To a new reader. (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

I have sometimes thought of compiling a little book. I should set about it thus : I would ask a great number of the people I met in a casual way what they understood Socialism to mean. The result would at least be interesting. Some would dispose of the matter in one word. “Bosh !” they would say—or “Rot !” These would be the foolish. Others would say : “Well, it means practical Christianity, or universal brotherhood, or some such idea.” These possibly would be well-meaning people, but, as you will see, misinformed. Some there would be who would tell a long rambling tale, that Socialism was a beautiful dream about a dim and very distant future, but that all we could hope to achieve in our time would be to make life more and more bearable by means of reforms. Others, again, would say : “Just as the present State owns and manages the Post Office, or the Municipality owns the trams, the electricity works, the water supply, and the rest of it, so should the mines, the railways, canals, and even the factories be publicly owned.” Others,—but enough of the others ; perhaps you yourself are one of the others. Possibly you have seen or heard the word Socialism ever since you can remember anything, and still have only the foggiest notion of what it all means. Let us talk it over together.

Many people are afraid of anything with “ism” on the end of it. They think it is bound to mean something “cranky.” They are not logical in this belief, for the words “Baptism,” “Methodism,” or “Nationalism,” do not alarm them. Let us hope you are not one of those whom words frighten. After all, it is the idea behind all words that matters. You have only to mention the word “science” to some people, and they begin to look bored. And yet science is only reasoning from facts instead of jumping to conclusions.

Take a simple illustration. Who does not wonder at the beauty of the stars that twinkle over our heads on any clear night? For countless ages they have filled mankind with awe and wonderment. Thousands of years ago, the primitive shepherds guarding their flocks from prowling beasts of prey, saw the same stars as we, arranged in much the same “patterns.” In one part of the night sky they clearly discerned Orion, the mighty hunter, with club uplifted to attack the Lion. At his heel were his two dogs, Sirius and Procyon. In another part of the heavens were the Great Bear and the Little Bear; in another, Cygnus, the Swan. There were Castor and Pollux, the Twins; the Fishes and many other wonders. Between wandered the planets, and these had an influence over the lives of the little mortals who watched and studied them. Some were good or lucky stars; others were evil, malevolent stars. Quite a huge body of literature arose about them. The study was called Astrology. Gradually the movements and changes of the heavenly bodies were seen to follow a certain order. These rules or laws of movement were set down, and many men of all races tested them, and added to them, until at last the mighty hunter, the Lion, the Bears, the Swan, and all the rest of the menagerie faded from the sky, and the new definite knowledge of man about the stars became the science of Astronomy.

The same process took place with medicine. In olden days when a person took the fever or caught a mysterious illness in some way, they used to open a vein and draw off a quantity of blood, in the hope that the malady would run out with the blood. The medicines that used to be prescribed are enough to make one shudder. It seemed that nothing could be really effective unless it were horrible. And thus we read of concoctions of spiders, and toads, and vipers’ tongues, dead man’s skin, burnt hair, and all sorts of putridity. Health was indeed a blessing in those days. But as men observed and thought more deeply, they found that illness was caused by dirt, by bad air, by absence of sunlight, by wrong living; and having found the causes of ill-health, the remedies quickly followed.

Other funny old fellows of the past were the Alchemists. They were fond of making all sorts of messes with all sorts of substances. One of their great beliefs was that somewhere there could be discovered or compounded the Philosopher’s Stone, and with this it would be possible to turn lead into gold. Needless to say, their search was unsuccessful, but out of the mass of information and knowledge they collected there grew up our modern Chemistry, one of the most exact and marvellous of our sciences.

And what has all this to do with Socialism? you will ask. I will tell you. It is because Socialism has had a similar history. You will be prepared to admit, I hope, that science is not at all a formidable word, and are further prepared, I trust, to see what there is in the claim of Socialism to be considered scientific. Very well. Now one of the first difficulties we have to deal with is that of prejudice. Most of us are filled with ideas that were implanted in us when quite young, fed and nourished in later years by newspapers and periodicals. Take history, for instance. All we were taught and remember is that the first people in these islands were the Ancient Britons. They stained their bodies with woad and looked upon the mistletoe as sacred. Then the Romans came and conquered them, but eventually had to leave rather hurriedly, leaving them to be harried by hordes of Angles, Jutes and Saxons. Later followed the Danes, and we were told some jolly little tales of King Alfred burning the housewife’s cakes, or disguising himself as a harper and secretly visiting the enemy’s camp. Then came the Normans, and we got tales of the curfew, of Hereward the Wake, and other worthies. And so on through the whole gamut: Richard the Lion Heart; the Black Prince; the Princes in the Tower; Henry the Eighth and his many wives ; the Reformation ; King Charles; Oliver Cromwell; Henrys, and Williams and Georges galore ; the whole interspersed with a great number of awful battles, in which the English were victorious five times out of six. This is History as it is taught to workers’ children. Simply legends, episodes and resounding names. But for upwards of a hundred years History has been treated more scientifically. Instead of looking upon it as a catalogue of entertaining events, men now ask, Why did this event happen, or that? Why did the Roman Empire flourish, and then decay? Why did the Reformation affect not only England, but Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Norway, etc.? Above all, what great driving motive caused different nations to act similarly? How did the discovery of America affect the world? Why have institutions like slavery, feudalism, religion, tribes, kingship, etc., been common to all races of mankind, although separated by thousands of miles, and with no possibility of contact? The answers to all these questions would take us too far in a brief article, but this may be said : Mankind, without distinction of race, has always lived in groups or communities. All have broadly followed the same lines in their progress upward to civilisation. Some, like the Australian Blacks and the Red Indians, were left behind, and have become overwhelmed by more progressive races. The main line of progress has led from Savagery, through patriarchial society to Feudalism, or through handicraft to Capitalism. Each change has been marked, and actually caused by, changes in the methods of holding property, more particularly in the means of living. The stage we are now in is that of Capitalism. This, you will see at once, is quite independent of whether we have a King or a President; whether Lloyd George is a good man or a bad one; whether we are Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Buddhists, or nothing in particular. Capitalism has three distinguishing features. First, the land, both the surface and the minerals beneath it, is privately owned. The earth and the fulness thereof are in individual hands; Second, the wonderful and ingenious tools, or machines, by which Nature’s raw material is converted into wealth, are owned by individuals or small groups of individuals. Thirdly, the class to which you and I belong are compelled, in order to live, to hire our power to labour to those who have put a fence round Nature. The price of our hire is our wages, and our wages are determined by the cost of living. Not to make too long a story of it, the Socialist says in view of the obvious fact that this system does not work to the benefit of the vast mass of the people, it is time we substituted something more scientific. He points out what should be obvious to anyone with an unwarped mind. If, without access to Mother Nature, man perishes from the planet, is it not elementary common sense to suggest that the earth’s great storehouse should be common property; that is, socially owned instead of individually owned? The Socialist is one who urges this social ownership. Even the tools and marvellous machinery by which the raw material becomes wealth, he claims are a social product and a social heritage. In every one of them is embodied the toil, the thought, the invention of thousands of separate human beings. They in turn owed all they possessed to the society of which they formed part. The Socialist says these tools are social; they should be socially owned. And the next point. If you think over the words “working class,” has it ever struck you as curious that such a term has arisen? The working class, those who do the work. If all worked, the term would have no meaning. Therefore there must be a class which does not work. And yet the class which does not work consists of immensely wealthy people. Without work, of course, there is no wealth. How curious, then, that the working class is composed of people who have no wealth. The wealth they produce is taken from them by those who own the earth and the means of living. A little has to be returned to them, to enable them to live. This is called wages. Without it the workers would die, or they would rise and destroy their masters. Either way the Capitalist system would come to an abrupt and violent end. Wages, therefore, are on the average just enough to keep the working class alive, and not unduly discontented.

