Aphorisms of Socialism: [VII.] (1912)

From the November 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Aphorism VI.

Being an explanation of the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B.

Aphorism VII.

As all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.

The political machine, as we have endeavoured to show, is essentially an instrument of class government. It does not anywhere come into existence until society has assumed a class form — until there has developed within society a class who govern and a class who are governed.

The political machine exists to preserve order in society according to the existing basis of that society; but just as there can exist sections with opposing sectional interests within the ruling class of a given society, so that political machinery can be wielded in different directions to further the several interests of those warring sections of the ruling class – and that without in any way threatening the social base.

Political parties consist of those who organise to gain control of or at least to exert their influence upon, the political machine, in order to advance their interests as they understand them.

But if it appears from this that capitalist political parties rather indicate sectional than class interests, it must not be forgotten that this is merely because these parties, comprising sections of the ruling class, are at one with the basis upon which their position as a ruling class is founded.

Though it is true that each of these sections will use the political machinery in a slightly different way, this difference can only apply to matters of superficial detail. In anything deeper than this every political party among the ruling class stands for the interest of that ruling class.

This is inevitable. Before these sections can exist as such those comprised in them must be a ruling class. Before the landed interest can clash with the manufacturing interest both the landowner and the factory-owner must be established in privilege on a private property basis. Before Tariff Reform or Protection can become burning questions of the day, those whose sectional interest is wrapped up in either detail of capitalism must first have their deeper interests identified with one and founded upon the capitalist system.

The class interest, therefore, is paramount; in the last resort it overshadows all sectional interests. Indeed, the fact that sectional interests loom so large in capitalist party politics at the present day is no proof of the importance of those interests but is evidence only of the weakness of the pressure exerted politically by the opposing class.

The truth of this is seen in the tendency of capitalists to “close the ranks” against any political party which, in fact or in their idea, threatens their class interest, and the increasing pressure of the organised political party of the workers is destined to reveal with the utmost clearness the fact that capitalist parties stand primarily for capitalism and for the capitalist class — is destined to reveal it by exhibiting them a united party at bay with revolution.

There are certain so-called political parties such as the I.L.P., the B.S.P., and Labour Party, and in Scotland, the S.L.P. who, it might be argued, are not covered by the above remarks, but in reality these have no separate political existence. Two of them are nothing but appendages of the Liberal Party, one is trying which wing of the capitalist bird of prey it can find most comfort (if any) under. As for the remaining group, they have postponed political action until it will not be required — until the workers have gained in the teeth of the political machine all that they could gain with it. They have cut their political throats with the anarchist razor, and by this contribution to anarchy, to say nothing of other matters, have added their service to the preservation of capitalism.

As a matter of fact all political parties must express the interest of one or other of the only two classes in society. In this connection, Frederic Engels finely says (“Origin of the Family,” Kerr & Co. p. 211): “For as long as the oppressed class, in this case the proletariat, is not ripe for its economic emancipation, just so long will its majority regard the existing order of society as the only one possible, and form the tail, the extreme left wing, of the capitalist class.”

This is strictly true, and therefore, not only was it inevitable that these pseudo-Socialist and Labour parties, composed as they are, of a working class element which is “not ripe for its economic emancipation,” should express capitalist interests, but it was inevitable that they should express the sectional brand of capitalist class interest appertaining to the particular phase of capitalism by which they are immediately environed – namely, the manufacturing interest, as expressed in the Liberal Party.

Hence, despite their pretended hostility at the moment, the eventual destiny of the B.S.P. is the Liberal fold – just as soon as its leaders can get their price.

The political activities of all who are not ripe for their economic emancipation must necessarily express capitalist interest, for the simple reason that they are helping to maintain the existing order of society. This is so even if they managed to gain admission to a sound, revolutionary organisation. There they work out the ruling-class interest by weakening the revolutionary attack – probably the worst form opposition to working-class emancipation can take.

The interests expressed or reflected, and striven for, by political parties, therefore, fall into two main groups – capitalist and working-class. These are diametrically opposed, since they involve wage-slavery on the one hand and emancipation on the other. The position of the party seeking working-class emancipation, then, must clearly be one of uncompromising hostility to all other political parties. It does not materially matter whether these parties are organisations of working men with capitalist ideas or avowedly capitalist organisations with a working-class tail.

