Roosevelt's "New Deal" (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The whole world has been watching with interest the progress and results of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” more correctly described as American capitalism’s strenuous effort to rescue itself from the morass of depression.

After three years of deepening crisis, falling prices and wages, increasing bankruptcies, and unemployment that reached the unheard of total of from 15 to 17 millions, the country was seething with political unrest. The Hoover regime, which had attempted to conjure the depression away by wish-magic and optimism, but had otherwise done practically nothing to alleviate the economic dislocation, was overwhelmed in the democratic landslide of the 1932 elections. Roosevelt and his party swept the country with their attacks on the “criminal inactivity” of the Republicans, and with lavish promises of a New Deal that would bring back “ Prosperity.”

In general, although there is much intertwining of interests in the propertied class the Republican Party stands for big business and the financial interests. The Democrats are the party of the smaller business men and the mass of the farmers. The most voluble, agitated and organised of all those adversely affected by the depression were precisely these latter groups. Millions of small property owners were hopelessly in debt, their savings gone or tied up in closed banks. The farmers’ earnings and standard of life had been declining for years before the crisis which but intensified their problems. Amongst the workers cut after cut in wages, plus mass unemployment and the constant threat of it, had generated a great volume of discontent. This was, however, largely unorganised and inarticulate, notwithstanding sporadic outbursts. All these elements looked to Roosevelt as to a messiah. Emotional tension at the time of the elections was intense and enthusiasm for the victorious “hero” almost universal, even amongst many of the rank and file Republicans.

Immediately after its inauguration in March, 1933, the new Government was granted extraordinary emergency powers by the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Then came the passing, almost without criticism, of a series of drastic laws drawn up by Roosevelt and his group of economic advisers which set up a whole battery of new administrative bodies for a concerted attack upon the problems of ”recovery” and “relief.” Of these bodies the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the National Industrial Recovery Administration (the N.R.A.) are the most important. As we are chiefly concerned with the interests of the industrial workers, it is the N.R.A., and particularly its labour provisions, that we shall mainly consider.

The N.R.A. came into existence in June, 1933. First it established a General or “Blanket” Code of Fair Competition, which all employers were asked to sign and adhere to. A national propaganda campaign, using all means of ballyhoo, mobilised the vast pro-Roosevelt sentiment behind the scheme. By August 1st over 700,000 employers had signed and received the badge of the Blue Eagle. Compulsion was threatened if persuasion failed—a piece of bluff characteristic of many aspects of the New Deal.

The Blanket Code established a maximum working week of from thirty-five to forty hours, minimum wages varying from twelve dollars to fifteen dollars per week, and made certain classes of child labour illegal. Section 7a of the code guaranteed workers the right of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. The N.R.A. further called upon each industry to draw up a code adapted to its own special needs, each code to be in harmony with the Blanket Code and approved in its details by the N.R.A. The following condensed account of the Steel Industries Code is given as a sample:—

  “The Steel Code . . . provided for a trial period of ninety days. At the end of this period the steel companies declared it workable . . . It provided for a forty-hour week of labour averaged over three months, with a maximum for each employee of not more than forty-eight hours in a 6-day week. The right of collective bargaining was conceded. Representatives of the N.R.A. were empowered to inspect the records of the Iron and Steel Institute to obtain full 'information concerning production, shipment, sales and unfilled orders, hours of labour, rates of pay and other conditions of employment,’ in order to stabilise production.” (The World Almanac, 1934.)

To date, over 400 codes have been put into force and it is estimated that about 20 millions of workers or 90 per cent. of those eligible come within their regulations.

A primary feature of the whole “recovery” programme has been the efforts to artificially stimulate a general rise in prices by credit and currency schemes, and by limiting price-cutting and controlling production through the codes. Because the crisis was accompanied by falling prices it has been assumed by almost all capitalists that if only prices could be pushed up “prosperity” would be here again. Yet it is evident that unless rising prices result from a growing demand for goods, the effect must be to curtail sales. This fact is recognised by the recovery administration. Roosevelt and his economist advisers have, for perhaps the first time in the history of capitalist politics, insisted on the need for greater purchasing power amongst the masses if "prosperity" is to be regained and maintained. This attitude is partly, no doubt, a political manoeuvre to attract working class support. It is certainly emphatic enough, and none of the New Dealers have more clearly expressed it than H. A. Wallace, the present Secretary of Agriculture. In his pamphlet, "America Must Choose" reprinted in part in the New York Times, February 25th, 1934, he says:—

   "There can be little doubt that the trouble traces, in whole or in part, to a maldistribution of income. That doctrine is implicit in our New Deal, which seems to me to rest on irresistible logic. We are trying to build up consumption per capita at home as a substitute for new consumers abroad. Our new method involves a planned redistribution of the national income, in contrast with the unplanned redistribution that takes place regularly, usually unhappily, in every major economic crisis the civilised world over. ...
  "Our New Deal seeks to promote consumption more soundly. It directs purchasing power to those in need by wage advances and alleviations of debt. It lessens the need to force exports. It looks toward balancing production with consumption at home."

In considering this aspect of the New Deal it is important to note that the schemes of the administration to raise wages have been timid in the extreme. Compare them with the bold experiments in banking control, crop reduction and business control through the codes. The fixing of minimum wage-rates affects only the lower-paid strata of workers, directly at all events. How higher-paid workers may be affected is well shown by A. Epstein, a writer on reform questions, in ah article, "Is it a New Deal?" (Current History, March, 1934): —

   "Under the new dispensation, many less efficient workers were completely cast out of industry. On the other hand, many of those who were formerly considered cheap and inefficient were discovered to be able to do almost as good work as that formerly done by employees who received more than the minimum wage in the codes.
  "Since the codes did not abolish the employer's right to hire and fire, he was able either to dismiss entirely his most expensive help or to rehire them later at wages more nearly approaching the minimum. The endless possibilities in such reductions were quite unexplored. Even now there is no way of estimating whether or not the meagre accruals in purchasing power of the lowest-paid wage-earners exceed the reductions in the wages of higher-paid employees. There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that the N.R.A. . . . with its unwieldy mechanisms for enforcement, has actually resulted in increasing labour's total purchasing power. The contrary is more likely to be true."?

Unorganised white-collar workers are especially liable to be affected in the above manner. L. W. Zimmer, in charge of the employment bureau of New York University, reported last October that "The $20 to $22 job is now about a $15 job, because employers tend to keep their wages around the N.R.A. minimum." He added that the number found jobs was not appreciably above that of the same period of the preceding year. (N.Y. Telegram, October 11th, 1934.)

Despite the fact that one of the avowed objects of the N.R.A. is the abolition of "sweating," the minimum wage rates are only about one-half of the figure, $26.77, which in 1932 was declared by the Department of Labour to be a bare subsistence wage for a family of five. It is well known, moreover, that great numbers are receiving less than the minimum. Fear of unemployment and victimisation effectively prevents complaints to the local N.R.A. Similar evasions in hours of labour are widespread.