It is not sufficient, however, that the working class should simply become indignant at their treatment or discontented with their lot. Clever men have looked into history and have seen that Capitalism grew out of feudalism, and feudalism out of chattel slavery, simply because the one was a logical development of the other. The stages of human society have followed one upon the other, just like steps, and mankind has only reached the higher by means of the lower. It is idle, therefore, to be merely angry or indignant at what is, after all, a natural growth. As was mentioned previously, society has changed in the past whenever the methods of producing wealth have changed. Our present method is by tools and instruments that are privately owned. It is because of this that the resulting wealth is also privately owned, and the workers consequently poor. The evils that follow this system are obvious. Overwork and unemployment, low wages and insecurity, dog the footsteps of the workers from childhood to premature death. They can only be remedied by abolishing this individual ownership of the means of life, and substituting ownership by the whole people. This would be social ownership, or Socialism. If you will read this journal regularly you will see many articles, telling how this change is to be brought about, and disposing of the objections and difficulties many people bring forward. If you are interested we shall be glad to see you at any of our meetings, and if you are convinced of the truth of the Socialist position we shall be still more pleased to welcome you as a member.

W. T. Hopley

Who gets it?

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

 Hence it has happened that the development of steam navigation, of railroads and telegraphs, of mechanical and chemical science, and the growth of the population, while enormously increasing productive power and the amount of material products—that is, of real wealth—at least ten times faster than the growth of the population, has given that enormous increase almost wholly to one class, comprising the landlords and capitalists, leaving the actual producers of it—the industrial workers and inventors—little, if any, better off than before.—Professor Alfred Russel Wallace.

Correspondence. (1923)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gentlemen,

Referring to Mr. Fitzgerald’s reply to my letter (this month’s issue of the Socialist Standard), I would like, for charity’s sake, to leave on one side all matters, such as whether Mr. Fitzgerald’s article was vituperative, whether my policy is akin to that of an ostrich, and whether I am in the habit of misapplying what I call my reason—matters upon which Mr. Fitzgerald and myself would probably still disagree in the long run, and to ask this simple question :—

Taking Mr. Fitzgerald’s statement in his article in the December issue of the Socialist Standard, that “Every increase in prices . . . has called either for an increase of currency, or for some financial readjustment,” what are the successive stages between the increase in prices referred to and the arrival in circulation of the increased currency? It would, of course, make the answer more interesting if a concrete example were given, starting with the definite reason for (or cause of) the particular increase in prices.

Yours sincerely,

J. Hutchinson.

Answer to J. Hutchinson.

In his previous letter, appearing in the February issue of the Socialist Standard, Mr. Hutchison refused to examine or accept the facts and figures we presented in our criticism of “Plebs,” in the December (1922) Socialist Standard, but brushed them aside contemptuously in favour of what he called his “reason.” As, by the above letter, he still retains that position, it would, obviously, be a waste of time to supply any further facts or figures to such a critic.

When Mr. Hutchison is prepared to take and examine facts, as the basis of a discussion, we may deal with his question.

Jack Fitzgerald.

* * *

March 23rd, 1923.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

17, Mount Pleasant, 

London, W.C.I.

Dear Comrade,

I have only received the Socialist Standard for February this week, hence my delay in answering J. F.’s reply to my question:

"How to distinguish a commodity from other things “; for if we can do that, we can tell without further aid, whether a sovereign is a commodity or not. J. F. says:— 

“Whether a product of labour reaches the position of currency or not has no bearing on this question.”

I claim that that is the point at issue, and that it is J. F. who bears on it, and tries to show that when gold is minted into sovereigns it is no longer a commodity, because :—

  “When it has reached this position, and only then; it ceases to be a commodity, as it is no longer produced for profit, but as an official instrument set apart for currency purposes.”

Are we to clearly understand from the above sentence :—

(a) That a use-value that has no surplus-value embodied in it, is not a commodity.

(b) That although gold has surplus-value embodied in it before it is minted, by some miraculous means it looses that surplus-value as soon as it is minted, and therefore, is no longer a commodity.

(c) Is there any “profit” produced in circulation. In other words, is value augmented in any commodity by means of circulation, and if not, why bring it into the discussion ?

Yours fraternally,

Wm. Walker.

Answer to “W. W.”

The questions in the above letter were answered in the previous reply appearing in the February Socialist Standard. “W. W.” appears to have muddled himself by dragging in the question of circulation. Whether the explaining of the obvious will clear that muddle we cannot say, but perhaps it is worth the trial.

