The Capitalists’ “Directive Ability”. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Lessons from recent happenings.

The Need for the Parasite.

One of the stock arguments of the anti-Socialist is that the worker will be unable to control industry under Socialism, as, in order to enable affairs to run smoothly, men are required with some weird, mysterious and miracle-working power called “directive ability.” The “anties” contend that we could not get along without these powerful individuals, and that (grande finale) these men are the ones who to-day possess wealth and position, i.e., the Rockefellers, Liptons, Devonports, and so on.

Let us just test this contention with a few facts and see how the miracle-workers run this system.

During the last few months a case has been attracting much attention in the courts. In this case certain civilians (past or present employees of Liptons, Ltd.) and some Army officers have been accused under the Bribery and Corruption Acts. In the evidence it transpired that Liptons have been in the habit of giving inducements to Army officers to secure Army canteen contracts. One of the defendants, Col. Whitaker, had received £540 from a firm of brewers, who supplied the beer to Col. Whitaker’s regiment at Malta. The Colonel said that he received the greater part of the money for using his influence to secure a contract from a colonel of a regiment at Crete. It also turned in the evidence that a member of the Government, Lord Saye and Sele, had written advising Col. Whitaker to take a holiday and go to Crete to “smooth a ruffled bird” (Col. Bird) for a consideration !

In summing up the case the judge said : “I am bound to say that the evidence before the Court satisfies me that these defendants, employed by Lipton’s, in so far as they made payments for the bribery of persons capable of influencing contracts in favour of Lipton’s, were acting on a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, after there had been consideration given as to whether to stop that system or not.” (“Times,” 28.5.14.)

Now is this the way the capitalists run the show ? Is this the way they pile up their fortunes ? Is this the line “Directive Ability” takes ? When the capitalists themselves are faced with these facts and called to account, what do they answer ? Just what Lipton would have answered : “We do not know anything about it ; we did not attend to the business. You must blame our managers.'”

Tarred with the Same Brush.

Those who have memories a little longer than the usual working-class memory will recollect that when the directors of the company con­cerned in the Putumayo rubber atrocities were brought before the commission, four of them admitted that they did not even know the lan­guage in which the business at board meetings was conducted !

Let us now turn to another recent instance of “Directive Ability.”

The coalfields of Colorado have lately been drenched with the blood of miners who struck against the conditions obtaining in the mines of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co. A condition of affairs was in operation out there similar to what existed in England before the factory legislation began. The miners were compelled to trade at the company’s store, paying 25 to 50 per cent. more than outside prices, to buy coal off the company, pay the company’s doctor, and live in the company’s shacks.

When the miners struck on September 3rd last wholesale evictions followed, and men, women, and children were turned into the streets with their few belongings, to go where they could in the rain and snow that kept falling through the next two days.

A Heroic (Rocke)feller.

During the strike the mine-owners, following their usual custom, imported as mine guards riff-raff of every description—armed thugs who could be depended upon to commit without hesitation the most cold-blooded of murders. “No authentic account,” says the “New York World” in a candid moment, “of anything that has happened in Mexico compares in cold-blooded brutality with what took place at Ludlow, Colorado. Dr. A. S. Harvey, a physician who testified at the inquest, said that while the “women and children lay in the safety pits which had been dug under the tents, the militiamen applied torches to the canvas and burned the structure over the heads of the terrified refugees. He declared that one ranch-house, in which dozens of women and children had taken refuge, was under fire from the militiamen the whole day.” The militia mounted machine guns and swept the strikers’ quarters with bullets. Over 200 lives were lost in this mine war.

We now come to the “directive ability” side of the matter. As a result of the allegation that the rioting was caused by agents provocateur, and that the troops acted with great brutality in charging and shooting down men, women, and children indiscriminately, a Congressional inquiry into the matter was ordered. When John D. Rockefeller, Jun., who is a director of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co., was questioned he “blandly professed entire ignorance as to the details of the rioting and causes of the strike. He admitted that his father owned 40 per cent. of the company’s stock, but declared that neither of them interfered with the management of affairs, and they knew very little about the matter. ‘We have so many interests that it is impossible for us to supervise personally everything.'”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

An Obliging Conscience.

How they get out of it when anything is brought up against them ! Capitalists, say our opponents, supervise industry, therefore deserve their profits. Charge Rockefeller with the murder of the Colorado miners, however, and he immediately begins to squirm, and says he knows nothing about the matter. He does not “supervise personally” when the butcheries have to be accounted for, but only when the “swag” is divided.

When one of the committee very pertinently pointed out that Rockefeller found plenty of time for “social uplift” work and vice investigation, and asked him why he did not investigate the conditions in his own business, the canting, hypocritical scoundrel at once replied : “My conscience acquits me of any responsibility in the matter.”—(“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Rockefellers, by the way, seem to be rather accomplished hypocrites, and, incidentally, men after God’s own heart. The father of the aforementioned unctuous humbug, John D. Rockefeller, Sen., was referred to last June by Mr. Bustard, the pastor of the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, Cleveland (of the congregation of which Rockefeller is one of the oldest members) as “one of the rose bushes in God’s garden.” The same reverend soft-soap and chloroform dispenser also paid a tribute to those faithful followers in the church who, like Mr. Rockefeller, “have for years lead religious lives and been steadfast in the Lord’s work.” Comment on this is needless.

Before leaving for his father’s Pocantico Hills Estate young Rockefeller “issued a statement, in which he admitted that his investigations into the riots had disclosed conditions more terrible than have yet occurred in that or any other State.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 3.5.14.) In his concluding statement before the commission, however, he disclosed his true capitalistic soul, and showed himself as the advocate of free and unfettered sweating. “He got rather angry when it was pointed out that the newspapers had given plenty of details as to the working conditions in Trinidad, and that a word from his father would have stopped the bloodshed and ended the strike. He declined to agree to submit to arbitration, and declared that the company would rather sacrifice the whole of its property in Colorado than recognize the miners’ union if it hampered the company’s freedom.”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Company’s Freedom.

Well, what about “directive ability” now ? As a matter of fact, about the only directive ability the masters ever exercise is in employing managers, foremen, etc. to run their concerns for them while they are enjoying themselves, and if it large enough dividend is not regularly forthcoming they want to know the reason why ; if a sufficient reason is not given the official gets the sack. Owing to the contradictory nature of present society the workers are compelled to fight each other for jobs. The overlooker and manager are working men like the rest of us, dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and just as likely to get the sack at any moment. Their particular job consists in using every method they can to get the greatest possible amount of work out of their fellow-workers. Thus on the industrial field workers find themselves compelled to fight, not only their masters, but also each other in order to get a living. When the workers take over production then the “directive ability” of our fellow-workers (the absent bond-holding capitalist does no work in production at all), will be employed for the common good instead of, as to-day, for the misery of their fellows.

G. McClatchie

A Socialist Survey. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent writing to the “Daily Citizen” (4.6.14), gives information of a singular occurrence in a signal box on one of the main railways. The box was visited by a company of soldiers, who were admitted in batches of nine. They were accompanied by the district inspector and a plain clothes officer, who instructed them in the art of railway signalling and block working, much to the surprise and discomfort of the signalmen on duty.

Yet the “Daily Citizen” and its supporters are always howling for the nationalisation of the railways !

* * *

When the “Storstad” arrived at Montreal after her disastrous collision with the “Empress of Ireland,” she was at once seized by the sheriff and placed under arrest. When the writ was nailed to the mast Captain Andersen demanded to know: “By what authority do you board my vessel and arrest her?” The sheriff replied (probably because the “Storstad” was a “foreigner”) that his authority was “the authority of the British Empire.”