The object of the last is to secure working-class votes, because, as Engels puts it: “The possessing class rules directly through universal suffrage” – and the vast bulk of that suffrage is working-class. In this object they find, increasingly as the workers get a dim idea that their masters’ politics are not their own, great assistance in the pseudo-Socialist parties. These parties, led by men on the look-out for billets and personal aggrandisement, spread confusion by teaching the workers that the difference between themselves and the capitalists is merely one of personality, and not of class, principle and system; that the difference between their interests and their masters’ is so slight that for the “immediate end” of getting a Labour leader into Parliament, that difference can be composed, the battle stopped, and the two rival classes work together politically.

This is, where it is conscious, the worst form of treachery, in as much as it prevents the working class realising the fundamental antagonism of interests between themselves and their exploiters. It prevents them, therefore, becoming “ripe for their economic emancipation,” and from organising politically as a class, apart from and hostile to those who hold them in bondage, ever seeking, working, fighting for deliverance from their chains.

Again, as Engels says: “Universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class.” The ballot is indeed the means of gauging the working-class strength and maturity, and for that reason it must be kept free from compromise and the entanglement of alliances. It must stand as the clear index of the progress made by working class consciousness, the clock ticking off the last moments of our long slavery. To this purpose it is scared. If, however, it is to have any significance of this character, it must indicate a working-class mind free from the obsession of capitalist illusions. This is a final reason why the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party.

The political struggle of the workers must of necessity be waged along class lines, for it is one form of the highest phase of the class struggle. It is on the political field that the sternest battle of all is to be fought. That fight is not for mere votes as such, but for the enthroning of the REVOLUTIONARY IDEA in the seat of power. The enemy, then, is no less the political ignorance of our own class than the educated master class, therefore we must attack that ignorance, even when it is organised in so-called working class political parties, just as relentlessly as we attack the orthodox parties of our masters.

A.E. Jacomb

Who Are The Impossiblists? (1912)

From the November 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The leaders of the Labour Party, in order to obtain the confidence and support of the workers —without which they cannot obtain seats in the House of Commons and other comfortable positions — have to satisfy their followers that they understand social problems, and possess the ability to cope with them. This, in itself, is not difficult, because the workers, surrounded by capitalist institutions and taught capitalist ideals from childhood, have not yet, in any considerable numbers, questioned the basis of the system under which they live.

They accept in blind faith the assertion that there must always be rich and poor, rulers and ruled, if there is to be any sort of order. The result is that, although the workers recognise the social evils from which they suffer, they are easily persuaded that those evils can be removed by legislation.

Unconscious of the conflicting interests between capitalists and workers, they believe that when due representation is made to Parliament ; when a sprinkling of Labour members "voice the grievances of Labour on the floor of the House," legislators will, acting with fairness and impartiality, take steps to deal with those evils.

This is the mistaken belief that leads the workers to support the Labour Party. The leaders of the Party do their utmost to foster this belief, because it increases the security of their positions. But they go further than this, for they assert that the reforms they advocate, besides improving the conditions of the working class now, lead gradually toward Socialism.

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, for instance, writing in the "Daily Chronicle," says that "We are passing rapidly into a transition stage, which is not Socialism, but introductory to Socialism . . . Under it the powers of the workmen will increase, and with that will come a better distribution of wealth."

The worker all the more readily believes the transition stage fiction because the exploitation which he suffers from, and has suffered from for so many generations, has reduced him, both mentally and physically, to a condition of abject apathy.

Unsupported by evidence of any kind, the transition stage myth is mouthed by all the Fabian and Labour hacks. A period will intervene between capitalism and Socialism, says Mr. MacDonald, "which can be called either State Socialism or State Capitalism, according to fancy." The basis of the "intermediate system" is not described. He evidently refers, however, to the more developed form, or latest stages, of capitalism, wherein the concentration and monopoly of the most important industries have been effected, together with the nationalisation of those services and industries which are most amenable to government administration and in agreement with the interests of the majority of the capitalist class.