“W. W.” wants to know whether he is “to clearly understand” from a sentence he quotes :—

“(a) That a use-value that has no surplus-value embodied in it, is not a commodity.”

If “W. W.” will read our statement again, he will see that his question has nothing to do with that statement.

First, as we pointed out, when a particular article is no longer bought and sold, is not produced for profit, but is used for the performance of certain work, it is no longer a commodity, no matter what it may have been before. An illustration may help to make the matter still more simple. A machine bought from the market and used in production is not then a commodity. It is in the stage of being consumed. True ! In the case of bankruptcy, or for some other reason, it may be brought on the market again, and once more become a commodity. But this is only an occasional occurrence. The bulk of machines are used up, or consumed in production.

And so with sovereigns. The Government might gather together light weight coins, and, after melting them down, sell the gold ingot as a piece of gold, which would then be a commodity. But the sovereign is not produced for sale or profit, but as an article of utility in certain social transactions. It is being consumed in use while acting thus, and is not a commodity.

Question (b) is disposed of by the above.

Question (c) has nothing to do with the subject, as the word “circulation” was not used once throughout the whole answer. On the general question of “circulation” and “value,” an answer to a correspondent in the March Socialist Standard covers the ground.

Jack Fitzgerald.

£1000 Fund. (1923)

Party News from the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: Building workers trapped again. (1923)

Editorial from the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

For about two years the employers have been having a triumphal march in enforcing wage reductions all round. So-called “skilled” and “unskilled,” “manual” and “mental” workers, have all suffered from these reductions. The excuses given are monotonous in their sameness. “It is necessary ‘to revive trade”; “Costs are too high and must come down”; “Prices cannot fall till wages are lower” ; such are the slogans.

These statements are repeated despite the notorious facts that prices have not only not fallen after the reductions, but in many cases—i.e., milkman—the price of milk went up as wages were reduced.

In some cases the workers have at last decided to resist further reductions, and have made ready to fight the masters, even though conditions, as among farm labourers, could not be considered too hopeful. Another case was that of the building workers.

Some time ago these workers were bluffed by their officials into accepting a “Sliding Scale Agreement.” which, these officials said, would guarantee that wages would never fall below the Cost of Living as given by the Board of Trade. Last year the falsity of this claim was completely exposed, and the Agreement cynically broken by the workers’ officials, accepting a reduction of wages, against the wishes of the men, that in some cases went as low as 2d. per hour below the Cost of Living Scale in the Agreement.

Delighted with this success—that did not influence prices of buildings, but was so much extra profit to the employers—the masters put forward another demand, a few months ago, for a reduction of wages of 4d. an hour, and an increase of hours. The officials tried by trick and subterfuge to swindle the men into accepting this demand. They specially stressed the point that a refusal to accept might mean a strike or a lock-out. Of course, it might. Every resistance to a reduction of wages, or a worsening of conditions, necessarily means the risk of a strike or lock-out, and there is no particular difference in this case from the thousands of struggles undertaken by the Trade Unions in the course of their existence. But the men decided to test the situation, and by a huge majority voted to resist the demand. The figures were : —

The officials started a Publicity Campaign of a particularly weak kind, perhaps purposely. They claimed that the employers were—technically—breaking the Agreement. Even if this claim were true, the answer is crushing. The officials had already, against the vote of the men, broken the Agreement last year when they accepted a reduction of 2d. an hour below the Cost of Living Scale.

After considerable negotiation, the masters abated their demands from 4d. per hour reduction to 2d.

The men’s officials demanded that the question: “Had the Agreement been broken,” should be submitted to arbitration. The masters agreed, if their case re wages and hours was included. As the men had voted so decisively against any reduction, the officials were at first afraid to accept this condition. When, however, the Builders’ Notice to the men was nearing its end, the officials offered to include wages. This was refused. But about 2½ hours before the expiry of the Notice (13th April), the services of slimy Ramsey McDonald were successful in arranging a withdrawal of the Notice on the following—among other—terms :

  “Conditionally upon the employers withdrawing their notices, it is agreed that interpretation of the National Wages and Conditions Council document and the question of wages be referred to the arbitration of an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, together with two assessors, one to be appointed by the operatives and the other by the building employers, the arbitration to be held on the above within seven days.” (“Star,” 13/4/1923.) (Italics ours.)

The question of hours is to be balloted upon by regions—not nationally—another dirty trick upon the men.

This arrangement is a deliberate swindle by the officials upon the men. It is a flat contradiction of the latter’s vote. The President of the Building Trades Federation—Mr. G. Hicks—has stated that the Arbitrator will first interpret the Agreement, and if he endorses the men’s view of it, the employers’ wages demand will be ruled out of order. This is another piece of bluff, as the terms quoted above distinctly state, “and the question of wages.” The matter has now been settled by the Arbitrator, Sir Hugh Fraser, deciding to hear both sides, “not merely on the interpretation of the Agreement, but on the wages reduction claim.” (Daily News, 23/4/1923.)

Under all the circumstances the men stood quite a fair chance of successfully resisting the masters’ demands, and of putting a halt, for a time, at any rate, upon the rush down of wages that had taken place. As the men had given their decision, knowing the results of their vote, it was a distinct act of treachery on the officials’ part to accept terms contrary to that vote. The curse of “Leaders” once more. It is to be hoped that the ballot on hours will be as overwhelming against any increase as the former vote.

It may be interesting, as showing how hard up the poor employers are, and how they are quite unable to pay even present wages, to quote the following from the Daily News, 23/4/1923, re the Marriage of the Duke of York :—

  Preparations have been made everywhere for Londoners and London’s crowd of visitors from the provinces, from the Continent, and from America to make merry. 

DINNERS AND DANCES. 

  All the leading hotels and restaurants are arranging for gala dinners and dances in honour of the occasion. 

  There will be dancing every night during the week at the Savoy Hotel, and on the wedding night a special gala dinner, supper, and ball. The menu that night will include two new dishes in honour of the bride—a poussin de printemps Glamis Castle and fraises glacées Elizabeth. The hotel will be decorated with white roses, symbols of York, red roses for St. George, and white heather for Scotland. 

