Spoiling Egyptians: British Capitalism and Egyptian Nationalism. (1929)

Book Review from the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Imperialism in Egypt. By Elinor Burns.
 No. 5, Colonial Series. Published by the Labour Research Department. 72 pp. Price 6d.

This book is a very succinct and useful account of British control in Egypt from about 1850 to the present day.

From 1517 to 1914, Egypt was nominally under Turkish rule, and was required to pay an annual tribute, fixed in 1873 at £675,000, but during the 19th century a new overlord entered Egypt—the foreign financier—who demanded tribute on an immensely larger and ever-increasing scale.

Foreign capital was given its first opportunity by the construction of the Suez Canal during the reign of the Khedive Ismail, who was the first Egyptian ruler to foresee prospects of wealth and power by developing the country’s resources on West European lines. The first twelve years of Ismail’s reign call to mind the famous tribute to the “ bourgeoisie ” in the Communist Manifesto for, during this period, the following, among many other works, were completed: The construction of the Suez Canal and 8,400 miles of irrigation canals; over 900 miles of railways and 5,000 miles of telegraph ; the building of 430 bridges and numerous houses in Cairo; the Alexandria harbour and the Suez Docks; the construction of roads, including a special road to the Pyramids; and the completion of 15 lighthouses and 64 sugar mills. Irrigation increased the area of arable land from four million to nearly five-and-a-half million acres. Most of these works were carried out by British capitalists who lent the money at immense interest and obtained enormous profits on their contracts. In a short space of time these capitalists were owed by the Egyptian State more than a half of the money lent, and the bulk of revenue was required for debt redemption. More and more loans were contracted to pay off other loans, and the finances of the country became in such a hopeless condition that excuse was afforded for the British Government to “step in” in the interest of its “nationals”—the bondholders and financiers. The Khedive in 1875 was compelled by the creditors to sell his shares in the Suez Canal to the British Government for £4,000,000, and a financial mission was sent to Egypt “to assist in remedying the confusion.’’ Following this decision, Goschen, the representative of the bondholders, and the financial mission, forced upon the Khedive a scheme which included the appointment of two Controllers-General (one British, one French), and the consolidation of the debt at 7 per cent. interest (except on the loans of Goschen’s firm on which the old rates of 10 and 12 per cent. were to be paid!) Ruthless pressure was put upon the peasants to keep the State finances solvent. Crops were forestalled, and customs dues and railway rates were increased. Despite the occurrence of a cattle plague and a failure of crops, which led to a holocaust of deaths from starvation and disease, the British Government would not allow even postponement of interest payments. Repercussions followed elsewhere; salaries of soldiers and Civil Servants were unpaid and their numbers seriously reduced. The Egyptian Finance Minister who protested against foreign control, was “put out of the way.” At last, in 1879, a revolt in the Army and widespread discontent, compelled the Khedive to dismiss the foreign ministers and to institute, through an elected assembly of Sheiks and others, a native government. This gave birth to a National Party, whose slogan was “Egypt for the Egyptians.”

However, High Finance was not prepared to take this blow “lying down.” The British Government induced the Sultan of Turkey to depose the Khedive Ismail and to appoint Tewfik, a tool of the foreign interests, as his successor. A few weeks later the foreign Controllers General were re-installed in office, and agitation for Egyptian Independence received a further stimulus.

The Army, now the only native institution within the State machine, was the leading force in this movement, and an officer named Arabi, a former “ranker” of peasant origin, became its storm centre. The movement received support also from |he landlords, who objected to foreign exploitation of Egypt’s new resources, and the peasants, who were being bled white by taxes for debt service. A programme was drawn up, which included the dismissal of all ministers, the granting of a constitution, and an increase in the strength of the Army. To stifle the agitation, the Khedive ordered Arabi and his regiment to the provinces, but Arabi refused to go, and instead marched his troops to the Palace and compelled the Khedive to appoint a new Anti-Imperialist Ministry.

Shortly after the events recorded above a massacre of Christians by a hired band of Bedouins took place at Alexandria. Whether the massacre was instigated by the British or the Turks is obscure, but the effect was harmful from a British point of view, for the European residents demanded the recognition of Arabi and the setting up of a joint conference of the six Powers having interests in Egypt—France, England, Italy, Germany, Austria and Russia.

The conference met at Constantinople in June, 1882, and a protocol was signed on behalf of the respective governments renouncing exclusive territorial and commercial privileges, and agreeing that none of the Powers should take isolated action in Egypt except in case of special emergency. As exclusive British control was impossible under this arrangement, it was imperative that a “special emergency," should arise and a pretext was soon found to justify a British occupation of Egypt. The repairing of some forts at Alexandria by the Egyptians was seized upon by the British Government as an excuse to bombard Alexandria by warships on July 11th, 1882, troops were landed to “restore order" on the Nile, and Arabi and his followers, who showed resistance, were finally routed at Tel-el-Kebir. Thus the British occupation became an accomplished fact, and the other Powers were not at the time in a position to assert their own “rights" under the protocol. The dual control was abolished, and the Egyptian constitution and Assembly were replaced by councils whose powers were merely advisory. Egypt for the next 25 years was treated to the “humane" administration of the British Consul-General, Sir Evelyn Baring, a London financier, who was afterwards made Lord Cromer for “services rendered."

The Baring regime introduced a new era of economic development. It was seen that the continued impoverishment of the peasants would lead to loss of revenue through land going out of cultivation. Accordingly the production of cotton on a greater scale for export was encouraged. This, in turn, created a demand for products of British heavy industry, for vast irrigation works and light railways, and, strangely enough, for foodstuffs, which were not now a paying proposition for the Egyptian peasant. In 1907 the exports of cotton were worth £30,000,000 as against £8,000,000 in 1892; and in 1908 foodstuffs to the value of £5,000,000 were imported, though a few years previously Egypt was a self-supporting country. It would be impossible in this article to trace the rapid industrialisation of Egypt to the present day, but some idea may be obtained from the estimate of the amount of British capital invested in Egypt, which is stated in this book to be about £200,000,000, on which the sum taken by British capitalists in interest and profits is given as £20,000,000.