The nationalisation fable is always very loosely handled by its advocates. They invariably neglect to point out that, even thongh all the industries were nationalised, the workers would still have to organise politically in opposition to the class that owned them, before they could take and hold.

Such a period—if the workers allowed the system to develop so far—would be merely an advanced stage of capitalism. Class ownership of the means of life would still be the basis of the system, and the working class still retain their merchandise character. Wealth still would be produced for profit, and unemployment still be necessary in order that the price of labour-power might be kept at or about the cost of living—the difference between the cost of living and the total wealth produced being the extent to which the workers are robbed.

Such, a stage in the development of capitalism could only be productive of increased competition among the workers, because concentration and monopoly lead to greater economy, which means increased unemployment.

Yet, in spite of this very obvious and logical deduction, we are informed by Mr. MacDonald that, in this very stage, the "powers of the workmen will be increased, and there will come a better distribution of wealth."

The contradiction must be evident. Unemployment increasing, competition becomes greater, and the workers are, inevitably, more at the mercy of their exploiters : their powers must, therefore, instead of increasing, diminish.

"There will be," says Mr. MacDonald, "a code of legislation dealing with wages, housing, hours of labour, and so on, and the pressure of that legislation will transform State capitalism into a more human form of national organisation." The State capitalist, according to him, will introduce legislation that will diminish the intensity of the workers' struggle for existence.

It is fairly easy to be optimistic about the possibilities of capitalist philanthropy, somewhere in the future, when one contemplates it from the position of an agent of that class, with a salary of £400 a year, plenty of time to augment this by writing in the capitalists' interests, and with (dare I say it ?) "prospects." But the eagerness with which capitalists pursue the question of rate reduction proves that where their interests are pooled, as in nationalisation or municipalisation schemes, their business interest— their desire for profits or for reduction of rates —will determine their resistance to any conceivable working-class reform that will lessen their share of the wealth produced.

That is why a capitalist government will never introduce an insurance bill that really insures the workers against unemployment, or a "right to work" bill that will mean for every worker the right to live under decent conditions. To eliminate competition by either of these methods, or in any other way, would be a form of social suicide which is not in harmony with the nature of the capitalist.

Mr. MacDonald next tells us that "Socialism must adapt itself to the peculiar conditions that exist in different countries." But he does not inform us of any essential difference where all countries are alike capitalist.

He speaks of German Socialism being different from English, as though Socialism were some indefinite creed, to be built up according to fancy, or according to the climate or the physical aspect of the different countries. German labourism may be slightly different from the English brand in the matter of details, but the underlying principles are the same in both countries—to spread confusion among the workers by advocating reforms, and to look for their reward from the class they serve.

Some Labour leaders really believe they have done something practical for the workers when they have taken their seats in the House of Commons. What they really do is to assist the master class to interest the workers in capitalist politics.

The permanence of any system of society depends upon the numbers who are interested, or think they are interested, in maintaining it. Obviously, then, as Socialism cannot be established while capitalism is in existence, the Socialist will decline to bolster up the system he wishes to abolish. By withholding his vote from either capitalist party, by refusing to favour reforms, or one capitalist policy over another, he leaves; purely capitalist questions to be settled by fewer and fewer members of society, until capitalist politics become of diminishing consequence, appear ridiculous because they interest so few, and by that means strike directly at the confidence of the ruling class.

The constitutional form of government depends for its authority and permanence upon the numerical sanction it receives from those it governs. The more workers that support capitalist parties, the firmer and more stable is the capitalist rule.

Practical politics for the working class mean to organise for control of the political machine, in order to take possession of the means of life. The Government will introduce reforms fast enough when they are threatened with such an organisation. They have not yet commenced to throw any real sops or palliatives to the working class. When they do commence their concessions should be treated with contempt, for they cannot be anything else than paltry in comparison with the object the workers have in view.

The Labour Party denies that the interests of the workers and those of the capitalists are in conflict. To them working-class revolution is impossible : from their standpoint, therefore, Socialism, too, is impossible. The real Impossiblists are, for that reason, those who expect to establish Socialism with the assistance of the master class, and without revolution.