  Six Indian Princes are arriving at the Savoy on Tuesday for the wedding. 

  The Berkeley Hotel, on the route of the wedding procession, is giving a gala lunch, guests at which will be able to see the return of the Royal couple from the Abbey. The outside of the hotel will be brilliantly decorated.

The “Plebs” Again (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our exposure of the ignorance of the “Plebs” magazine editor on currency questions has driven that individual to various shuffles, as each attempted excuse has been shown up.

In the February issue of the “Plebs,” our article in the December issue of the Socialist Standard is referred to, but not a single attempt is made to deal with the facts of that article.

While carefully avoiding our proof that prices had risen before any alteration of the currency had taken place—which one fact completely disproves all the rubbish about “inflation raising prices”—he tries to misrepresent our case by, saying in reference to our figures :—”Therefore, it is argued there was no inflation of currency relative to prices.”

As the “Plebs” had stated that “inflation of currency had raised prices,” and as we proved that prices had risen first (thus knocking their whole case to pieces), it is easy to see how they are driven to misrepresentation in the attempt to hide the collapse of their case.

More ! Despite our repeated exposure of the falseness of their claim that “inflation had raised prices,” they repeat the same lie in their attempt at a definition of inflation. Their statement is that inflation “simply means an expansion in the volume of currency leading to a rise in prices,” and the editor adds, “And the figures in the Socialist Standard merely go to show this.”

As our figures proved exactly the opposite, the statement shows the contempt the editor of the “Plebs” has for his readers when he can write such a brazen lie. 

Not only so, but his so-called definition smashes his own case. Our figures proved that the rise in prices preceded the expansion of the currency. Therefore, the expansion did not lead to a rise in prices; and, therefore, there was no “inflation,” according to the “Plebs'” own attempted definition . In other words, the “Plebs” has given up its whole case.

Once again, an endeavour is made to save a plank from the wreck by stating that the Socialist Standard is wrong about convertibility, as “There was only nominal convertibility.” We quoted the Act of Parliament. The “Plebs” dare not touch that point. The matter, however, is placed beyond all dispute and cavil by certain facts.

Thus, to take an illustration, in 1919 a couple of private individuals drew out 110,000 sovereigns, weighing more than 18 cwt., from the Bank of England, in exchange for Treasury Notes (see Daily News, 28/2/1920).

If the changing of Treasury Notes into sovereigns to the extent of nearly a ton is only “nominal” convertibility, it would be interesting to know what is “real” convertibility !

There the matter may rest. Not one of the facts, figures, or arguments of the Socialist Standard on this question has been met or touched by those who, either from ignorance or fraud, have supported the capitalist lie about “inflation raising prices.”

Jack Fitzgerald

Broadcatching the Working Class. (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are thousands of people who to-day have adopted the habit of what has become generally known as “Listening-In.” Everybody seems to have a desire to study this particular science, and we would be the last to suggest that scientific knowledge' should not be acquired, especially amongst members of the working class. "Wireless Telegraphy,” no doubt, is a very interesting subject, in view of its rapid development in recent years.

The conquest of the ethereal waves, possibly provide a very important landmark of progress in scientific research; but if we go a little further into the question, we shall find that whilst there are some sciences which are encouraged, there are others which are fettered and not allowed that freedom to develop which one might expect.

In these days, living as we do under Capitalism, there is one thing necessary before any progress can be made in scientific research—it must have the capitalist “Hall Mark” of profits, after which it may emerge forth into the daylight. That in itself, explains the present “ Wireless ” boom which is producing a rich harvest for the groups of capitalists like Godfrey Isaacs and others of the “Macaroni” type, derived, of course, from the sale of the instruments, accessories, etc.

Suppose for a moment we divert our attention to another phase of science— Social Science—that which deals with the various problems, faced of day by day by the working class. We shall find that no such inducement is being given to the working class to investigate problems of this character in a scientific manner. Why? Because once the working class become afflicted with the desire to understand the cause of their poverty, even in numbers half as great as those studying “Wireless” at the present time, the position of the capitalist class would not be quite secure, hence we find them directing the minds of the working class into other channels.

This state of affairs provides the necessity for an organisation like the Socialist Party of Great Britain to come to the rescue, and thus provide the working class with the necessary scientific education, in the shape of Economics, History, Politics and Sociology, etc.

By the correct understanding of these subjects they will equip themselves with necessary knowledge for accomplishing the social revolution, by wresting from the capitalist class that power which they the workers have hitherto presented to their masters, i.e., Political Power.

Therefore, we say to the working class, study the Social Sciences first, and thereby qualify to take your stand for the emancipation of your class. By doing so you will not only benefit yourself, but the community as a whole. For the first time in the history of the world, mankind will be able to enjoy the best that nature, aided by science, can provide

A. S. C.

War. (1923)

Book Review from the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

War: Its Nature and Cure by G. Lowes Dickinson (Allen & Unwin, 4s. 6d.)

“War: its nature, cause and cure,” is the title of a book by Mr. G. Lowes Dickinson (Allen & Unwin, 4s. 6d.), which opens in a promising manner, but concludes in a manner decidedly disappointing, by reason of its utter lack of logic. A few remarks upon it, however, may serve to illustrate the. Socialist view of a problem of vital importance to practically every member of the working class.

Mr. Dickinson brings out, in his terse, vivid style, the sheer senseless horror of modem warfare. He shows clearly and emphatically that its mechanical character leaves no room for the chivalrous sentiment which was supposed to find a place in the conflicts of the mediaeval and ancient worlds. Indiscriminate slaughter and destruction, aided by all the resources rendered available by science, limited only by the limits of the productive forces controlled by the warring units, respecting neither age nor sex, recognising no distinction between “combatants” and “civilians,” logically tending towards the complete exhaustion and annihilation of the human race itself—such is the picture the author draws for us. And who, remembering the four years from 1914- 1918, and faced with the facts that the powers that be are arming to an ever-increasing extent and show no signs of settling their differences by any other methods, can say that this picture is overdrawn? Airships, submarines, poison-gases and liquid fire have made war a reality to the stay-at-home individual as it has never yet been in history. There is no escaping the issue; we must either end it, or it will end us. That is Mr. Dickinson’s contention, and so far the Socialist has no quarrel with him.