The actual increase in individual earnings where there has been a growing demand for workers owing to increasing business has been very small. The American Federation of Labour in its annual review of industry for 1933 reports average weekly wage rates in 16 industries as being $20.53 in November, 1932, $20.56 in November, 1933, and $20.83 at the end of January, 1934. Retail food prices, according to Bureau of Labour Statistics, had risen 20 per cent. between April, 1933, and February, 1934, whilst clothing and furnishings had risen 27 per cent. It is thus evident that the average worker’s standard of living and purchasing power was actually declining during the first seven months of the N.R.A.

The attempt to absorb any large proportion of the unemployed by the reduction of hours to 35-40 weekly is futile so long as business continues at a low ebb. So great had been the spread of short time prior to the New Deal, that the average hours worked in June, 1933, were: crude petroleum industry, 42.6 hours; iron and steel, 37.9 hours; soft coal, 28.5. (Monthly Labour Review, August, 1933.) The average over all manufacturing industries for the first five months of 1933 is estimated at 34.7 hours.

It is, moreover, almost certain that with industrial recovery, machinery and speeding up will enable output at the code hours to equal or even surpass that reached with the longer hours of the pre-depression period. It is extremely significant that the makers of machinery are experiencing what is perhaps the sharpest pick-up shown in any industry. The New York Times (September 24th, 1933) reported that makers of machine tools did 400 per cent. more business in August than in the preceding March. This report further says: “The largest call for new equipment comes from textile mills, which are seeking high-speed machinery to replace the obsolete looms they find too expensive to operate under present high production costs. Producers of men’s and women’s garments are also investing freely in machinery capable of producing more goods in the limited working time allowed under the recovery codes. . . . Manufacturers of machinery attribute the present demand for labour-saving machinery to the desire of producers to keep up previous production schedules while remaining within the limits of the working hour provisions of the recovery programme.” Could anything show more clearly the tangle of contradictions in which the N.R.A. is involved, how its provisions are nullified even when obeyed to the letter, by the inescapable trends of capitalist “enterprise” ? It may be added that so great have been the advances in machinery and other means of production during the years of depression that students of the question agree in believing that with industry restored to its high 1929 level of output, 4,000,000 workers would remain unemployed. Only a further expansion of total production would reduce that figure.

Especially significant is the recent decision to close all of the 900 silk mills for one week on account of large unsold stocks. The textile code authorities have given this order, and violators are threatened with legal penalties. Hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off.

During the first four months of the Roosevelt administration there was a swift improvement in business. This is generally attributed, in part at least, to the endeavour of manufacturers to lay up stocks before the rise in the costs of production which were expected to result from the Roosevelt policies. The New York Times index of business activity registered its lowest point, of 47.9, in March, 1933. (100 is the estimated “ normal,” but this, to-day, is arbitrary, and a return to it would still be under slump conditions.) The index rose rapidly, and momentarily touched 99 in mid-July, one month after N.R.A. was born. Then began a slow decline, reaching 72.5 in early November. Since then there has been a slow, wavering advance to 87.5 on May 5th. As there has been an improvement in business over most of the capitalist world in the past few months, it is doubtful, to say the least, to what extent the N.R.A. has been instrumental in assisting recovery in America.

There has been a moderate reduction in unemployment. The A.F. of L. report for May, 1934, states that unemployment was reduced from its peak of 13.6 millions in March, 1933, to 10.1 millions in October, but that between October, 1933, and March, 1934, 780-thousand had lost their jobs again. Statistics on unemployment in the U.S. are, however, notoriously incomplete and unreliable. The A.F. of L. figures do not take into account agricultural and certain other classes of workers. The estimate of the Alexandra Hamilton Institute, which does take these into account, places the high point of unemployment at 17 millions. The A.F. of L. estimates that the total wages paid per week increased by 23.7 per cent, between March, 1933, and March, 1934.

Let us now look at the way in which the trend to recovery is affecting the capitalists. In the aforementioned A.F. of L. report it is stated that "the first fifty-one companies to report for the first quarter of 1934 showed total profits of $18,740,000, compared with $6,332,000 in 1933. Dividends, the Federation said, were $15,000,000 higher in March. 1934, than in March, 1933.” (New York Times, May 6th, 1934.) This tendency is precisely what one would expect. It is inevitable that, with the upward trend of production, the increase in returns on capital will be more rapid than the increase in income to the workers. Just as the slump in production was due to conditions which forced down the rate of profit, so the expansion of production can only result from conditions which cause the rate of profit to rise. Profit is the sole motive to production under capitalism, N.R.A. or no N.R.A.

It is evident, therefore, that the principle upon which the labour policy of the New Deal is in theory based, that a greater proportion of the national purchasing power must go to the workers, is not materialising, and it is not likely to.

Next month we will consider the N.R.A. and Trade Unionism.

R. W. Housley

Workers’ Socialist Party (U.S.A.)

Editorial: The Disintegration of the I.L.P. (1934)

Editorial from the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another New Party Formed.

Less than two years ago the I.L.P. decided to leave the Labour Party, which it had spent thirty years trying to build up and control. A large minority declined to accept this decision, formed the Socialist League and the Scottish Socialist Party, and remained in the Labour Party. Now, after a painful experience of trying to work with the Communist Party without being swallowed up by it, the I.L.P. has seen another large section of its membership secede in order to form yet another organisation, the Independent Socialist Party.

The secessionists are the I.L.P. branches in Lancashire and neighbouring counties, and their reason for seceding is that they object to the policy adopted by the majority of forming a united front with the Communist Party. They also protest that the policy of the Maxton group is leaning away from democratic and parliamentary methods towards minority action and armed revolt, that is, towards the discredited doctrines of the Communists.

The resolution passed at the inaugurating conference was as follows (Manchester Guardian, May 14th):—

  That this conference, believing: that poverty, unemployment, war, and restriction of liberty are the inevitable accompaniment of capitalism, declares for the establishment of a Socialist Commonwealth in which the land, and instruments of production, and exchange are publicly owned and democratically controlled and in which economic equality, will obtain. Understanding that the change from capitalism to Socialism involves a revolution, the conference affirms that this can only be accomplished by the enlightened democratic assent of the majority of the people and by the full use of the political, industrial, and cooperative strength possessed by the British democracy. To this end it pledges itself to establish an independent Socialist Party which will present not merely “collectivism” as an economic necessity, but Socialism as an ethically superior social system.

This resolution can be taken as giving a good idea of the outlook of the new movement. It is perhaps an advance on the series of programmes adopted in the past by the I.L.P., but it contains many confused and ambiguous phrases, dangerous not only for what they say, but also for the certainty that they will be differently interpreted by different people. What, for example, is meant by public ownership and democratic control of the “instruments of exchange"? Exchange is the process of buying and selling, of giving one privately-owned commodity in exchange for another. It can have no place in a Socialist system of society where articles will be produced for use, not for sale. It may be, of course, that the framers of the resolution did not mean “exchange" but "distribution," but that only indicates their unfitness yet to propagate Socialism. And why the term “publicly owned" ? This is the conveniently obscure name used by Mr. Herbert Morrison to describe the form of capitalism which goes by the name public utility corporations. What is meant by “ political, industrial, and co-operative strength"? There can be no Socialism until a Socialist majority have organised politically for and have achieved the conquest of the machinery of government. To link up industrial action with this as if the two were of equal importance shows confusion. The reference to "co-operative strength" is worse, for it implies that the new party has inherited the I.L.P. belief, that the joint stock capitalist trading, known as the Co-operative Movement, is an organisation which exists to help achieve Socialism.

