Points for Propagandists: Mr. Lloyd George sums up. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Lloyd George sums up. 

In an address to the Liberal M.P.’s, delivered at the National Liberal Club on June 13th (See “Manchester Guardian,” June 14th, 1929), Mr. Lloyd George gave his view on the position of the Labour Government. Apart from the obvious incorrectness of his statement that the Labour Party is pledged to destroy Capitalism, his summing up is worth noting.

 We shall await with considerable interest the forthcoming declarations of Ministerial policy, but we must declare that as far as lies in our power the mandate of the Government ends when it fails to pursue a Liberal policy.

 

 The very hour the Ministry decides to become a Socialist Administration its career ends, for it has no authority from the nation to embark upon Socialistic experiments. It could only then be kept in power by Tory votes or Tory indulgence. It will be an interesting Parliament, but there will be no more edifying spectacle than that of a Socialist Government engaged in strengthening and perpetuating the economic system their party is pledged to destroy and fortifying that system in the most effective way by carrying through a series of reforms that will remove the evils of that system — a truly Liberal performance. (Cheers.) 

It only needs to be pointed out that their own past experience ought to have convinced the Liberals, as Mr. Lloyd George himself has admitted, that evils multiply under Capitalism faster than the reforms which are intended to palliate them. The condition of the workers in 1914, after many years of Liberal reforms, was not anything to cheer about.

The I.L.P. in Parliament

The “New Leader,” of June 14th, tells us that, including 37 Labour M.P.’s whose candidature the I.L.P. financed, “over 200 of the members of the Parliamentary party belong to the I.L.P.” This is more than 70 per cent., which represents a higher percentage than in the last Parliament, or in the 1924 Parliament. Its significance lies in the fact that it makes the I.L.P. fully responsible for every action and policy of the present Labour Government. The selection of the officials of the Parliamentary Labour Party including its leader Mr. MacDonald, the policies of that body, and all the measures supported by the Labour Party in the House, can be brought home to the I.L.P., since its members are in the clear majority and can by their votes elect what officials they like and pursue what policy they like.

The same was true in 1924, but by some subtle reasoning the I.L.P. officially tried and still tries to repudiate responsibility for the acts of its members who constitute the majority of the Parlia­mentary Labour Party.

In actual fact, if the I.L.P. tried to control the actions of its members in Parliament it would find itself completely unable to do so. Since every single one of them owes his or her election to Labour votes and the backing of the Labour Party and the Trade Unions, the Labour Party is in a position, if it wishes, to compel the I.L.P. M.P.’s to do its bidding and in a conflict of policies to repudiate their own I.L.P. programme and Conference decisions. While claiming that its object is Socialism, the I.L.P. has been built up by recruiting members on non-Socialist issues, and by securing the election of its members to Parliament on non-Socialist programmes supported by non-Socialist votes and financed by money from non-Socialist trade unionists and others. Outwardly an imposing and powerful body, it is in fact utterly impotent to support a Socialist policy or to carry on Socialist propaganda.

A Case in Point

This has been very clearly illustrated by the I.L.P. Conference decision on War-credits. At the 1929 Conference (reported in the “New Leader,” April 5th) a resolution was passed, after a short dis­cussion, by 160 to 125, “instructing all I.L.P. M.P.’s to vote again War-credits.”

Mr. Shinwell, M.P. (who is not only a member of the I.L.P. but is also financed by them at elections), promptly protested and declared that whatever Conference might decide he would act just how his electors pleased.

  I say, quite frankly, as an I.L.P. member, I will take any decision that requires to be taken from my constituency and not from this Conference.

The officials of the I.L.P. knew quite well that other M.P.’s would follow Shinwell’s example, for the simple reason that to carry out Conference instructions would lose them Labour Party support and consequently their seats. When someone challenged Mr. Maxton to show courage, he replied :—

  If I were to come to you at the next Conference and tell you that there were only half-a-dozen I.L.P. M.P.s left, and that they were out of the General Labour Movement, would you call that courage or folly? —(“Daily Herald,” April 3rd.)

A way out was therefore soon found. As soon as Mr. Maxton and others indicated the difficulty which would certainly arise if the I.L.P. tried to compel its members to abide by its policy, the Standing Orders Committee recommended, and Conference agreed, that the Chairman (Mr. Maxton) be given, “discretionary powers in applying today’s decision,” The sequel is amusing and instructive.

Mr. Shinwell has been made Financial Secretary of the War Office in the Labour Government. Other I.L.P. Members of Parliament may be expected to take this lesson to heart.

Communists not a working-class party.

We have often pointed out that the principles and policies of the Communist Parties are not in line with the interests of the working class. Mr. Saklatvala, writing a May Day message in the “Sunday Worker“ (April 28th), put this beyond question. He wrote:—

  But we must remember on our platforms that our slogan is now no longer merely “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” but “Proletarians and oppressed peoples of all countries, unite !”

  Not only textile workers in Bombay and Cal­cutta, miners in India and China, and steel smelters in Bengal, but millions of oppressed peasants in India, China, Egypt, and the African colonies are now with us in our fight against the common enemies of imperialism and reformist Labour.

Behind that innocent-looking but conveniently ambiguous word, “peoples,” the Communists carry on their anti-working class campaign in support of the Indian, Egyptian, Irish and other Capitalist nationalists. Those struggles are struggles between sections of the Capitalist class and victory either way is of no gain to the workers. The Indian workers will learn, as the Irish have learned, that Capitalism administered by native Capitalists is not essentially different from Capitalism administered by Britishers.

Capitalism in Russia

It is one of the delusions of the I.L.P. that Capitalism ceases to be Capitalism where it is administered by people calling themselves ”Labour.” An equally pathetic delusion is held by the British Communists with regard to Russia. A correspondent, writing to the “Sunday Worker“ (June 9th), held this common but mistaken view. He argued that the wages system in Russia cannot be called “Wage-slavery” because the terms of employment are “dictated by the workers’ government.” It is true enough that the Bolsheviks would like to abolish Capitalism if conditions allowed, but conditions do not allow. What they have been able to do is to foster the growth of State Capitalism and limit the growth of private Capitalism, thus following the example of Australia. But from the worker’s point of view the difference is little. Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the workers, whatever form that exploitation may take. In Russia there is a new and rapidly growing Capitalist class drawing property incomes from private trading, and from invest­ments in the Co-operatives and the Russian State Loans.