Equally well can the Socialist agree with him over the cause of war, which he defines as “the greed of individual states for power, territory and markets” on the one hand, and the susceptibility of the working class to bellicose excitement on the other. 

At the psychological moment the ruling class play upon the blind passions of their slaves in order to secure the necessary support in the pursuit of their political ambitions, arising out of their economic interests. Yet, left to themselves, the workers have no more desire for war than they have actual interests at stake therein. It is simply their ignorance concerning their interests which renders them pliable tools in the hands of their exploiters.

Mr. Dickinson deals with the recent conflict in the light of these facts. He shows how each power manoeuvred to try and make its enemies appear in the light of aggressors, in order to influence its own subjects with the false idea that they were fighting a purely defensive battle. He outlines the history of the Entente, and shows how it arose from the failure of the British Government to carry their negotiations with Germany to a successful conclusion. The German was proved to be the most dangerous manufacturing and commercial rival of Britain; hence the latter’s policy of isolating him.

A secondary cause of the actual conflict Mr. Dickinson considers to be the existence of armaments. No armaments, no war, of course; but as the will to construct and use them precedes their existence, we are compelled to fall back upon the interests and ambitions of the class which controls the machinery of government as the prime and sole sufficing cause of war under present conditions.

To the logical mind it must appear that the cure for war lies in the removal of the cause, and this is where the Socialist parts company with Mr. Dickinson. His cure is not the removal of the cause, but rather that the cause itself shall somehow act contrary to its own nature. He proposes disarmament, and the League of Nations as the solution to the problem. The capitalist class are expected to surrender the only weapon they possess to protect their interests simply out of respect for the general welfare of humanity.

This shows clearly that the author does not fully appreciate the nature of the system of which war, as he deals with it, is the inevitable outcome. The capitalist state, no less than the capitalist individual, is compelled to avoid extinction by ceaseless expansion at the expense of its competitors. Markets are not things which can be utilised or dispensed with at will. They are the essential necessity to capitalist production. “Sell, or go out of business ”— that is the law! And when all the various sections of the international capitalist class have more goods to sell than they can find purchasers for, what then, Mr. Dickinson? Will the League decide which section is to go bankrupt? If so, how will it keep order in the dominions of the bankrupt power without armaments when the starving out-of-works are clamouring for maintenance?

No! Peace under Capitalism is a chimera! Even could the rival groups of financiers come to terms, it would only be in order to crush more firmly their rebellious slaves. It would be but an indication that war had changed its form and that the class struggle had at last overshadowed, in urgent and immediate importance, the sectional struggles of the masters. Armaments then would be more in demand than ever, for the masters never have dealt, and never will deal, with the workers in kid gloves. Force is the mainstay of their rule; without it they vanish.

Does Mr. Dickinson wish them to vanish? Nowhere does he face this plain issue. He disregards the fact the capitalist class control, through their political power, the economic vitals of society, and that nothing short of their removal from this dominant position will destroy the influence of their ambitions upon political affairs. Nothing less than the social revolution can make peace possible, for nothing less can abolish the competitive character of the existing mode of production which is at the root of all wars.

Mr. Dickinson gives no evidence that he understands what the social revolution means. He regards it as a danger, for which “foreign war” is the readiest cause. He has in mind events in Russia, and suggests that similar events in Western Europe can only have similar results. Thus, he evades the issue which is not: “Shall the workers of the West imitate those of Russia?”; but rather: “Shall they organise as a political force to convert the socially necessary instruments of labour into common property? ”

“Constituencies,” says the author, “determine policy . . .  it is, therefore, to the electors that I have addressed these pages.” But the electors are left in the dark as to what policy they are to pursue even to gain the limited aims of their adviser. The political party which is to achieve the latter remains unmentioned. One can only infer that the author pins his faith to the Labour Party, since that Party is the loudest in its support of these aims. And what is the history of the Labour Party?

When the great call, “To Arms,” in defence of British capitalist interests arose, the “party of peace” echoed the call, and later shared the plums of office in Coalition with the other parties of the bosses! Do not forget that fact, fellow-workers! If you want a peace which is of any use to you, study Socialism; all else is illusion!

Eric Boden

Shall We Join The Labour Party? (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are some people whose sole contribution to working class organisation is to moan perpetually about the multiplicity of parties, and to bleat day and night for unity. They are the mentally indolent who never trouble to understand the principles of the parties they criticise, and knowing nothing of the underlying causes of political antagonisms their criticisms have no value whatever. In the main, they are probably sufferers from the peculiar sensitiveness of confused and untrained minds, to which the very idea of conflict is intensely painful. They can be happy only in trying to reconcile opposites, and to weld all the mutually destructive elements around them into one apparent whole. Thrust into a world in which class war reigns supreme, they must veil the hideous reality, or suffer the mental torture of having to search for a solution and struggle to apply it. It is a type of mind infinitely valuable to the ruling class, who are themselves vitally interested in hiding facts from their victims. It is the fate of somewhat more discriminating advocates of unity, like George Lansbury, that they receive the support of these muddled sentimentalists. Lansbury wrote in the Daily Herald (31st March) on “A United Labour Party,"  urging all the small political bodies which claim to be Socialist to merge themselves into one. His argument is, that broadly speaking, we all have a common object; and that in addition to bringing its attainment nearer, we should be better able to meet the ruling class in day-to-day battles. Unity “should mean that all who are members of our Trade Unions should be inside the Labour Movement." George Lansbury seems to believe that the working class position would be bettered by the formation of such a united front. Let us then examine the assumptions on which his argument rests.

Have the Socialists the same object in view as the Labour Party? Mr. Lansbury would say, that broadly speaking, they have; but in a sense, that is equally true of all the existing political parties. Owing to the present nearly universal adult franchise, no party can gain power except it has the support of a large section of the working class, hence no party dare omit to make the claim that it stands for the best interests of the workers. This does not involve the imputation of dishonesty to the openly capitalist parties. In addition to the motive of class interest, and often disguising it from them, is the sheer inability of some of the capitalist class to conceive of a social system other than their own. For them the best interests of the workers are bound up in the stability of the capitalist system.