Under the Baring administration the “key” positions in the Civil Service, Local Administration and the Army were held by Britishers, but as time went on it was found necessary to placate the class of rising Egyptian capitalists and large landowners which capitalist development had brought into being, and concessions had to be made continually to these sections. Saad Zaghlul Pasha, for example, was made Minister of Public Instruction in 1906. Nevertheless, control of the Egyptian State machine has never been relaxed by the British capitalist interests, and a persistent struggle between the Egyptian native capitalists and the British capitalists has been going on up to the present day. The political history of Egypt since 1906 has been a record of demonstrations, strikes, assassinations, riots and armed revolts on the one hand and of bloody repression, judicial atrocities, bombings, imprisonments, martial law, deportations; interspersed with attempts at compromise, on the other. Prior to the European War, Mustapha Kernel had been largely instrumental in organising the students, and by street demonstrations and the publication of newspapers, which had large circulations, the question of Egyptian "independence” was kept to the fore. By 1914 the movement had become so menacing that in November of that year Egypt was put under martial law. A rigorous press censorship was instituted; in December a British Protectorate was declared, and the pro-Turkish Khedive Abbas was deposed in favour of Hussein, who was given the title of Sultan. Although the British Government declared publicly that Egyptians would not be required for war service, yet within a year tens of thousands of peasants and workers were “rounded up" and compelled to join the Labour Corps and the Camel Transport Corps. The total number computed to have been enlisted in this manner in the various forces was about 1,000,000. Such measures as these induced violent hatred of British rule and popular support of the Nationalist movement. Further, the hypocritical talk in Allied journals about “self-determination” and the rights of “small nationalities” was seized upon by the Nationalists as imflammable propaganda and in order to harass the Government. Soon after the Armistice an Egyptian delegation (Wafd) was formed under Zaghlul Pasha to proceed to London in order to discuss the question of Egyptian “independence” with the British Government, but passports were refused and Zaghlul and three members of the Wafd were subsequently arrested and deported to Malta on March 8th, 1919. Open revolt followed this act, but was crushed with barbarous severity by brand, bomb and bullet. Attempts to break up the Wafd organisation failed, and as the country continued to be in a state of unrest and turmoil, the British Government at last conceded a constitution to the Egyptians. The first elections (January, 1924) gave an overwhelming majority to the Zaghlulists.

In recent years the dominating question at issue between the Egyptian native capitalists and the British Government is the control of the Sudan. This huge area of over a million square miles lying south of Egypt, bordering Uganda on the south and Abyssinia on the east, was annexed by the British Government in 1898. Since that date a similar story of capitalistic penetration to that of Egypt has to be recorded. Now Egypt is entirely dependent upon the Nile, and the Sudan controls the Upper Nile. A hostile power in the Sudan, therefore, could easily render Egypt impotent by changing the course of the Nile. Further, the sheep and cattle of the Sudan supply Egypt with much of its food, and the development of cotton production must inevitably react on Egyptian conditions. In addition, future Egyptian industrial progress is dependent upon electricity supplied from Sudanese water power, for Egypt has no coal, and poor oil resources. It will be seen, therefore, that, economically, Egypt and the Sudan are inseparable, and Egyptian capitalist interests are endangered by British control of the Sudan. But the Sudan is of equal importance to British capitalist interests apart from internal economic exploitation, for its coastline along the Red Sea forms an important link in Empire communication.

When Zaghlul took office in 1924 he thought that the British Labour Government, then in office, would help the movement for Egyptian Independence, but he was soon to learn that lip opposition to imperialist principles did not imply action along those lines. MacDonald, in fact, told the British High Commissioner in Egypt in a despatch that they (the British Government) “regard their responsibilities as a trust for the Sudan people; there can be no question of their abandoning the Sudan until their work is done”; and in the interview with Zaghlul in London he was very sympathetic with the “sufferings ” of the holders of the Turkish Government’s bonds, payment on which had been stopped since the War by the Turkish Government. The first British Labour Government also showed its “Labour” principles by condoning domestic slavery in the Sudan. So much for Labour professions!

But if the British Labour Government proved an “eye-opener” to the Egyptian Nationalists, the actions of the latter when in power proved their utter worthlessness so far as the peasants and workers in Egypt were concerned. The whole of the legislation put through by the Zaghlul ministry was favourable to the Egyptian capitalists, and one of its first actions was the replacement of the Militant Trade Unions, which had grown up after the 1919 rising, by organisations controlled by the Wafd, whose members held all the important positions. Strikes were frequent, but these were suppressed by the usual capitalist methods of imprisonment and deportation. It is deserving of notice that at the present time more than one-half of the persons engaged in agriculture are wage workers, and tobacco, silk, railway, constructional and transport workers are organised in Trade Unions.

Recent events in Egypt will doubtless be familiar to our readers. The struggle between the native and British capitalist interests becomes ever more acute. “Crisis” has succeeded “crisis,” and on July 19th, 1928, the Egyptian Parliament was suspended for three years and a complete dictatorship has been established, which has prohibited meetings of the Wafd, and exercises a rigid censorship over their press.

Apart from some little glorification of  Communist “leaders," the book is free from the expression of personal opinions. There is much statistical data, and the diction is clear and devoid of literary “frillings.” It concludes with the following passage:—

  It is evident that no solution of the Egyptian problem has been reached. For imperialism there can be no solution, because the satisfaction of its own needs inevitably fosters the growth of native capitalism, brings into being the working class, robs the Egyptian peasantry of the very means of existence, and thus strengthens the forces which are drawn into the anti-imperialist struggle.

If, after their previous experiences, the Egyptian workers and peasants are again drawn into this struggle between two sections of their exploiters, they will have themselves to blame, and it should be clear that the workers here have nothing to gain by lending their support to capitalist national movements in any land.

W. J.

The Socialist Message. (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

A General Election is coming and all parties are using their resources to the utmost in the effort to persuade the workers that one or other of the programmes put forward will meet the difficulties that face the workers to-day. These difficulties are not new; they are simply intensified as time goes on.

