Knowledge. (1931)

Advert from the May 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

It's always interesting to note what books and pamphlets were advertised for sale in the pages of the Socialist Standard back in the day. Quite a narrow list in 1931, but you have to take into account that in the midst of the Great Depression buying books was beyond the means of many people. Note the inclusion of Louis Boudin's book in the list, which is interesting because he's not a writer who is mentioned much these days. I can't find a review of his book from this period but when it was reprinted in the late 1960s, it was reviewed in both the Socialist Standard and The Western Socialist:

• A Marxist Text Book (May 1968 Socialist Standard)
• The Theoretical System of Karl Marx (#3 1968 The Western Socialist)

Similar type adverts of books for sale were published in the Socialist Standard over many decades and you get a flavour of particular times from what books at what time were being 'promoted' by the SPGB. Here's a similar type list from the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Knowledge. (1930)

From the December 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Answers to Correspondents: Boudin and Marx. (1930)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent draws our attention to the first paragraph on page 17 of Boudin’s “Theoretical System of Karl Marx,” which lays it down that the class which owns the new means of production is always victorious in its conflict with the older ruling class. Our correspondent points out that if this is true then the working class— not being property owners—will never achieve their emancipation. He also assumes that the passage in question is a quotation from Marx.

In the first place, the paragraph referred to is not a quotation from Marx and is not offered by Boudin as a quotation. The paragraph before this one and the paragraph after it are presented as quotations, and are taken from Marx’s preface to his “Critique of Political Economy,” but the quotation marks end with the paragraph before the one dealt with by our correspondent, and only begin again with the paragraph following.

The view put forward is certainly not that of Marx. It is also extremely improbable that it represents Boudin’s considered view. The probable explanation is that Boudin here intended only to state as a fact in relation to past class struggles that the victory was with the class which owned the new means of production. That it should read as if it were intended to refer to all class struggles and to be an essential feature of class struggles can only have been a slip on the part of Boudin.

Editorial Committee

Revolution and intellectuals (1971)

From issue number 1 (1971) of The Western Socialist

Some few weeks ago this writer received a visit from a graduate university student — a personable but somewhat over-verbalized young man who is working toward his doctorate degree. Following self-introductions and the customary exchange of social amenities, our student lost no time in displaying what he obviously considered a firm theoretical grasp of Marxism and glibly spoke of such organizations as the Communist Party, the Students for a Democratic Society, the Socialist Labor Party, the Young Socialist Alliance, the Socialist Workers Party, the Progressive Labor Party, the American Youth for Democracy, the Labor Youth League, the Socialist Club, etc. It would seem that the existence of the World Socialist Party had come to his attention for the first time but several weeks prior to his visit via a handed-down, well-thumbed copy of The Western Socialist.

Intellectuals: Vanguards of Revolution?

Warming up to his subject between sips of sherry, he articulately and emphatically expressed the opinion — or more accurately speaking, the conviction that a gifted portion of the intellectuals of any given age, and not the workers or the majority of the people, are the prime movers — the engine, so to speak — of social revolutions. The latter, according to this budding intellectual with a verbal itch he could not seem to satisfactorily scratch, “will need to be led into the promised land by an intellectual vanguard for reason of their apathy and immature mentality.”

The counter arguments presented by this writer, arguments which are undoubtedly familiar to consistent readers of this journal, were augmented with the views of an intellectual — one who has been given, rightly or wrongly, the distinction of being, or having been, the only Marxist teacher in a large American university, the late Paul A. Baran, professor of economics at Stanford University — dealing with revolution and Intellectuals. These views of Baran are found in a pamphlet reprinted from Monthly Review entitled "Reflections on the Cuban Revolution.”

Baran writes that the strong stress placed by students upon the active role of intellectuals relating to revolutions has

"deep theoretical roots, and relates to two propositions which are central to both political theory and a general interpretation of the historical process. One is an Implied rejection of the principal tenet of historical materialism according to which it Is social classes that are the prime agents on the historical scene, with both the composition of these classes and their broad political and ideological outlook determined chiefly by their position in the economic structure. The other, closely connected with the first, is the assertion that the intellectuals constitute a separate social stratum, an ‘elite' above classes which plays an independent and indeed a decisive role In history . . ."

As for the first proposition above — the implication that it is not social classes that are the prime agents on the historical scene — serious students of Marx know, along with Baran, this to be false. For they have learned that history has developed through a series of social revolutions and that this development is brought about by means of class struggle.

Social Revolutions & Class Struggle

Put in over-simplified form, it is found that as the forces of production developed and new relations of production came into being which corresponded to the development of the forces of production, classes came into being. It is known, for example, that there were no classes in primitive society. But with the development of new forces of production (which resulted in, among other things, man being able to produce more than his own needs) and new relations of production, primitive society was broken up and replaced by class society — Slavery (e.g., in Rome) — consisting of slaves, slaveowners and other social classes such as the military, the religious, and the free — but impoverished — proletariat. In time Slavery deteriorated, fell apart or was overthrown by outside Invaders and replaced by Feudal society ruled principally by a landed aristocracy and the church and in which the producing, exploited, class took the form of serfs, bound to the land rather than to individual owners. Subsequently, Capitalism replaced Feudalism. [1]

Now with capitalism there arise new conflicts and class antagonisms. The accumulators of the means of production, the capitalists, through sheer ownership (stocks, bonds, etc.) forcibly deprive — by virtue of their control of the state — the sole producers of social wealth, the workers, of what they have created. Society is spilt between a minute minority of owners and a vast majority of non-owners, bringing with it class conflict and antagonism. Idealistic humanitarians to the contrary, class conflict can only be resolved by the complete abolition of classes.

Serious students of Marxism know that the dynamic of historical change is the conflict between the forces of production and the relations of production, with “the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history" (Letter from Marx and Engels to August Bebel, etc. Emphasis added.) With maligned Marx, such students hold that 

"the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore cooperate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois" — or, it could be added, freed by a gifted segment or vanguard of society's intellectuals. (Ibid)

As stated above, society in our times is divided into two classes: capitalists and workers, rulers and ruled, exploiters and exploited. One class challenges the other. But unlike the slaveowners and feudal lords of the past, the capitalist class has no rival exploiting class challenging its rule. For it is the workers, the bottom rung of the ladder as it were, a non-exploiting class, who challenge the reign of the capitalists. And the successful consummation of the workers’ challenge, carried out consciously and politically, will spell the end of class society and of the exploitation of man by man. This consummation will once and for all spell finish to the last antagonistic form of the social process of production and consequently end “the prehistory of man" and usher in “truly human history.”

Are intellectuals a separate class?

As for Baran’s second proposition — the implication that the intellectuals constitute a separate class (though Baran calls it “a separate social stratum" — apparently taking his cue from Lenin, who in turn took it from Kautsky’s theory that the intellectuals were not a class but a privileged social stratum) — serious students of Marxism know this also to be false. For they know that those who specialize in intellectual functions no more constitute a class than do those individuals who perform various administrative and executive functions. In brief, intellectuals do not constitute a class with separate class interests (though they may have group interests in common), but function, consciously or not. as an integral portion of one or other of the classes which constitute society — function in the interests of the rulers or the ruled.