One test that can be applied to this new party concerns the S.P.G.B. On the surface they have come a considerable way towards recognising the soundness of the S.P.G.B.’s position, and prominent members, such as Mr. Middleton Murry, have on occasions admitted this. If, then, they are clear and determined in their belief that Socialism is the only solution, and that independent democratic political action is the method, why did they hasten to form yet another party, instead of joining the S.P.G.B. ?

If, on the other hand, they hold that the S.P.G.B.'s position is unsound, why do they not state their case against it? They have not done so, but—and this includes Mr. Middleton Murry in particular—they have carefully avoided dealing with the S.P.G.B. at all.

That the founders of the new party are completely muddled in their conception of what constitutes political independence is, however, shown by their statement (Manchester Guardian, May 17th) that members of the I.S.P. are to be allowed to be members of the Labour Party as well. If the basis of the new party is really different from that of the Labour Party, as is claimed, how can individuals be permitted to belong to both parties?

The fact that this is to be permitted will be interpreted, and rightly so, as an indication that the I.S.P. stands in the same kind of relationship to the Labour Party as did the old I.L.P., that of a reformist group calling for a more “militant," but not essentially different, policy and objective. It will also open up the way to that bugbear of working class organisations, the political careerist, who will be able in the I.S.P., as in the former I.L.P., to run with the “left wing” hare while hunting with the Labour Party hounds.

So far there has been no talk in the new party of putting forward a programme of reforms or immediate demands, but since they acknowledge their faith in the old traditions of the I.L.P., and are willing to allow membership of the Labour Party, it is to be expected that they will go the same way as all the other parties which have wanted Socialism a little, but have wanted a large membership, and parliamentary and local government electoral victories, more than they wanted Socialism.

In passing, it is worth recording the result of the Upton by-election, at which Mr. Fenner Brockway was the I.L.P. candidate. The I.L.P. (that is, the Maxton-Brockway fragment of the once popular and wealthy party) is now near-Communist, and it put forward Mr. Brockway in order to queer the pitch of the Labour Party candidate. The result was that the Labour candidate obtained 11,988 votes, the Conservative 8,534, and Mr. Brockway only 748, thus forfeiting his £150 deposit. The I.L.P. (and the Communists, who supported them in the election) sought comfort in the view that, at any rate, they had got real revolutionary votes. A glance at Mr. Brockway's election address shows, however, that he solicited votes on the usual reform measures. In his programme were the following: Old-age pensions of 20s. at sixty years of age, thirty hours' work a week, all-round increases of wages “to a decent human standard," restoration of the wage cuts on the pay of postmen, teachers, soldiers, sailors and the police, etc., etc. One little thing shows the shoddiness of this reformist vote-catching. Mr. Brockway now asks for old-age pensions at sixty; forty years ago the I.L.P. was asking for old-age pensions at fifty. Is this what is meant by a more “advanced" programme?

This kind of reformism once gave the I.L.P. a 60,000 membership, and 200 of its members seats in the House of Commons as Labour M.P.'s. Now its membership is probably less than a tenth of that number, and its M.P.’s are reduced to two or three. When the Maxtons and Brockways are finally forced to recognise that the tide of reformist votes is flowing strongly towards the Labour Party, it may be expected that they and their shattered remnant of followers will slink back into that safe harbourage. 

Their experiment in reformism, independent of the Labour Party, has been every whit as harmful to the Socialist movement as their years of working hand-in-hand with the Liberal and Labour Parties.

It remains to be seen whether the Independent Socialist Party has really learned by that experience or whether it, too, will gravitate back to the magnet of trade union votes and trade union money inside the Labour Party. There is no place for a really independent working class party except on the basis of clear-cut Socialist principles from which every vestige of reformism and vote-catching have been excluded.

Answers to Correspondents. (1934)

Letters to the Editors from the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Pay of Party Officials.

Several correspondents in recent months have asked what is the pay of the editors of the Socialist Standard and other Party Officials. The position is that, so far, the whole of the Party’s work (apart from Head Office cleaning and caretaking), secretarial, editorial, organising, speaking, etc., has been done by volunteers, without any pay at all. As the Party’s activities grow, it will cease to be possible to have certain kinds of work done by volunteers in their spare time, although the bulk of the work will always be done in this way. The fact that the S.P.G.B’s financial resources are at present meagre has the effect of preventing us from undertaking those extensions of our activities which would necessitate having full-time organisers and other officials.

Editorial Committee

The Qualification of "S.S." Writers.

Other correspondents have asked for information about the identity of the writers of articles published in the Socialist Standard, their qualifications to deal with certain subjects, and other similar information. The principal answer to all such inquiries is that the articles published in the Socialist Standard carry their justification with them. They put forward certain arguments which the reader is expected to examine for himself, and to accept only if he finds them logical and in accordance with the facts. No attempt is made to secure the reader’s agreement with a point of view merely on the ground that the writer is an “authority,” although it is the claim of the S.P.G.B. that its declarations concerning Socialism, whether on the platform or in print, are the result of serious study, and are in that sense authoritative. For what it is worth we may point out that among the regular contributors to the Socialist Standard are half a dozen writers who have university training and degrees. They are not, for that reason, any better exponents of the Socialist case than other writers who have not that kind of distinction. Having qualified in some special branch of study, they may be expected to be particularly fitted to deal with aspects of Socialism touching thereon, but in that they are no different from other writers and speakers of the Party who have specialised in various directions. In the S.P.G.B. every effort is made to secure accuracy as regards statements of fact, and to secure that all written and spoken statements of the Socialist case shall be in accordance with the teachings of science.

Editorial Committee

Canada's White Hope — the C.C.F. (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ever since Jack Johnson won the heavyweight championship many moons ago, the world has with eagerness watched the coming and going of white hopes. In the more important realm of politics new movements are born and quickly die, the remains creating fertilizers for new hopes to befog the minds of the majority, who so far have shown no desire for a real change in the system.

It is two years since the birth of the C.C.F. in Calgary, and British workers may be interested to know what the mystic letters “ C.C.F.” mean, and what the organisation stands for.

The Canadian Co-operative Federation is the fine-sounding title represented by the letters in question, and to those of us who have had the Co-operative Commonwealth, i.e., Socialism, as our objective for years it is difficult to understand the minds which claim that their ultimate aim, but spend all their time advocating something else now.

The outstanding figure of the C.C.F. is James S. Woodsworth, one of the Winnipeg Labour M.P.'s in the Parliament at Ottawa. He is an ex-preacher noted for his radical ideas, and has turned out an able politician, judged by the standards of the capitalist parties.

In the 1921 election to the Federal House, sixty-four Progressives were elected, all with more or less Radical ideas. By 1925 most of them were absorbed by the Liberal Party, and in 1930 (including the Labourites), they only mustered fifteen members, who have since that time cooperated in a loose group.