Leading advocates of the two older parties, Liberal and Tory, admit the difficulties, but claim that they are an inevitable and unalterable consequence of civilised society. For this reason these two parties seek only to remedy the most glaring evils whilst leaving unaltered the present basis of society. Each of the two parties have had turn and turn about in supreme control of social affairs in this country, and each in turn has failed to develop any line of attack that made, or would make, any appreciable difference in the poverty, unemployment, and general insecurity and misery of the workers' lot.

The Labour Party, now the Opposition in Parliament, plead for time to carry out their ever-lengthening list of reforms. Their leading advocates claim that they are eminently practical people and repudiate the charge that they aim at revolutionising the basis of society. Their conduct, during the short period of Labour Government gave a clear indication of their intention to follow in the footsteps of the two older parties where matters affecting the basic organisation of society were concerned.

An examination of the programme of any one of these three parties leaves the worker bewildered with the mass of intricate matter concerning taxation, banking, etc., of which he must acquire an accurate knowledge if he wishes to correctly estimate the more or less usefulness of one programme against another, unless he is prepared to take one or the other at its own valuation. And yet the position is a relatively simple one when not deliberately overloaded with useless and cunning statements and arguments.

Wealth (food, clothing, and so forth) is produced as a result of the application of human energy to natural resources in one form or another. To produce this wealth, the means of production (land, machinery, and the like) and human energy are needed. At present the employers as a class own the means of production, and the workers as a class supply the human energy, mental and manual.

In return for their labour the workers receive, at the best of times, little more than represents the food, clothing and so forth necessary to keep them in fit condition to go on working and bring up a family to replace them in the workshops. At the worst of times, the wage is inadequate for even the bare needs of life, as the condition of large masses of workers have given pitiful testimony; for instance, the position of large sections of land-workers at different times and the present position of the coal miners.

The land the workers work upon, the machinery they use, and the articles they make do not belong to the workers, but belong to the employers who pay the wages. The difference between the value of the wealth the workers produce and the value of the wages they receive back in payment for their work represents a surplus of wealth which enables the employers, who take it, to live without working.

Broadly speaking, the whole of society is made up of the two classes—Employers and Workers. The worker, on the average, owns nothing but his power to work; the employer owns everything. When a worker sells his working power to an employer he is in effect selling himself, as he must work on the conditions laid down by the employer or lose his employment. Without employment the worker, with few exceptions, is without the means of living and must die of starvation or allow himself to be put in jail under some pretext. However thinly it may be disguised, the ultimatum the employing class present to the working class to-day is “ Work under the conditions we lay down or die.” The workers are therefore slaves. They are slaves to the employing class who determine how, where, and why they shall live.

The object of production to-day is to sell goods for profit so that the employers may have a surplus to take. The markets of the world for the sale of goods are limited. New machinery and improved methods of production fill these markets ever more rapidly as time goes on. When markets are filled production slackens and workers are thrown out of employment. While production is for the market unemployment will continue grow to even larger dimensions. The million and a half that have been unemployed in this country for years are still awaiting the constantly promised return of prosperity, which, like the thaw we were waiting for during the recent frosty spell, keeps taking the wrong turning. In spite of this the Blue Train and the First Class Liner still carry their cargoes of people able to enjoy the best of life.

Apart from unemployment, which is the direct outcome of the conditions mentioned above, the employers are interested in always having on hand a large body of unemployed in order to keep down and defeat the workers’ demands for an improved standard of living by dangling before individual workers the fact that there are other workers waiting at the factory gate wolfishly waiting to take their jobs. This explains the reason for the regularly organised campaigns to induce the workers to bring into the world large families and the spasmodic interest of the State in child welfare, during these times of widespread unemployment.

To present society the name of "Capitalism” has been given because every complete process of production commences with the investment of capital—wealth invested for the purpose of profit. It has at its root the acceptance of the private ownership of the means of production as the normal and unalterable basis of productive operations. While this condition remains present evils in the mass must continue and flourish. Capitalism, therefore, and all parties that accept its basic condition, has no solution for the workers' troubles. It can only dabble here and there with some of the minor evils.

To the workers who read this article we would address ourselves in a more personal manner.

Are you satisfied to let things go on in the same old way? You are slaves to-day because you allow your masters to own the things you produce and thereby control in the main your lives.

You associate together to produce all things, the good and the bad. Your masters take no part in production, yet they take what you have produced. In return for the labour you spend in the field, the factory and the workshop you receive, at the best of times, only a beggarly pittance that does little more than keep you alive and enable you to bring up children to replace you in slavery. Even when in work you are always watchful lest, through no fault of your own, you lose your job. Out of work, your lot is miserable indeed—often a more or less rapid journey to the grave through insufficient nourishment. In numbers you are the overwhelming majority of the nation, and yet you hand over to a relatively small group of masters the product of your work.

There is no absolute law of Nature decreeing that one man shall have and another shall not have. The land of this country was never given by Nature, nor by any mysterious power, as a free gift to anyone. Those who hold it to-day inherit what their forerunners had taken. And those who hold the means of producing wealth obtained possession in a like manner though the possession is sanctioned and sanctified by legal forms.

There is no common interest between you and your masters within the present social conditions. It is their interest to extract from you as much wealth as you can produce for the lowest outlay in wages, as by this means they wax wealthy. It is your interest to obtain possession of the means of production with which you produce wealth in order to produce wealth for your own benefit, letting the idler and parasite go to work for his bread.

It is your class who organise the whole of production to-day—those who get a living by selling their mental and manual energies to the capitalist class. It can be organised to-morrow for the equal benefit of all by the same class that organises it to-day—your class.

Do not heed the smooth-tongued orator who would tell you to work in harmony with your masters for your mutual benefit. The capitalist lives by the exploitation of the worker. Between exploiter and exploited there can be no harmony of interest. When exploitation as a system is done away with, then there will be neither exploiter nor exploited.