We, on the contrary, know that the interests of the workers are bound up in the destruction of that system. The essentials of Capitalism are the existence of a politically emancipated, but propertyless working class on the one hand; and on the other, a numerically small class owning the machinery of wealth production. The workers are paid wages or salaries for operating that machinery out of the wealth produced, which is the exclusive property of the capitalists. The surplus in the form of rent, interest and profit remains in the hands of the latter. We do not pretend to regard as immoral either the system or those who profit by it. Had we lived at the time of the break up of Feudalism, it would have been our duty to fight for the capitalist form of private property, because that was a necessary advance on the previous form. The capitalists had a mission to perform, but now that their work is completed, another forward move is required. Capitalism, which was the only possible social organisation for the conditions prevailing at its inception, now has to go because conditions have changed. The present conditions are those to which Socialism alone is appropriate.

Just as the Feudal proprietors stood amid the ruins of their world and gazed back into the past, while the revolutionary capitalist class fought for the future, so now the capitalists are still contemplating the shadow of their former glories; while the workers struggle to use their achievements as the foundation of a new and higher form of society. And just as the representatives of that decaying system fought tooth and nail in defence of their class interests, and for the retention of the only stable organisation they knew, so also the capitalists will use fraud, force and cunning in their fruitless endeavour to maintain things as they are. The capitalists are fighting for their right to the private ownership of the means of life, and we fight to take it from them. When the workers awake to their class position they can by the conquest of the controlling force, the political machinery, recast society as they wish, because the minority, no longer in political control, will be powerless before them. We, of the Socialist Party, have no other aim than to give the workers the knowledge that will enable them to act. Because we think that conditions are ripe for Socialism now, and only knowledge is lacking, we are not prepared under any circumstances whatever to divert the workers' attention from the main object; we do not aid the capitalist class, nor do we seek their aid, because we consider these things will not serve any useful purpose; we do not endeavour to interest the workers in the administration, nor in the reform of the capitalist system, because we regard the one as a purely capitalist question, and the other as a means of prolonging the system which we are bent on destroying; we do not formulate immediate demands, because we know that the capitalists will not yield one jot of their position unless they are compelled, by circumstances, or unless the yielding is conceived by them in their own interests. Reforms of the latter type will be introduced by the capitalists and imposed by them, irrespective of our wishes; and when we are strong enough to challenge them we shall formulate the only demand worth making, the final demand. All who are prepared to fight for this are invited to unite with us for that purpose.

Is this the Labour Party’s purpose, too? If it is not, why should we ally ourselves with them? If the Labour Party’s policy is one with which we disagree, we should have to oppose it whether an affiliated body, or otherwise. We consider our end can best be served by opposing all non-Socialist bodies, and apart from its effectiveness, it is hardly honest to enter a party merely to hamper it as disloyal members. Incidentally, we do not share the touching belief of the Communists in the simplicity of the leaders of the Labour Party. The visitor who asks a householder to be allowed through the door in order to smash the windows from the inside, really ought not to expect a very cordial welcome.

Let us now consider what the Labour Party does stand for. Although the rules of that Party prevent its candidates from running as Socialists, the word Socialism is often used by them. This is confusing, because the word is used by them to mean something essentially different from the meaning in which we use it. It is because the word is used so loosely and inaccurately, that we display our objects in every issue of this Journal. Mr. A. V. Dicey, a K.C., and not, therefore, likely to use terms loosely in the ordinary way, takes the trouble to explain in his “Law and Opinion During the 19th Century,” that where he uses the word Socialism, all he means is State as opposed to individual enterprise. Generally speaking, when members of the Labour Party talk about Socialism they also mean State or Municipal Ownership or Nationalisation. Thus we have the Daily Herald (5th April, 1923) devoting its main Editorial to praise of Municipal Trading (tramways, electricity undertakings, etc.) because of their efficiency and the value of the profits in lowering rates; and the Labour Magazine (April, 1923, p. 562) quoting against Sir A. Mond his own praise of the State Department which engaged in house building.

The Daily Herald (24th October, 1922) quotes from the Daily Mail (7th August, 1916) the following :—

  “Take away the working man’s fear of being exploited by private capital, by nationalising the essential industries. Let him see that by doing a full day’s work he is benefiting himself and the nation, and injuring no one . . . and Great Britain will enter on the new era as mighty in the time of peace as she proved herself in war.”

After that in heavy black type the Herald continues : —

“THAT IS WHAT THE LABOUR PARTY MEANS TO DO.”

Mr. Sidney Webb, one of the intellectuals, is responsible for a really priceless exposition of the Labour Party’s kind of “Socialism” (Daily Herald, 1st March, 1922):—

“My Socialism is founded on the four rules of arithmetic, the Ten Commandments, and the Union Jack.”

We have seen some curiosities, but nothing so extraordinary as this, but of course, not being intellectuals ourselves, perhaps we miss the point of it. The same person, in his “Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain," 1920, wrote (p. 1): ”Over a large part of Europe definitely Socialist administrations are actually in office.” It is because we believe that the Labour Party proposes to give us the same kind of “Socialism” as was visible all over Europe to Mr. Webb in 1920 that we oppose it. In passing I would like to draw Mr. Webb’s attention to the fact that, while this “Socialism” may have been based on the Ten Commandments and the four rules of arithmetic, it surely lacked the other ingredient, the Union Jack. Still, if some of the Labour Party’s mentally-fogged and imperialistic minor poets from the Clyde have their way, this may shortly be remedied.

The Webbs do not propose

  “The abolition of the ancient institution of an hereditary monarch (pp. 108), but (pp. 109) unless the court can acquire better manners . . . it may be expected that the institution of monarchy . . . will become unpopular.”

It is not intended to abolish private ownership (page 344) and people are encouraged to save money

  “to be used on such conditions as may be arranged (which may quite reasonably include a rate of interest if this is found necessary or desirable) for the industrial undertakings and public services of the several public authorities.” (Page 345.)