It is this elementary question which has to be recognised first—the fundamental basis of the working-class position—that the Labour Party declines even to discuss. Like the "Christian Socialist," they mouth the "brotherhood of man " and denounce class hatred, posing all the while as pacificators reconciling conflicting interests—regardless of the fact that reconciliation means submission for the workers.

The Labour Party assert that their object is the same as that of the Socialists, although their method is different. They consider this as sufficient reason for declining debates. They are not, however, above the contemptible tricks of the party politicians with whom they are associated. Mr. MacDonald snatches the opportunity afforded him by the publication of Mr. Walling's book "Socialism As It Is," to deal a blow at Socialism from a vantage-ground where he himself is inaccessible —the capitalist Press.

Mr. Walling's book, published at 8s. 6d., is not likely to be widely read by members of the working class, but an attack on Socialism in the "Daily Chronicle" will find many readers.

Under cover of a book review Socialism can be misrepresented ; and when the critic sets up for himself the object of his criticism, it is fairly easy to ridicule, or show its fallacy.

Mr. MacDonald, however, only boomerangs himself in trying to ridicule Socialism. At the very outset he tells us that "the impossiblist has to admit that his State can only be realised in stages." He forgets that if a thing is impossible it cannot be realised at all.

Next he complains that the Labour Party in this country "have to face in the most awkward way the difficulties of a party which can make public opinion outside, but which sees that public opinion used from time to time by Governments which they cannot control."

It is only necessary to read the programme of any Labour candidate, with its Liberal policy and reforms, to realise how absurd is this lament.

The Labour members, without exception, obtain their seats by compromise with the Liberals, so much so that Mr. Davis, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, complained that "the Liberal party might be a little more generous in conceding seats in Liberal constituencies where vacancies arise. The Labour Party do not like to be asked to fight only those constituencies where there are strong Tory majorities."

The Liberal Press invariably supports Labour candidates. They stand for Liberalism in the absence of official Liberals. At Hanley the spectacle was witnessed of a Liberal Press unable to make up its mind which to support, leaning, if anything, toward the Labour man. If the Labour Party were a genuine working class party such things could not occur. The capitalist Press would denounce every candidate and the Liberal Party would not allow one seat to go uncontested. It is because Liberal and Labour form one party inside the House that they are so completely united outside.

Mr. MacDonald's claim that the Labour Party makes public opinion is absurd in view of the real facts. They merely assist the Liberals to foster Liberal opinions. The reward for their treachery takes the shape of an opportunity to contest, here and there, a seat in the Liberal interest.

Socialism is always impossible to the Labour faker, because to confess otherwise prevents his personal ambitions being realised. Seats in the House of Commons and other comfortable jobs are not given in return for Socialist propaganda, but only for capitalist propaganda.

The working class can only achieve their emancipation when they understand Socialist principles, and are determined to follow those principles to their conclusion. But they have first to learn, and the real Impossiblists are those who would teach them something else and at the same time claim that it leads to Socialism.

F. Foan

Tickets Please. (1912)

From the November 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

It gives one quite a start when one is thinking of the Derby winner, or speculating on the prospect of a day or two next summer at the sea-side, whilst travelling home from work, to be asked for one’s ticket. What a blessing it would be, I sometimes think, to pay once and for all and have a ticket for a lifetime—just one punch and the trick is done—and then to keep it under a glass case as a proof to the coming race that we lived in ticket-of-leave times.

Tickets for trams, trains, ’busses; tickets for soup, coal, blankets; State Insurance tickets, Labour Exchange tickets. Trade Union tickets, pawn tickets; tickets to stand up in the theatre, tickets to sit down in the park. Tickets for the widow of Jack Thomas, who worked hard all his life, but died and left - what? Nothing of value in this private property system—just nine children!

What a life! At one tune our forebears wore the brass collar to let all and sundry know that they were the property of some overlord. Now we are ticketed and numbered and punched and shelved and stamped and cut and trimmed to a nicety. How old are you? Where were you born? What was your father? How many children have you? How long have you been out of work? Some working men think they are free. Probably they have the childish notion that it is a fine thing to carry tickets and to have people think they are somewhat above Blatchford's bottom dog.