Between you and the possession of the means of production stand the laws of capitalism, and behind these laws stands the State—the organised oppressive power of the ruling class. Before you can obtain control of the means of production you must, as a first step, capture the State power. This State power is centred in Parliament and the group in a majority in Parliament has the power to control society.

In the evolution of capitalism the capitalist has gradually relinquished one after the other the functions he once performed, and has therefore been compelled to delegate these functions to officials he pays. Along with this the size and complicated nature of modern society have compelled him to concede to the workers facilities which place within their reach the means of ousting the capitalists from their privileged position if and when the workers wish to do so.

Circumstances therefore compel you, if you wish to get out of slavery, to send delegates to Parliament to capture the control of affairs.

In choosing your delegates, you must remember it is servants you want, not masters nor leaders.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is a political party of working men and women organised together for the purpose of getting control of political power in order to introduce Socialism. Its Parliamentary candidates arc selected as fitting tools for the job. Its members control the party throughout and determine, by majority decisions, the policy of the organisation. This policy is set forth in all the literature the party publishes. The party is, controlled entirely by its members and is not at the beck and call of either a place-hunting individual or a group of self-seekers.

If you are tired of the chains of slavery, join the party and thereby give us your aid in the work of speeding out of existence the system that oppresses us all.

The earth and its fullness is for no man's private possession. Let the workers of the world determine that it shall be for the equal benefit of all.

Gilmac

Editorial: Capitalism and Christianity. (1929)

Editorial from the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Truths of Quakerism
When the Socialist points to the continual struggle between employers and workers, and to the accompanying strife and ill-will as evils which are inseparable from a social system in which property is owned by one class and wealth is produced by another, he is often met with the answer that the discord, the strikes and lock-outs, are the result not of the economic organisation, but of the defects of the human beings concerned.

Thus the Christian will tell us that if only we would all show a spirit of brotherhood, the spirit of Christ, and exercise forbearance, and be unselfish, all our industrial troubles would vanish. For the most part employers and workers, even those who are nominally Christian, make no special effort to apply their Christian principles to their relationships with each other. If a certain trade union appoints an official chaplain, and if other unions habitually open their meetings with prayer, most of the people concerned do not treat these conventional practices as having any useful bearing on the business of the organisation. There are, however, religious persons — the Quakers, for example—who do profess that their religion can and does have a very intimate bearing on their everyday activities, including the running of a business. Thus the Cadbury family claim that the application of Quaker principles to industry has made Bournville something of a model for the industrial world, containing the hope of a solution for the problems of modern industry.

We have always contested that view. Bournville embodies no feature which is essentially Quaker; it solves no problems except certain problems of the Cadburys as employers of labour; and it offers no hope for the working class. The idea that the granting of certain health-promoting facilities to the staff brings a return in the shape of greater productivity which exceeds the outlay is not new, and is not confined to Quakers. Nor is the practice of paying wages above the average to a picked staff of more than average skill and fitness. Its motive in general is the securing of greater profits. Its application comes from a more than usually acute perception of the conditions of capitalist production. It is limited in scope by the nature of the work performed in the particular concern, and it is obviously only of special service to the Fords and Cadburys so long as it has not been applied throughout industry. If all employers were to bid against each other for the pick of the workers it would cease to be any more profitable than paying a lower wage for workers of average efficiency, and if all employers offer the same facilities to their staff, each particular firm loses the advantage it formerly obtained in having employees who would remain in the same employment for a long period, thus eliminating the cost of training new employees.

The question has been raised in an acute form by the application of “rationalisation” to the Cadbury cocoa business, the subject of an article in the “New Leader" (Feb. 22) by a Quaker member of the I.L.P., Mr. W. J. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain, it may be added, is editor of a Labour journal, the Birmingham “Town Crier," and has been an active member of the I.L.P. for many years.

He confirms our view that the Cadbury welfare schemes have been a very successful form of advertising, and in this respect alone have been worth many thousands of pounds to the firm in creating a demand for their goods. Now, however, with the application of new methods and the installation of new machinery,

  Many hundreds of men and women have been sacked by the firm during the past twelve months—men and women who have spent the best years of their life in the service of the firm.

Three weeks ago, he says, there were distressing scenes when another 400 women, some of them over 40 years of age, who had been with the firm since early girlhood, were added to Birmingham's 30,000 unemployed. They have little chance of finding fresh employment, and their specialised skill is useless outside the chocolate and cocoa industry. The firm “admitted that there has been no falling off in trade," but the dismissals were necessary “in order to reduce the staff to an economic level." Mr. Chamberlain denies that the grant of a few pounds to some of the dismissed can be regarded as generous treatment to men and women who have given a life of service. Mr. Chamberlain concludes that “even Quakers cannot combine Christianity with capitalism." and that this “is the greatest indictment of Capitalism that we have had in our time." No doubt Mr. Chamberlain would define “Christianity" differently from us, but the first of these two statements appears to be the reverse of true. Surely the truth is that the Cadburys have combined Christianity and Capitalism very successfully indeed. They have made very large profits—the proof of success in a capitalist world—and at the same time they have succeeded in earning and retaining a reputation for Christian principle and brotherliness which has been so effective that among its numerous devotees was to be numbered Mr. W. J. Chamberlain.

“I confess," says Mr. Chamberlain, “that as members of the Society of Friends, I had hoped for great things from Quaker employers. I had hoped that they might have given a bold lead to ether employers. But with the action of the Cadbury family my hope has vanished."

One striking thing about the article is the extraordinary lack of knowledge and thought it indicates in its author. Mr. Chamberlain knew that of the directors of Cadbury’s all but one “are Liberals or Tories, and therefore upholders of capitalism.” He has been in the I.L.P. since 1904. That is to say he has been engaged in preaching to others that (in the words of the I.L.P. slogan) "Socialism is the only hope." Yet for all these years he has retained a belief that far from Socialism being the only hope, there was a much easier and nearer one, i.e., the application of Quaker principles by Quaker capitalists to capitalist industry. Not until 25 years have passed does he discover that “my hope has vanished, and I know now that we shall have to wait for a Socialist Government to rescue for the workers not benevolence, but justice."