Under that authority, of course, anything could be “pinched.” That’s how Eugland became “great.”

* * *

Keir Hardie appears to believe that the emancipation of the workers is but of secondary importance. Capitalist measures should receive prior attention. He told his audience at a labour demonstration at Lesmahagow (Lanark) that the Labour Party were out to unite the working “classes,” but before this could be done the Home Rule question had to be got out of the way.

The Socialist Party, I might point out, are also out to unite the workers, but with this difference—they are out to unite them for Socialism. And of the various obstacles in the way of this unification they have had to encounter, one of the biggest is, not Home Rule, but—the Labour Party !

* * *

At a recent meeting of the Blackburn Board of Guardians it was stated that the sum spent in out-relief during 1913 was £2,000 less than that paid in respect of officials’ salaries. I am beginning to see why there is such a rush for these jobs.

* * *

Mr. Rockefeller’s millions appear to bring him endless trouble. He is now expecting to be called to give evidence before the Inter-State Commission which is investigating the affairs of the Newhaven Railroad, U.S.A. In one portion of the evidence a Mr. Millen, ex-president of this concern, said that enormous losses were made through financial trickery. He alleged that over £2,000,000 were juggled away by the late Mr. Pierpont Morgan.

We often read, in stories of the old buccaneering days of the Spanish Main, where pirates used to cheat each other out of their share of the plunder, and which invariably ended up in a fight and a lot of blood-spilling.

Similarly, to-day, the industrial pirates quarrel over their share of the booty. Whilst agreed that the manner of acquiring it is satisfactory (to them), yet, as soon as they begin to handle the loot they cheat each other mercilessly, and invariably wind up in a fight—not a bloody fight, but a legal one.

In this case blood is spilled in order to get the booty—not the blood of the pirates, but that of the toiling millions who are bludgeoned and battered into turning it over to them.

* * *

Many meetings have been held of late to protest against the employment of Chinese and other “foreigners” as seamen on board British ships. Yet one thing seems to have been left out of account. That is that “Sea Scouts” are now being shipped as deck hands on board British vessels. Possibly it is only to gain experience—but experience of what ? Is it the same experience that Boy Scouts are undergoing in connection with the military forces ?—experience that may be turned to account “should any danger threaten the Empire” from within or without ?

The scout law says : “A Scout must be loyal to his King, and to his officers, and to his parents, his country, and his employers. He must stick to them through thick and thin against anyone who is their enemy, or who even talks badly of them.” In other words the “Scouts” are there to be used as the tools of capitalism against the workers. That fact is obvious enough, at any rate. They are well organised on land ; now they are turning their attention to the sea, and the introduction of a few Scouts on board merchant ships also marks the introduction of the thin end of the wedge. Of course, there may be nothing in it, but I “hae ma doots.” It opens up possibilities.

* * *

The Rev. A. G. Waldron tells the “Daily Sketch” (12.6.14) that : “Modern Socialistic philosophy has had a bad effect on many people. They want everything done for them.” Which causes one to wonder what the reverend gent does for a living, that he can afford to talk like that. My experience of these professional medicine men is that they don’t do anything for a living. They live on the product of other people’s toil. To use this pulpit thumper’s own words, they “want everything done for them”—and thanks to the unmitigated foolishness of those workers whom “modern Socialistic philosophy” has not yet “spoiled,” they get “every­ thing done for them.”

Waldron also said that he had “tried the experiment of allowing questions to be asked after the sermon, but it was a failure. Only the fools asked questions in church.” I suppose every person who asked a question was considered a fool. Well, perhaps he was. Only fools and rogues are to be found in churches, and it is the height of a fool’s folly to question a rogue concerning his roguery.

* * *

How is this ? Have the workers of Tonypandy already forgotten the treatment they got at the hands of the capitalists’ butchers ? It would appear so, judging from a picture which was published in a recent issue of the “Daily News and Leader.”

It seems that the Prince and Princess of Teck had paid a visit to Tonypandy. Of course, they went about the mines, where their presence created great enthusiasm (which, by the way, is a very useful element, and quite necessary now-a-days to the capitalists’ game of bleeding the workers), so much so that, instead of going home, they lined up at the pit-mouth, all in their dirt and grime, just as they had come up out of the bowels of the earth, and sang with feeling and gusto, “Land of my Fathers.” This is distinctly good, only the wording of the hymn appeared to me to be inappropriate. It should have been “Land of my Masters.”

* * *

How terrifying is that oft-maligned and much misunderstood phrase, “the class war” ! How soon it will disturb the even temperament of a respectable congress ! For instance, the International Textile Workers held their congress during the second week in June at Blackpool. The congress was asked by the foreign delegates to say that the International Congress would only accept those unions for membership which stood by the principle of the class war. The English section, however, did not like the phrase, “because in England it had rather a bad repute, and was only connected with one small part of the Labour movement.” (This is where the Labour Party chuckles.)

In face of this refusal the Continental delegates were compelled to seek another expression, so they hit upon the phrase “organisations that combat the present capitalistic state of things.” This was accepted.

What surprised the Continental delegates, said one of them, was that, far from looking down upon the workmen, the English employers treated them on a fraternal footing, and with the ordinary politeness of human intercourse. That will explain the repugnance of the English section to the introduction of the class war principle. Naturally, if they are so pally with the bosses, the class war won’t exist for them.

Tom Sala

Fools and their—idiocy. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class struggle as understood by the writers of the B.S.P.’s so-called official organ, “Justice,” is not to be fought out upon the political field, but on our highways.

Writing of motorist road hogs who kill and maim pedestrians and others, “Justice” (4.6.14) says, these pests “will have to be treated very differently by the law, or the common people will take the law into their own hands. We hope that the reckless disregard shewn by these motorists for the pedestrian, for the unfortunate cottagers who live on main roads, and for the children who have no other playground than the street, will stir up the class-consciousness that is so very latent in many of our class. The mad lust for change; for pleasure, and above all, for excitement, is making the class line clearer.” (Italics mine.)

It’s a desire for change, pleasure, and excitement that drives many a working man living a monotonous, dismal, and dull life to drink, but I don’t know that he recognises the line of class-cleavage the clearer as a result of his imbibing. Some may, but they are exceptions; there was Harry ———— and Will———— and Pete ————, the “task of filling in the blanks I’d rather leave to you,” gentle reader.

Whilst the laws are made by capitalist politicians, whom the B.S.P. from time to time support by urging their members to vote for them, the only remedy seems to be that of “propaganda by deed,” in other words, the Anarchism advocated in “Justice,” (17.8.12), when they advised lynching of some motorists as a preventive of undue speed and caution to others to drive more carefully.

And to paraphrase a well-known saying, “Of such is the camp of confusion.”

But out of the same camp comes this, by Mr. Hyndman (“Justice,” 11.6.14).

“Unorganised ‘rebellion’ is idiocy, which merely provokes anger and strengthens resistance. Spasmodic outrage in a free (italics mine) country is sheer madness. It is imperatively necessary, I consider, to put all this quite plainly, because an endeavour is being made to confuse disciplined resistance to a majority with sporadic outrage by a minority: two very different things.”

* * *

At last ! Away with Socialism as a solution for the problem of poverty facing the working class hitherto. A new solution is to hand judging by the display posters issued from time to time by the “Daily Citizen.” Like other newspapers, it is assumed that the item of greatest interest is announced on their posters, and in the case of a Labour (!) newspaper, that item affecting the working class nearest.