But after all it must be a question of your servile position in society. Even the person who is lucky enough to be able to purchase a season ticket must feel a certain amount of pride in passing the ticket puncher with the noble utterance — "Season.” Now it must be that the more we are ticketed and labelled the more we are chained to the Juggernaut car of capitalism. How would you have it? You want a decent meal, a good suit of clothes, a pretty home for your wife and children. What prevents you having these things? This—you have not the right ticket. You have not the ticket that gives you the power to say to this man "go!” and to that man “come!” Your ticket is the ticket of the slave. And therefore, as might be expected, you work like a slave and live like one.

You have only been concerned up to now with sending the slave owners to Parliament— the place from which are sent all the things that hurt you, because those who control at the seat of government are the masters’ agents. Comical to relate, you got quite excited over placing your enemy where he could injure you without showing his hand. For every movement of troops, every movement of police, are controlled by the dominant class whose power was gained with your help.

But when you are forced to look idly on at blacklegs taxing your ticket of leave to work off the check board, that is the time you tell us you are fighting the masters. How you must hurt them! Perhaps it is you who drive them “out of town”—down to Ascot, to Henley, to the Alps and the Riviera, to Cairo and Khartoum. But when you understand that the Government is only an instrument for conserving the masters’ interests you will not have the cheek to say you are seriously fighting the masters while you elect them to Parliament, to control the political machine, to wield the forces that subdue you while they deliberately starve you and your wife and children. You would realise that you are only playing at war.

No, it is not fighting —it is just suicide. Life is too short to “wait and see.” Just fight them hardest when they coax you most, when they call you sons of the Empire, and so on. That is at election times. Have the right ticket for yourselves then, and back it with all the strength and intelligence at your command. You will be then be on the road to putting all the other tickets on the fire, and bidding adieu to many forms of vice and crime which go to the make-up of getting a living,

S. Ward

Come To Jesus "Socialism.": The Brotherly Love Way. (1912)

From the November 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Heads or Tails
The avowed opponent of the Socialist movement takes up one of two positions of attack, each antagonistic to the other. If either one is correct, then the exponent of the other view must be as ignorant of capitalist conditions as that ignoramus, the Socialist himself.

One brand of “anti” informs us, with horror, that Socialism means slavery and vile servitude; that the abolition of capitalism will involve the establishment of prostitution and horrors the like of which capitalism never knew. The other variety tells us that “Socialism is a grand ideal —far too good to be true.” They explain that for Socialism to “work” we have all got to be as heavenly as angels, and they point m despair to the touch of “the old Adam” which they discern in all human kind

Each type has its cause, and, like most other evils, its cure also. The first is the result of the cast-iron “State capitalism” preached by the Fabian tribe under the name of Socialism, while the second is due to the prevalence of the disease misnamed “Christain Socialism.”

To abolish these evils all that is required is a knowledge of the cause of the trouble and determination in the removal of that cause. Abolish the “State Socialist ” and his spurious ideas and exterminate “Christian Socialism” and its evil appurtenances, and those who gain the ear of the worker by attacking such rubbish will cease to be.

The “Socialism means slavery” merchant is easily disposed of, for no matter how vivid his imagination may be, he cannot discover one evil which is not found to be rampant in some form under capitalism.

Neither can he show how such evils will be increased by the advent of Socialism, which means to substitute organised social production and social enjoyment for the present chaotic “social” production and private ownership of the wealth produced. That slavery will be more intense under a system of state capitalism is for the advocate of nationalisation to deny, and has no concern for the Socialist.

The “State Socialist” and his opponent are both in the same boat since they are defending systems which have as their basis the extraction of profit by the method of wages and the consequent enslavement of the wage receiving class Both systems depend upon the robbery of the producers, which is to-day the cause of poverty and all its attendant ills.

The White Eye
The pious individual who, showing the the whites of his eyes, declares that “the doctrine of Jesus is the purest and most perfect Socialism ever known," is well represented by a writer in the “Hibbert Journal” (October 1912). He starts out by saying .—

“A great many respectable and prosperous people imagine that Socialism is nothing but a violent expropriation of the Haves for the benefit of the Havenots. It is possible that a number of the so called Socialists are themselves influenced by that view, but I doubt very much whether it commends itself to thoughtful Socialists, and I am satisfied that no such program ought to be, or ever will be, carried out.” 