In the Co-operatives the total share and reserve capital amounted in 1927 to £97 million. (See Soviet Union Year Book, 1928—P. 183.) While in October, 1926, Credits borrowed at home and abroad by the Co-operatives amounted to 108 million Roubles. (Ibid—P. i93.) The rate of interest is not given.

But the most important form of Russian Capitalism is the new National Debt.

Since 1925, State loans in Russia have been used exclusively for financing in­dustry. (See Soviet Union Year Book— P. 391.) Between October, 1925, and February 1st, 1929, the total debt grew from 367 million Roubles to 1,983 million Roubles, or nearly £200 million. (See Review of the Bank of Russian Trade a Soviet Bank publication, May, 1929.)

The interest rates on these loans vary from 5 per cent. to 12 per cent., and must average not less than 10 per cent.

In addition, there is a “floating debt,” whose amount is unspecified.

The land in Russia is privately worked for private profit, and the new Capitalist class of investors have first claim on the proceeds of the State factories, railways, etc. Russia has the usual features of Capitalism. Not only are the means of production privately owned but inequality also exists, as it is bound to. Hence the introduction by the Soviet Government of a graduated Income Tax, Excess Profits Tax and Inheritance duties.

When the writer in the “Sunday Worker” states that in Russia the terms of employment are dictated by the Workers’ Government, he forgets that conditions compel the Government to make those terms such as will permit the Capitalist system to function and develop.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Capitalist System: How It Works. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is taken from the “Daily Telegraph” (Wednesday, May 22nd). It tells its own story. The italics are ours :—

From Our Own Correspondent.

NEW YORK, Tuesday.

The owners of America’s surplus wheat crop, it is estimated, to-day will have to face a loss of more than £11,000,000 unless the price of the commodity rises substantially before the new crop is harvested.

Two big crops in succession have left the world “gorged” with wheat, and with the prospects of another full crop this year the price has fallen until it threatens to break through the four shillings a bushel level.

The world’s carry-over of wheat at the beginning of the new marketing year on July 1 is expected to be 350,000,000 bushels, or about double the amount on hand last year. The major portion of this amount is in the hands of middlemen, who will bear the brunt of the reduced prices. But the large carry-over is likely to continue to have a depressing influence upon the grain market. In that case it will be difficult for the American farmer to dispose of his new crop at a fair profit.

The only hope, apparently, is for a poor harvest, and of this there are no indications at present.

Socialist Brevities: A Life on the Ocean Wave-Under Capitalism. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Life on the Ocean Wave-Under Capitalism.

I am afraid that, like many other people, no doubt, my conception of sailors has been coloured by the familiar picture which adorns Mr. Angus Watson’s sardine tins. I have never doubted that our sailors were boys of the bull-dog, and not the whippet breed. But this conviction has been sadly shaken by the following news item, which appeared in the “Daily News” (11/1/29) :

  Sharp criticism of the seaman’s working con­ditions is being expressed by Mr. Ernest Bevin, general secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union, and the officials of the Marine Section of that body.

These conditions, it is alleged, are responsible for the highest death-rate of any class of workers.

In this week’s issue of the “Seafarers’ Record,” published by the Union, a comparison is made between the air space of the living and sleeping quarters of sailors, and that of work-house inmates and convicts.

The legal minimum allotment of space to the sailor is 120 cubic feet, but it is stated that the locker and fittings deprive the occupant of 32 cubic feet, giving only 88 feet net.

The space given to a workhouse inmate is 400 cubic feet, and to a convict 800 feet.

Mr. Bevin contends that official figures—showing death-rates much more serious than among miners—do not indicate the full difference, as many sailors leave the ships when they are ill, work for a time in some shore job associated with shipping and dock work, and are not necessarily classed as mariners when they die from the illness contracted at sea.

Mr. James Henson, who contributes an article on the subject, quotes an official statement that seamen’s mortality exceeds the average by 48.8 per cent., while the death rate from accident is 430 per cent. higher.

Mr. Henson adds that for every 112 miners who die of tuberculosis there are 221 deaths of sailors from the same cause.

It is stated that on many ships the bunks are occupied by relays of men, and that the air is constantly foul. Liability to tuberculosis is attributed mainly to this condition.

Tribute is paid to one or two British ship­ owners who have greatly improved the sailor’s accommodation in ships built since the war. But it is alleged that the British standard is much below the average of American, Dutch, Scandinavian, and some other foreign vessels.

The Transport Workers’ Union intends to start a vigorous campaign.

It would appear that when our sailors are not “going down to the sea in ships,” they are going down to the tubercular ward of the Infirmary in an ambulance !

Some “Independence” !

The “Daily News” for February 15th contains a contribution to the Sex Equality Debate by Mrs. Eva M. Hubback, who is prominent in the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship. Among the feminist arguments put forward we get this gem :—

  The married women of to-day, therefore, except for the comparatively few with estates and incomes of their own, are entirely dependent on (a) their husband’s power; (b) his will to maintain them adequately. What is the result? It is that her income and the sum she has to satisfy the needs of her children are measured —not as in any other profession by her ability, and by the requirements of her job—but by her husband’s ability and employment, or lack of it.

Nowhere is there any other profession where rewards are in this way totally divorced from either services or needs.

Thus a first-rate mother with half a dozen children, whose husband is a labourer and perhaps unemployed at that, will be engaged in the hopeless task of making bricks without straw, and of trying to carry on her home making and child-rearing duties on a totally inadequate income.

And the proposed remedy? Now look serious, the remedy is :—

That a wife should be given a share in her husband’s income.

!!! Let us hope that when the wife gets a share of what is left over after the unemployment pay has been divided amongst eight persons, she will not expend her stupendous portion at night clubs, but will put it by so as to be able to leave the price of a packet of woodbines to her progeny.