Take heed, therefore, and follow the racing tips given in the “Daily Citizen” if you would emancipate yourself from wagedom.

Look! here’s how to do it:

ROCKINGHAM

GAVE FIVE

EPSOM WINNERS

YESTERDAY

Paying politics for the people. What ?

J. B.

Blogger's Note:

A 'J.B.' is listed as writing in the Standard in this period but also in the late 1920s. I've no idea if it's the same person. In my head, 'J.B.' is Manchester Branch's Jim Brough. At least for the 'J.B' for this pre-war period. Just an educated guess on my part. I'm probably wrong.

This wee passage intrigued me:

"It’s a desire for change, pleasure, and excitement that drives many a working man living a monotonous, dismal, and dull life to drink, but I don’t know that he recognises the line of class-cleavage the clearer as a result of his imbibing. Some may, but they are exceptions; there was Harry ———— and Will———— and Pete ————, the “task of filling in the blanks I’d rather leave to you,” gentle reader."

A wee dig at Labour Movement figures who liked a drink? My attempt at filling in the blanks: An educated guess is that 'Harry' and 'Pete' were Harry Quelch and Pete Curran? The 'Will' one is a bit more difficult. The passages suggests that all three are deceased. When you think of a 'Will' in the British Labour Movement pre-1914, you think of either Will Crooks or Will Thorne. Both were very much alive in 1914. Suggestions on a postcard, please.

On the Building Strike. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Back in January last the London Master Builders’ Association, together with certain building firms outside the Association, placed before their “hands” a form with the following words inscribed thereon:

“I agree if employed by you, to peacefully work with my fellow employees (engaged either in your direct employment or in that of any sub-contractor) whether they are members of a Trade Society or not, and I agree that I will not quit your employment because any of my fellow employees is or is not a member of any Trade Society ; and I also agree that if I commit any breech of this agreement I shall be subject to a fine of Twenty Shillings, and I also agree that the amount of such fine may be deducted from any wages that may be due to me.”

The reason the masters issued this form was, on their own showing, that great disturbance is caused to their business by the “down tools” policy of their men to make non-unionists join the respective unions of their callings.

Now, as the masters say in the document: “to work peaceably with my fellow employees,” evidently peace is what the masters want—in order to get on with the business. And peace they will probably get, for that gaunt spectre, Starvation, is at work for them in the ranks of the struggling toilers.

The average trade-unionist thinks it is pos­sible to get almost every worker into a trade union either by coercion or by peaceful means. This idea is totally wrong. When the basis of the capitalist mode of production is understood this becomes apparent. The means and instru­ments of wealth production and distribution are owned by the capitalist or master class, and it necessarily follows that production is to be in their interest. Hence an army of unemployed workers is an advantage to them as exercising a powerful influence in keeping wages down. It follows that those who have a hard time of it will in many cases leave the trade unions and take any job that offers, whether it is under the T.U. standard or not.

The class-conscious worker sees no enemy in the non-unionist, but sees the capitalist whip of hunger which sets worker against worker.

The trade-unionist and the non-unionist are alike in this—they support capitalism by sending the master class into power time and time again. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the trade-unionist will presently be agitating for the amalgamation of trade unions, in order to try by “solidarity” to improve their conditions. For, sad to say, it seems so easy to try every method but the right one.

The great fault is that the toilers as a class see no other system than the wages system, and for that reason they play into the hands of the masters in their every action. After every strike they go back (if allowed) chastened, even if not beaten, and commence again with sullen energy to produce wealth for their masters, and in return got a bare subsistence.

It is a mad condition of social life.

The life of the working man, oven when he in regularly employed, is a rotten one, and his poverty is only intensified when he “downs tools.” “You must not quit work,” say the masters, “because of men not holding a ticket,” but you must quit when the masters have no further use for you, and then come the penalties of unemployment—sickness, starvation, worry. There is a far worse document than this one of the Master Builders’ Association which the workers have signed, and have signed willingly. That is the document at the polling booth—a document that gives the masters political power to keep going this hellish system of society, that spells poverty to the workers, and untold wealth to those who employ the slaves of industry.

“A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” says the ticket workman. There cannot be any such thing as a fair day’s work until throughout society all able-bodied human beings perform their portion of the work of society. Then, and then only, will society see how it pays to have all work, and therefore all enjoy the social product of mankind’s energy used in a sane manner. Until that time comes—the day of the awakening of the working class—there will be a large number of officials to bleed the ticket men. These officials will endeavour to make it appear that the unions have won victories ; they will cry “organise ! Organise !” and will call the non-unionists scabs and blacklegs ; and all the time they will support this rotten social system, which produces scabs, blacklegs, and hirelings who will preach anything that will give them some advantage over the average wage slave.

So, then, you of the building trades who are suffering from the lockout, realise now that the masters are still masters and you are wage-slaves. With all the tickets you have handled, there still remains to be taken up, the ticket of the class-conscious worker—the ticket of the man who has discovered that the working class will not achieve their emancipation until the capitalist class are wiped out.

Good nature will not do it ; the clapping of hands will not accomplish it. The worshipping of heroes will not bring better times. You must think for yourselves.

It must be the workers as a class who must gain working-class emancipation, by their world­wide collective energy, intelligently used to capture Political power, to make it law that the means of wealth production and distribution shall belong to the people.

S. W.

Acknowledgements. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

RECEIVED —

“Weekly People” (New York).

“Gaelic American” (New York).

“British Columbia Federationist” (Vancouver).

“Civil Service Socialist” (London).

“Freedom” (London).

“Cotton’s Weekly” (Canada).

“Appeal to Reason” (Kansas).

“International News Letter” (Berlin).

“The Western Clarion” (Vancouver).

“The Socialist” (Melbourne).

“Industrial Union News” (Detroit).

Loving fathers of industry. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting advertisement booklet recently published by Messrs. Joseph Crosfield & Sons, the Warrington soapworkers’ exploiters, shows how “model employers” dominate even the “private life” of their wage slaves, dictating as to how they should spend their scanty leisure.

After giving the names of the directors and other parasites who “run” the business, the pamphlet shows us how increased efficiency in the worker only benefits the capitalist class. For it states: “It is compulsory upon all boys and girls (employees) between the age of 14 and 17 to attend an evening school at least three nights a week. The course of instruction for boys is naturally concerned with questions relating to their line of work.” (Italics mine.)

Not a bad wheeze, teaching the poor kiddies their trade at night schools in their all too meagre spare time, after they have put in 8½ hours hard graft at the works for their lords and masters ! It is obvious, of course, that no time will be lost at work in teaching these youngsters soap making ! For the workers’ time is money to the capitalist.

We are then told that in the day-work departments, the 9½ hour day has been reduced to an 8½ hour day, “and events have proved that as much work as previously is done in the shorter hours.” Will the “B.S.P.” please note, that if the 8 hour day for all workers came into vogue, the capitalists would see to it, as they have done in this case, that the workers’ output was not lessened, but that they would be “speeded up,” so that the same or even an in­creased output was maintained in the shorter working day, with less expense to the masters in running machinery, lighting and heating the factories, etc.

With an eye to business the firm tells us: “The physical aspect of education is not over­ looked, for all work-girls up to the age of 17 undergo a course of gymnastics during the winter months.” Because strong, healthy, well-developed workers can obviously turn out more and better work than weak, unhealthy, and ill-nourished workers. So that from a purely busi­ness point of view—the point of view the master class always take—this little incidental expense well repays the employers.