It has taken twenty-five years for an I.L.P. speaker and writer to learn that capitalism is a system of society organised not for the satisfaction of human needs directly, but in the first place for profit-making.

When next members of the I.L.P. tell us that it is useless preaching “pure" Socialistic doctrine to the poor, benighted workers because they don’t understand, we shall be tempted to reply that the really big problem before the Socialist propagandist is the conversion of the leading lights of the I.L.P.

Socialist Brevities. (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hey Presto!

Merlin and Cagliostrio were reputed to be the thing in wizards in their day. Of recent years the Welsh Wizard has eclipsed their old-time wonders. Ninepence for fourpence, for instance. But ninepence! What would you say to 2,666.6 ninepences for fourpence? Or, in good English, one hundred jimmy o’ goblins for fourpence! Not done, you say? Oh, well, you don’t read your newspapers. Besides, you do not realise the miraculous nature of the capitalist system. Read, mark, luke—I mean learn—etc., the following instance of modern necromancy as reported in the Daily News, 25.1.29:—

£100 for 4d.

  In the early stages of the Ner-Sag meeting, when the first revelations were made, but before they reached the Stock Exchange, a man rushed from the meeting to telephone his stockbroker (writes a City correspondent).
  He told them to sell 500 Ner-Sag shares which he did not possess. He sold at 17s. per share. He telephoned his brokers in the afternoon and told them to buy back the 500 shares to cover his bargain. He bought them back at 12/6 each.
  On February 7, the next Stock Exchange Pay Day, his brokers will pay him a little over £100.
  All that this “bear" operation will have cost him is 4d. for two telephone calls.

No wands, no incantations, no stinks, no ritual of any sort! All done by kindness. A wonderful system, capitalism!


Strange Bedfellows.

Wages seem to have got so high lately that they must soon be out of reach altogether. They are, of course, for some million and a half workers now. Yes, these “excessive” wages are an awful curse! This does not apply, however, to the “wages of superintendence,” or whatever the “economists” might call the “bunce” pouched by the non-workers.

There should be a law to stop paying wages altogether and let the workers eat one another. This would keep down the “surplus” population, I have little doubt. If you read the paragraph below, taken from the Daily Herald for 7.2.29, you will readily see that a substantial decrease in the wages of the worker would ease some of the unrest and discontent of the capitalists from which industry is suffering so acutely at the present time:—

BANKER WANTS WAGES CUT.

  But his Dividend is 18 per cent.

 Mr. Henry Allan, chairman of the Clydesdale Bank, moved at the annual meeting at Glasgow, yesterday, that the dividend on Ordinary shares should be 18 per cent., and then proceeded to complain of what he himself called high wages.
  Business conditions during the past year, said Mr. Allan, were disappointing. The unemployment figures showed a large increase. Unfortunately the remedy was very difficult. In the outstanding case of the railwaymen, high wages were actually fortified by Act of Parliament.
  The evil of excessive wages was aggravated by the general fall in prices which followed the return of the gold standard. Prices had fallen about 15 per cent. since 1924, without any corresponding reduction in wages.
  The 18 per cent. dividend was adopted.

Now, boys, let us all pull together and try to make that 18 per cent. into 1,800 per cent. !


Those Pampered Workers.

East is East and West is West
   And ne’er the twain shall meet-O!
Left is Left and Right is Right
   (With knobs), ditto repeato!

                                                   Anon.

What philosophical depths are plumbed by these lines! What fecundity of thought! But lately I have been assailed by doubts as to whether they apply always and without exceptions. “Liberalism,” for instance, whatever else it may be, I am told, is “Liberalism.”

Similarly, I suppose, “Labour” is “Labour,” and that might or might not explain anything or nothing, whichever may be chosen. But that Labour stalwart, J. A. Hobson, has been contending recently that there is no real difference between the aims and policies of the Liberal and the “Labour” Parties !

In an article in the Manchester Guardian (8.2.29) entitled “ Liberalism and Labour,” he advocates co-operation between the two parties on the grounds that the Liberal programme “presents a sufficient body of agreement with the adopted policy of the Labour Party to warrant thoughtful members of that party in looking favourably on co-operation.”

So, it would appear that although Mr. Hobson belongs to the Labour Party, “Hobson’s Choice” is not too well grounded. H. N. Brailsford and others agree with Hobson.

Now read the following extract from the article referred to :—

   The declaration of Labour in favour of “public ownership" of foundation industries, such as land, railroads, power, and banking, may seem at first sight a fatal obstacle to co-operation. But is there much substance in it? Labour does not propose to confiscate these undertakings. Its nationalisation would have to be financed by public bond issues, which for the most part would be taken in exchange for the existing share and debenture capital of the concern so “ nationalised.”
  Fixed interest would still be paid to the persons who had invested their capital in these undertakings. Would this differ appreciably from the Liberal proposal to leave the ownership of the undertakings intact, but to put them on a fixed interest or debenture basis?

Having now learnt what “ Socialism” is, I invite you to read what the Morning Post, in an editorial (11.2.29) has to say about this conception of Socialism —

  They (the Labour Party) have said a thousand times: “We do not believe in your 'capitalist' system yet they now propose to administer that “system,” and better, apparently, than those who do believe in it.
  We can understand the logic and appreciate the honesty of Socialists who seek office in order to establish Socialism; but we cannot understand the mental or moral position of Socialists who propose to take office in order to continue Capitalism. And we suggest to our readers to put these simple tests to. the professions and promises of our Socialist leaders. Do they propose to put Socialism in practice? If they do, do we want Socialism? If they do not, then why should we want them?

Isn’t this too cruel to the Labour Party! To be bombarded with the same ammunition by both the Morning Post and the Socialist Standard! No, I can’t believe those lines now!

Out Of Their Own Mouths.

On page 3 of the circular issued by the Labour Press Service great prominence is given to a statement regarding Unemployment Benefit (February 13th):—

THE HONEST UNEMPLOYED GET LESS 
CONSIDERATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN CONVICTS DO.