Sarcastigator.

Letters: Rates and Taxes. (1929)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Rates and Taxes.

Battersea, S.W.11.

June 6th, 1929.

Sir,

I have recently been reading a leaflet issued by the S.P.G.B., entitled, “Rates and Taxes: do they fall on the working class?” Which states that the working class is unaffected by taxes, since they pay none.

Am I not right in assuming that the tax on wages is a tax, and that the working class does pay it?

I shall be pleased if you can explain this to me; or give me the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s views on the matter.

I believe the tax on wages was instituted during the War, and as the Leaflet is a reprint of an article that appeared in the “Socialist Standard” of March, 1912, the question was not dealt with.

I am, yours faithfully,

W. A. Devine.

Our Reply.

Our correspondent has misunderstood the case put forward in the Leaflet to which he refers.

In the first place, we do not deny that a few workers pay Income Tax. (The number is, however, very small.) A single man does not pay Income Tax until his earnings exceed £162 a year, or £3 2s. 4d. per week. A married man without children does not pay tax until his earnings exceed £270 or £5 3s. 10d. per week. The total number of persons paying tax in Great Britain and N. Ireland is only 2,150,000. See Constitutional Year Book—P. 389).

What we are concerned with is a different question altogether, and the only one of importance. That question is: “Would the workers be better off if taxes were lower, and worse off if taxes were higher?” And the answer to both parts of the question is No!

If prices fall through the abolition of taxes on various articles, such as tea, sugar, etc., wages fall also; and the workers are no better off. When prices rise wages follow, even if somewhat tardily.

The workers, speaking broadly, receive as wages enough to buy the necessaries of life for themselves and their families. If prices fall and living becomes cheaper, wages fall, too. Taxes, so far as they affect the workers at all, are part of their cost of living. An increase in these taxes will result in employers having to pay higher wages. A decrease in these taxes, which cheapens the worker’s cost of living, leads to lower wages, and benefits the employers only. The question of taxation is not one which affects the workers. Our correspondent is referred to the October, 1928, issue, where the matter was dealt with.

Editorial Committee.

On Educating the Workers.

To the Editorial Committee,

Gentlemen,

Your much reiterated assertion that Socialism can only be brought into being by an intelligent and class-conscious working class, becomes more seemingly apparent as time passes. It is also very obvious that the progress of a clear understanding of their position by 
the working class is slow and infinitesimal in proportion to the rapid and relentless development and extension of Capitalism, which must reach its apex. What then? Must the workers endure an indefinite period of suffering whilst a small body of Socialists blandly continue that almost
 impossible task—education? Do you really believe that the workers as a class will ever accept your position? What credulity ! And optimism ! Incurable, too, from my experience of your party. The larger portion of the working class are steeped in superstition and bigotry of every kind, which will take centuries of education to remove. So far, among contemporary parties, you are unimportant. I assume, however, that the teaching of Socialism as taught by the S.P.G.B., will some day be more generally accepted. You will then find that you will be compelled—in order to further develop and achieve your purpose—to exploit and appeal to the emotions of the workers, religious and otherwise. In short, secure the acquiescence of the majority for your programme by any means possible.

Yours sincerely,

H. Watts. 

S.E.18.

Our Reply.

It is difficult to understand exactly what our correspondent’s criticisms are. Having told us that the task of educating the workers is “almost impossible,” and that we are incurable optimists for believing it to be possible, he goes on to say, “I assume, however, that the teaching of Socialism, as taught by the S.P.G.B., will some day be more generally accepted.”

It seems, therefore, that Mr. Watts really agrees with us that we shall succeed in making our views “more generally accepted.”

He then makes another unsupported and contradictory assertion. Having conceded that our views will become “more generally accepted,” he makes the unexplained assumption that the methods which have been successful in making our position “more generally accepted” will fail to help us “to further develop.” We can only ask him why it will be impossible for us to spread Socialist knowledge when we have grown larger and stronger, particularly as he agrees that we shall have succeeded in growing stronger by that means.

Mr. Watts’ suggestion as to an alternative method is again self-contradictory. He says that we shall have to “appeal to the emotions of the workers, religious and otherwise,” in order to secure “the acquiescence of the majority” for our programme. What Mr. Watts fails to see is that no amount of “appeals to emotions, religious or otherwise,” would ever win support for our programme. The Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party has no attraction whatever for the person who can still be reached by emotional appeals. Such persons will continue to support the parties whose programmes suit their lack of knowledge.

Mr. Watts tells us that the larger portion of the working class are steeped in “superstition and bigotry of every kind.” Does he then really imagine that Socialism could be successfully carried on by such people, supposing (an unwarrantable supposition) that by appeals to their emotions they had been won away from supporting Capitalist parties?

Mr. Watts himself illustrates the need for Socialist knowledge, when he talks of Capitalism reaching its “apex.” Even if it were true that Capitalism could be left to itself and at a certain point would collapse, there would still be need of an organised Socialist working class to tackle the work of building up Socialism. In fact, however, this theory of collapse is a piece of anti-Socialist doctrine, repudiated by Marx and Socialists generally. Capitalism will remain in being just so long as the majority accept it. And so long as the workers accept Capitalism they will have to go on suffering under it. While they accept Capitalism no minority can save them from the consequences of Capitalism.

If Mr. Watts thinks he knows a way in which a minority can lead a non-Socialist working class into Socialism, perhaps he will tell us what it is.

Editorial Committee.

The Meaning of Disarmament. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Among the numerous claims and promises made by the various parties in the recent election those relating to peace and disarmament held a prominent place. During the last War, representatives of the Liberal, Labour and Tory parties held office in coalition and assumed responsibility for making the machinery of warfare as efficient as possible. They now have just sufficient contempt for the memories and intelligence of their supporters to ask them to trust them to see that there is no more war.