Under the ironical heading “Social Recreation during Leisure Hours,” we are informed that the firm provide a company of the 4th Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment (Territorials), also a company of boy-scouts.

Note the masters’ determination to inocculate their workers with that brain-disease, patriotism. One can imagine how useful would these same workers be in defending their masters’ property against foreign invaders, or more probably, strike rioters.

Verily, the capitalist moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform !

This, we are told, is how the firm take a keen interest in the social life of the work-people ! Not much time for these workers to study their slave position in society. The firm see to it that their workers’ minds are diverted into less revolutionary and dangerous channels.

“Garden Village” employers go one better even, by providing their workers with libraries filled with capitalist works, libraries from which working class books and papers are vi­gorously excluded. Gardening, too, is taught, and thus the workers keep the “garden village” well cultivated in their spare time, without expense to the employers. Free fire brigade staff, ambulance staff, and gardening staff ! And so on, ad nauseam.

After giving a description of the soapmaking the pamphlet concludes with photos, several showing the work-people cheering and flag-wagging, on the occasion of a recent visit to the works of our royal parasites.

The enormous profits made out of the unpaid labour of the workers by soap kings was demonstrated by the “Daily Chronicle,” (24.4.14). According to that rag, Messrs. Joseph Watson & Sons, the Leeds soapmakers, made a profit of £103,999 last year, as compared with £84,215 in the year previous.

How much more of this devilish game will you workers submit to ? Aren’t you tired of being referred to in contemptuous terms as the working asses? or are you going to quietly wait for that last phase of this rapidly decaying system, State Capitalism, with its universal “model employers,” “garden villages,” “ideal conditions of labour,” “co-partnership,” “profit-sharing,” etc.; which is really more intensified slavery still—to a hide-bound State, instead of private employers—than that which exists at present ?

Capitalism has long since outstayed its wel­come ; why not organise with us and overthrow it at once ? “Now is the accepted time ”

A. C. Kelly

The Forum: Is the ballot-box a necessity of the present system? (1914)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received from a correspondent in Berlin the following query, which we were unable to deal with earlier on account of pressure on our space.

[To the editor.]

Dear Sir,—Will you please answer the follow­ing question in the next number of “S.S.”

In No. 113 “S.S.,” page 35, third column, you criticise the quotation: “If putting a piece of paper into a tin box would effect a revolution, you can bet your boots that the State (i.e., the bosses) wouldn’t supply the box” (“Daily Herald,” 27.11.13), as follows: “Which is quite forgetting the fact that the ballot box is a necessity of the present system, and is provided by the masters as a receptacle for the votes of the working class after they have been kidded into voting for them. When this method no longer suits their purpose they may endeavour to change it.”

Now, (1) if it is a fact that the ballot-box is a necessity, then it must also be a fact that the present system cannot exist without it. (2) The State (i.e., the bosses) therefore, cannot change this method even if it does no longer suit their purpose, or else you are wrong by stating it is a fact that the ballot-box is a necessity of the present system. (3) If again, it be no necessity, has your organisation an alternative to voting?

Sincerely yours,

KROLL.

—————————-

Reply:

The use of the term “necessity ” in a Jottings paragraph must, of course, be taken in a relative sense. While the existence of capitalism without the ballot-box may be conceivable, no evidence of its existence without it has yet been known.

Under the circumstances in which capitalism came into existence, the ballot-box was a necessity for its establishment, and its use and value to the capitalist system grow, rather than diminish, with the development of that system.

The reason for this is clear to the Socialist, or anyone else who has made a fair study of capi­talism. With the increasing complexity and interdependence of the various parts, it becomes more and more imperative to extend the delega­tion of various functions to larger numbers of the working class. This is the more necessary as the capitalists have long ceased to be capable of running capitalism, and have to depend upon the working class to do it.

Every extension of this delegation requires that, sooner or later, an extension of the basis of representation must take place. Hence the con­tinual, if somewhat lop-sided, “democratisation of the franchise ” that is sometimes pushed for­ward by Liberals and sometimes by Tories. The only alternative in front of the capitalist class is chaos. Unable to manage capitalism themselves, they must arrange for the workers to do it or see the system collapse.

Now the more desperate, or stupid, of the capitalist class may attempt to change the ballot-box in the last stages of the struggle, but it will then be too late in itself, while the majority of the class will waver, hesitate, flounder, and—be overwhelmed by the workers.

What Kroll fails to see is that a factor of a system may be forced out of that system—with resultant collapse—and yet be a “necessity” for its smooth continuance. Hence the statement, though brief, was correct in essence. The Ballot is a necessity for the smooth working of capi­talism. Conceivably it could be removed, but only at the cost of the collapse of the system.

The Socialist position is, therefore, obtain control of power through the use of the ballot, because it is the easiest, speediest, and surest way.

ED. COM.

Fulham forging ahead. (1914)

Party News from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard 

It is pleasing to be in the position to state that the Fulham Branch is forging ahead. Its memberss are enthusiastic, and though numerically on the small side, its activity is great. Three propaganda meetings a week, are being held, namely, on Sunday at Walham Green, Fulham, on Thursday at World’s End, Chelsea, and on Saturday at Vale Avenue, Chelsea, while the comrades are trying different spots on Sunday mornings before settling where we shall hold a regular Sunday morning meeting.

“Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow,” and we are striking blows fast and furious at this present miserable system. Do we of this branch fail to hold our meeting should—as is sometimes inevitable—the official speaker not put in an appearance ? Certainly not ! We just get on with it and hold the meeting ourselves, and by so doing we are develop­ing more speakers to carry on the fight.

Our audiences are very attentive, and show a growing appreciation of our work ; our sales of literature are also steadily increasing, which in itself is a sign of progress.

The Branch meetings at 295 Wandsworth Bridge Road, Fulham, are held regularly, and after business is finished discussion takes place, to which the PUBLIC are cordially invited.

How many workers of Fulham and Chelsea realise our good work and the truth of the principles we propagate ? Quite a lot ! Then why not join us and take a share in the fight ? Appreciation from without is all very well, but a little help from within is a thousand times better. Attend our Branch meetings. Discuss with us. Let us explain to you. For your lot is our lot ; you want freedom—so do we. Let us work for it together, then.

BRANCH SECRETARY.

The Potteries. (1914)

Party News from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

All sympathisers with the Party living in or about Stoke, Fenton, Hanley, Crewe, and Newcastle-under-Lyme should communicate with

G. BANHAM

8 NORTH STREET,

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME

for particulars as to joining, etc.

The “Socialist Standard” may also be had from the above.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, For July. (1914)

Party News from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism in Debate. Part 3. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

As mentioned in our April issue, it was brought to our notice that Mr. G. W. Daw, Conservative agent for Wandsworth, had stated publicly that Socialists are reluctant to open the columns of their journals to pronounced opponents. We therefore offered Mr. Daw space in this journal for three months to set out his case. The following is the outcome.

Link to Part 2.

The Case Against Socialism. 

Mr. Daw’s Third Contribution.

Marx on machinery.

Karl Marx, in his work, “Das Capital,” explains to the world the economic basis not of Socialism, but of existing forms of industrialism, as viewed from a Socialist standpoint. In his discursive analysis and criticism of labour he seeks to fit existing conditions to preconceived theories, which may be summed up in the statement that the capitalist employers obtain all their surplus-value, viz., profit, from unpaid labour, and that without such labour, wealth would be non­ existent; that the amount of socially necessary human labour expended on a commodity alone determines its value in exchange for any other commodity. On this question of value he fails to realise that it is not objective but subjective. In other words, value is not a property inherent an the article, but a condition of mind which values a commodity when it is not an actual necessity, in which case supply and demand are the dominating factors. If these premises are wrong, how is it that gold is more valuable than silver? The difference in the labour necessary to obtain them does not account for the difference in value. This is admitted in a different form by Marx himself, when he says: “Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.” It is a perfectly fair deduction to draw from Marx’s own proposition, that utility, and not labour, is the basis of the exchange-value of commodities.