Baran continues:

"There are many reasons for this hypo-statization of the intellectuals. Leaving aside the obvious, but therefore by no means irrelevant one, that the glorification of the intellectuals is most flattering to the intellectuals themselves, four considerations must be primarily borne in mind:

"In the first place, the assignment of a crucially important role to the intellectuals is a sociological derivative of an idealistic philosophic position. If intellectuals are the salt of the earth, responsible for the nature and direction of social development, then clearly it is ideas that run history. There is the further implication that these ideas are not mere reflections of processes in the material world (tensions between forces and relations of production, struggles among social classes, and so forth) but rather unfold in an emanate from the pensive heads of the ’freely floating intellectual elite' (Mannheim)."

(It might be noted in passing that Karl Mannheim, referred to above, was a German sociologist with a decided proclivity to place intellectuals in a niche quite above the common herd. Needless to say he was popular with intellectuals throughout the world).

The Materialist Conception of History

Returning to the kernel under discussion, historical materialism teaches that social ideas arise out of the conditions of the material life of society. Marx has afforded us the most lucid, compact formulation of the main elements of the concept of historical materialism in his Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy. But for the purpose at hand, the following brief definition of the foundation of the Marxian scientific system as given by Louis B. Boudin in his book The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, will better serve. Boudin writes (p. 23):

"The Materialist conception of history maintains that the evolution of human society as a whole, and that of all human institutions, is not, as the idealists insisted, the result of the changes in men's ideas relative to the society they were living in and its institutions, which changes are brought about by the inherent law of development of ideas; but that, quite to the contrary, the development of society, including men's ideas of human society and institutions, are the result of the development of the material conditions under which men live; that these conditions are the only ones which have an independent existence and development; that the changes of the material conditions cause the institutions of human society to be changed to suit them; and that the ideas on all subjects relating to man in society, including those of right and wrong between man and man and even between man and his God, are changed by man in accordance with and because of, those changed material conditions of his existence."

As outlined by Boudin, the antithesis of historical materialism is philosophic idealism. The latter holds "that the ultimate causes of all historical changes are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human beings (Engels)." Idealists believe that there is little that cannot be changed or altered by the determined will of individuals. Idealists, no matter their label or differences, all have this in common: they appeal explicitly to moral standards which they consider common to all mankind. Marxists are not in sympathy with them. For it is their conviction that individuals actuated by this or that ideal cannot alter laws governing human history. Marxists denounce the existing system by appealing not to ideas but to history. The existing system has nothing to do with unjustness or human folly, but is the inevitable outcome of a certain stage in human history. This stage will pass. But knowing the laws governing human history and applying this knowledge will hasten the passing and lessen the friction and painfulness of the social transition.

Now it invariably happens that when socialists express the principle that social ideas arise out of the conditions of the material life of society — that is to say, the forces of production and the relations of production; the methods, in short, by which human beings in a given society produce their means of subsistence and exchange the products among themselves — non-socialists are all too prone to interpret this to be a denial of the significance and the social role of ideas. Any such interpretation is unwarranted. For by all means socialists are acutely aware and, given the opportunity, make quite clear that ideas arising from the conditions of material life of society play a most active role in material development once they come into being. The argument of the socialist primarily concerns not the significance of ideas, but rather their origin.

Intellectual leaders

Without direct comment. Baran's second, third and fourth considerations follow:

"The leadership of nearly all major social movements in history (with the exception of the most primitive peasant rebellions) has consisted of or included intellectuals by upbringing or individuals turned intellectuals in the course of their political careers. What is then simpler than to conclude that since there were always intellectuals prominently associated with revolutionary movements, the intellectuals were their cause and their engine?"

"The growing awareness among intellectuals of the irrationality, inhumanity, and degeneration of capitalism has been accompanied in many Western countries by an increasing disillusionment with the labor movement and a sharpened disappointment with its lack of political dynamism and its widespread capitulation before the capitalist order. Under such circumstances the faith in the awakening of the intellectuals remains the only bright spot on the horizon for those who seek a way out of the impasses of the status quo . . ."

". . . Treating the intellectuals as the yeast of history, counting upon them to move things off dead center serves many intellectuals as a convenient rationalization for staying in the academic or literary ivory towers, from refraining from participating actively in such political and social struggles as are actually fought in their societies."

Baran, having pointed out above the factors which, in his view, help explain why aspiring intellectuals and “intellectuals assign to intellectuals such a vastly inflated role in the historical process," and warning that the "Influence of the intellectuals on the speed, direction and outcome of social movements is not to be denied," sees the problem to be this:

"Under what historical circumstances do intellectuals become drawn in such movements. under what conditions are they capable of affecting the course of events in a particular way. and what forces determine the specific part which they play?"

Aside from a few profound-sounding discourses scattered here and there by intellectuals, the problem posed by Baran in the main goes unanswered. And with the exception of a brief sentence in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels offer no theory as to why intellectuals join the socialist movement. But Marx and Engels have indicated that revolutionary intellectuals are often authoritatively motivated. Such intellectuals would be chiefs, not indians. These self-chosen ones would supplant the present ruling class, but in a more benevolent manner. They believe that the conception of a socialist society is beyond the comprehension of workingmen, and that only they can bring social consciousness to the workers. In reality they have brought not social consciousness to the workers but have brought to the fore instead their own elite authoritarianism.

No, socialism will not be brought about by an intellectual elite and a proclamation of a dictatorship in the name of the workers. Genuine socialism will only be brought about by the working class, consciously and politically organized.

One has only to look about the world today to note that the old vitality of the capitalist order is in sharp decline, is losing favor in wide sections of the people. Intellectuals are definitely not our saviors, but revolutionary intellectuals, with revolutionary thought and propaganda and free of elitism, could class-rightly be our helpmates — could aid in laying to rest nowadays cancerous Capitalism. Intellectuals can be in the forefront with the working class, or perforce follow with their impotent grieving about their impotence upon the latter's heels into World Socialism.

Whether or not the arguments put forth by this writer had any appreciable effect on the mode of thought of his student caller is anyone's guess. The latter left, saying he would call again soon. But this has not come to pass as of this writing.

REN

Endnote:

[1] There were, of course, vast areas of the globe, notably northern Europe and Asia, in which Chattel Slavery was exceptional. The social system may be called Warrior Chiefdoms, with ruling and subject classes and with many vestiges of primitive communal institutions. The system is also called Early Feudalism.

Chattel Slave society was confined to the area around the Mediterranean: Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Chattel Slavery dominated the known world and was eventually overthrown by the Barbarians of the North, the early feudalism. The feudal society of the post Roman era evolved from the existing early feudal social relations but was greatly affected by the impact of chattel slave society.

The Materialist Conception of History (1940)

Book Review from the September 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some misrepresentations of Marx turn up again

The Labour Book Service recently published “The Politics of Democratic Socialism,” by Mr. E. F. M. Durbin. It was highly praised in reviews in the Labour and Liberal Press, and Mr. Herbert Morrison and Professor Tawney were among those who congratulated Mr. Durbin on his work. There is a good deal of merit, though perhaps not much originality, in some parts of the book, but the section dealing with the Materialist Conception of History shows a reckless and profound ignorance of the subject. So far as the writer of the article is aware the reviews of the book said nothing about that section, though it is of the greatest importance.

In it Mr. Durbin discusses what he believes to be the Marxian view, and dismisses it as wholly untenable. It is, he says, impossible to accept “as a true theory of history” (page 179). Readers who are not already familiar with Marx’s views and who find Mr. Durbin’s destructive criticism convincing will be surprised to learn that in fact he does not deal with Marx’s view. Instead, he alters its name to “economic interpretation of history,” robs it of its real content and substitutes other things that would have amazed Marx and Engels, treats as qualified exponents of it such people as Laski, Strachey and Cole (the last of whom took upon himself to alter its name to “realistic interpretation of history”), and ends up with the condescending remark that “Marxists show no willingness whatever to accept the more reasonable version of their own theory” (page 175).