August 1st, 1932, saw the first meeting and the first attempt at organisation, when a Farmer-Labour Federation was formed. This meeting was attended by delegates of Labour Parties of the four Western Provinces and the organised farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The movement spread rapidly and culminated in a great Convention, held in Regina, July 19th to 21st, 1933. It was attended by 135 delegates, from Toronto and Montreal in the East to Vancouver on the Pacific Coast, at which the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was founded.

The affiliations of the Federation consist of the Farmer-Labour Party of New Brunswick, the Labour Party of Quebec, the Labour Conference of Ontario, the I.L.P. of Manitoba, the Labour Party of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Labour Party of Alberta, and the so-called Socialist Party of British Columbia. Next, and perhaps most important, the organised Farmers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta joined up, with Manitoba farmers giving half-hearted support, but likely to continue to vote for the Farmer-Liberal Government which has power in this Province at present.

Another group giving support to the C.C.F. consists of a sprinkling of “intellectuals” of the Radical type, mostly college professors, doctors, lawyers and preachers. In addition, the organised Protestant churches have practically blessed the C.C.F. by passing resolutions calling for the "transformation of the present competitive system into a co-operative one.” C.C.F. leaders frequently quote from a recent encyclical of Pope Pius in an effort to link up the powerful Roman Catholic vote to their side.

The semi-feudal background of the peasants and workers of Roman Catholic Quebec will be hard to overcome, and radicalism of the pinkest type has not yet penetrated to that home of what has been termed bush-culture. To illustrate the outlook of some of the farming element of Canada to which the C.C.F. appeals, it has been related that a C.C.F. speaker, after declaiming against the Wages system, had one farmer agree with him in the following words: “Yes, I agree we should abolish wages. Hired men want far too big wages nowadays.”

The economic background of the new movement, therefore, is made up of, first, a very reactionary farm population whose main desire is a big price for farm produce. On the other hand, they demand a low wage scale for labour, not only amongst their hired hands, but also amongst the men who make their farm machinery, and those who on the railroads, etc., transport their produce to the markets of the world.

Secondly, a Labour movement with the regular Trade Union outlook largely imported from Great Britain but contaminated by the ideas of that most pitiful Trade Union movement, the American Federation of Labour, to which most of our unions are affiliated.

There are also groups organised as Social Reconstruction Clubs which are affiliated to the C.C.F., and from the leaders of those clubs flow a constant stream of half-boiled schemes and plans, and a constant fight against anything pertaining to a recognition of the class struggle.

The usual Left and Right Wings are already developing. The reformist S.P. of British Columbia is led largely by some ex-members of the old S.P. of Canada, who could see no possible career in the new Party organised in Winnipeg a few years ago with a programme similar to that of the S.P.G.B. They, along with some young members of the I.L.P. in Winnipeg and a small group of ex-semi- Communists in Toronto, comprise the Left.

The Farmers of Ontario are led by an avowed anti-Socialist, Miss Agnes McPhail, M.P. She has the help of two other fierce opponents of Sodalism, in the persons of Mr. Elmore Philpott, much boosted soldier-orator-journalist in Toronto, and Mr. John McLean, M.A., B.A., L.L.D. (Oxon.), Rhodes scholar and lawyer here in Winnipeg.

We see then that the new Federation represents (a) the wage workers of Canada, whose ideas are as nebulous as the ideas of the same class in other lands, and of course it can well be understood their immediate demands are equally confusing; (b) the farmers of Canada, whose hopes and demands have already been outlined as high prices for farm produce and low wages for the industrial workers as well as the farm labourers.

The C.C.F. have fourteen planks in their platform, subject, of course, to additions and reductions to suit the vote-catching needs of the moment. Some of the planks appeal specially to the wage workers. Plank 7, for instance, calls for “A National Labour Code to secure for the workers maximum income and leisure, insurance covering illness, accident, old age and unemployment, freedom of association and an effective participation in the management of his industry or profession.”

Mr. Elmer E. Roper, one of the Alberta Labour leaders, tells us, in the February issue of the Saskatchewan C.C.F. Research, that this plank is one that might easily appear in the Election platform of either of the old parties.”

The same could well be said of the other thirteen planks, but we will deal with them as we go on.

Plank 4 deals with “Agriculture” and features as its chief aim “Security of Tenure” for the farmers of Canada. To get what is meant by that elusive term we can refer to the "C.C.F. Agricultural Policy” as outlined by their principal farmer leader, G. H. Williams, President of the Saskatchewan Farmer-Labour group, in his speech at the Regina Convention, July 22nd, 1933. The present real owners of Canadian Farm lands—the Mortgage and Insurance Companies—are to be treated real rough by Mr. Williams and the C.C.F. when they get power. He says: ”We will give you bonds for your equity, bonds that will not carry interest. . . . These bonds will be payable over a period of years in the currency of the province as it may be at the date of payment." Then to the farmer, Mr. Williams says: “All improvements will, of course, increase the value of the land, and the State will guarantee to compensate you for the increase in the value of the land, brought about by your efforts." Not only that, but Mr. Williams says they are going to supply “through Socialism to the agriculturist, a marketing board, State credit and pegged prices. . . . In industry we guarantee to the worker a job at an adequate wage and we use the production for the benefit of the Canadian people. We will do the same for agriculture."

So that brings us to a new problem for the C.C.F. What will people use for money? Planks 2, 11 and 14 deal with this absorbing question. 1 Mr. C. G. Coote, M.P., one of their money experts, tells us, in the House of Commons on February 1st, 1933: “ The first step is a planned economy," and the next: "A central bank owned by the State, whose duty it would be to see that sufficient money is at all times available to allow us to distribute among our people the consumable goods which we can produce."

That, in part, is what the C.C.F. have copied from that enemy of Socialism, Major Douglas. Let us again quote from the organ of the "Saskatchewan C.C.F. Research Bureau," December, 1933, issue, where we read: "The only shortage is in money, and this artificial shortage is due to the policy of the financiers and is maintained by the powers of the State. The State will then make every man, woman and child an equal partner in the wealth of the country as a going concern. Backed by the inexhaustible resources of the nation the State can issue as much credit as is needed." Later we read: "There is no shortage of anything, except money, wherewith to purchase the things we produce, and a sane system of finance is all that is required to make things available. Sufficient purchasing power for everybody is merely a matter of accounting."

Here we have revealed the C.C.F. answer to Socialism. Socialism involves that goods shall be produced for use and not for sale. The C.C.F. say goods will be produced for sale, but that they will provide the people with money to purchase them, an impossible attempt to keep capitalism but escape the consequences of so doing.

The depression of the Seventies produced on this Continent the American Grange or the Patrons of Industry, the Nineties had their Populist Movement, and later we had Townley and his Non- Partisans, and in Canada the depression of the early Twenties produced the Progressives.

The Farmer Movement of Canada has its roots in those old discredited movements, with the same kind of currency cranks leading them, and the British Columbia “Socialists" and Winnipeg I.L.P.'ers trailing behind. Reactionary farmers representing the dog, and confused workers the tail. Why should the gods not laugh?

Plank 1 calls for “ Planning," as if capitalism was not planned beautifully for the capitalists!