The cost of production is the point below which value cannot fall, at least, not permanently. But even the cost of production, does not depend on human labour alone. Steam propelled machinery is both producer of commodities and of wealth by reason of its facilitating transport. Now, it is impossible for such an observant mind not to have perceived this; but whilst unable to ignore the fact, Marx evades the obvious conclusion. “Modern industry,” he writes, “raises the productiveness of labour to an extraordinary degree; it is by no means equally clear that this increased productive force is not on the other hand, purchased by an increased expenditure of labour.” What is certainly obvious is that whilst Marx felt bound to acknowledge that machinery had increased productiveness to an “extraordinary degree,” he was what we should call in common parlance, “in a regular fix.” Here was an outside productive medium which could not be claimed as human labour or skill. He could only venture a guess that its use necessitated the employment of more human labour. Was this supposition correct? Was this increased production the result of an equal increased amount of human labour? I will let Marx answer for himself:

“If it be said that 100 million people would be required in England to spin with the old spinning wheel the cotton that is now spun by 500,000 people, this does not mean that the mules took the place of those millions who never existed. It means only this, that many millions of workpeople would be required to replace the spinning machine.” (p. 429.) 

Yes, to “replace the spinning machine.” Marx here gives away his case against machinery. The difference in the output by the employment of machinery is admitted by him to be equal to the labour of 99½ million people. As that quantity of human labour “never existed,” from whence does it come? Steam power applied to machinery. But mark well how cleverly Marx endeavours to obscure the issue. It is smart, but not straightforward.

After this it is useless for the philosopher to inform any practical man that “machinery, like every other component part of constant capital, creates no new value, but yields up its own value to the product that it serves to beget. In as far as the machine has value, and in consequence imparts that value to the product, it forms an element in the value of that product,” and here follows a conclusion which is absurd: “Instead of being cheapened, the product is made dearer in proportion to the value of the machine.” Two inferences are to be drawn from this statement: (1) That the manufacturer, by employing machinery, increases the cost of his goods, and so, by dispensing with the machine, he would cheapen the cost of production. (2) That the manufacturer employing cheaper, and consequently less efficient machinery, would have an advantage over a rival using more expensive machinery.

Machinery supplants the human skill and labour-power, so that, to quote the S.P.G.B. Manifesto, the worker has “lost his skill as craftsman and become a machine minder.” The skill and labour-power is derived from the machine, whilst the man has become in many instances a mere minder, or overlooker. If the capitalist exploits anything it is the machine. Yet on the following page of this manifesto we are gravely informed that wealth is produced by “labour-power” and is produced “by the working class alone.” If it be not true, Socialists say, take away the workers and where would the capitalist and his machinery be? This is plausible, but not conclusive reasoning.

To realise the fallacy of such an argument we may retort by asserting that without light no one could work, therefore all wealth is due to light. In order to give labour the foremost place as sole producer, Marxists are driven to adopt a process of reasoning which is not in accordance with facts. In the passage I have quoted from Marx, he admits the existence of a quantity of commodities from the machine spinning looms which cannot be accounted for by human labour-power. But he says it is impossible for profit to come from the machine itself beyond its own deperishment, which must be comparatively small. He ignores the fuel, which imparts an energy and labour force which is beyond all comparison with the labour expended in mining. Marx’s contention is that the profit the employer makes is from the unpaid human labour only. If that be so, then the manufacturers must be fools, for they are continually seeking to use more machinery to supplant human labour and thus lessen the profits; but, as the late Harry Quelch admits in one of his pamphlets: “It is to the capitalists’ interest to employ as few men as possible.”

Marx devotes much space to the careful analysis of the processes of labour applied to production, and makes endless comparisons; but he is, strange to say, silent on one very important point in his investigation.

While admitting that steam power enters into competition with muscle, he does not attempt to explain what peculiar property there is in human labour-power and skill (differing from the machine), by which he says it imparts three or four times the sum paid in wages by the employer. In one passage of his work Marx admits that “so soon as the handling of this tool becomes the work of a machine, then, with the use-value, the exchange-value too of the workman’s power vanishes” (p. 431). “But machinery acts as a competitor who gets the better of the workman and is constantly on the point of making him superfluous” (p. 436); further on he is compelled to admit that the “immediate result of machinery is to augment surplus-value and the mass of products in which surplus-value is embodied” (p. 446). After making these admissions Marx evades the logical conclusion and follows with a disquisition on surplus-value as if it came from human labour-power alone, conveniently dropping all further reference to steam power, and he concludes by asserting that all surplus-value, whatever particular form it may subsequently crystallise into, is in substance the materialisation of unpaid labour. Perhaps some Marxist will now explain why the employer’s surplus value comes from the human worker and practically nothing from the machinery. And when he has done so, he may then proceed to explain how it is that, if the employer’s profits depend on the surplus-value of the labour he employs, he so often fails in his business.

G. W. Daw.

——————————

The Socialist Reply.

Our opponent’s first point is that Marx failed to realise that “value is not objective but subjective,” and the illustration of the relation of gold to silver is taken with the totally inaccurate assertion that: “The difference in the labour necessary to obtain them does not account for the difference in value.” Then what does ? As Marx has already shown (“Capital,” p. 7), much more labour-time on the average is required to produce an ounce of gold than an ounce of silver ; hence the greater value of the former.

No matter what value a capitalist may “subjectively” place upon the commodities he owns, he finds the exchange-relationships determined by the general social conditions of production, without the slightest reference to his personal views in the matter at all. In fact, Mr. Daw admits this when he says: “The cost of production is the point below which value cannot fall, at least, not permanently.” This certainly contradicts any idea of “subjective” value determining exchange.

Again, as Marx has so well shown (“Capital,” p. 3, and “Value, Price, & Profit,” pp. 19-20), “supply and demand” only decide fluctuations of price. These fluctuations are about the line of value. Can our opponent tell us what decides the point at which equilibrium is reached when supply and demand equal each other if it is not the average labour-time under the prevailing conditions of production?

Mr. Daw is quite at sea in handling the quotation from Marx on utility. Utility is the subject, but not the measure, of value. A masterly exposition of this, with a splendid illustration of the factor of weight, is given on pages 25-26 of “Capital.”

Our opponent might just as well argue that volume, instead of density, is the basis of weight, because all things possessing weight have volume. But, as the old phrase has it, “a pound of feathers is as heavy as a pound of lead” ; and just as volume is not considered in determining weight, so utility is not considered in measuring value. One simple illustration will make this clear. Bread is immensely more useful—or possesses greater utility—than gold, yet its exchange value is enormously less. Why? Only one explanation answers the question—the amount of labour-power embodied in a given weight of gold is far greater than that embodied in the same weight of bread.

We are told, however, that “even the cost of production does not depend on human labour alone. Steam propelled machinery is both producer of commodities and of wealth [sic] by reason of its facilitating transport.”

In our last reply (June “S.S.”) we pointed out how machinery of any kind is useless without labour-power. It is quite true—as pointed out there—that the discovery of the mechanical powers and of the control of certain natural forces, increases the productivity of labour-power, but as claimed in the opening paragraph of our first reply, in the May “S.S.,” the only people who operate this machinery and manipulate these forces are the members of the working class. They, then, are obviously the ones exploited, as without them the machinery would be idle.