Before dealing with Mr. Durbin’s errors it may be remarked that he is not at all original. It has all been done before; though Mr. Durbin’s ignorance of Marx probably extends also to an ignorance of his predecessors in the art of knocking down Aunt Sallies of his own construction. He might, with profit, look up Kautsky’s “Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History” and Boudin’s “Theoretical System of Karl Marx,” where he would find that the critics who preceded him are duly answered.

As it is impossible for reasons of space to deal with all of Mr. Durbin’s errors it must suffice to show the line on which his argument is developed.

The doctrine which Mr. Durbin shows to be untenable is the doctrine “that history is determined, and the action of individuals and groups controlled, by rational acquisitive self-interest” (page 168). To clinch his argument he makes the following points (page 171): —

“We are clearly influenced continuously by the thought of our material welfare. But are we influenced by nothing else ? Do we order our whole lives and choose all our group loyalties by the thought of nothing but our real wages. … It is only if we are moved by these considerations alone that a purely economic interpretation of history can be sustained.” (His italics.)

All very true, but what on earth has this to do with Marx and the Materialist Conception of History? Mr. Durbin, to be sure, is certain that it has everything to do with it; but the reader of his book will notice that nowhere does he show where Marx or Engels ever wrote anything about history being determined “by the thoughts of nothing but our real wages.”

Instead Mr. Durbin adopts an old device of quoting not from Marx to prove his point against Marx, but of quoting from Laski, Cole and Strachey, whom he blandly describes as “the modern exponents of the doctrine” and “the newest schools of Marxist thought” (page 158).

May we protest to Mr. Durbin that it would not occur to serious students of Marx that Marxism has been understood and correctly stated, much less improved, by the speculations and interpretations of these gentlemen.

How Marx really stated the view held by him and Engels can be seen from the following passage in his preface to his “Critique of Political Economy,” 1859: —

“In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite relations which are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society—the real foundation, on which rise legal and political superstructures to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.”

It is not that Mr. Durbin is entirely unaware of what Marx and Engels said about the Materialist Conception of History. Indeed, he quotes on page 157 of his book the following passage from Engels’ 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto: —

“In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes.”

But after quoting this, instead of examining it to see whether it is tenable or not, he prefers to make a slashing attack on some other and utterly absurd theory which explains historical movements as the sole result of thinking “of nothing but our real wages.” Did it not once occur to Mr. Durbin that it would be odd for a prosperous manufacturer like Engels to devote much time and money to the working-class movement and the abolition of capitalism (and prosperous manufacturers) if in fact he held the view that (in Mr. Durbin’s words) “we order our whole lives and choose all our group loyalties by the thought of nothing but our real wages”?

Did Mr. Durbin never notice that “the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it”—this being the definition used by Engels—is wider than, and very different from, the conception of mere individual or group self-interest?

Does he not appreciate that the prevailing “mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it” exercise an influence on the ideas and aims and actions of individuals and social groups far beyond the simple notion of individual wages or profits. This confusion of “material conditions” with “material interests” has misled many others besides Mr. Durbin. It was, for example, dealt with by Boudin in his ”Theoretical System for Karl Marx,” published in 1907 (Chapter III).

Did Mr. Durbin never ask himself why Marx and Engels habitually used the term materialist conception of history and not “economic” interpretation, still less “economic determination”? (the phrase used by Professor Seligman and those who have followed him).

Engels, in a letter to a student written in 1890, anticipated Mr. Durbin’s errors. He wrote: —

“According to the Materialist Conception of History, the factor which is in the last instance decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this neither Marx nor myself ever claimed. If now someone has distorted the meaning in such a way that the economic factor is the only decisive one, this man has changed the above proposition into an abstract, absurd phrase which says nothing. The economic situation is the base, but the different parts of the structure—the political forms of the class struggle and its results, the constitutions established by the victorious class after the battle is won, forms of law and even the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political theories, juridical, philosophical, religious opinions, and their further development into dogmatic systems—all this exercises also its influence on the development of the historical struggles and in cases determines their form. (Italics Engels’.)

Engels went on to explain that the overemphasis of the economic factor was in part the fault of Marx and himself—”Facing our adversaries we had to lay especial stress on the essential principle denied by them, and, besides, we had not always the time, place, or occasion to assign to the other factors . . . the part which belongs to them.”

Nevertheless, at no time did Marx or Engels put forward the view that the economic factor is the only one or that “economic factor” is so narrow a conception as mere “acquisitive self-interest.”

In Ins letter Engels elaborated the Marxian view in its correct form, a form quite unlike that of Mr. Durbin’s imagination: —

“The economic conditions, which we consider as the determinative basis in the history of society, we understand to be the manner in which men in a given society produce their means of subsistence and the ways in which they effect the exchange of products among themselves (this as long as division of labour exists). The entire technique of production and transportation is here included. According to our conception this technique determines the mode of exchange, of distribution of products, and—after the disintegration of the tribal society—the division of society into classes, the conditions of master and slave, of State, of politics, law, etc. Further, among the economic conditions under which these phenomena obtain, must be included the geographical environment, and also the actual remains of former phases of economic evolution which often persisted by force of tradition, inertia, or because of circumstances which surround that form of society.

Even if …. technique largely depends on the condition of science, yet, in a greater measure, does the latter depend on the conditions of and the need for, technique. If society is in the need of the development of a certain technique, this helps science more than ten universities.”

And again: —

“History is not as some would imagine, for the sake of their greater convenience, an automatic effect of the economic situation, but men themselves make their own history. Certain it is, however, that men act in accordance with the prevailing conditions that dominate their field of action.” (Italics Engels’.)

It will also be seen from Engels’ letter above that he did not hold the view that for Marxists “economic forces” can be narrowed down to “technical discoveries” alone. Mr. Durbin, however, is able to reach that conclusion, by quoting from Mr. Laski and Mr. Stratchey. After the quotation (pages 156 and 157) Mr. Durbin says: —

“These quotations demonstrate beyond doubt that the first of the four basic contentions of the Marxist analysis—that history is exclusively determined by “economic” forces, and even exclusively by technical discoveries—has been seriously maintained by Marxists from the dawn of Marxist thought in the forties of last century down to the most recent publications of the Left Book Club.” (Page 157.)

This conclusion may be true as regards Laski and Strachey, but Mr. Durbin cannot base it on the passages he quotes from Marx and Engels.

This fact about technical development was dealt with by Louis Boudin (“Theoretical System of Karl Marx,” page 35) in a passage which concludes with the following: —

“Be it therefore said here for the Nth time, that while changes in the technical development of the means of production usually go together with changes in the material conditions of the people, they do not necessarily so go together and are separate and distinct from each other. While the technical developments in the means of production and distribution are the chief cause of changes in the material conditions of the people, they are not always so and not necessarily so. There are other causes which may affect the material conditions of the people, and there are changes in the technical part of production and distribution which do not at all affect the material conditions of the people. And the Marxists claim that it is the changes in the “material conditions” that are the prime movers of history, no matter what the causes of these changes may be. The technical development only affects the course of history indirectly and only in so far as it causes changes in the material conditions under which people live and work.”