Plank 3, on Social Ownership, reassures the most reactionary that confiscation is unthought of. It says: "We do not propose to adopt any policy of outright confiscation," and again: “We recognise the need for compensation."

Plank 5 calls for “ Import and Export Boards" to deal with foreign trade.

Planks 8, 9 and 10 deal respectively with “Health Service", “The British North America Act,’’ which governs the Canadian Constitution, and “External Relations." Then 12 and 13, dealing with “Freedom" and “Social Justice" bring to a close a programme which is a mixture of decadent Liberalism, Fabian Bureaucracy and Currency Confusion.

Practically every plank and clause is a denial of the purpose of the Federation, which is supposed to be: “The establishment of a Co-operative Commonwealth, in which the basic principle regulating production, etc., will be the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits."

The attitude of the Socialist Party of Canada towards this Federation is one of unbending opposition. We are opposed to the spurious “Socialism" advocated by their spokesmen and leaders, the Socialism that “recognises the need for compensation," or a Socialism which is going to issue money “to purchase the things we produce," or one that guarantees to the worker “a job at an adequate wage." We do not want a “Co-operative Commonwealth" like the one envisaged by Professor Frank H. Underhill, the head of the Brain Trust, when he says in his essay on Dictatorship: “The direct ownership and operation by government of the great strategic services, such as transportation and distribution of electric power." We don’t even want our planning done by “public officials."

No! we are opposed to bureaucracy, to a wage system, to compensation, and not only to Government ownership but to the coercive State itself. When all the people own all the earth and the means whereby wealth is produced, classes will automatically disappear, and if society has no owning and governing class, how can we have a Government, the function of which is to protect class ownership? The kind of administrative organisation then required will be essentially different.

To the young and earnest workers in the Federation we constantly repeat the old truth, that non-Socialists organised on a programme of reforms cannot further the work for Socialism. The changing economic conditions are working for us, disillusion will follow the futile efforts of Woodsworth, Pritchard and Queen to make a coherent movement out of such widely divergent elements as constitute the C.C.F. Some of their leaders will openly join the avowedly capitalist parties, but there will be no place for any of them in the Socialist movement, which has no use for Leaders, any more than it has for the other evil features of a system so detrimental to human welfare as modern capitalism.

Alex Paterson

(Socialist Party of Canada)

Correspondence: Socialism, the King and the House of Lords (1934)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks the following questions:— ,

  Will you please define the S.P.G.B.'s attitude towards the question of Royalty and Republicanism under a Socialist State? Also how would the S.P.G.B. deal with the House of Lords?

Reply.

Whatever part the institution of kingship has played in the past history of the human race and whatever part it now plays under the social system known as capitalism, neither monarchism nor republicanism will be issues under Socialism. The original functions of kingship have already long been lost and are only saved from oblivion because the memory of them is preserved in certain ancient names, ceremonials and pale imitations. Nowadays, although King George V of England and Emperor William II of Germany, and Emperor Nicholas of Russia and the President of the French Republic, went forth. to the seat of war in 1914, nobody seriously believed that they were there to lead or to direct the huge fighting forces of the capitalist State. It was just a piece of make-believe, but a highly important piece. Capitalism, both in war and in peace, under a monarchy and under a republic, inevitably produces a never-ending conflict between the classes—the owning class and the property-less class—and between sections of the same class. It is therefore essential that the capitalist class shall be able to cover up the yawning gulf between these antagonistic classes by throwing over it the cloak of national unity. This is one of the principal functions of the Church, and, above all, of the monarchy, or the Republican President. Surrounding the King or the President, the capitalists carefully build up a structure of ceremonies, hallowed by tradition, glorified by a lavish display of riches, and sanctified by the Church and the capitalist political parties.

Take away the class antagonisms by taking away the private ownership of the means of life and then the monarchist or republican edifice will be unnecessary. The members of society will be bound together by the tie of mutual interest. They will no longer have to be forced into a mockery of unity by the gloved hand covering the mailed fist.

It will be seen that the attitude of the Socialist is not at all that of the republican. The S.P.G.B. would not support capitalist republicans in an attempt to overthrow monarchy any more than it would help to defend the monarchy against republicanism. When, three years ago, the Spanish monarchy was overthrown, the reformist parties in Spain, as in England (the I.L.P., for example), were overjoyed at what they supposed was the inauguration of a new and better system of society. The S.P.G.B. declined to participate in the celebrations, for we know that it is immaterial to the working class whether they live under a capitalist monarchy or a capitalist republic.

The House of Lords presents no serious problem. When there is a majority of Socialists, politically organised for the purpose of achieving Socialism, the House of Lords will not be permitted to stand in the way. It, like the trappings of monarchy or republic, will have no function to perform under Socialism. It will end when capitalism ends.

The idea that the House of Lords will prove a final bulwark of capitalism is based on illusion. When the capitalists can no longer obtain a majority for their candidates at Parliamentary elections they will know that an unrepresentative body like the House of Lords will not be able to help them. It will prove a broken reed, if ever there was one.

Ed. Comm.

Too Old at Twenty-Nine (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the season of annual conferences, it is the custom for the president or chairman to include in his remarks some apparently startling phrase, which is duly headlined in the next morning’s papers.

Recently Sir Thomas Oliver delivered his presidential address at the Institute of Hygiene, and his particular little tit-bit was: “I do not believe in the too-old-at-forty theory," and he added that there were more men now between 60 and 70 in good health and fit for work, if social, industrial, and trade union conditions allowed it, than there were 200 years ago.

It is a tribute to Sir Thomas's perspicacity that he added the rider: "if social, industrial, and trade union conditions allowed it."

Sir Thomas, however, did not stop to examine why it was that the economic conditions did not permit such a state of affairs. Whilst his views on medical matters may be worthy of attention, it would not do for him to enter into the realm of economics. A too close study of this subject, particularly if he gave expression to the views which would undoubtedly follow such a study on the right lines, might result in his losing some of his best customers.

However, to get back to. the “ too-old-at- forty" business; Sir Thomas says that he does not believe in this theory. The implication is that there is such a theory, but if so, it would be interesting to know who it was who first enunciated it, and whether anybody would actually advance such a theory, even at the present time. Sir Thomas appears to have been indulging in the familiar practice of knocking down his own Aunt Sallies. Nobody would dispute that there are men over forty capable of doing both hard and useful work.

It is, however, the fact that in industry to-day, the employing class do not merely draw the line at forty, but even at thirty or less. Witness this:— 

  “Shorthand-typists, typists, clerks, telephone operators, and juniors (girls and boys), and all office staff of good appearance, secondary education, and not over 28, invited to register at Birch's Agency, 1, Gt. Winchester Street, E.C.2."

The advertisers, and the capitalist class generally, are not actuated by any mere theory that a man is too old at either twenty-nine or forty. They know that there is a large surplus of labour available, and they merely take advantage of the fact to get as young, strong, and cheap workers as possible. They frequently prefer women and girls as being cheaper than men. No blame attaches to them for this, and we would not waste our breath telling them to employ older people. The conditions of the existing form of society are such that in order to produce most profitably, the capitalists get the most efficient labour at the cheapest price.