The emptiness of their claims and promises, however, is enhanced by recent developments in the art of warfare. The aeroplane and the chemical factory threaten to render all previous weapons obsolete. In the issue of “International Conciliation” for March, 1929 (Carnegie Endowment, 44, Portland St., Worcs., Mass., U.S.A.), sufficient evidence is provided to show that even the wholesale scrapping of armies and navies, as hitherto under­ stood, along with tanks, battleships and other special forms of armament, would still leave in the hands of the master-class means of destruction more deadly than any yet developed. This particular issue is entitled, “Chemical Warfare—its Possibilities and Probabilities,” and treats the whole subject historically and scientifically with a minimum of sentiment and an entire absence of sensationalism. The authorities for statements made are, in the main, responsible chemical and military experts, with no obvious axe to grind in scaring the populations of the world at large.

Chemical methods of attack and defence are not in themselves new. Stink bombs were used in the Middle Ages and were apparently such terrible things that an Austrian chemist suggested that “Christians should only use them against Turks and unbelievers.” Even the Greeks used pots of pitch and sulphur for smoking out their enemies. Modern science and the development of Capitalist industry have, however, increased the effectiveness of this arm beyond recognition. In fact, it is (iironically enough) upon the basis of the tragic experiences of the workers engaged in the mining and chemical industries that the knowledge of the war-time value of certain gases has been established; and it was the advanced state of these industries in Germany (not some peculiar Hunnishness) which enabled and impelled the German military command to use this knowledge. Needless to add that, in spite of Hague Conventions, the Allies were not slow in imitation.

It is this close relationship between chemical warfare and normal peace-time industry, coupled with the slight distinc­tion between a commercial aeroplane and one adapted to military requirements, which reduces all talk of disarmament under Capitalism to sheer childish prattle. According to Brigadier-General Lord Thomson, Air Minister in the British Government:—

  “The next war will be fought in the air, it will consist of aeroplane raids above the great cities, and the primary attack will be against civilians, including women and children.

  Against these incendiary, explosive and poison gas bombs will be used. No defence that has as yet been devised will prevent the death of thousands of persons in any city thus attacked, and the organised life of any great metropolitan centre would be brought to a standstill for days and weeks.“ (p. 130.)

The High Cost of Killing.

During December, 1928, Dr. Hilton Ira Jones announced, in Chicago, the discovery of a new poison more deadly than any heretofore known, called cacodylisacyanide.

 “War, he said, will never again be fought with shot and shell. It is so much cheaper to destroy life wholesale with this new gas. It may be manufactured at the rate of thousands of tons a day, and it costs much less than powder and cannon—yet it will destroy armies more quickly and effectively. “ (p. 140.)

In face of these developments, the workers may well ask themselves what safeguards they possess from the potential horrors of another war. So far, none of the Governments have proposed the abolition of chemical factories and aeroplanes, and judging by past experiences, their scraps of paper hold good only so long as it suits the convenience of the contracting parties to observe their provisions.

The author of the pamphlet goes so far as to make the statement on page 125, that, “Statesmen will always be powerless unless the people are awakened.” She has not yet grasped the simple fact that the reverse is true, i.e., that the power of “statesmen” rests upon the political ignorance and passivity of the major portion of the “people,” the working class.

Warfare is in fact the supreme expression of the power of the modern State, and only when the workers conquer that power can they hope to put an end to warfare.

It is just here, at the crucial point, that the pamphlet fails. The author appreciates and emphasises the fact that technical disarmament is impossible in any complete sense, e.g., “the very fundamentals of our civilisation—coal, salt, air, etc., can produce poison gases” (p. 181), but can only suggest “the peaceful settlement of international disputes” (p. 189). She never attempts to deal with the causes of these disputes, or show how they are capable of peaceful settlement.

Modern states exist because of the conflict of interests in modern society. This conflict is due to the capitalist ownership of the economic resources of society. The international capitalist class is divided into competing groups endeavouring to secure control of the raw materials, trade routes and markets of the world. The most powerful of these groups use the machinery of the various States as weapons in the struggle. Two factors enable them to do this : their control of the States in question, backed up by the unconscious political support of the workers in the various countries.

It is not only in conflict with each other, however, that the capitalist groups are pre­pared to use lethal weapons. In all these conflicts they sacrifice the lives of the workers, and it is against the workers in the last resort that the modern States are armed.

The workers are a propertyless class, and constitute a standing menace to the security of property.

The State is the guardian of the interests of property against the producers.

Among the “peace-time” uses of poison gases the author mentions the following : “Tear gases, such as chloracetophenone, can be used on mobs, escaping jailbirds and other trouble-stirring individuals” (p. 180), thus clearly recognising that it is against its own subjects, as well as against external enemies, that the State needs arms.

The solution of the conflict lies not with an amorphous “people” but with a working-class, organised to emancipate itself, internationally. In the place of capitalism, with its economic chaos and political strife, it will establish a social order based upon the common ownership of the means of life and their democratic control in the interests of a class-less community.

Eric Boden

“Capital.” A Criticism of the New Translation. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

We publish below an interesting letter which was addressed to the “Labour Monthly” by Professor Riazanoff, and published in its May issue.

THE NEW TRANSLATION OF MARX.

A letter from Professor Riazanov.

Dear Comrade,—In your last letter you mentioned the new translation of “Capital” by E. and C. Paul (*). The book, peculiar as it may seem, has not been a pleasure to me. Of course, it is agreeable to find the demand for the works of Marx having become so great as to require a new edition of the “Capital,” and as a sign of this increased interest in Marx and his works I certainly welcome this edition. Only my pleasure has been marred by the circumstance that one has found it necessary to make an entirely new translation instead of revising the edition of Moore and Aveling, which had been thoroughly revised and completed by Engels.

Both translators of the first English edition were born Englishmen, both were quite conversant with economical matters and even if to them has to be denied an all-round competence in questions of economy, nothing of the kind can be said against Engels, who, as is to be seen from letters of that period, also from his introduction to the English edition, has spent an enormous deal of time and labour on this edition. This old edition contains a tre­mendous deal of Engels’ own work, and I do not consider it right to neglect this work; and what is more, to me it is not a neglect only, but equals almost to a contempt, to an abjudication of Engels, and with such a tendency I, of course, cannot at all sympathise.