Another of Mr. Durbin’s errors disposed of by Engels is the belief that Marxists “are committed” to the doctrine of “the impotence of ideas” (page 175). It will be noticed that Engels mentions “political theories” as one of the factors which exercise an influence on historical struggles. Does this surprise Mr. Durbin ? Has he forgotten the lifetime devoted by Marx and Engels to studying and teaching, and to Socialist propaganda?

We could say a lot more about Mr. Durbin’s book, but perhaps it will be sufficient to add that if Mr. Durbin really wants to do a serious job of work he should start off with the assumption that Marx and Engels meant and understood what they wrote, and should take the advice Engels himself gave to a student in the letter written in 1890—“I would further ask you to study the theory from its original sources and not from second-hand works; it is really much easier.”

When Mr. Durbin says (page 179) that he and others “who cannot accept any of the existing variants of this theory, await any new forms of it with sustained and lively interest,” our advice to him is to go back and look at the theory as it really was in the original and is still, and to remember that his “variants of it” are not variants of Marx but variants on the theme Cole-Laski-Strachey. This is not the same thing.

Edgar Hardcastle

Cooking the Books: Iron asteroids and golden meteorites (2020)

The Cooking the Books column from the April 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Iron asteroid that can make us billionaires’, read the headline in the Times (6 March), explaining:

  ‘Somewhere far away hurtling through space is a giant ball thought to be made from enough metal to make everyone on Earth a billionaire. (…) American scientists have said that the body, probably once the core of a planet, contains iron worth £8,000 quadrillion. A quadrillion is one followed by 15 zeros. Shared among the world’s nearly eight billion people, this would amount to about £1 billion each.’

Actually, the asteroid is currently worth nothing as its iron is not available for human use, but even if it were to be brought to Earth it would be worth nothing like that amount.

This is because the value of items of wealth produced as commodities, i.e., for sale, is determined by the average amount of labour that has to be expended under average conditions to produce it from start to finish; or, more accurately, to reproduce it, as, if this average falls for newly produced items, then it falls too for all previously produced ones.

In his pamphlet Producers and Parasites John Keracher pointed out:

  ‘Gold as dug out of the mine has a value the same as other metals have a value and for the same reason. They are all repositories of human labor. More labor is required to get an ounce of gold than an ounce of iron. If gold were as plentiful as iron or coal, requiring the same amount of labour to produce as these two commoner minerals, gold would be just as cheap.’

Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, a nineteenth-century Austrian economist, tried to refute the Marxian labour theory of value by invoking the example of a ‘gold lump which falls down on the parcel of a landed proprietor as meteor’. This lump of gold, he claimed, would have value, the same as that of other lumps of gold of the same weight, without having been the product of any human labour.

Louis Boudin replied in his The Theoretical System of Karl Marx:

  ‘Its value, like that of all commodities, is the socially necessary labor that must be spent on its reproduction. The clouds not being in the habit of showering gold on us, and the necessarily prevailing method of obtaining gold being by spending labor on its production (…), this gold, if wasted as suggested by Boehm-Bawerk, could not be obtained again from the clouds, but would have to be produced by labor’ (p. 110).

On the other hand, if golden meteorites should become a regular occurrence, the value of gold would fall, from the cost of mining it to the cost of collecting the meteorites. This is what would happen to the value of iron if the asteroid could somehow be brought to Earth. The cost of producing iron would fall to the cost of chipping it off the grounded asteroid. This would be considerably less than the value of iron today and so considerably reduce the worth of the asteroid.

So, everyone on Earth would not become a billionaire. That assumes that the value of the asteroid would be shared evenly amongst the world’s population, which of course it wouldn’t be under capitalism as the asteroid would be the private property of some rich individual, corporation or state. But it would also be impossible because capitalism is based on there being a propertyless class obliged to work for wages and, if we were all billionaires, who would do the work of keeping society going?

What to read (1967)

From the September 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Besides Capital there are various other books and pamphlets that the student of Marxian economics might find useful. Marx himself summarised his views in simple language in an address he gave in 1865 to the First International. This was later published as the pamphlet Value, Price and Profit. The first five chapters deal with views that are no longer widely held if held at all, but from the sixth chapter onwards Marx explains his theory of value and exploitation. Engels, too, wrote a useful review of Capital for a German paper in 1868. Karl Kautsky, who did so much to popularise Marxism, tackled economics in his work The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx, which went through many German editions. This sticks closely to the form of the first volume of Capital but also incorporates material from the other volumes which were published after Marx’s death. Another German Social Democrat, Julian Borchardt, in The People's Marx, wrote what translators call "an abridged popular edition of the three volumes of 'Capital' " which, despite the limitations of such abridgements, is worth looking at. 

Perhaps the best original (rather than popularising) work in Marxian economic theory is Louis Boudin’s The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, written in the first decade of this century. This book is no simpler than Capital but it does deal very well with the various criticisms that sprung up after the deaths of Marx and Engels. The best pamphlet is without doubt John Keracher’s Economics for Beginners, published in America in the thirties.

Some of these works will probably not be available at local libraries but they are all in our library at head office.

#    #    #    #

The pages of Capital reproduced on the cover are from the edition published by George Allen & Unwin, translated by Moore and Aveling.

Letter: Is the S.P.G.B. Afraid to Criticise Trade Unionism? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the April issue of the Socialist Standard, under the above heading, we replied to a letter from Mr. B. Marshall, who described himself as being "on tramp.” We publish a further letter below.

"No address".

Dear Sir,

You state in your reply that increased wages are a direct cut into profits. May be it is true, but the important point is, that a Socialist should not be concerned with winning higher wages, or even defending the present standard of living. Why not allow conditions to become worse, thereby making the workers more dissatisfied with capitalism? Trade unionism tends to divide the workers into sections; for example, some count their wages in pounds, while others count theirs in shillings. What the S.P. should, study is working-class psychology, then you will discover that the majority of workers think with their stomach rather than with their head. I maintain that constant raids on the wage packet would make the workers more receptive to Socialist propaganda.

Yours truly,

B. Marshall.

Reply.

If your theory were correct it would logically follow that the depressed areas would be centres of revolutionary activity, whereas the opposite is the case.

The lowest-paid section are generally the most reactionary: the apathy and indifference of the poverty-stricken to the facts underlying their miserable condition is one of the most appalling factors of the situation.

The insecurity of the worker’s employment, as a result of the means of production being owned by the capitalist class, is the secret of the latter's power and is the source of the mental and moral degradation of the working class.

The wage-slave, with any manhood left in him, feels instinctively the secret power of the chains which keep him in bondage, and he tries to break or weaken them by means of union with his fellows.

When he forces increased wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions from his exploiters he feels he has achieved something.

His struggles cannot suspend the working of economic laws or prevent the downward tendency, but it can counteract the results of the economic process on the psychology of the working class.

In addition, the fight itself develops eventually the desire for ultimate freedom and educates the working man to an understanding of the causes and conditions of the struggle.

And, at the same time, the struggle must be growing more intense.

For the fight only affecting the results of the downward tendency, and being powerless to remove its cause, whatever gains are made cannot be kept unless the fight for them is kept up, and the fight must be intensified as the tendency increases.

Thus is brought about the "growing revolt” of the working class. Boudin deals with this in his “Theoretical System of Karl Marx.”