However, there is not merely the fact that men over a certain age find it practically impossible to get jobs; there is the fact that these men are forced to live upon a semi-starvation diet whilst they can walk down the street and see Rolls-Royces careering past; they can look in at shop windows displaying all manner of luxurious edibles; they can go in the free library and read in The Sketch how their betters are enjoying themselves; and, casting their eyes heavenwards, they, can see the boss class rushing about in space. They know, further, that in the midst of a superabundance of cotton, wheat, coffee, milk, butter and cheese, strenuous efforts are being made to cut down the production of these things.

These features are commonplaces of present-day society, and will remain so long as the basis of that system, namely, the private ownership of the means of production, continues. If the Workers do not like the effects of this system upon themselves, it is up to them to change it to one which is based upon the common ownership of the means of production, i.e., Socialism.

To return to Sir Thomas, however, there is one real gem of thought which deserves to be rescued from the obscurity of a daily newspaper.

He says:— ’

  “To age gracefully, there must be a happy and contented mind, and, while the possession of wealth alone will not bring these, it is a consolation if there is a sufficient financial competency to meet the physical needs of the body with a little surplus left to help others not so well off. For if we would ourselves be happy, we must give happiness to others."

In other words, in order that one lot of people may be happy, it is necessary that another lot shall lack a “sufficient financial competency." The first lot can then get a mental and psychical uplift by assisting the other lot. This other lot, apparently, will not be able to achieve "happiness," but that is not of much moment, so long as the first lot are all right!

Ramo.

Marx: According to Humpty-Dumpty. (1934)

Book Review from the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

“What Marx Really Meant.” By G. D. H. Cole. (Gollancz, 5s. net.)

“It's a stupid name enough!” Humpty-Dumpty interrupted impatiently, “ What does it mean?" “Must a name mean something?" Alice asked doubtfully. . . . "When I use a word," Humpty-Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “ it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Mr. G. D. H. Cole has the same impudent disregard for the ordinary meaning of words. The title of a book is usually expected to give some indication of the contents. When, therefore, a book has the title “What Marx Really Meant,” it is reasonable to assume that it will contain an account of Marx's theories. When the authority is G. D. H. Cole, however, one may wonder what are his qualifications to act as an interpreter of Marx, for he is not a Marxian, and has never given any evidence of beginning to understand Marx (even Mr. E. H. Carr, a non-Marxist, in his recently published biography of Marx, groups Cole among the pseudo-Marxians), but this does not alter one's anticipations regarding the subject-matter of a book with the title “What Marx Really Meant." In other words, the plain man will give words their plain meaning and expect to find in a book with this title a plain statement of what Marx meant. He will be sadly disappointed. There is no connection between the contents and the title. The title is a sheer catchpenny label for a book which has as little connection with Marx as it has with common-sense political understanding. The book is undiluted Cole, with Marx's name dragged in to catch the unwary.

Even Mr. Cole cannot live up to the impertinence of the title, and early explains that his book is “not meant either as an exposition or as a criticism of Marx's doctrines," but is intended “to disentangle from Marx's teaching, from what is dead or no longer appropriate what remains alive and capable of that process of growth and adaptation which is the prerogative of living things.” If that was his object, he ought to have called his book, “What Cole happens to mean—at the moment.”

He betrays a certain amount of nervousness at setting himself up as an authority on Marx, and at dragging Marx into the hotch-potch of his ideas. After asking his readers to make “due allowance for (his) shortcomings as a guide,” he attempts to forestall criticism with the following statement: —

   “Some Marxists will say that what I have been stating is not Marxism at all, but a radically different doctrine. Even if that were so, it would not matter, provided that mine was the better doctrine for to-day. But I think what I have written is in essence Marxist, in that sense in which Marxism is to-day a living force, and not the opium of the Socialist orthodox.” 

As a piece of impudent writing, this would be hard to beat.

Before dealing more in detail with the book, one other instance should be noted. Marx put forward a theory to explain the evolution of society. To that theory he gave a name, the Materialist Conception of History. He did so intentionally. He used the term materialist because that is what he meant, and Marxians have always referred to that theory by that name. Now along comes this writer of detective stories, and announces: “I shall write ‘realist' in place of 'materialist,’ for I can see no point at all in that form of servility which clings obstinately to a name.” It will easily be appreciated that after being connected with thirty different political organisations, Mr. Cole is not likely to cling obstinately to anything.

The book is a difficult one to review on account of the author’s method. He has jumbled up together his interpretation of certain of Marx's doctrines with a statement of his own political views. His aim seems to be to support those views by relating them to Marxian principles—or what he conceives; to be Marxian principles. Where he is expounding Marx he reveals such a complete lack of understanding of everything Marx wrote, that the doubt at once arises whether, notwithstanding the fact that he wrote an introduction to the Everyman edition of “Capital,” he has ever seriously read much more than the “Communist Manifesto.” It is inevitable, therefore, that what he claims to be A reading of the “signs of our times by a method which is largely that of Marx,” bears absolutely no relation to Marxian thought. No Marxian could be guilty of the errors of analysis contained in this book, while the recommendations of policy in it are, in the main, contrary to the whole of Marx's teaching.

As an example of the kind of statement in this book that raises a doubt as to whether the author is really acquainted with Marx's writings, the following may be quoted: —

  It is sometimes suggested that Marx did believe the coming of Socialism to be inevitable, and held that men could, by their conduct, only advance or delay its coming, or cause it to come in a more or less satisfactory form. It is quite possible that Marx did hold this.

If Mr. Cole knows what he is writing about, why this indefiniteness? Marx, of course, made specific statements which gave dear expression to his view. In the Communist Manifesto, he and Engels wrote:—

   The bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

This passage was reproduced as a footnote to “Capital,” to which, as mentioned above, Mr. Cole wrote an introduction. (For footnote, see Everyman edition, p. 847.)

It is undoubtedly true that, as Mr. Cole states, Marx, if he had been alive and writing to-day, would not have written "exactly as he wrote in 1848, or 1859, or 1867, or 1883.” but that is no justification for claiming for non-Marxian ideas the support of Marx's name. Despite Mr. Cole's disclaimers, to suppose that Marx would have propounded the theories foisted off on him by Mr. Cole is “the rankest injustice to Marx.” Mr. Cole uses the following specious arguments for putting forward his own ideas as being related to those of Marx:—

  If the structure of classes has changed since Marx’s day, as I have tried to show that it has, the theory which Marx formulated as appropriate to the class conditions of his day can no longer be adequate to meet the needs of the present time, at all events until it has been modified and adapted in conformity with these changes. Every Marxist is compelled by his Marxism to be a “revisionist ”. . .  no Marxist can escape revisionism without denying the dialectical principle.