The Government pays :—
£1 9s. 5d. a week to keep a convict in a Convict Prison.
£2 4s. 5d. a week to keep a convict in a Preventive Detention Prison.
£1 6s. 9d. to keep an offender in a Borstal Institution.
But it only pays—
17s. a week Unemployment Benefit to keep an honest workman who has the misfortune to be unemployed.
The Labour Party has repeatedly asked the Government to increase the amount of benefit for the unemployed.
The Government has refused all these requests, and has actually reduced the benefit of many of the unemployed instead of increasing it.

Then on page 4 we are informed how a Labour Government will tackle the unemployment “problem” :—

  Proper maintenance for the unemployed until re-absorbed.  Until they are re-absorbed into industry, a Labour Government would see that the unemployed are treated more humanely than at present. It would increase Unemployment Benefits to 20s. for men over 18, and 18s. for women over 18; it would raise the allowance for a wife or housekeeper to 10s. weekly, and the allowance per child from 2s. to 5s.; and it would make similar increases in the benefits of young workers.
  At the same time, by the discouragement of luxury spending and the direct increase of purchasing power in the hands of the workers, through better provision against unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age, a Labour Government would increase the demand for staple commodities and powerfully assist the restoration of the chief industries of the country.

In other words, until the unemployed are re-absorbed into industry the Labour Government will pay to a man over 18 9s. 5d. a week less than it costs to keep a convict in a Convict Prison, £1 4s. 5d. a week less than it costs to keep a convict in a Preventive Detention Prison, 6s. 9d. a week less than it costs to keep an offender in a Borstal Institution.

Note how the Labour Government would “powerfully assist” the restoration of the chief industries of the country by disorganising some of the “chief industries”, of . the country—the “ luxury trades.” 

Providence, presumably, will be left the task of re-absorbing the workers in the luxury trades who would be thrown out of work by the application of the suggested remedy.

Sarcastigator.

Labour Party Confusion. (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The issue of the “Herald," dated January 14th, tells us that "The Labour Party never for a moment pretended that it was other than a Socialist Party.”

Let us then hear the Chairman of that party in his capacity as chairman at the recent Labour Party Conference. There, Mr. George Lansbury said: "In a most important sense Labour was not a class party. It accepted members from all classes, and the objects it sought to attain would benefit men and women of every class.” ("Daily Herald,” 2/10/28.)

Not being a class party, the Labour Party cannot obviously be a Working Class Party. Such an accommodating party can, therefore, find it easy to secure “rich friends” and finances from the only other section of society, apart from the Working Class—the Capitalists. How promising too, the prospect, that the super-tax payers, the Federation of British Industries, and the mysterious “every class,” will, according to Lansbury, all benefit equally. Even to those who possess unlimited trust such prospects will appear too rosy. To those who remember the attitude of the Labour Party towards the Working Class during the war and their readiness to use the armed force against Workers fighting to maintain their poor standard of living during their term of office, Lansbury's statement will appear the merest clap-trap. Now let us sample the Labour Party’s “Socialism,” from the same source of truth—George Lansbury. In the “Daily Herald ” (13/2/28) he said

   . . .  the country had been obliged to have a little Socialism; infant welfare, maternity centres and State highways were examples of the triumph of Socialism over private enterprise. We could not live without bits of Socialism in our everyday life.

If, as Lansbury maintains, such services are Socialism, then he should surely include such pillars of British progress as our Workhouses, our Prisons and our Lunatic Asylums. In these days of mass output, he should know that it is impossible to leave such "bits of our everyday lives” to private enterprise. We could not tolerate private prisons, private workhouses, could we? We could not!! What Lansbury, in woeful ignorance, or wilful deceit, calls bits of Socialism, are merely state-owned or Government controlled departments of Capitalism. These the capitalists prefer out of the hands of private individuals for their own economy and convenience. Socialism means common ownership and democratic control of the means of life by the whole of the people. Such common ownership cannot be brought about in bits and pieces by any party or Government; it can only be established as a system of society, when there are a greater number organised for Socialism than there are opposed or apathetic to it. The Labour Party programme shows that they are prepared to take office with non-Socialist support, a fact that falsifies their claim to be a Socialist Party. In a leading article on their election prospects, the “Daily Herald” (14/1/29) said: “At present, the Socialist faith was held only by a minority—an ever-growing minority, but still a minority." The Labour Party must, therefore, if elected without the backing to proceed with Socialist reconstruction, carry on the present system. Be their intentions the most honest, they are powerless to avert or remove the evil the present system begets, notwithstanding the remedies they propose if elected. This has been proved beyond dispute in Labour-governed Australia, and the proof we have given in these columns from time to time. Lansbury’s balderdash is a reflection of the confusion that reigns among Labour Party supporters. When they, through education, become Socialist in outlook, they will elect and control Socialist delegates. They will cease to follow leaders with a political Father Christmas stocking containing something for everybody.

Mac.

The Industrial Transfer Farce. (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Everyone has heard with wearisome repetition that the unemployed miners are destitute. Huge posters have told us so. The Prince of Wales has been put forward to tell us what the master class already knew, that the conditions in the mining areas are “positively ghastly." And the remedy? A little charity! Few ask what was the cause of the misery and poverty so plentiful among the miners when they were employed; when they, like the rest of the working class, were busy piling up wealth for their non-working masters. In such a situation charity is an insult, but as if to add comedy to it the capitalists have produced a scheme from what is termed an “ Industrial Transfer Board."

According to a report (“Listener," 16/1/29) “The aim of the scheme is to recruit labour for the prosperous towns." Of course, it does not say where these prosperous towns are. Statistics of unemployment indicate that for the workers such towns are non-existent. As evidence of the condition of places not entirely industrial, note this : “The Mayor of Southend has refused to appeal to the town for the Miners Relief Fund as the distress in Southend is too great" (“East London Advertiser," 19/1/29). There is an object in harping on the distress of particular sections of the working class at particular times. The sorry plight of others is calculated to make the rest of the workers less conscious of their own suffering by making it appear insignificant by contrast. It may be argued that the coal industry is exceptional, but neither coal, boots, food, houses, nor anything else, will be produced if such production is not first profitable to the capitalists who own the means by which the workers could produce them. Houses surely are needed, yet “Comparatively few people realise that among the industries which at present contribute most heavily to swell the total of the unemployed is the building trade." (“New Statesman," 16/2/29.) To advise miners, or any other unemployed men, to take work in the “prosperous towns," is akin to the advice attributed to Marie Antoinette, who, on being told that the French poor were without bread, replied, “Then why do they not eat cake?"