“At the same time,” says Boudin, "the working class is steadily advancing in economic power and independence, in the sense that it takes possession of more and more responsible positions in the economic life of the nation, diverts to itself, by means of the corporation and otherwise, all the growth of the concentration and centralisation of capital; and particularly with the development of the corporate form of economic activity, the capitalist class abdicates its functions, the proper functions of a ruling class, those of economic management, into the hands of the working class.
 The working class thus not only becomes revolutionary in its ideas, desires and aspirations, but it has the organised power to carry the revolution into effect, and is fully equipped to take hold of all social and economic activities and functions after the revolution and carry them out successfully.”

Charles Lestor

About Books (1953)

Book Reviews from the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The newcomer to the study of Marxian economics frequently finds that Marx's own works are rather heavy going. He searches around for books by other authors who may be able to propound Marx's theories in a more easily readable form. Unfortunately, during the past eighty years, there have been many who have sought to simplify Marx or to tell the world what, in their opinion, Marx really meant. The total product of their labours would justify Marx in demanding to be saved from his friends,

If the student is determined to approach his studies through the medium of secondhand interpretations of the theories, we can save him much wasted time by directing him to the soundest of the books on the subject.

Probably the most useful work of this nature is Karl Kautsky’s "The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx." There is little we can say about this book except that it was written expressly for the purpose for which the student wants it and it is a job well done.

Next in order of merit is "The Theoretical System of Karl Marx" by Louis B. Boudin. Boudin does not deal exclusively with Marx's economic doctrines. He devotes a few chapters to the materialist conception of history, the social revolution and to some of Marx's critics. Boudin quite correctly makes his early chapters on the materialist conception of history serve as a brief introduction to the study of the workings of the capitalist system. The usefulness of this book to a new student is limited because the author devotes quite an amount of space to replies to critics of the Marxian doctrines. These replies are extremely useful to anyone who has a grounding in the study but are likely to leave the novice a little bewildered. All the same, the book is good and cannot be excluded from a list of this nature.

Julian Borchardt has attempted to present “Capital" in a more readily digestible form by treating it in a different manner to other writers. He has taken a number of chapters from the three volumes of "Capital” and re-arranged them in an order which, he claims, will make them more easy to assimilate. He has eliminated some of Marx's repetitiveness but has not attempted to alter the wording. Borchardt also claims, quite correctly, that the majority of those who read “Capital" do not get farther than volume one, but that volumes two and three are necessary for a complete understanding of Marx's theories. Whether Borchardt's work will be found easy going is doubtful, but for those who cannot avail themselves of the three original volumes it is useful. The only edition of this work that we are able to trace today is collected with some short writings by Frederick Engels and Lenin and Marx under the title “Capital and other Writings of Karl Marx," and published by The Moderrn Library. New York.

Ernest Untermann has written a book entitled "Marxian Economics." Untermann deals with his subject more historically than the previously mentioned authors, in fact over half of his book is devoted to an historical approach to the Marxian economic theories. It cannot be taken as a substitute for "Capital" but rather, as the author claims, a popular introduction to it. 

There is one book which, because of its title and its availability may attract a student’s attention. It is “The Meaning of Marxism" by G. D. H. Cole, published by Victor Gollancz. This is a re-hash under a new title of Mr. Cole's, “What Marx Really Meant” published in 1934. As a Marxist Mr. Cole would make a good plumber. What he thinks Marx meant is a lot different to what Marx said. A detailed criticism of “ What Marx Really Meant" appeared in the Socialist Standard in June, 1934. It stands equally well for the later book. The student should avoid Mr. Cole as an interpreter of Marxism.

Despite the good qualities of the first four books we have mentioned none of them are a real substitute for Marx's original work. If the student has time, diligence and enthusiasm we recommend that he bypasses these attempts at simplification and gets down to his studies with the three volumes of “Capital" We recognise that a study of Marxian economics is not simple and that there is some justification in the criticism that Marx's style is heavy, but his work cannot be adequately compressed into a book of a couple of hundred pages. Much of the so-called heaviness of Marx's writing is due to the fact that he approaches all his points from every conceivable angle, neglecting no avenue of argument to prove his case. It is that which gives rise to the repetitiveness that scares away some of his readers.

The best of the translations of “Capital" are those by Ernest Untermann and by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. The translation by Eden and Cedar Paul which is used in the Everyman's Library edition published by J. M. Dent has some minor faults but cannot be condemned because of them.

In conclusion, there is a useful little book that is worthy of mention. It gives an answer to many of the criticisms of Marx’s theory of value. “Boehm-Bawerk's Criticism of Marx" by Rudolf Hilferding published by the Socialist Labour Press. Of course, this book cannot be read until one has an understanding of Marxism, but, after the elementary phases of study, it can be useful for clearing away a number of cobwebs.

W. Waters.

Unity in the United States. (1917)

From the March 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the Unity cry has been filling the organs of the S.P. of A. and the S.L.P. of A. The latter party through a decreasing membership and vote has given a more willing ear to unity than it once did. But the spectacle of that party negotiating on unity with the organisation they are ever bitterly denouncing is a most ridiculous one.

A vote was taken in the S.P. of A. as to whether they should appoint delegates to meet the Socialist Labour Party’s delegates in conference on terms of unity, and it resulted in favour by 20,000 to 5,000. The Conference sat in New York City on January 6 & 7, 1917. The delegates for the Socialist Party were Louis B. Boudin, Geo. H. Goebel, Chas. H. Maurer, James Oneal and Samuel Beardsley. The Socialist Labour Party delegates: Arthur E. Reimer, Rudolph Katz, Boris Reinstein, Caleb Harrison and Arnold Peterson.

After coming to an agreement on the question of aim and reform policies the question of the attitude towards economic organisation came forward.

The Socialist Labour Party insisted on the following statement being adopted to bind the unified body to Industrial Unionism:

   Recognition and declaration in favor of the fact that the emancipation of the working class from wage slavery cannot be achieved by political action only; and therefore the unqualified acceptance of the fact that it s absolutely indispensable for that purpose to have the working class organised in the economic arena on the lines of what is known in this country as pro-political or Socialist Industrial Unionism; and that consequently, it is the duty of the party of Socialism to teach the essential principles of Industrial Unionism in order to enable the membership to advocate these principles both inside of the existing craft unions—to the extent as it may still be possible—and outside of the same, and thus carry on that educational propaganda which will sooner or later crystallise in a world-wide army of industrially organised workers.
   Declaration to the effect that the proposed united Party condemns the principle of craft unionism which defeats the very objects that the workers, consciously or otherwise, strive to attain.
   Declaration to the effect that the Socialists, while reserving their right to criticise and expose all wrongfully constructed and conducted labor organisations, owe it as a duty to stand on the side of the workmen whenever a bona fide strike or other conflict for improved conditions of labor occurs, either as spontaneous action of the workers or as a result of action taken by any labor organisation whatever.