There will be “progressive taxation of incomes and of wealth passing by alienation or at death” and “differentiation against unearned incomes of more than a small amount” (page 346). In fact, we are, if the Webbs and the Labour Party have their way, going to keep capitalism just as it is now is in all essentials, except that we are to call it Socialism. That the limit of their desire is Nationalisation is shown by the following (page 318):

   “The process of transition from profit-making industry to public service, which has during the past quarter of a century made such great strides . . . will continue . . .”

The process referred to is in fact the process of transferring industries from individual to State control. This is not Socialism; is in itself directly harmful to the workers; and has not received, and will not receive, the least support from Socialists. Why is it impossible for these anti-Socialists to perceive that Nationalisationers “private ownership” in its last and most tyrannous form? While the capitalists can continue to receive interest on investments it is only because they still own and control the means of life. Does it matter to them whether they draw interest from commercial investments or on Government stock? Mr. Webb proposes that "Expropriation is to take the form of cash or Government securities, at their own market value . . ." (page 334), which is very nice, too—for the capitalists, but it is not Socialism.

Mr. Snowden, on the 20th March, 1923, introduced a Land Nationalisation Bill in the House of Commons, payment for the land to be made in 5 per cent, stock redeemable in 30 years. Mr. Snowden was quite right when he said (Manchester Guardian Reconstruction Number, October 26th, 1922):

  "The British Labour Party is certainly not Socialist in the sense in which Socialism is understood upon the Continent."

nor, I would add, in the sense in which Socialism is understood anywhere else by Socialists.

Mr. Snowden went on to say, again quite correctly, that the Labour Party stands for "nothing more than the nationalisation of the land, mines, and essential public services. . . . The nationalisation of the essential public services referred to does not carry the Labour Party further than many Radicals, who would vigorously disclaim being Socialistic, are prepared to go.”

Mr. Snowden himself, in the House of Commons on 20th March, 1923, used the words, "The Labour Party does not believe in confiscation” (Labour Magazine, April, 1923, page 561).

Now the Capitalists do at present own the means of wealth production. The Labour Party is either going to let them keep their wealth or it is going to take it away from them. There is no third course. To talk of buying them out or giving them something of equal value is absurd. The power to exploit the worker is a monopoly power, and has no equivalent, and there is no accumulated wealth of more than insignificant proportion other than that in the hands of the capitalists themselves. True, it has been proposed to tax the capitalist out of existence, but even Mr. Snowden would hardly suggest that the capitalists will be spoofed into submitting quietly to confiscation provided the confiscation is called taxation.

Mr. J. H. Thomas, in his book "When Labour Rules,” promises that the Labour Party will give the workers  "a share in the management” of industry. With whom are they going to share it if not with the private owners? And why aren’t the workers to have the whole? Mr. Thomas’s answer is that (page 24) "Capital will be entitled to some return.” The rich will, however, suffer "a proper limitation of their unearned wealth” (page 24). What, may I ask, is, according to Labour Party standards, a proper limitation of unearned wealth?

And it is for this that Mr. Lansbury wants us to join the Labour Party. He says (Daily Herald, 31st March) .

   “ . . . the central authority . . .  is not only legislative, but also administrative, and will become more and more so as we nationalise land, mines, minerals, transport, education, and many another industry.”

If Lansbury does not want to see his efforts for unity wasted he had better join MacDonald, who is trying to arrange something of the kind with the Independent Liberals. MacDonald writes of the Independent Liberal M.P.s:—

    “The best of the sixty ought to come over and act with the Labour Party. They share our immediate views on such questions as nationalisation, the capital levy, foreign policy, and not those of their leaders . . .”—(“The Socialist Review,” April, 1923, page 148.)

Needless to say, the Liberals do not share our views, and since all our energies will be directed to the destruction of capitalism, whether in the form of nationalisation or otherwise, Mr. Lansbury will not, if we can prevent it, nationalise anything. We fight nationalisation for the same reason that the Central Union of Industrial, Commercial and Transport Workers in Social Democratic Czechoslovakia fight it. In the Press Service (No. 207) of the International Federation of Trade Unions it is reported that the above Union bitterly protested against the Nationalisation of Forests:—

   “This land reform and nationalisation of forests are in line with the political requirements of the Czech Bourgeois parties. . . . The Trade Unions cannot and will not leave anything undone to protect the workers on the forests and agricultural estates from economic and social pauperisation."

We recognise that this brings us into necessary conflict with the Labour Party, but the recognition is not, as Mr. Lansbury would imply, only one-sided. For Labour Party members to use their majorities on Borough Councils to exclude the Socialist Standard from the Public Libraries, is, although somewhat silly, a quite legitimate form of warfare; it cannot, however, be said to be exactly brotherly, can it, George? One of the Boroughs where this happens is red revolutionary Poplar, a place not unknown to Mr. Lansbury.

If the Labour Party were Socialist this anxiety on their part to prevent their members and others from reading the case for Socialism would be curious.

Mr. Lansbury says of us and of the Communists that we "advocate impossible propositions." It is interesting to have this candid acknowledgment from one Labour man that Socialism is an impossible proposition, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the Labour Party can solve the problems which now face the working class by putting the brake on capitalist exploitation, and by making the Government and Municipal authorities the main and direct agents of that exploitation instead of leaving it to individual capitalists and private corporations, there is nothing more to say. If the Labour Party succeeds, then the advocates of Socialism are simply wasting their time. But if, in spite of all their patching and reforming, regulating and controlling, the contradictions of capitalism still produce their accustomed crop of class and international conflicts, and if, as I risk prophesying the Labour Party witch doctors fail to hypnotise the workers into contentment with their slavery, merely by labelling it differently, then recourse will still be had finally to the "impossible proposition" we advocate. We shall continue to advocate it because our knowledge and experience teach us that these problems cannot be solved inside capitalism. In the meantime I would only suggest that other supporters of the Labour Party might be as candid as Snowden and Lansbury and admit with G. D. H. Cole (“The World of Labour”) that:

   “It is at least time that all the forces of Labour in this country learnt to forsake the old superstition that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party. . . (page 207).

If they did this they would be honest, which is refreshing; they would be able to conduct their experiments free from the misrepresentation of enemies and the confusion of friends, and finally they would more easily appreciate our proposition—Socialism —when they had experienced the failure of their own.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: An Appreciation. (1923)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Napier, New Zealand. 