So far is it from being “useless” for Marx to say that “machinery, like every other component part of constant capital, creates no new value, but yields up its own value to the product it serves to beget,” that it is just this that is tabulated on every balance sheet of every industrial firm in ordinary business.

If a machine costs a thousand pounds and lasts on an average ten years, then each year’s balance sheet will show an item of 10 per cent. (or £100) under the heading of “Depreciation” for that machine. This amount is counted in the cost of production, and divided among the number of commodities turned out during the year. Thus no more than its own value is imparted to the articles by the machine. But now take the labourers. What they receive is always less than the value they turn out, and it is the only item on the balance sheet showing such a difference—such a surplus.

Mr. Daw’s misunderstanding of Marx in the other quotation given is simply extraordinary. The “increased expenditure” of labour mentioned by Marx refers, of course, to the greater speed and intensity with which the individual is burdened, as shown in page after page of the section quoted from. See, in particular, pages 391 to 417. Marx never maintained the absurdity that Mr. Daw tries to place on him, that a machine required more labourers to produce the same amount of wealth in a given time. No one showed the contrary more clearly. See pages 430 to 448 of “Capital.” And Mr. Daw is treading on very thin ice when he refers to Marx’s statements being “smart, but not straightforward,” as the quotation that he refers to as “after this” occurs 26 pages before, i.e., on page 383. Here Marx—as every reader of the section knows—is comparing the cost of modern machinery with the old handicraft tools, and it is obvious to the poorest intelligence, that the product of a day’s working with a modern machine has more value transferred from that machine than the product of a day’s working with hand tools has. Or to quote the same page, “it is as clear as noon-day that machines and systems of machinery . . . are incomparably more loaded with value than the implements used in handicraft.” The day’s product is therefore dearer, but the number of products being so much greater, each individual article is cheaper. As shown above, however, the best division of time to take is the average life of the machine, and compare the two methods upon that basis.

The above shows how stupid and childish are the “two inferences” our opponent attempts to draw from Marx’s statement.

Our previous contribution shows the absurdity of Mr. Daw’s statement that the capitalist “exploits the machine.” But we are told that by our reasoning it can be shown that all wealth “is due to light.” What a pity it is for Mr. Daw’s illustration, that men work in so many dark places, such as mines, and so on. Any schoolboy could see that light is not the essential factor in wealth production in the economic sense. Light exists where no wealth is produced, but on the other hand no wealth is produced where labour-power does not exist. Twist as they may the defenders of capitalism cannot find a single loophole in the Socialist case, as all the wriggles of our opponent show.

To say Marx “ignores the fuel” is met, among countless other instances, by page 384, where Marx refers to this and the other “forces furnished by nature without the help of man.”

The manufacturers only seek “to use more machinery” because, as shown in “Capital” on the pages given, and in our own contributions, it enables them to more fully exploit the workers employed. To say that Marx “does not attempt to explain what peculiar property there is in human labour-power and skill by which it imparts three or four times the sum paid in wages,” shows either an ignorance of what Marx said, or a deliberate dodging of what he wrote. The point is dealt with in numerous portions of Marx’s writings, and is specially analysed in pages 166 to 180 of “Capital.” Anyone—opponent or friend—who is interested, is advised to read the chapter entitled, “The Labour Process” for a complete answer to Mr. Daw. The peculiar thing about labour-power, as Marx proves, is that it is “a source not only of value, but of more value than it has itself.” (“Capital,” p. 175.)

The only “admission” about the quotation from page 446, is that machinery enables the capitalists to rob the workers of greater quantities of wealth than previously, an “admission” that all Socialists cheerfully agree to. There is no dropping of any “logical conclusion” by Marx, but only the fuller working out of that conclusion by examination from various sides.

Several Marxists have already shown both “how” and “why” surplus value “comes from the human worker and practically nothing from machinery.” The best instance is to be found in pages 156 to 180 of a book called “Capital,” written by a person named—Karl Marx.

The chief reason for failures in business is the fact that the big concern with the large capital, having the greater powers of exploitation, is able to beat the relatively small competitor out of existence. But it must be carefully noted that, though individuals may fail here and there, the capitalist class not only do not fail, but grow richer year by year.

Ed. Com.

Link to Part 4.

The Purpose and Method of Colonisation. [2] (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from last issue.)

Every analysis of, and enquiry into, the conditions of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of Christian civilised countries will and must reveal the fact that, so far is this civilisation from giving or promoting genuine joy in life, there is a very real justification for the common reference to this existence as “the burden of life,” if not for the necessity of having “to bear the cross” in silent resignation. Surely, then, it is anything but desirable or justifiable to inflict such “burdens” upon other peoples who live in happier circumstances—free to enjoy the natural bounties surrounding them, and above all, the fruits of their labour.

The records of many individual missionaries, explorers, travellers, etc., besides being almost invariably full of praise for the physical beauty and soundness of the greater number of more or less primitive peoples, and paying high tributes to their skill, moral qualities, etc., such records with equal frequency depict the free and happy existence of the “uncivilised” as compared with the sordid “struggle (!) for life” of civilised man. In a recent number of the “Samoanische Zeitung” for instance, the following appeared:

“In this sunny climate with glorious scenery around us, we forget the squalid, sordid atmosphere which envelops all great European cities, and the fierce, stone age struggle for a bare living in which hundreds of thousands of men and women there are piteously involved. When we compare the happy condition of the Samoans and other Central Polynesian natives with that of the abject poor in England, America, and Russia, we feel sorry for the latter. . . . Let us not, then, over educate the native, and especially let us not instil into his mind the belief that cash is the main chance. For many of us it is, but not for him.”

And from an East African paper I extract the following, written by an experienced traveller:

" . . . On broad well-kept roads . . . the villages and huts of the Washambaa people and other native tribes can be reached ; there one can observe them tilling their fields, feeding their children, collecting the milk from their herds, and one cannot help a feeling of envy at the leisure which they can enjoy in these proceedings. They live simply, and without a care in the world—not tilling much more than is required—most of the food practically grows into their mouths, but they are almost too ‘lazy’ to grasp for it. Black children with dark clear eyes and well-fed little “tummies” are hurrying through rich banana-groves and break down the fruit ; if it is ripe they eat it, if not, it remains on the ground to rot.

“During my travels there I was often reminded of other parts of the world I had visited and I drew comparisons. Thus, many a landscape made me think of Italy ; there, for example, between Amalfi and Sorrento (Italy) with its disrupted mountains and high plunging brooks, an industrious people wrings treasures from the soil. On the mountainsides there are teeming vineyards, whose yield, however, the hungry, begging multitude of children, who imploringly stretch out their meagre fingers at the approach of the visitor, can never enjoy !”

Apart from the absence of anything that modern society, as at present constituted, could offer to other leas advanced races to guarantee the latters’ enhanced welfare and happiness—supposing for a moment that the bourgeoisie, of all human societies, were capable of such an altruistic feeling—there is the indisputable and glaring fact that the Bourgeoisie utterly reject any idea of association with, or relationship other than unconditional distinction, from the colored, and especially the more or less primitive black races—not to mention their abhorrence for such notions as “equality” or “brotherhood.” This fact, then, would also constitute a queer explanation for the Bour­geoisie’s keen interest in colonizing and their support of missionary effort. Not only the Colonial Press, but writers and politicians at home take every opportunity to lodge their pro-tendencies. “We will not have any equality or test against any what are called “negrophile fraternal relation with those African races !” vituperate those superior, if conceited, Sons of God. “Assimilation of our high-standing working class (c’est bon !) with the detestable, lazy rabble of Africa ?—Never!” they rave. One feels it necessary to remind the enquirer, that the coming of the vulgar “civilized” has no more been invited by the “detestable, lazy rabble” than the presence of the bourgeoisie is appreciated. What, then, one may ask, is the incentive—the purpose of the missionary effort ?