These resolutions, of course, are unsound. Industrial Unionism is not essential or even useful to working-class emancipation. To call it “Socialist” is misleading as it is not necessary to be a Socialist to join. Styling it pro-political is untrue, as the S.L.U. holds “that the economic arm is the more important, first, because it is indispensable to the revolutionary act and next because it is the frame of the government of the Co-operative Commonwealth.” (“Unity,” by DeLeon. Page 23.) The resolutions advocate boring from within—in the craft unions, a line of action which the S.L.P. never tire of condemning on paper. The Socialist Party delegates refused to accept the whole thing. They offered in its place the complete resolution on economic organisation adopted by the Stuttgart International Congress in 1907. This resolution reads as follows:

  To emancipate the proletariat completely from the bonds of intellectual, political and economic serfdom; the political and economic struggle are alike necessary. If the activity of the Socialist Party is exercised more particularly in the domain of the political struggle of the proletariat, that of the unions displays itself in the domain of the economic struggle of the workers. The Unions and the Party have therefore an equally important task to perform in the struggle for political emancipation. Each of the two organisations has its distinct domain, defined by its nature and within whose borders it should enjoy independent control of its line of action, but there is an ever-widening domain in the proletarian struggle of the classes in which they can reap advantages only by concerted action and by co-operation between the Party and the trade unions. As a consequence the proletarian struggle would be carried on more successfully and with more important results if the relations between the unions and the Party are strengthened without infringing the necessary unity of the trade unions.
  The Congress declares that it is to the interest of the working class in every country that close and permanent relations should be established between the unions and the Party.
   It is the duty of the Party and of the trade unions to render moral support the one to the other and to make use only of those means which may help forward the emancipation of the proletariat. When divergent opinions arise between the two organisations as to the effectiveness of certain tactics they should arrive by discussion at an agreement.
  The unions will not fully perform their duty in the struggle for the emancipation of the workers unless a thoroughly Socialist spirit inspires their policy. It is the duty of the Party to help the unions in their work of raising the workers and of ameliorating their social conditions. In its parliamentary action, the Party must vigorously support the demands of the unions.
   The Congress declares that the development of the capitalist system of production, the increased concentration of the means of production, the growing alliance of the employers, the increasing dependence of particular trades upon the totality of bourgeois society would reduce trade unions to impotency if, concerning themselves about nothing more than trade interests, they took their stand on corporate selfishness and admitted the theory of harmony of interests between labour and capital.
   The Congress is of opinion that the unions will be able to more successfully carry on their struggle against exploitation and oppression, in proportion as their organisations are more unified, as their benefit system is improved, as the funds necessary for their struggle are better supplied, as their members gain a clearer conception of economic relations and are inspired by the Socialist ideal with greater enthusiasm and devotion. 

The S.L.P. delegation wished a clause added to this Stuttgart resolution as follows:

   In line with the above resolution and carrying out the spirit and applying the general principles expressed therein, the United Party declared that the proper application of it to American conditions calls for the Party’s pointing out the fallacies and shortcomings of the craft union form of organisation and the necessity for adopting the Socialist industrial onion form of economic organisation.

Around this resolution much discussion took place. The S.P. delegates claimed that the Stuttgart resolution did not mean industrial unionism. The S.L.P. delegates claimed that it was against craft unionism. “The thing to be done'" said Boris Reinstein (S.L.P. delegate), was to urge the workers to accept class unionism." In spite of this, however, he and other delegates of his party advocated industrial unionism—not class unionism.

“History shows,'’Said Reinstein (S.L.P.), “that no ruled class ever overthrew a ruling class without first gaining economic power, a power which the working class could only develop through industrial unionism.”

Such a statement shows how little the Socialist Labour Party understand history. Economic power depends for its full and complete exercise upon the possession of political sovereignty. And how little the working class could develop economic power by means of industrial unionism is another of “the secrets of the underworld.”

A deadlock was reached on both the S.L.P. and Stuttgart resolutions, 4 votes being given in favour and 4 against.

When they discussed the form of the united organisation the federative plan offered by the S.L.P. and also organic unity of the S.P. of A. was rejected. When Boudin finally drew up a basis for common electoral action the S.L.P. delegates commenced “bargaining” by offering to accept it if the S.P. delegates would accept the S.L.P. resolution on economic action.

On the second day of the Conference the end came. The S.L.P. “bargaining” failed and the S.P. idea of swallowing up the S.L.P. also died. In the editorial of the “Weekly People" (Jan. 13,1917) from which issue all the resolutions quoted have been taken, the S.L.P. claim that rock upon which the Unity Conference went to pieces was industrial unionism. Thereby showing conclusively that the thing which keeps the two parties apart is nothing to do with Socialist policy or Socialist aims—Industrial Unionism being a side issue of no value to working-class emancipation.

The attitude taken by our Party years ago still bolds good—that only by having a Socialist membership, and therefore a Socialist policy, can a real Socialist Party be secured. Neither the S.P. or S.L.P. of America fill the requirements.

Adolph Kohn

War Fever in America. (1917)

From the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Socialist" Activity.

Many leading "Socialists” supported the candidature of President Wilson because “he kept os oat of war." Now the same alleged Socialists are supporting him because be has declared war. Ever since the Socialist Party adopted a resolution at their St. Louis Conference (1917) criticising the war these “comrades" have bean resigning.

At the time of writing (September) the members of the Socialist Party of America are more active in other organisations than in their own. Scores of new reform organisations have been formed upon every pretext under the sun.

The “Intellectuals.”

A. M. Simons has long been known as a great "Socialist.” His Socialism (!) recently consisted of advising Congressmen of the necessity of ridding the Socialist Party of all opponents of the war and turning over to the Government inside information concerning party activity. He was expelled from the party. His co-worker in this “Socialist" work was W. R. Gaylord, the Socialist Party candidate for Congress from Wisconsin. The "intellectual" was also expelled.

Many others, however, who have been guilty of equally treacherous work, are allowed to remain in the party or else to resign with a great show of injured innocence.

John Spargo— Patriot!

John Spargo's actions ever since he made his home in America confirm oar position that reformers are dangerous to the movement. He has turned his energies continuously towards helping the enemies of Socialism. At one time slandering Marx, at another time endeavouring to give a religious twist to Socialism, he has latterly filled the Press with jingoism in the name of Socialism. He has now resigned from the Socialist Party because it has criticised the war. Loop inflictions from him fill the columns of the capitalist papers with the usual wails of of such jingoes.

"Socialist” Exports to Russia.

As soon as things looked doubtful for the continuance of the war by Russia the American Government, like their English pattern, proposed sending a Commission of friendly advice to Russia— just as though Russia had not suffered enough without having to endure delegations from the autocrats of the West— Lloyd George and President Wilson.

To lend a political touch to the Commission the President, of course, selected a “Socialist." Needless to say, the chosen one was one of the most notorious jingoes of the party, Charles Edward Russell. He has since been expelled for joining the Commission without the party consent.

Nationalist "Internationalists."

Upton Sindair and his wife rose to fame with his book "The Jungle,” and later by his exhibition of starvation as the road to happiness. Ha has again sought notoriety by resigning from the Socialist Party, attaching a long, wild screech about the necessity of joining the Allies in the fight for "World Democracy.” Our millionaire "comrade” J. G. Phelps Stokes, and his wife Rose Pastor Stokes, have also joined the “struggle for liberty” and resigned from the party.

William English Walling, W. J. Ghent, (ex-Rev.) Geo. D. Herron, Robert R. La Monte, and Allan Benson (Presidential candidate), are among the number of the (in)famous supporters of the war in America.

All Workers Unite—Except Germans!

Most of these “comrades” seized the opportunity of the Russian situation to send a telegram to the Russian Soldiers and Peasants Council, begging the workers of Russia not to make a separate peace. In the name of “World Democracy” and of Western liberty they beseeched them to keep in the fight to smash Germany and free Europe of the honor of future war! Mrs. Jack London consecrated (!) her husband’s memory by signing the reactionary message. Spargo is now calling upon them to form a new party—a “real Socialist party” on the lines of the nationalist body that H. M. Hyndman adorns in England.