I do not consider myself so competent as to declare decisively that the edition revised by Engels complies to all stylistical require­ments, or that it contains no mistakes, no errors. Its containing mistakes is quite possible. But to justify the discarding of the text authorised by Engels, the least one ought to have done would have been to prove on hand of numerous instances the absolute uselessness of the old English edition, the impossibility of adapting it to the requirements of to-day and hence its inevitable fate of being thrown away in order to make room to a completely new translation. To such an authority as Engels this justification, to my idea, ought to have been made !

I have not gone through the Pauls’ translation very thoroughly, but the fact of this translation suffering from serious errors was brought home to me by the introduction of the Pauls, from which I learned that they have not used for their text the “Volksausgabe,” published by Kautsky (and to which I also contributed by adding a very complete register).

This Kautsky edition, though not a critical definite one, possesses great advantages over all other editions as far as the text is concerned, as Kautsky has used for this edition all the variations of the four different versions by Marx or Engels, further numerous corrections of Marx and Engels’ found in their own copies, and also the French edition, which to a great extent had been revised by Marx. From all this is to be seen that the Pauls have not made use of the best text hitherto known, therefore their translation is a step backwards.

A hasty perusal of their book resulted in my discovering the following errors :—

On page 866 instead of “hoffnungsvoll” (hope­ful) they translated unhappy.

,, 282 instead of “Arbeitsvolk” (work­ing people) they translated the French people.

,, 318 instead of “Arbeitszeit” (labour time) they translated labour power.

„ 552 instead of “Lehrfabrik” (factory for learning) they translated tan­nery.

,, 593 instead of ”politische Oekonomie” (political economy): they translated English economics.

In conclusion, let me say that as long as E. and C. Paul do not convince me by a thorough criticism of the old translation that a revision (the necessity of which I do not deny) has been absolutely impossible, I maintain and shall continue to maintain the standpoint of considering their new translation from a scientific point of view superfluous. The interest of the English speaking world in Marx’s “Capital” will grow to such an extent that I hope the day will not be far off when the opportunity arises of re-editing the old translation.

Fraternally yours,

 D. Riazanov.

Moscow, April 18,1929.

* Capital. A new translation by Eden and Cedar Paul, based on the Fourth and Definitive Edition. (Allen & Unwin, 927 pp., 12s. 6d.)

Trafalgar Square Demonstration. (1929)

Party News from the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

We greatly regret that the Demonstration arranged for Sunday, June 9th, and advertised in the “Socialist Standard,” had to be cancelled. Speakers who had undertaken to address the Demonstration reported their inability to attend, but it was then too late to make other satisfactory arrangements. Efforts were made to advise as many of our readers as possible.

Aspects of the “Woman Question.” (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Based on Notes of a Series of Lectures on “The Sexes in Evolution.”)

In the present state of our knowledge of biological matters, no fact is more patent than that sex constitutes one of the greatest underlying principles throughout Nature.

Students of evolution will appreciate the fact that sex, like any other biological feature, has undergone a progressive evolutionary development—a development exhibiting many phases, both simple and complex—until we arrive at what is termed its “highest expression,” that of the human male and female.

Much of the course of this development is known, but the question of the origin of sex itself still remains one of the puzzling problems of biology. Certain it is that there was a time when what we know as “sex” did not exist. In many “lowly” organisms this condition of sexlessness obtains to-day. But at one stage in the development of living forms this condition was universal. By and bye there came a differentiation in the development of organisms, which resulted in a division of labour, where the special functions of each were confined to two separate and distinct individuals. From this point the indepen­dent history of the male and female sexes begins. Probably from the time of the appearance of life on the earth to that of the establishment of separate sexes, mil­lions of years intervened. And probably, also, from the time that sex first made its appearance, millions more have elapsed. How and why sex differentiation came about at all is problematical. In all likeli­hood some crisis arose which threatened the existence of the particular species in which the phenomenon first occurred, and which had its appropriate physiological response in the organism, resulting in a division of labour, for, fundamentally, male and female are the same in biological essentials, the difference being some subtle biochemical quality whose essence is not quite understood.

We pass on, then, to the rise of the human animal where this sex differentiation concerns us most. They, like all other animals, have arisen from a line of organisms whose sex organs are ultimately identical, but in which, since modifications were introduced, have resulted in differences that are now of fundamental biological importance. Hence the “femininity” of women is not the product of education or convention, but is essentially biological in character. When our knowledge of the history of life on the earth has become more extended, it will be found that it is only by tracing the processes of differentiation throughout the two entire lines of development that we may hope to unravel all the mysteries bound up in the problem of sex, or to understand the prevailing differences in character and constitution which have arisen as the outcome of this early division of labour.

Tom Sala

(To be continued.)

The S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Weekly People”—the official organ of the Socialist Labour Party of America, in its issue for April 13th— attempts to reply to our recent references to their policy and their continual decline. (See January "Socialist Standard.")

We accused them of making Marx responsible for the statement "that only the Unions can set on foot the true political party of Labour."

They now repeat the old story that their source of information is a reformist periodical run by the German section of the New York Socialist Party. This organ, the "Volkszeitung," which the S.L.P. never tired of denouncing, is again admitted to be the only source of their knowledge of Marx’s alleged statement. When and where Marx made such an utterance they have never discovered.

"The Weekly People" attempt to find support for their position in "Value, Price and Profit,” but, unfortunately, they are unable to quote any extracts which tells us that only the Trade Unions can set on foot the true political party.

On the other hand, Marx’s reference to the limitations of Union activity is striking:—

   "As to the limitation of the working day in England, as in all other countries, it has never been settled, except by legislative interference. Without the working men’s continuous pressure from without, that interference would never have taken place. But, at all events, the result was not to be attained by private settlement between the working men and the capitalists. This very necessity of general political action affords the proof that in its merely economic action, capital is the stronger side.” — (“Value, Price and Profit.”)

We accused the S.L.P. of claiming that "Religion is a private matter.”

They deny it is a public matter, and leave that as their answer. The function of religion as an instrument of capitalism in clouding the worker’s mind is completely ignored by the S.L.P. So also is the fact that Socialism is based on Science.