Now, although the disinterested apostles and propagandists of Christianity, and the rest of the vulgar satellites of the bourgeoisie, often let the cat out of the bag by themselves boasting of the commercial value (to their paymasters) of their missions, there are none the less the assertions of their more hypocritical, or shall we say ignorant, brethren affirming pompously that the object of their “missions to the heathen” is their great concern for the education, moral and intellectual uplifting, and general welfare of the natives of foreign “uncivilised” lands. Childish as this assertion may seem at this time of day, even to the non-Socialist, it is nevertheless the officially declared and avowed object of missionary organisations, besides being frequently used by those following on their heels.

It will, therefore, not be superfluous to have on record in the “Socialist Standard,” fresh evidence from Colonial mouthpieces of our Christian promoters of “civilisation,” that the sole object of the colonization and opening up of foreign “uncivilised” countries, is first of all the forcible appropriation of their natural riches (wealth), which the native, of course, never dreamed was by the Will of God ordained to serve a purpose far higher than that of being merely enjoyed as means of subsistence.

Further, and necessarily, the forcible subjection and exploitation of those peoples for the benefit of the cosmopolitan clique of capitalists and concession hunters, since for the purpose of success in the piratical enterprise of appropriation it is necessary to have the co-operation of the natives themselves. And it is here the “good offices” of missionary societies come in. They offer the cloak behind which to hide the brutalities connected with the conversion of the native from an owner of his land and independent conditions of existence into a propertyless wage-earner—the element which is as indispensable to Capital as is the stomach to the human being. All the talk of education, moral and intellectual uplifting, etc., simply resolves itself into an effort to imbue the native with the due respect for that mysterious quality of all things known by the “civilised” as Value and Price, and the inestimable virtues of industry and abstinence.

It is, besides, a matter of history how the various peoples, who to-day “enjoy” the company of “cultured civilised man,” have been and still are being “educated” and “guided.” The Putumayo horrors still haunt the memory and are in themselves sufficient to prove how far from the truth is the impudent assertion that the concern of the “pioneer of civilisation” is the welfare of the natives. Indeed, the blood of thousands of innocent men, women and children cries out aloud against such a lie as this.

A glance over the map of Africa, for example, which has in later years in particular received the attentions of the Gospel merchants and their “followers”—the concession hunters—will prove to the world in whose service the former are, and will provide for posterity a lasting example of Christian love and brotherhood.

The governments of Germany, England, France, Belgium, Italy, etc. have vied with each other in their disinterested desires to help on the work of “education” and “uplifting” pre­liminarily started under the auspices of their sky-pilots, while the factory hells of Krupp and Maxim and other murder-instrument makers have been kept busy supplying the wherewithal to furnish the recalcitrant with a dose of the eternal bliss promised by the missionary. Almost each designative name on the map recalls the cold-blooded slaughter of numberless innocent human beings in the most cowardly and fiendish manner, although the whole extent soldiers will, of course, never be told. One has of the horrors perpetrated by the Christian to be satisfied with what filters through, and can only gather from one’s knowledge of the all-pervading greed of that sinister and dehumanised 20th Century product, the modern capitalist class, what the innocent multitudes of the natives can expect once they come into the clutches of our masters.

Who of us, who are Socialists, can forget the Congo or the Tripolis atrocities, the wholesale slaughter in South Africa, the massacres in Egypt and in the Sudan, the butcheries in Algeria and Morocco, the systematic murders in German East and South-West Africa ? All of which have been perpetrated, and are still being perpetrated, in order to obtain access to, and confiscate the riches of the land, and by the same token force the natives into the labour market !

As a rule, after the chiefs of the staff in the human slaughterhouse have had their day and their “purse” for successfully establishing their masters’ authority abroad, the equally deadly, if less noisy and often more deceiving, weapon of legislation completes the work of brigandage and the consequent impoverishment of the subdued peoples. Thus, last year’s “Land Act” assigned to the 4 millions natives in the South African Union, 11,000,000 morgen land out of the total area of 142,000,000 morgen, the remaining 131,000,000 morgen being in the occupation of 1,250,000 whites. The provisions of the Act are, of course, such as to prevent the natives from acquiring land outside the scheduled areas, and to leave them no alternative but the wage-labour market—no escape from the dependancy on the “profiteer.”

It is obvious that so long as a man can find his means of subsistence freely provided by nature, e g., so long as he owns means allowing of the production of the things whereby he lives, he need not and will not sell himself to another man ; in other words, he is not fit material for capital. This fact alone is sufficient to indicate that expropriation of the native is an indispensable condition. And just as the history of the rise of the bourgeoisie in Europe is marked by a series of revolutions and wars ending, as it did, in the complete dispossession of the great mass of the people of every vestige of independent property, so the natives of “uncivilised” Africa have to go through this metamorphosis as soon as they have the misfortune to come in contact with the modern bourgeoisie. Capital, the demon inseparable from the bourgeoisie, is as we know, not a thing—it is a social relationship and requires the existence of a huge class of men and women deprived of all possibility of producing their own means of subsistence. The crucial point in the Colonies is, therefore, to ensure the separation of the natives from their own conditions of labour and their root, the soil; and thus create there that “high-standing” artificial product of modern society, the proletariat, which is synonymous to saying—”the poor.”

Rudolf Frank

(To be Continued.)

The Only Reply. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

For many years political quacks and others have been energetically demanding greater efficiency from the workers. The Socialist Party have repeatedly pointed out that the same results follow greater efficiency that inevitably follow the introduction of labour-saving machinery and more up-to date methods.

A moment's thought should convince any sane person. If nine hundred men increase their efficiency to that extent that they can do the work previously performed by one thousand, then one hundred become unemployed. Extend this higher efficiency over the whole of the working class and the number of unemployed increases enormously. The figures used are suppositious, but it is questionable whether the increased efficiency, say of the last twenty years, has not had a far greater effect. Speeding up has become common in every occupation, and unemployment increases in spite of the much-boomed trade prosperity. The theory is proved by practise and experience.

All that politicians and economists do is to reiterate their unsubstantiated assertion that it is a remedy for poverty. They seldom attempt a reply to what most of them know to be the truth. Occasionally, however, a literary desperado with more courage than wisdom, breaks a lance on the solid rock, and as the splinters fly, the poverty and weakness cf capitalist argument are exposed.

Neither is it necessary for the Socialist to rake over the garbage of the gutter Press, or hastily published daily papers.

“The Spectator,” classic defender of the faith, champion, par excellence, of a rotting and useless class— enters the lists against the Socialist indictment.

“The Spectator” has found “the only way." “The Spectator" refers to “the absurd superstition that the increased efficiency of one work man means less employment for another."

“The Spectator,’’ June 6th, 1914, says “A fallacy which can only be answered, as we have answered it many times before, by pointing out that if this proposition were true, it would follow that the best way of making work for everybody would be for nobody to do any work at all."

Deep, profound, almost omniscient must be the wisdom of “The Spectator." Let us try it. 