Several new papers have sprung into existence to voice the views of each section. Louis M. Boudin, author of “Theoretical System of Karl Marx,” objected to the telegram sent by Victor Berger and Maurice Hillquit to President Wilson at the outbreak of war. This telegram begged the President to place an embargo on all boats in the danger zone.

Boudin claimed this was pro-German. At the St Louis Conference he quarrelled with some of his fellow members of the S.P. Executive, and has been active ever since combatting the views of Hillquit.

One notable recantation he made at the St Louis Conference was that he withdrew his support of national defence at the end of his book on Socialism and War.

"The Class Struggle.”

Boudin and others hove started a new monthly —"The Class Struggle”— to express their aims. In the main it is against the war, but it supports the growing Industrial Unionist movement without explaining its real value. Many of the contributors are also connected with the “New International,” the monthly paper of the Socialist Propaganda League. This is an organisation of the self-styled “left wing” of the Socialist Party of America. Their advanced teaching consists mainly of supporting "direct action” by means of Industrial Unionism. This anti-Socialist propaganda is carried on in conjunction with “The International Socialist Review.”

The "Socialist for President.”

Allan Benson of the Socialist Party was boomed as the great anti-war Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in Nov. 1916. Workingmen throughout America objected to sending a capitalist with Elihu Root’s black record as chairman of the U.S. commission to Russia. Allan Benson showed his revolutionary conceptions by issuing the following to the Press from Yonkers, N.Y., on May 4th:

  If the German submarines are sinking 400,000 tons of shipping a week it doesn’t make any difference whether we send Elihu Root or Billy Sunday to Russia. Elimination of the submarine is the thing of paramount importance, overshadowing everything else. I never regarded Root as a good exponent of democratic principles, nor do I now regard him as such. But I have no sympathy with any opposition to Root which is really more of an attempt to bring about a separate peace between Russia and Germany than it is to prevent Root going. I would infinitely rather have Root go on the commission than have some man go who might work for a separate peace between Russia and Germany.

The Call of the Wild.

One of the carious documents of the war is Upton Sinclair’s resignation statement sent to local Pasadena (California) of the Socialist Party. Below is an interesting extract taken from the “New York Call” (July 18):

  I say that this war must be fought until there has been a thorough and complete democratization of the governments of Germany and Austria, and I say that any agitation for peace which does not include this demand is, whether it realizes it or not, a pro-German agitation. The argument that we have no right to say under what institution the German people shall live seems to me without force. The Germans did not scruple to make war on the French and to set up a republic in that country. They did this because they believed that a republic would be less formidable from a military standpoint; and it is now on the cards that the world shall do the same thing for the Germans, and to the same purpose.
  For these reasons, Comrades, 1 cannot follow you in your declaration that this is "the most unjustifiable war in history,” or in your policy of mass opposition to the draft. But I would not have you think that I have gone over bag and baggage to the capitalist system. I believe that there is a work of enormous importance to be done by the forces of radicalism in the present crisis.

The Blind Leading the Blind.

On May 12th the capitalist Press was ablaze with the long telegram to the German Socialists sent by some of the prominent “Socialist” jingoes. I reproduce below the essentials of the traitorous message:

  The democratic peoples of the world now in league against the kaiser and kaiserism will be compelled to continue their war against Germany and her autocratic allies until the kaiser and kaiserism are overthrown. The German Socialist faction that opposes the Government has already realised that both an early peace and German liberty require that the power of the kaiser should be rigidly and immediately curtailed and they have announced the following program as a core for kaiserism:
   Responsibility of the government to the reichstag, reichstag control of peace and war; equal reichstag election districts; abolition of the upper houses of the states and the empire, as well as equal suffrage in Prussia—now apparently on the way to accomplishment tho not yet promised even “after the war.”
     This program is fundamental and excellent—so excellent, indeed, that it is extremely unlikely to be granted without a protracted series of overwhelming German defeats. It is fully half of what is needed. But it is not enough. The Hohenzollerns must go.
     The rest of the world realises, whether the German people realise or not, that liberty in Germany and peace in the world must remain a sham as long as the Hohenzollerns and their supporters retain any real power.
      But whether Germany prefers a republic or a constitutional monarchy the Hohenzollerns' tradition and prestige must not only be reformed—it must be broken.
     The kaiser himself claims that kaiserism is to be democratized and strengthened in its fight against the other nations. It will be difficult if not impossible, to convince the democracies of the world that a reformed kaiserism is anything else than an effort of the Hohenzollerns to make the German people more willing tools of his foreign policy. Nothing but the overthrow of the autocrat can prove finally to the world that the German people repudiate his past crimes and refuse to have any share in the crimes he is planning for the future.
      There is only one way to bring the war to an early end —the kaiser must go.

Signed to the cable were these names:

Wingfield R. Gaylord, “Socialist” candidate for congress from Milwaukee; Robert Dives La Monte, Socialist author and editor of Connecticut; Charles Edward Russell, Socialist candidate for governor of New York, 1914 ; A. M. Simons, world-renowned Socialist, editor and author; J. G. Phelps Stokes ; Rose Pastor Stokes, author ; William English Walling, author and Henry L. Slobodin, formerly national secretary of the American Socialists’ committee.

Judas!

An instance of the treachery can be gathered from the following cutting from the daily papers in America of May 4th:

SOCIALISTS IN U.S.A. CAN'T URGE PEACE.
  WASHINGTON, May 4.—German Socialists in the United States who attempt to force or influence a separate peace between Russia and Germany will be dealt with to the full extent of American laws.
  The state department indicated this today following publication of charges by J. G. Phelps Stokes, that some of the German wings of American Socialists are trying to force such a peace.
   Such efforts are considered extremely treasonable acts.
  The new censorship will be applied vigorously to prevent the socialists communicating with the Slav leaders.

An indication of the attitude of the coming party is revealed by the following:

  Expressing Socialism in terms of American life and experience, this new party . . .  will not cling to formulae and let the substance of the Socialist hope pass by unnoticed. . . .  It will make its appeal not to one class alone, but to all men and women of good will and social vision. It will be a party of toilers, not because it sets them apart and panders to them, but because its principle carried into effect must bring their emancipation.—(John Spargo in the “Philadelphia Public Ledger.”)

Thus the English reader will observe that the language and methods of the traitor are curiously similar, whichever hemisphere they belong to. Their dainty stomachs revolt at the idea of the class struggle, while they bawl for butchery by nations.

Adolph Kohn

A Marxist Text Book (1968)

Book Review from the August 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, by Louis Boudin. (Monthly Review Press. 50s.)

It is welcome news that Louis B. Boudin’s book has been republished after being out of print for many years.

The new edition is identical with that published by Charles H. Kerr of Chicago in 1918, based on a series of articles written by Boudin for the International Socialist Review in 1905 and 1906.

In spite of the particular purpose for which it was originally written, in spite of the lapse of time, the intervening wars and revolutions, and the fact that Marx’s writings are now more readily available in the English-speaking world it is still an excellent introduction to the study of Marxism.

In his preface Boudin explained that he started with the intention of giving an account of the movement to revise Marxism, conducted by Bernstein and other Social Democrats in the 1890’s, but found this impossible except at great length because so much of the background was unfamiliar to English readers. He decided instead to provide “an exposition of the teachings of Marx”; not a text-book or detailed statement of economic theory, “but rather an outline of the Marxian system of thought”, with special emphasis on the relation of the different parts to each other and the unity of the whole.