Mac.

Answer To Correspondent. (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Combines and the Unemployed. 
A reader makes the suggestion that the workers should deal at the small shops and avoid the big stores because the growth of the latter stores results in an increase in the army of unemployed. He assumes that the quality and price of the goods sold is the same in both cases. This assumption is in fact not correct. The big stores crush out their small competitors because they can and do undercut them, and offer service which is superior in other respects also. If this were not so the big stores would never be successful in their efforts to crush or absorb the small ones. The workers cannot afford to buy in any but the cheapest market, and the whole idea that they can thus reverse the course of capitalist development is fantastic.

Editorial Committee

SPGB Lectures (1929)

Party News from the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Capital," by Karl Marx: A Review. (1929)

Book Review from the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

A New Translation of Marx’s famous work, "Capital,” by Eden & Cedar Paul, from the Fourth German Edition, the final edition revised by Engels. Published by George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., Museum Street, London, W.C.l. Price 12/6 net.

The first volume of Karl Marx’s masterly analysis of capitalist production, entitled “Capital,” was published in German in 1867. In the preface he stated that other volumes were in preparation, and outlined the portions of the subject with which each would deal. Unfortunately he did not live long enough to see these latter volumes through the press, and it was left for his life-long friend and co-worker, Frederick Engels, to construct volumes 2 and 3 out of the mass of material left by Marx, aided to a very large extent by his own great knowledge both of the subject itself and of Marx’s views and intentions.

A second edition of volume 1 appeared in German in 1873 and Marx was preparing the materials for a third edition in 1883 when he died. Engels saw this third edition through the press, with such alterations as Marx had indicated in the manuscript, in November, 1883.

It was from this edition that the first translation of volume 1 into English was made in 1886 by Mr. Samuel Moore and Dr. Aveling, under the general editorship of Engels (who took responsibility for the work as a whole) and published by Swan, Sonnenschein & Co., of London. A fourth edition in German was published by Engels in 1890. In the meantime, Engels had published Volume 2 in 1885 (a second edition in 1893), and Volume 3 appeared in 1894. From the materials left behind by Marx and Engels, Karl Kautsky has published three volumes under the title “Theories of Surplus Value.”

The Sonnenschein edition has been out of print for some years and now a new translation from the fourth German edition has been prepared by Eden and Cedar Paul, and published by George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.

For some reason not easy to discover, these publishers have gone out of their way in a stupid attempt to disparage the translation supervised by Engels. On the paper cover to the book they state:—

  This great work has hitherto been available only in a somewhat unliterary translation made from the third German edition, which was not the final edition.

What is “literary” or “unliterary” may be a matter of opinion, but we are quite certain that the majority of readers will hold that the present translation—as far as comparisons can be made—is no way superior, if as good as, the Sonnenschein edition. Thus the use of the ugly word “machinofacture” in place of “modern industry” will hardly seem an improvement to many. Neither is the word “febrile” in any way superior to the word “feverish” as used by Engels, while to talk of the “spiritual” wants of the workers (p. 232), where Engels says “intellectual” is in contradiction to Marx’s essential views. And it may be remarked that the Sonnenschein edition was translated from the latest German edition available at the time.

Neither is it entirely true to say that only the Sonnenschein edition has been available in English. For, if it is agreed that the American language is English, then Kerr & Co., of Chicago, published a translation of the third German edition “revised and amplified according to the fourth German edition by Ernest Untermann," in 1906 that has been on sale here. Untermann also translated the second and third volumes of “Capital" into English. Therefore the matter, if not a word for word translation of the fourth German edition, has been available here. Following the Russian fashion of numeration, we may perhaps call it the three and a half edition!

The chief additions in the fourth edition as compared with the third are the footnote on Bimetallism (p. 126); the footnote on the Factory and Workshops Act (p. 546), four pages of text (642-645) on “Surplus Value Transformed into Capital," and three pages of text (691-694) on “Law of Capitalist Accumulation." The latter section is of special interest because, in addition to treating of credit, it deals with a detail of development—centralisation of capital into the hands of a few—that Marx had been accused of failing to foresee by certain Fabian critics. 

While the present translation is a new one direct from the fourth German edition, it is interesting to note the translators' statement in their preface :—

   Of course Moore & Aveling’s translation, which appeared in 1886, and J.B.’s translation of the first nine chapters (Bellamy Library), have not been ignored; the former, in particular, deserved close study, as it was published under the auspices of Frederick Engels . . . .  In the present version we have relied throughout upon the definitive German text as final arbiter.

It may be mentioned that “J. B.’s" translation is a very poor one and was severely criticised by Engels when it appeared.

The translators are to be congratulated on one decision. “Capital" is a book intended primarily for working-class readers, the majority of whom have little or no opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages. Marx’s work abounds in quotations from Greek, Italian, French, etc., that form stumbling-blocks to the average worker. The translators decided to give all these quotations in English without unduly burdening the volume with the original languages, a course which, in our opinion, was the right one to take.

Some printer’s errors occur that should receive attention when the next edition is being prepared. On page 15 the word "twice" is, of course, redundant. The word "being," page 49 (sixth line from bottom) is a misprint for "bring." In the second paragraph, page 102, the word “ diminishes " should be replaced by "increases." On page 391 the description of one of the mechanical powers as an "oblique" plane is incorrect, the proper term being “inclined" plane. The word "not" on page 437 is a misprint for “now."

This new volume, with its black cover and gold lettering, has a striking appearance and is well bound and printed, but one wishes at times that the paper had been a little more opaque, as in several places the print from the other side of the sheet shows through. The price of 12s. 6d., though, unfortunately, high for a worker’s pocket, is certainly cheap for a technical work as books are priced to-day.