F. Foan

Walthamstow Reports. (1914)

Party News from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The forthcoming season holds great hopes for the Socialist Party in this locality, and the resumption of outdoor propaganda meetings has called forth all the enthusiasm of the branch membership.

As is inevitable in a district where there are two pseudo-Socialist organisations, we have been afforded a considerable number of opportunities to attack the enemy: opportunities that have been taken advantage of, as will be seen.

As the local District Council Elections took place recently the B.S.P. put up two candidates for the Higham Hill Ward in the persons of Messrs. Ramsey and Friedberg.

They placarded the neighbourhood with "Daily Herald” posters bearing the appeal: "Vote for Friedberg and Ramsey,” and there was a special edition of the “Daily Herald” published, called "The Walthamstow Election Number.”

In support of their nominee’s candidature, the B S.P. held meetings, and at those held at Higham Hill Road, at question time they manifested the fact that they wished the members of the Socialist Party anywhere but there.

On the eve of the poll their speaker was Jack Jones of South West Ham; they also had on their platform, Mr. Ellis of the I.L.P., from Buckhurst Hill.

At question-time we put our questions and our Comrade B. Young asked for their platform to oppose, which request was, as usual, refused;. and further questioning culminated in their chairman losing his temper and hurling at our Comrade Young the threat to "come down and twist his neck.”

This threat was, of course, as idle and worthless as their "reply” to the questions of the members of this party. The said reply invariably being: "I was in the Socialist movement before you were born, and I know more about economics than any member of your party.”

"Simply this and nothing more.”

This "reply” and their refusal of their platform to our Comrade Young, are eloquent testimony to their courage and their confidence in their case.

That other organisation of political tricksters and fools (it is difficult to tell which preponderate), the Independent Labour Party, happened to choose the same evening and spot (Hoe Street Station) for holding week-night meetings as had this Branch, so that on May 6th we had to conduct our meeting in opposition to the LL.P.

However, Comrade B. Young addressed the larger of the two crowds on our behalf, and on Wednesday, May 13th, a comrade bringing the platform very early, secured the foremost pitch.

On his arrival, Mr. Peel, of the I.L.P., became so chagrined at this that after hurling a string of epithets such as “scum,” "blackguard,” and "slanderer ” at our comrade, he threatened to horsewhip him.

This "gentleman,” along with his crony, Campbell, manifested by this means, and by his abuse of the Socialist Party when any of its members question them, the rottenness of their case and the weakness of their position.

Our speaker again proved too good for the I.L.P.’s speaker, a leather-tongued individual who said he was proud of West Ham (notwithstanding its filth) because it bad three Socialist (!) Councillors.

We had a large and attentive audience, whilst the I.L.P’er addressed a meeting of their local branch.

We are also giving the Anti-Socialist Union’s speakers a warm time, counteracting, by questions and interpolations, the effect of the rubbish they trot out.

Boys! we are fighting a winning fight, so see that the “promise of spring” is fulfilled. Gird up your loins and have at them!

Dermot.

A Common Objection Answered. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Opposition at Socialist meetings often takes the form of asking for a detailed plan of Socialism, and on receiving the reply that none can be given, the opposer declares triumphantly that Socialism is impracticable.

Now, as a matter of fact, any forecast of the details of a future system of society will be vitiated by its being coloured by conceptions engendered by our present environment. As all our ideas are suggested by our material surroundings, past and present, we cannot mentally project ourselves into a form of society that has never yet been in existence.

Further, no detailed plan is necessary for the attainment of Socialism. We know that Capitalism was brought about by the revolution that destroyed the old society, Feudalism. Were the pioneers of that revolution, the men who fought the battle of the rising bourgeoisie against the feudal nobility, prepared with a plan of capitalist society? Had they in mind such details as wheat corners, massacres, and Liberator swindles? No, it was sufficient for the purpose to wrest the political machinery out of the hands of the feudal nobility. The details of Capitalism have been settled by the capitalists themselves as they have arisen. Similarly, it is sufficient for the working class to capture the political machinery and to seize the mean of production and distribution. The details of Socialist society will then be settled by the people as they arise. The broad basis of Socialism, viz., the common ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, and their democratic control by the people, is sufficient for the present.

Moreover, the opposer is not usually very consistent, for he is probably either a Liberal or a Conservative. If the former he would at the last general election have voted for Home Rule for Ireland, without having any knowledge of the details of the present Home Rule Bill. If a Conservative he would have voted for Tariff Reform, of which Mr. Balfour has declared no details can be given thus: "I may say incidentally that I am not going to be bullied by our opponents into doing what they never think of doing, which is to give an account of the precise details of their procedure some years hence".

H. T. Edwards.

Editorial: Rockefeller's roast. (1914)

Editorial from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

For six months past the miners employed by the Rockefeller interests in Colorado have been out on strike against the truck system, and for the right to live where they pleased, and to be attended by their own doctors.

Starvation and misery, together with much brutality on the part of thugs, were endured stoically by the strikers, but they were eventually turned out of their "homes," owned by the Rockefeller Mining Company, and forced to erect tent colonies in the wilds.

Rockefeller was appealed to by the Miners' leaders to go to arbitration, but he was adamant against any alteration in the status quo.

Eventually one million dollars were voted for a Special State Militia, to be used against the miners; and according to the evidence of a Captain Carson, a large percentage of the "militia" were also hirelings of the Mining Company.

Machine guns were brought into play, and to make things look black against the miners, arms and ammunition were hidden in the vicinity of the latters' tents.

At the end of April there took place one of the bloodiest events in the annals of industrial warfare. The forces of "Law and Order," not content with allowing militia men to outrage the workers' daughters and beat all the workers they could find, were determined to wipe the strikers out of existence.

The Gatling guns were trained right on to the tents in Ludlow City whilst the women and children were asleep in bed. Explosive bullets were used and other means of civilised effort. The horrors of that day are almost indescribable, but the plain fact is that, with the dead and dying hopelessly intermingled, the soldiers made paper torches, dipped them in Standard Oil, and set light to all the tents.

A hundred men, women and children at least were either murdered by gun, suffocated by smoke, or literally burned to death.

The story of the charred bodies of a score of little mites is awful reading indeed, as is also the news that dozens of women in the Tent City were expectant mothers, one woman actually giving birth to a child whilst the conflict was raging.

The Coroner's Jury have "found" that the responsibility for the murder rests with the State Militia, but, of course, no further action has been taken.

These are the barest facts indeed in the callous murder of our fellow-workers in the land of the Almighty Dollar. It shows the most dull-witted worker how similar is the conduct of the class war by the masters all the world over. It vividly recalls the slaughter of the miners in the Lena Goldfields to mention one instance.

Rockefeller jun., before the Congressional Committee in New York, declared that his father owned 40 per cent. of the stock but took no part in the working—only in the plunder. He said that they had too many interests to know what went on, but if the miners attempted to restrict the Company's liberty they would shut down every mine in Colorado.

Such is the policy of No Compromise preached by the masters. Stop our liberty to roast some of the worker's children alive and we will starve the rest.

Rockefeller virtually owns the Cavalry Baptist Church in New York, and there were many demonstrators against him there. But here again armed force was used to brutally illtreat the defenders of "the lambs of God."

Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the friends of our murdered fellows in Colorado. We urge upon them to learn well the blood-sealed lesson of class hatred taught them by the masters; let the toilers of America steep themselves in a knowledge of the class war, and act always with that for their guide. No Compromise; No Quarter, politically and economically, must be the burden of their song. Thus only will vengeance for the vampires' victims be secured.

Further Reading:

Witness at Ludlow by Sam Orner