He succeeded admirably, and though the names of the critics of Marx with whom he dealt are now of less interest, many of the points he made are as useful today as they were then.

Of course not all of his views have stood the test of time. He was for example over-influenced by the phase capitalism was going through in the early years of the century and appears to have accepted that the trend towards heavier unemployment was bound to continue.

In Chapter VI Boudin dealt at length with the way in which, consistently with the Marxian theory of value and surplus value, some commodities sell above and other below their value, and all capitals whether in the sphere of production or of circulation tend to receive the average rate of profit. Having explained how each capital shares in the surplus value produced in the whole of society and does not just receive surplus value produced by the workers in the particular firm, Boudin even anticipated by half a century the seemingly difficult poser presented by the automationist dream of a workerless factory. He showed that the individual capitalists can receive profit “notwithstanding the fact that their workingmen created no surplus value whatever or that they employed no working-men at all”.

Writing at the time he did, Boudin had no occasion to deal with the problem of a seizure of power (as in Russia in 1917) allegedly with the object of imposing Socialism on a population not ready for it. We can however read what he had to say about the conditions necessary for Socialism, the vital role of the proletariat and the anti-socialist outlook of the peasantry. It is therefore interesting to read what he said years later in May 1921, in a lecture to the New York Socialist Education Society:

One does not look to a poorhouse for Socialism and it is my belief that when a revolution has occurred in a backward country where the productivity of labour is low, either one of two things must happen; either the productivity of labour must be developed to a point where the prerequisites of Socialism, that is that the workers have sufficient leisure to educate themselves to a point where they are fully capable of administering their own affairs, are in existence, or else classes will appear . . . Private property is not abolished in Russia, and if Lenin has said so then he is mistaken and I must disagree, but what I have read of Lenin’s says just the contrary.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Collapse of Capitalism. (1922)

From the February 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a notion widely held in certain circles that capitalism is in a state of collapse, or at least, that its collapse is imminent; and this is interpreted to mean that the existing system of society will reach a point at which the production and distribution of commodities will cease, and the whole of the mechanism of Society will fail any longer to operate. Those who propagate this conception naturally accept the view that the tactics of the working class organisation must be framed with this collapse always in mind.

The illustration given recently by one of them—Mr. Palme Dutt—was the comparison of the present social order to a house admitted to be in a far from perfect condition. Of the occupants there was a section which considered redecoration and repair to be sufficient, while another section thought that nothing less than demolition and building anew would meet the needs of the situation. These sections represent the reformists and revolutionaries respectively. Now, however, the war and the Russian revolution have brought new factors to bear, and the dispute has been removed to another plane, the only question now being not whether to destroy, but how to rebuild. The house is said, in fact, to have collapsed about the ears of the dwellers through its own rottenness.

This sounds plausible indeed, but argument by analogy is dangerous. Has capitalism collapsed? and to what extent have the war and the Russian revolution altered, apart from having merely intensified, the previous structural defects?

The Third International lays it down that “The present is the period of the breakdown of Capitalism,” but does the evidence support this or do the “Third’s” adherents act as if it were true? The answer is decidedly no.

In America Max Eastman (Communist) says “This statement is not true of the United States in the same immediate sense that it may be true of Europe. We are not in the period of the breakdown of

Capitalism . . . ” (Liberator, October.)

He continues: “We (the American Communists) are employing tactics that could never be appropriate in any other period.” Now, the American Communist Party has “gone west,” and it is generally agreed that part, if not all, of the cause of their failure, was their attempt to apply a policy based on a condition of affairs which did not exist. Does that support the view that Capitalism is in collapse?

In Canada, which was wildly alleged to be on the verge of revolution at the time of the post-war Winnipeg strikes, a general election has just taken place which has led to the defeat of the conservative party by avowedly capitalist Liberals; the election having been fought on a tariff issue. There has not, apparently, been one Socialist returned.

In Australia, despite its heavy roll of unemployed, and its wage reductions, the "Proletarian” (Melbourne, 7th November) writes: "But until the full force of the present world depression reaches our shores the Australian working class will not be very susceptible to Communist propaganda.”

In Europe, where the full effect of the trade depression has been felt, does the economic system show any noticeable lack of vitality, or do the capitalists act in any but their accustomed aggressive manner towards the workers? In spite of the enormous amount of unemployment, curtailment of production, and relative overstocking of markets, are there any strikingly new factors to be considered after one has allowed for the expected after-war depression, the destruction of the war and the blockade, the new political frontiers and the chaos of the exchanges, all of them more or less normal phases of capitalism or the usual experiences after previous wars?

The struggle for markets may have been intensified, but does this call for new revolutionary tactics?

What of the Russian revolution? Here, again, the importance has been overestimated. The replacing of Czarist feudal Russia by a capitalistic republic even if the latter remains permanently under the Bolshevik Government, is the net result of the revolution, and it has only loomed so large because of the more or less accidental circumstances that it was the Bolsheviks who were brought into prominence by it.

If capitalism were in collapse would the Bolsheviks be relying on capitalist enterprise to rebuild Russia, a process which they admit will take decades at least? Would our own Communist Party feel the need to ally itself with the Labour Party to get the latter into power? The fact is the capacity of the capitalist system to recover from its depression has been under-rated and the Communists have in practice been forced to discard their theory. From the day when Marx and Engels wrote “There is a spectre haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism" there have continually been people who have under-estimated, as well as others like Hyndman, who never understood, but were always seeing revolution imminent in every momentary pause or set-back in capitalistic development.

In the minds, too, of some of its adherents, this theory of collapse is nothing but a failure to appreciate the Marxian viewpoint. The idea of an actual physical stoppage of production is not Marxian. Societies do not collapse like jerry-built houses. Marx wrote :—"The knell of capitalist private property sounds when the monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with it, and under it,” but as Boudin particularly points out (Theoretical System of Karl Marx) "He does not say that production under the old system must become impossible before a revolution sets in" and again, "as far as the purely mechanical breakdown of capitalism is concerned . . . it is not a physical breakdown, as would be necessary in order to exclude the necessary intervention of conscious human activity, but rather a moral bankruptcy. Certainly there is absolutely nothing in the capitalist system to prevent it from relapsing into a sort of new feudalism or slavery . . .  ” (p. 253). What Marx did mean, therefore, by the idea of the breakdown of Capitalism was the working-out of its inherent contradictions plus recognition by the workers that the continued existence of a system of society based on their exploitation is unnecessary and intolerable and that the class of exploiters no longer performs useful social functions. The moment of that recognition is the moment of the overthrow of class domination.

But it may be said “Capitalism can no longer employ its wage slaves, nor feed the unemployed.” But did it ever? Is unemployment new? and did Capitalism even in its days of most virile expansion and development provide an adequate standard of living for workers, employed or unemployed? Did the capitalists trouble about security for their victims? Everyone knows they did not: and yet the system survived.

It is of no use waiting for the system to collapse, nor preparing a new economic structure to replace it. It will not go until the workers determine that it shall go, and the pressing service revolutionary organisations can perform is to prepare the workers’ minds for the possibility of the immediate establishment of Socialism. To return to Palme Dutt’s analogy, we have not yet reached the stage of convincing the worker that there is anything wrong with the house at all; he still thinks it is the unneighbourliness of the people upstairs or in the house next door.

Edgar Hardcastle