promises, and with a fair chance of election. So Al Smith got all the reform votes.

If the Socialist Party of America had preached Socialism and got votes for Socialism, neither Republican nor Democrat could have enticed their votes away.

Adolph Kohn

The Wings of the I.L.P. (1929)

From the January 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The possession of wings is a mixed blessing to an organisation, though it may be the means of keeping afloat those that possess little else. However, it is certainly a very popular complaint nowadays and afflicts alike Tory, Liberal. Labour, I.L.P. and Communist Parties. Its growth was slow at first, like all malignant diseases, but the example of Russia has given it a tremendous boost in post-war days.

At present the disease has reached an acute stage in the I.L.P., and the inevitable disintegrating process has set in. One by one the "intellectuals" who held sway in the past are leaving the ship, and intellectuals of the present are taking control of the ship.

The difference in essentials between the latter-day misleaders and their forerunners would require the liberal use of a microscope to discern.

The basic difference in policy may be summed up as follows: In the early days the policy was "Good old Keir Hardie"; in the middle period it was "Good old Ramsay MacDonald"; in the latest period it is "Good old Jimmy Maxton," the pirate who is stealing the laurels of the older warriors. The reason for these various policies is simple. The I.L.P., in the main, is concerned with men and not principles.

The official organ of the I.L.P. is a good illustration of this fact. Week after week it publishes pictures of "prominent" people in the "Labour Movement," and gushes over the doings of one or another. In its issue for November 23rd its front page contained photos of twenty of its contributors as an inducement to the workers to buy it. And this supposed to be the inauguration of a new policy.

But, as mentioned above, the wing trouble is becoming acute. Maxton, like his predecessors, is finding it difficult to keep his feet in two camps at the same time. However, the fight for popularity between Maxton and the older gang is bringing forth some rather useful information of the uselessness, from the working-class point of view, of the reactionary policy of the I.L.P. Here are two informing items:-

I made a statement at the Conference that at the present time there is not a single constituency in the country where there is a majority of convinced Socialist electors. We have plenty of districts, such as Bermondsey, where there is an overwhelming Labour majority, but it is a sheer delusion to think that the greater number of these people understand what we mean by Socialism. They neither understand it nor want it. (Dr. Alfred Salter, in a letter to the "New Leader," 12th October 1928.)

Now it must be admitted that that is a very frank statement from a man who, on his own confession, has been elected to Parliament by the  votes of non-Socialists. If the voters for Dr. Salter neither understand nor want Socialism, then obviously any action in the direction of accomplishing this end would be contrary to the wishes of his supporters and would jeopardise his seat. Dr. Salter, then, on his own admission, did not get elected through professing any Socialistic ideas.

He wrote another letter (or article) to the "New Leader," which appeared on December 7th. In this he said:- 

Many of us who are long-standing members of the I.L.P. have been distressed during the past two or three years at what we regard as the disastrous leadership of the N.A.C. We know first-hand that the membership of the Party is decreasing seriously, that old stalwarts and supporters are resigning, that branches are disintegrating, and that finances are declining. We know that the Special Effort Fund this year is practically a failure owing to numbers of the usual subscribers refusing to contribute. We see the I.L.P., to which some of us have given the best years of our lives, going down to utter wreck and destruction.

A pleasant state of affairs, this, after half a century of "gradualness" and the "little by little and bit by bit" policy! When we have urged the necessity of advocating Socialism, we have been told by I.L.P. protagonists that we were in too much of a hurry and that their policy of Socialism "in bits" was the way to build up a strong organisation. It looks like it!

Gilmac