It is sheer sophistry to pretend that the dialectical principle which requires that things should not be treated and considered as though they were static, and insists that everything is in process of development, necessarily implies that ideas originated, say, seventy years ago, must be inapplicable to-day. In that case the dialectic view would itself be obsolete! Even if the dialectical principle did require a modification, it would not follow that revision should properly take place on the Labour Party lines followed by Mr. Cole. Further, the major premise of his argument is false. If he had properly appreciated what Marx meant by capitalists and proletariat, and by the class struggle between them, he would not have been deceived into believing that "the structure of classes has changed since Marx's day.” Far from changing, that structure stands to-day even more clearly discernible and defined than when Marx wrote. There can be no doubt now that in capitalist society there are but two classes, one dependent upon the possession of property, the other property-less and dependent upon .the sale of its labour power. Like all "intellectuals,” Mr. Cole tries to blur the clear-cut distinction between the two classes. For him the proletariat consists “in the advanced parliamentary countries of Western Europe . . . of a central mass of manual workers and their families, shading off at one end into the unemployables, and at the other into the 'black coats' of the middle class.'' In the world of Mr. Cole there appear to be a large number of classes, for he writes of “the middle classes, that is, the classes between the governing groups of the bourgeoisie and the wage-earners,” who “have increased markedly as a percentage of the entire population,” and who have “assumed the new character given to them by the increased wealth of modern Societies." Patronising snobbery prevents Mr. Cole plunging himself and his fellow “intellectuals" down among the “manual workers," so he puts forward concepts of middle classes which have no basis in reality. Unless the existence of only two classes is denied, the whole case of the “intellectuals" falls to the ground and they cease, as a group, to have any special political significance. Mr. Cole claims that an alliance “of the proletariat and new petit bourgeoisie against the large capitalists and the reactionary petit bourgeois groups . . . is the only possible way of achieving Socialism by peaceful and constitutional means, and probably the only way of averting the spread of Fascist dictatorships." The fact is, however, that whenever the proletariat (by which is meant what Marx meant, namely, all those who are dependent upon the sale of their labour power), want to achieve Socialism they can do so by the use of their own unaided power, and without the advice or leadership of " intellectuals."

How far Mr. Cole is from understanding Marx’s analysis of Capitalism is revealed in his remarks about Russia, of which the following are samples. He writes: "The U.S.S.R. . . . has already thrown Capitalism over . . . under the new Russian system it is utterly impossible for the characteristic dilemma of Capitalism ever to arise . . the Russian system does ensure that as much as they can possibly produce will find a market, so that over-production and under-consumption and also unemployment, save as a temporary consequence of friction in the process of industrial change, simply cannot arise." (Pages 61 and 70.) It is difficult to say whether that displays the greater ignorance of Marx or of conditions in Russia. Capitalism in the sense in which Marx understood it, as a system of society based on the exploitation of a class of property-less wage labourers exists to-day in Russia, just as much as in England. Unemployment has certainly not been banished. The Russians have also been faced with the problem of over-production. Like other capitalist producers, they have had to curtail production because they could not sell various products in the world market at a profit during the depression.

It may be wondered how people like Mr. Cole contrive to achieve their reputations as authorities on Marx, in face of their patent ignorance. It is to a large extent the result of mutual back-scratching. For example, that other self-constituted authority on Marx, Professor H. J. Laski reviewed Mr. Cole's book in the Manchester Guardian, and praised it as providing "a really admirable summary of the Marxian theory of value." Unwary readers may be impressed by Professor Laski’s judgment, but others will know that this Professor of Political Science does not understand Marx’s economic theories, and has confessed as much. When he wrote his "Communism" (see review in Socialist Standard, July, 1927), so little was he able to deal with this aspect that he borrowed his  "criticism" of the Labour Theory of Value from a book called "Karl Marx's Capital," written by Professor Lindsay, and Lindsay knows no more about the subject than Laski or Cole.

That is by the way. Here it is impossible to examine in detail Cole's summary of the theory. Whether the Marxian Theory of Value is right or wrong, nobody who had mastered even the first few chapters of "Capital" could ever believe he was representing Marx's ideas in writing: "Marx's 'value' or ‘exchange value' is, then . . . purely and simply objectified use value. It is the real amount of objective utility which a commodity possesses as a result of the labour bestowed upon it." What this all means only Cole and, presumably, Laski, know. Fortunately it is not Marxian.

It is to be hoped that nobody will be enticed into buying or reading the book in the belief that it is a statement of Marxist principles. It is nothing of the kind. It is a vastly irritating sermon on Labourism by a man who, incidentally, has now discovered that his fellow "intellectuals" were wrong when, a short time ago, they proclaimed that Capitalism was in ruins and unable to stand the burden of paying for further reforms or an extension of social services. At any rate, he writes that "the history of the past few years has very plainly illustrated the toughness and resisting power of Capitalism . . . even in face of prolonged world depression; and who is bold enough to say that the present depression, deep and long as it has been, will not pass and be succeeded by a phase of capitalist revival?"

Another author, with whom Mr. Cole claims some acquaintance, is Wm. Cobbett, for he wrote an introduction to Cobbett's "Grammar." Cobbett has a passage which can be fittingly applied to this book:—"the pompous tone, the self-conceit that is manifest from the beginning to the end, forbid us to give (the author) credit for sincerity when he confesses his deficiencies, and tell us that the confession is one of those clumsy traps so often used with the hope of catching unmerited applause."

There is some advice in Mr. Cole's book which we can heartily endorse, contained in the last paragraph: —

Having presented in this book my conception of what Marxism really means, I can only ask the reader, if he is in any doubt, to go and study for himself what Marx wrote, and not merely what others have written about him.

In conclusion there is one thing that should be made dear. The S.P.G.B. has been described by Cole as a "body of rigid Marxians." (Enc. Brit., Vol. 32, Page 507.) It might have been thought, therefore, that the author of a book supposed to deal with Marx would be particularly careful to ensure that it was sent to us for review. This book has not been sent to us. We wasted 5s. on buying it.

B. S.

Snapshots. (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "Sentimental" Claironette 

For several years “before the War” there was a paper called the Clarion. There still is. There is a contrast, however, in its present tone, which expresses the degeneracy of the Labour movement, with which it is associated.

The old Clarion sent forth a shrill and challenging blast. Its economics were decidedly “wonky” and its excursions into philosophy were somewhat crude, but compare “Britain for the British,” or “God and my Neighbour,” with the near-deathbed confessions of J. C. Lansbury, commencing in its issue of April 14th. “The foundation of all true reform or revolutionary change must start with this ‘that ye love one another,’” says old George; and, confronted with the question, “How am I to do it, placed as I am in the midst of a world of strife?” continues: “This is our problem, and it can only really be solved by us all individually.”

“Ker-ist!” and one is asked to pay twopence a week to listen to the apologetic squeak of this tin-trumpet! “Odham’s—bodikins!’’

The “Intellectual” Conspirators.

A document has fallen into our hands contrary to the wishes of its authors. It is labelled “Forward to Socialism” and is issued by the National Council of the Socialist League for discussion at that body’s forthcoming Annual Conference (May 20th and 21st), and at the foot of the title-page occurs this tit-bit: —

“Members and branches are requested by the National Council of the League to take the greatest care to secure that the contents of this document are not divulged in whole or in part to other than League members.”