The S.L.P. does not seem to know that the Socialist view of history is a material one, and has nothing in common with the religious concept of the universe. No wonder the S.L.P. fades. 

Adolph Kohn

The Australian Censorship. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the February issue we referred to the action of the Australian Government in drawing up a list of journals (including the “Socialist Standard”) whose import into Australia was prohibited. We have been informed that supplies of the February and March issues, addressed to distributors in Melbourne, have been held up by the Australian Customs authorities. We have written to the authorities responsible for this seizure, and await their reply.

Those who understand the part played by material conditions in moulding men’s ideas will derive considerable amusement from the spectacle of a ruling class stupidly and petulantly trying to suppress comment on the social problems which are the product of the capitalist system. They delude themselves into the belief that by suppressing discussion of a problem they have abolished the problem. They have the power to bar out our printed criticisms but they do not prove our views to be wrong in the only conclusive way, which is to abolish unemployment, poverty, etc. Rather less intelligent than the proverbial ostrich, which is said to bury its own head in order not to see approaching dangers, they act on the child-like assumption that the unemployed and poverty-stricken Australian workers will not know that they are unemployed and poverty-stricken, unless they first read about it in the “Socialist Standard.” Oh, these first-class brains!

Editorial Committee

The Strike and the Vote. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although Socialists do not exaggerate the importance of a General Election, much amusement and instruction may be derived from a consideration of the antics of the various parties involved. At the time of writing the Conservative leaders are endeavouring to insinuate into the minds of the workers that their position would have been much more favourable had several millions of them not participated in the so-called general strike of 1926.

  That Strike was directly responsible for the loss of trade and consequent failure of the unemployed to evaporate; the Labour leaders were responsible for the Strike, and have thus contributed to the sufferings of the workers.

Thus argue the Tories.

Of course, the leaders of the Labour Party resent this attack upon their respectability.

  Us responsible for the Strike? Perish the thought! It was the wicked Tory Government which provoked it by refusing to continue negotiations.

The argument never goes beneath the surface. It would not suit the interests of either party that it should do so. The strike was a fiasco from the workers' viewpoint. It certainly did leave their position worse than before; but neither Tories nor Labour leaders are concerned with pointing out why the fiasco occurred.

Each party disclaims responsibility, in order to retain the confidence of their electoral supporters, the majority of whom are members of the working class; and ignores the fact that this very confidence was a contributory factor to the overwhelming defeat which the workers sustained. The rank and file trusted their leaders on the General Council, and the Council trusted Baldwin.

The strike arose, as most strikes do, out of the antagonistic interests of the workers and their exploiters. It was the belated reply to a prolonged process of wage reductions which, in turn, followed upon the collapse of the demand for war materials, and the flooding of the labour market with discharged soliders, munition workers, etc. The argument that the strike is the cause of the aggravated misery of the workers is thus a clear case of putting the cart before the horse.

That the workers failed to accomplish their objects in striking (which were modest enough) was due to the superior organisation of the master class, the better understanding that class has of its material interests, and its grip of the political power of the State. These factors were clearly in evidence throughout the episode.

The workers are not yet organised on the basis of their class; they have a very imperfect knowledge of their position, and their political activity is restricted to supporting different groups of leaders. The steady deterioration of their conditions of life is ample evidence of the futility of this policy, and clear proof of the need for Socialist knowledge, organisation and action.

The open champions of the master class can afford to indulge in gloating over the helplessness of their victims, because they have taken the measure of their pretended opponents. The attitude of the Labour leaders during the war, their readiness to take office in 1924, their grovelling dependence upon negotiations prior to the strike, all testify to the weakness in the workers' ranks.

The Socialist Party exists for the purpose of replacing that weakness with strength; it seeks to substitute knowledge for ignorance, organisation for chaos, a steady class advance for sectional rout. Of what value are the strike and the vote in this process?

Historically, the strike preceded the vote as a weapon of the workers. In the early days of capitalism it was the only means they possessed of placing any limit to their oppression by their capitalist masters. By jointly withholding their commodity, i.e., their power to labour, they managed to obtain its value in the shape of a subsistence wage. They showed their employers that it was as easy to play for nothing as to work for nothing. In doing this, however, they exhausted the value of the strike.

They could not stop the onward march of the machine. Where, here and there, they eliminated competition between themselves, and secured a higher subsistence level, there stepped in the mechanical force which rendered many of them superfluous, and brought wages down again to a point consistent with normal profit-making.

True, so long as the wages and profits system lasts no section of the workers can afford to abandon the strike, but it is equally true that the strike holds out no possibility of solving the problem of working-class servitude. Many of our political and industrial opponents claim that the “day-to-day struggle,” i.e., the succession of strikes and lock-outs, leads of itself to the workers’ emancipation, and they point to the widening of the circle of the strike as evidence.

The fiasco of the “general” strike refutes the argument. Then, if ever, it should have been proved sound; but instead of an advance, we witnessed a demoralising retreat; not even an orderly one, with the enemy held at any point, but wholesale rout.

So long as the workers in the main regard their affairs from the so-called “immediate” standpoint, a continuance of the rout is inevitable. The nationalisation of industry under the control of the financiers, knocks the last nail in the coffin of orthodox trades unionism as a fighting force; and “minority” trades unionism is in no better case.

The “immediate” interests of the workers are invariably special or sectional interests. A given rate of wages or set of hours has a different value in different industries and areas. Even the Communists have at last awakened to this fact sufficiently to “demand” a six-hours day for miners, as distinct from seven for other trades; but it is clear that no general programme of immediate demands can take into account the total variations in the workers’ conditions. To have any real use the demands of any section of the workers for modifications of their conditions under capitalism must be framed by the section itself.

The political party of the workers can only express the general interests; the interests the workers have in common, irrespective of local or industrial variations;, in other words, the interests of their class as a whole. As such it stands for solidarity between the different sections and the rendering of mutual support wherever possible in the defensive warfare waged by means of strikes. Its special function,, however, is to point out the limited value of this warfare, and to emphasize the fact that the fight carried on along these lines only is a losing one.