But the importance of its contents and the vast store of information it contains renders it a volume well worthy of some sacrifice on the part of a worker to obtain a copy.

Jack Fitzgerald

Wages and Nationalisation (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Cramp, Industrial General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Transport, was asked by Major I. Salmon, M.P., whether nationalisation of the railways would lead to higher wages for the railwaymen. Mr. Cramp, who was there as an advocate of railway nationalisation, replied “Certainly not.” (“Daily Telegraph,” 17/1/29.)

The correspondents of "The Times” and “Morning Post” also record that Mr. Cramp replied in the negative to this question, but curiously enough, the “Daily Herald” correspondent, although his report is much longer, appears not to have noticed either the question or the answer.

From the railway workers’ point of view, all that Mr. Cramp hopes for as a result of nationalisation, is an “improvement in status” (whatever that may mean) and “conceivably” an “improvement” in conditions which would “probably” take the form of “a better system of superannuation.” (“Daily Herald,” 17/1/29.)

The Socialist Party bases its attitude of deliberate and permanent hostility to nationalisation on the ground that nationalisation is a question affecting capitalist interests only, of no real advantage to the working class and possessing certain material disadvantages. It would be interesting to learn from Mr. Cramp and his fellow supporters of nationalisation in the Labour Party and Communist Party, why they continue to advocate it.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Socialist Outlook (1929)

From the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist's view of life is essentially historical. That is to say, he takes the widest possible view of human experience, seeing in the past the raw material which the present is constantly converting into the future.

Old facts and new facts alike provide food for his mind, and having inwardly digested them, he reviews ideas, both new and old, in the light of the knowledge so obtained. In all this he follows the scientific method.

The stage of social life is his laboratory. By abstract analysis he discovers the inner forces of that life and, having traced their laws, he comprehends the play; but he is not an inactive spectator merely. He is also one of the players, and his understanding is necessary to the effective performance of his part.

For the drama of human development has reached a crisis. Men and women are about to become the masters of things which have used them hitherto as puppets. “From slavery to freedom'' is the battle cry taken up by an ever-increasing number of the players.

What is this slavery? And what, this freedom? For ages the primary and fundamental activity of mankind has been work, work! To win from Nature a firmer footing for the race. To develop the powers slumbering in human nerve and sinew. To construct an artificial substitute for the crude, merciless, “God-given” arena of savage strife.

Few have lived to enjoy the fruits of their toil. Fewer still have managed to live upon the toil of others. The many have toiled under varying conditions, that these few, the brave, the powerful and the crafty should fight and govern and scheme to enjoy the wealth and leisure so created. For who, given the choice, would prefer toil to the life of ease?

The whip of the slave-driver, the sword of the baron, and the menace of hunger. These have been, and are, the weapons which have flogged, prodded and terrified men and women to their daily task; and, as each weapon has given way in turn to a more effective one, so the productivity of toil has grown till even the most gigantic scheme of waste cannot rid the markets of the wares which glut them. So numbers now know idleness, indeed, but starve!

They may not work! Refinement of slavery—even the slave’s first need is denied them. They must not feed and clothe and house themselves, for much of the food, clothing and housing in existence cannot be sold!

Money, devised to circulate commodities, gravitates in narrowing circles and decrees stagnation. Choked with wealth, the masters condemn their slaves to poverty.

“Enough! Cease toil!"

“Cease toil?" the workers cry. “Is this some sudden freak, or mockery of Fate, that, not having won the ease for which we strive, we yield its only pledge?" And yet there is no cloud but has its lining of shining silver. Let but the toilers turn the cloud of oppression about and they will see the answer to their riddle.

Mankind has won the age-long battle with external Nature. Security for all is ours for the taking. There, in the idle factories, pits and deserted fields lie the means to feed and clothe and house the human race. Here are our hands, brains and muscles ready, willing and eager for the task.

What holds them back? The Law!

Framed through centuries by the rich and mighty, by the aid of their hirelings to fetter the creative giant.

Yet even the guns which thunder at their bidding, the swords they rattle, the latest fiend's device of prostituted science, they, too, are the products of our toil. What we produce shall we not control? Do we lack the will to struggle and endure till victory be ours, who all our lives have known nought else but ceaseless struggle and grim endurance with empty pockets for our pains?

Eric Boden

The "Cruelty" of Capitalism (1929)

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

In the February Socialist Standard (see page 94, column 2) our contributor, A. Kohn, pointed out that Socialists do not object to capitalism as a "mistake" or a "monstrosity," but "recognise its place in social evolution as a pre-condition for the coming of Socialism." A correspondent, "Humanitas," writes to protest that a system of society which is based on gross inequality of wealth with the resulting "tragic consequences of life" must be regarded as "a mistake and a social monstrosity."

"Humanitas" continues as follows: —

Such stark injustice  . . . . condemns any system, whether it leads to Socialism or any other state. In the name of logic and scientifically-grounded philosophy how can social injustice and (implicitly) the cruelty that initiated and continues it be justified or excused on any grounds?

In the first place. "Humanitas" has misunderstood our contributor's point. The statement was not a "justification" for capitalism, but a mere statement of fact. It is a fact that capitalism has made Socialism possible, but the Socialist does not "justify" capitalism on that ground. The reason for the existence of capitalism was that if offered the means of bettering the conditions of life of society as a whole. Capitalism is developing in Russia, for instance, because as a literal fact it offers a higher standard of living to the Russian workers and peasants than is, with Russia's low development of industry, obtainable otherwise. To talk about capitalism being "initiated and continued" by "cruelty" is a mere empty phrase. Capitalism was initiated by persons who—both capitalists and wage-earners—stood to gain thereby. It is continued by capitalists and wage-earners in this country because both, the former correctly and the latter incorrectly, think that they still cannot do better than continue it. The Socialist points out that the functions formerly performed by the capitalist class (functions which made it worth while for society to accept the existence of a property-owning class) are no longer performed by them. The capitalist system can now, with advantage to the majority, be dispensed with.

Ed. Comm.