Needless to say, the proverbial wild horses shall not drag from the writer the secret of how he came into possession of this precious document with its solemnly futile attempt at secrecy. Let us glance at its pages. About halfway through we encountered the phrase, “We must have Socialism!” in capital letters, repeated seven times. It is, of course, common knowledge that seven is a number of mystic potency, but this hardly explains the jargon which occurs after each repetition of the phrase. One of the alleged reasons for having Socialism is ”that society as a whole shall be responsible for the health, well-being and education of its people.” Does not capitalist society pull down slums and build banks and departmental stores? Does it not provide us with a water supply and drains, hospitals and convalescent homes, and free education for all? And are not these things done in order to facilitate the working of a system for the production of profit?

This little spasm ends with a reference to "all those financial institutions necessary for the maintenance of a highly-organised industrial life.” This reads somewhat like an auctioneer’s advertisement, but we are left guessing what necessary function financial institutions will fulfil under Socialism.

On the same page, our dear old friend, the House of Lords, is severely dealt with, and we are assured, in italics, that “the will of the people must prevail.” Shades of 1910! Play me those "Limehouse Blues”!

These Socialist Leaguers are hot-stuff. The final agenda (which descended from heaven along with the document) contains a resolution on Policy in the name of three branches, one clause of which (15) demands "Compensation of the existing owners of socialised industries or compulsorily closed units by the issue of State fixed-interest bearing bonds, based on the assessed capital value of their holdings.” There are several amendments to this, all of which safeguard the interests of "the present holders.”

All of which goes to show what practical people these chaps are. No foolish upsetting of the existing capitalists and their dependents for them.

Eric Boden

The Purpose of Socialist Organisation (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The reason for organisation is that a number of people united are better able to accomplish a given end as a rule than the same people working in an isolated fashion. In fact, some ends can only be accomplished by means of organisations, and Socialism is one of them.

Mere organisation, however, is not enough. It must be of such a nature that it will meet the need to accomplish the end as soon as possible. Moreover, it must really accomplish the end, and not some pale shadow of it.

Bad organisation will often defeat the end aimed at, weak organisation will hinder its accomplishment, and only sound organisation will adequately achieve it.

The end that is aimed at determines the nature of the organisation. Organisation for Socialism is a political movement to revolutionise present social arrangements which rest on the private ownership of the means for producing and distributing the social wealth.

As the political arrangements of the world are split into separate political units with dearly-defined national boundaries, the world organisation for Socialism must also be split up into similar national groups struggling to obtain control of the national centre of political power, but is in close touch with their counterparts in other national groups. The business of each, however, is first of all to settle accounts with their immediate political adversaries.

Political parties are those which participate in the struggle for control of the State machinery. The Socialist party is therefore a political party.

In order to achieve its aim the party organised to obtain Socialism must be clear as to its object and its policy; work in harmony with existing conditions, which set definite limits to what can be done, and draw its strength from the working class,—all who live by the sale of their energy to the employing class.

The object of the Socialist Party is set out on another page. An examination of it will show that it is a definite, practical object, and is not concerned with any abstract ideas of humanity, justice, liberty, and so forth. It implies a fundamental social revolution—a revolution in the method of ownership. It further implies that the majority of the people shall take part in the change, for it sets out that in the future system there shall be democratic control. For this to be a reality the majority of the people must understand what they are about, else there would be no control, but simply a gigantic muddle. Hence there can be no question of Socialism stealing in by the back door, as it were. It must be clearly and openly explained and examined, so that all may grasp its meaning.

Once this revolutionary nature of Socialism is thoroughly grasped, time will not be wasted devising means that at best only ease, without removing, some of the worst evils of the present system. There is one example that illustrates very well how an immense amount of energy can be spent on a reform that has no important influence on the position of the mass of the people. For generations the workers were persuaded to interest themselves in the question of Irish Home Rule, and even general elections were fought ostensibly on that question. Well, Ireland—or anyhow, the voluble part of it—now have home rule, but no one appears to have discovered any particular change in the condition of the workers inside or outside of Ireland, as a result of it. A similar thing can be said of most of the issues that come up for judgment under the heading of reforms.

The disillusion and apathy that are the offspring of disappointment when ref onus have been obtained but fail to produce any lasting remedy is another objection to reform policies. One can imagine the feelings of those who spent a lifetime working for Irish Home Rule, and now see its accomplishment. They have not even the satisfaction of having achieved the end they were after, because the actual end is something far different from what they pictured it to be.

Again, there is the enormous waste of time arguing about the values of particular reforms and the splits and enmities developed out of these discussions. This point need hardly be laboured, as most of those who are politically active are only too bitterly aware of it.

For the above reason and many more, but above all because reform can only, at best, mitigate, but cannot abolish the evils that flow from the present organisation of society, the policy of the Socialist Party is revolutionary and not reformist.

It has been mentioned that the party aiming at Socialism must work in harmony with existing conditions. It must be recognised that Socialism is a growth out of Capitalism, and not a brand new, watertight system that has been carefully thought out and can be produced like the conjurer produces a cat from an empty bag. The very idea of such a system as Socialism has only developed because of modern social trends. The organisation of industry on a large scale makes production to meet the needs of all a relatively simple matter; this production is obtained by the application of human labour to Nature-given material, and it is the workers alone who apply the labour; the wealth produced is owned by those who own the means of production but who, on the whole, take no part in production. Facts like these are bringing home to more and more workers the knowledge that by converting the means of production into the common property of all, and thus producing for the benefit of all, instead of a privileged few, it would be possible for all to live in comfort, and hence is a very desirable change.

To make this change, however, it is necessary to observe that the State power is the bulwark that supports the present system, and that there are certain prescribed methods by which control of this State power can be attained, failure to observe which only leads to disaster. Many clever and honest people who believed that the parliamentary avenue to State control could be ignored threw up all struggle in despair at the ends of their lives. Sorel, Labriola and Michel sire examples of those who held to the view that strikes and street fights were the means the workers should adopt to overthrow the present social system, but in the end they became despondent. Others, like Briand, who held similar views, ultimately went over to the side of the Capitalists.

It is from the workers that the Socialist Party draws its strength, because it is the workers whose interests demand the change. The Capitalists, as a whole, live in comfort, on account of their privileged position, consequently it would be both absurd and useless to expect them to voluntarily give up their privileges. Speaking in general, it is to the Capitalist's interest to retain the present system of exploitation, because they are the gainers from it, and it is to the interest of the workers to abolish the system, because it enslaves them and shuts them out from a life of comfort and security.

Hence the Socialist Party addresses its appeal for members to the working class, and draws its funds and its workers from members of the working class. For reasons already mentioned, it is essential that those who join the Socialist Party should clearly understand its object and policy, and hence the need for an object and set of principles making this clear, so that those who join will know exactly where they are.

There is one thing, however, which is not written in the Declaration of Principles, but is also necessary for obtaining Socialism, that is, members to do the work that is involved in organisation for such a purpose. Here we would appeal to sympathisers who agree with us but have not yet seen fit to join.

The more there are to do the various necessary jobs, the less burdensome the jobs become, and the more efficiently they can be done. We need speakers and writers to spread our message; people who can do clerical work, literature selling, and the hosts of other jobs that must be done.

Above all, those who come into the Socialist Party will have the unique advantage of helping to support the organisation for which they are working. Their remuneration will be their satisfaction as one of the instruments in the great social transformation that is coming, which will lift them out of bondage.

Gilmac.