So long as the workers are content to struggle for a subsistence wage only, that is the most they will obtain, with their security growing ever less. The Socialist Party summons them to struggle for possession of the means of life. Instead of voting sectionally every now and again for a cessation of work, we counsel the workers to vote as a class for the abolition of the system whereby they are compelled to work for the profit of a few, the present owners of the means of life.

Instead of voting first for this party and then for that in the effort to secure the improvement which strikes have failed to achieve, we call upon them to organise to obtain control of the political machinery, which has served their masters so effectively.

In Queensland (Australia) the workers have recently turned out a “Labour” Government merely in order to put a “Nationalist” Party in its place, thus exploding the fallacy recently held in Communist circles that the return of a Labour Party to power was the essential preliminary to the success of the Communists. The pursuit of red-herrings merely leads to apathy, re-action and despair.

Socialist education is the only solvent of working-class difficulties. When the workers realise that, in spite of all the differences in their respective conditions, they are one as slaves, then only will they feel the need and possibility of emancipation, and act accordingly.

Eric Boden

How Not To Get Socialism. (1929)

From the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Alderman Tom Kirk writes in the “Railway Review” (May 31st, 1929) an article entitled “The Revival of Socialism.” The first paragraph is unimportant, but we reprint. here the remainder of Mr. Kirk’s article.

  But here is where we draw a distinction between Socialism and Labour politics. To the Socialist there is only one thing that matters, the growth of the Socialist outlook in the public mind. It is his sole reason for being in politics at all. He perceives that you cannot make Socialists by just preaching theory. That was the dream of the old Socialist League, just as it is the dream of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. But the mind of the average man can only be reached through the current politics of the moment. In order to be with you, he wants to know what you are “going to do." And you must provide him with a plan of action, even if the action is not likely to produce much more than a growth of his Socialist convictions. We can no more escape from the illusion of politics than the early Christians, by burying themselves in the deserts of Egypt, could escape from the contamination of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

   Consequently, however much the austere purists may declaim, we have got to get on with the job as we find it. Fortunately, the movement has now reached a point that we can definitely warn our supporters from expecting too much from this or that particular reform. It has been a matter of great satisfaction to note the almost complete absence of the type of speaker who promised a solution of unemployment if the workers would only “vote Labour.” And in his place a stressing of the point that unemployment would not be “solved” while the capitalist system remained. It could only be ameliorated, not “solved.” All this is to the good; and it is a healthy sign of the times that the boastful promises of the Liberals have been contemptuously disregarded by organised Labour, with the result that Mr. Lloyd George became exceedingly angry. On the whole, tosh and window-dressing have been at a discount at this election. 

   The task of making the great mass of Labour electors into Socialists still, however, remains. Nationalisation, municipalisation, and public ownership still appear too much in the mind’s eye of the average workman as methods whereby he will immediately advance his wages and working conditions. Ultimately they must lead to his uplifting and betterment, otherwise they would be purposeless.

    But as Hyndman used to say, “You cannot make oases of co-operation in the midst of a howling wilderness of competition. The Socialist perceives this; the mere Labour elector does not. While we do not expect a nationalised industry to “pay its way” in the capitalist sense, we cannot run it regardless of the balance sheet. That way trouble lies; and the ending of things as they have ended in Queensland. 

   Then, again, what is going to be done with regard to the vast sum of British capital which is invested in foreign undertakings? The annual interest on that is responsible for a quarter of our imports. It represents about £300,000,000 annually. It is gained by exploiting the foreigner. Do we propose to take over these investments? If so, the British Labour State would become an exploiter of foreign workmen. Do we propose to leave these foreign investors to enjoy their incomes undisturbed except of such taxation as we could impose upon them? But in any case, as the £300,000,000 principally arrives here in the shape of food and raw materials, which we require for industries, we should have to do “something,” All of which shows that when it comes to the real business of getting down to the establishment of Socialism we have hardly discussed the matter at all. It will be the work of Socialists in the immediate future to promote discussion on such subjects. We cannot live for ever on a mere nebulous labourism. We shall have to get back to the healthy old business of the I.L.P. and S.D.F. setting the pace. And now that Communism has become a spent squib, the possibility of such a development is apparent. The specific function of the new orientation will not be vote catching, but education of the public as to how Socialism is to be established.

THEORIES—THE TRUE AND THE FALSE.

Now to disentangle this network of Kirkian errors. Mr. Kirk professes to be a Socialist, and accuses the S.P.G.B. of being dreamers of theory. Nothing matters to Mr. Kirk but "the growth of the Socialist outlook in the public mind.” But what is the "Socialist outlook” but the knowledge of Socialist theories? Therefore, Mr. Kirk is another dreamer, if to hold a theory is to be a dreamer. But the S.P.G.B. repudiates that title. We are a political organisation, and are not devotees of the cult of Utopias. We do not pray for spiritual aid to attain our ends. Our declaration of principles distinctly says, "That the Working Class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, etc.,” and at the elections we are prepared to put candidates for the polls. If the workers are not sufficiently class-conscious to support a Socialist candidate by supplying his deposit money, that is not our fault. Rather it is Mr. Kirk’s fault, and their misfortune.

After the high-minded attitude of "nothing mattering, etc.,” Mr. Kirk then says, “But the mind of the average man can only be reached through the current politics of the moment.” Here is the pose of the modern Jesus soiling his hands with Party politics. The next piece is rather funny. “He (the worker) wants to know what you are going to do.” So, Mr. Kirk thinks it best to present him with “a plan of action,” even if it will not bring forth much more than “a growth of the workers’ Socialist convictions.” But we thought Mr. Kirk was a Socialist. He should, then, be more than delighted if his “plan of action” only brought forth this "growth of Socialist convictions.” He, however, knows very well that it does no such thing, and only makes confusion worse confounded. The knowledge of what is meant by Socialism is essential to the making of Socialists. Mr. Kirk leaves us to infer that this "plan of action” is really only a blind to keep up "the illusion of politics.”