It is the usual attempt on the part of religion to emasculate any militant movement it tries to enter. “Be a Socialist if you will.” it says, “advocate your new system and dream of it, but do no more than dream. Do not act. Remember we are all brothers and do nothing violent.”

The writer tells us that

“the violent expropriation of the rich, whether by predatory legislation or at the immediate hand of the mob (the usual way the working class is described by the blessed brotherhood), can only result after further disorder, in the reinstatement of the Haves in their unhealthy predominance, leaving the Havenots worse off than before.”

The Ought of the Oughty
No, we must not be violent. We must leave violence to our enemies. We must he kind and gentle to the murderers of our wives and children. If the representatives of the "Haves,” by raising the Plimsol Mark, send to their death our seamen brothers, we must “turn unto them the other cheek also,” and ask the ghouls to slaughter a few more of of the the “Havenots,” in order that the “Haves” may have more. The poor girl in Belfast manufacturing Irish linen goods at 1d. per hour should bless the good, kind master who lives a luxurious life on the proceeds of her toil, for we must know that “ the attitude of the thoughtful Socialist toward the wealthy is and ought to be, one of friendliness.”

Our Christ-like friend admits the existence of an antagonism of interest and recognises robbery, for he speaks of capitalism as “the system where the whole nation is exploited for increasing the possessions of the fabulously rich,” and he confesses to having a difficult job on hand to reconcile that antagonism.

Naturally so. But it can be done if you (the mob) will be quiet and docile, and, what is far more important, you will refrain from “predatory legislation.” Bend your necks in patience and humility, yea, even until your noses be well on the grindstone.

The “thoughtful Socialist” is going to do it for you if you will only wait. He is going to do it thiswise: He is going to "educate not only the Havenots, but the Haves. He must open their eyes to the injustice of which they are the victims thus equally with the Havenots ; he must awaken their consciences, so that a millionaire will come to feel ashamed of himself as a man who has been warned off the turf.”

A Splendid Joke
A difficult matter, my brother? No, quite simple! We shall go to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harry Thaw, and the  Marquis of Townshend and point out to them that they are the “victims of injustice,” and then, “when it becomes as disreputable to be a millionaire as to be known to have robbed a bank, the main attraction of wealth will have disappeared.”

Can any thoughtful person doubt it, much less a “thoughtful Socialist? When it becomes disreputable to be a millionaire!

Of course, no one “will lay violent hands on the millionaire (the thoughtful cove does not want to get pinched), but his position in society will become like that of a bookie or a publican, or even worse.”

Is this possible? Worse than a bookie, or, horror of horrors, worse even than a publican! Could the idle rich survive such treatment? Of course not. But worse is to follow. “He (the millionaire) will be shunned and avoided and no nice person ” (not even the dustman and the chimney sweep) "will care to be seen in his company.”

Later on we are told that “the idea may be regarded as semi-religious.” Yes, it may be. It may also be considered by some to be idiotic, but then those people will not be “thoughtful,” and can be described as the "so called Socialists” — an easy way out of the difficulty.

So much for the method of obtaining this "higher system.” But what of the “system” when we get it?

This “Socialism” of the future “scorns compulsion ’ of any sort, and should the millionaire, remain untouched by the above described antics, as doubtless he would, and “prefer to keep his wealth, no true Socialist would say him nay.” Those depraved individuals who preferred to be millionaires under “Socialism” could, of course, do so, and as a punishment they would he compelled to herd with the bookies, the bankers, and the publicans.

Wealth denotes poverty. For one to be wealthy many must be poor. Poverty stricken and exploited wage slaves must exist with idle millionaires. Robbery and exploitation must go hand in hand with affluence.

Peace Be Still
If, then, we wait with patience, all these things will be added unto us in this "higher system,” the coming of which will only be delayed by "encouraging violent assaults upon the property of the Haves and by organised attempts upon the health and comfort of the country, such as the recent coal mining, railway and shipping strikes. ”

Such is the nonsense dealt out in the half-crown journals of our masters. How much it says for their intelligence as a class that such muck can find sale among them. I will leave the reader to judge.

T. W. Lobb