                             

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

    17, Mount Pleasant,

        London, W.C.l.

Comrades,

I have been a subscriber to your Socialist Standard for many years, and wish to express my appreciation of the very fine matter it always contains. I have always found it extremely helpful. I confess that during the early years following the Russian Revolution, and after reading many pamphlets and books written by the official heads of the Bolshevik Party, 1 for a time thought that they “had the goods,” and that the policy of the Standard was not being supported by facts. I feel particularly grateful to the Standard and its writers on the Russian policy for the clear and able manner in which they analysed and presented the position, and convinced me that the Bolshevik policy, however necessary in Russia, was not suitable for application in the more highly-developed western nations. I feel it would be a calamity should the Standard ever have to suspend publication owing to lack of support. It is the finest little paper printed.

I enclose a postal note for 10s. Please renew my subscription for 12 months, and see you don’t let me miss a copy, please. The balance, please place to the credit of your £1,000 fund. I regret I cannot afford more.

Yours fraternally,

A. H. G.

Abandon The Idols. (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

The need for knowledge, lest we be duped, is constantly forced upon us. The clergyman tells us the ins and outs of the twilight land—and takes our humble offerings. The doctor doses us for complaints for which we do not suffer—and takes our humble pence. The lawyer assures us that our case is worth fighting, drains us of what little money we have, then finds our case too weak to contest. The average politician asks for our trust, and promises to cure our social ills; experience afterwards informs us that we have been "sold again."

Where knowledge is possessed in these different directions, how altered is the position! Knowledge of the laws of nature frees is from the clergyman's assistance; unnecessary medical attention; knowledge of the laws of "Justice" enables us to instruct the lawyer; and knowledge of the laws of society enables us to appreciate the limits of the politician's power.

There are limits to the quantity of knowledge each individual can acquire, but one department is open to all to acquire sufficient to free them from dependence upon self-appointed guides. As far as the worker is concerned, that department is connected with his position in society and the method whereby it can be improved.

It has become a habit for the worker, in his struggle for better conditions, to depend upon the instructions of individuals supposedly possessing to an unusual degree the intelligence necessary for conducting the struggle in the best way. This dependence generally consists of a blind trust in a "leader," and a faithful carrying out of his instructions wheresoever they may lead. The disasters that constantly accompany this idol worship eventually bring about the fall of one popular idol, only to leave room for another. The position is further complicated by a war among the idols for the favours attached to leadership.

A case in point, with regard to idol worship, is that of J. H. Thomas, whose popularity at present among railwaymen is probably greater than ever, in spite of the disasters that have accompanied the policies he put forward and his openly boasted friendship with the railwaymen's opponents.

As long as the first place in the minds of the workers is occupied by this blind and unreasoning trust in another to accomplish that which one can accomplish readily and satisfactorily oneself, the condition of the majority of the people will continue one of slavery and misery.

Ideas that have been fixed in the mind by habit are difficult to remove. When such ideas serve the interests of a ruling class, their removal becomes still more difficult. The idea of "Leadership" is of the latter kind. Born of the delegation of function in early societies it has grown into the slavish habit of placing the hands of a popular idol the power to settle the affairs of large groups almost as he wishes. Times innumerable, these popular leaders have used this influence to put their followers at the mercy of the enemy. In the London Transport Strike of 1911 the workers held out for some time, in spite of going hungry for weeks, and, when finally the proposition to resume work was put before them, they voted it down by a large majority. Immediately after the result was announced, Tillett, Jones and Gosling signed the agreement that sent the dockers back to work under worse conditions than before the strike.

The leadership idea has cursed the working class movement from the beginning. At an earlier period those supporting the ideas had motives of benevolence, its later supporters have  also benevolent motives—but the benevolence is directed towards themselves. They make stepping stones of their followers to reach comfort and security.

In France, in 1793, Babeuf and his friends sacrificed their fortunes and lives in the attempt to relieve the misery of the mass of oppressed. The method was a sudden attack upon the central seat of power by a courageous and determined minority. Once the centre of power was captured, the conspirators were to issue the regulations that were to guide the people in the formation of the new society. Whether the mass of the people wished it or not, they were to be forced into the new regime. The energetic minority were to hold on to the power they had grasped until such times as the mass of people understood and accepted the new social regulations.

Babeuf's intentions were excellent, but his method was rotten at the root. Instead of first getting the mass of the people to understand and desire the new programme, he proposed to force it upon the, from without. The idea being that the intellectual few knew better what was good for the masses, than the masses did themselves.

Later, Blanqui, also a Frenchman, attempted to carry out Babeuf's idea, modified in the light of experience by altering the form of the secret organisation. Leadership of the many by the enlightened few was still the basis of the movement. In May, 1839, and again in May, 1848, Blanqui led an attaclkon the seat power, but his attempts were crowned with as little success as Babeuf's. He also had good intentions, and paid for them by spending nearly half of his life in prison.

In 1836, an association of working men were formed in London that blossomed out into the first national movement of wage workers. This association took the name of "The London Workingmen's Association" and published an address, the concluding words of which put forward a new outlook for the oppressed, telling them to have done with leaders and trust only in themselves:

"Be assured that the good there is to be must be begun by ourselves."—(Lovett's Autobiography.)

Marx has put the case more definitely, as follows:

"The emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the working-class itself."

Here the essence of the position is stated. Leaders, no matter how energetic, courageous, or good intentioned, cannot introduce fundamental social changes that the mass of the people do not understand. This, quite apart from the fact that fundamental social changes are not the work of this or that individual, but are the result of economic development, and are accomplished under the direction of the social group that will benefit by the social change.

In working out his emancipation, the worker must study the conditions that surround and oppress him. He must look to "great principles." and not to "great men" in his struggles. The great man view breeds arguments as to whether this man is a good leader, or that man a bad. The energy that should be given to a study of principles is wasted in endless arguments over idols; and apathy and discouragement often follow the finding of the idol's feet of clay.

He who would enter the land of promise, must first cut his path to the gate. A little study of elementary principles will clear off the brambles that strew the way. Armed with knowledge the worker can direct his organisation himself, and will then abandon the slavish worship of leaders.

Gilmac.