We cannot agree that politics are an illusion, but if Mr. Kirk thinks so, on what grounds can he justify his action of keeping up an illusion? I am afraid, after all, it is Mr. Kirk who has been dreaming. But to proceed. He says, “We (that is, the Labour Party) must get on with the job as we find it.” That, of course, means continuing to introduce reforms and patching up the capitalist system, but then he has the audacity to say that "at the same time they must warn their supporters that they must not expect too much from it.” He is pleased to notice that the Labour candidates stressed the point during the Election that while the Capitalist system remained they could only ameliorate unemployment, not solve it. Yes, but what happens after the ball? If they know this, why are they taking the reins of government into their hands again? And on what grounds can the Labour Party justify its existence, and Mr. Kirk his support thereof? Why does he not tell the workers that the advent of Socialism alone will solve their troubles?

Then we have Mr. Kirk bemoaning the fact that Nationalisation, etc., appears too much in the minds of the workers as a method by which they can improve their wages and working conditions. He quotes Hyndman as saying “ You cannot make oases of co-operation in a howling wilderness of competition,” and says that the Socialist perceives this; the mere Labour elector does not. But who is it that propagates the idea of Nationalisation? The Labour Party, not the S.P.G.B. Yet Mr. Kirk now finds it a stumbling block in the way of making Socialists. Oh, wonderful logic! The Socialists, to Mr. Kirk, means the I.L.P. and the Labourites. Therefore, they stand in the unenviable position of telling the workers to support a thing which they know to be unsound. Still speaking of Nationalisation, he says it must ultimately lead to the betterment of the worker, otherwise it would be “purposeless.” That is just the point; it does not lead to any betterment. By making industry more efficient less workers are required, unemployment increases, and these schemes, therefore, from the point of view of the workers are worse than purposeless, they are definitely harmful. He says, "while we do not expect a nationalised industry to pay its way in the capitalist sense, we cannot run it regardless of the balance sheet. That way trouble lies, and the ending of things, as they ended in Queensland.” In fact, of course, the I.L.P. advocates of Nationalisation vigorously affirm that in Queensland it did pay its way. The Queensland Labour Government failed because, as administrators of capitalism, they could not “deliver the goods” which they had promised to the workers. The workers were disillusioned, and having no knowledge of Socialism, voted once more for the capitalist class. Mr. Kirk would lead us to believe that the Queensland Government was being run by mere dreamers trying to run the. finances of the country without due regard to its balance sheet. But can he show us any important difference between the Labour programme in Queensland and in this country? He wants to support the Labour Party while disassociating himself from its policies.

Mr. Kirk could not have meant to have revealed such a lot when he started, but perhaps he was counting on the “Railway Review” not being read by “Austere Purists.” However, the cream of the thing is yet to come. We find poor Mr. Kirk getting concerned as to what the British Labour State (whoever that may be) would do with the interest coming from British invested capital abroad. I am afraid we cannot tell him. You see, we are only Socialists, and we only know what Socialists would do. We must leave the British Labour State’s problems for itself and Mr. Kirk to solve. "All of which shows that when it comes to the business of getting down to the establishment of Socialism we have hardly discussed the matter at all,” cries Mr. Kirk.

Presumably, then, settling the destination of interest from British invested capital abroad comes within Mr. Kirk’s theory of Socialism. Mr. Kirk’s theories make a Socialist feel sick. Interest and capital under Socialism! A little understanding of sound, instead of unsound, theory, would greatly benefit the illustrious Alderman. Interest and profit are essentially features of capitalism; likewise is the individual owner of property. Socialism means common ownership. There would be no persons here or abroad possessing capital. The question only arises in the dreams of Mr. Kirk. It certainly has nothing to do with establishing Socialism.

THE “HEALTHY OLD BUSINESS” OF MISREPRESENTING SOCIALISM.

The last few sentences are a fitting end to his article. I wonder he dares mention the S.D.F. or the I.L.P. in connection with "health.” Their part does not bear inspection. They have proved to be bad guides throughout to the working class. Their attitude on the War and their trickery at the elections of 1910 and 1906 respectively (see our Manifesto for facts) proves that the "healthy old business ” of the precious pair is not healthy but thoroughly diseased, in fact rotten to the core.

May Otway

The New Era! (1929)

Editorial from the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government is in office, their photos are in the papers, silk hats and all. The Cabinet is composed of respectable, nice, kind men—we know that, because the papers have told us so. They have started work—we know that because the papers have exhibited photos of them in typical working attitudes—gazing at piles of papers, holding telephones to their ears, etc, etc. We admit that, from the photos, there is nothing to choose between them and their predecessors. They look just as happy and satisfied.

When they were last in power we did not notice any striking change in the general position of the workers. We can confidently prophecy that "history will repeat itself" with slight modifications. What will you, fellow-worker, do then? Will you vote Liberal or Tory next time? Or will you get down to the job of understanding just where you are?

You are poor because you are deprived of the things you produce—because you keep drones to exploit you. You will remain poor until you put an end to exploitation.

Do those smirking, self-satisfied faces that look at you out of the newspapers represent a movement that is going to lift you out of wage-slavery? The movement for Socialism is a serious business, born out of the miseries and enslavement of the multitude; it demands of its votaries hard work, political sincerity, and steadfastness of purpose. It is not a movement to provide an opportunity for brilliant oratory, "statesmanship," swell dinners or joyrides, nor is it a movement to provide a poor man, with a clever tongue, a ladder to climb out of oppressive conditions at the expense of his fellows.

You have voted into a power a Labour Government. You, who are poor, have not done this to amuse yourselves, you have done it in the expectation that your conditions will be ameliorated. Watch the progress of your new Government, see if their acts provide you with any road out of poverty. And when you are disappointed, as you surely will be, do not then sink back into apathy and dejection, but examine again your position in society. If you do this carefully you will come to the knowledge that your emancipation depends upon yourselves and can only be accomplished by yourselves.

The day that you reach this view you will turn to the party that alone has stood for Socialism throughout the whole of its history. That party is the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It is composed of working men and women who, in the course of their daily work, have gained a knowledge of Socialism and held fast to it.

Examine our position; judge us, — join with us in the work of emancipation.