Who are the capitalists? (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Every Man a Capitalist” is the title of an article written by Sir Sydney Low, and published in the “Sunday Pictorial” (2.10.27). The sub-title is “‘How Wealth is Spreading Amongst the Workers.”

Sir Sydney accuses Socialists of being “dealers in popular unrest,” and states that for years past we have been saying that “the rich are growing richer and the poor becoming poorer.” Also, we have said this so often and so persistently that many earnest persons who are not Socialists are inclined to believe there must be some truth in the indictment. In fact, there is none. So says Sir Sydney.

Of course, we are very pleased to hear that we are making an impression upon “many earnest persons who are not Socialists.”

To show that the rich are getting poorer, Low tells us “they are not spending extravagantly, their lives are simpler and less luxurious than they used to be.” These unfortunate people are parting with “their large, expensive houses, and offering their estates for sale. Many of them protest that they are living upon their capital in order to pay their way.”

This is all very sad, but it is not proof that the rich are getting poorer. They may not be spending extravagantly because they desire to invest more; they may be living less luxurious and more simple lives in the interests of their health. But the really important point, which Sir Sydney overlooks, is that large estates cannot be sold unless there exist purchasers. Unless, therefore, he believes that the large estates are being bought up by unemployed miners and others who have been compelled to relinquish their former occupation, there must still be rich people willing to be extravagant and able to afford it.

Another factor ignored by Sir Sydney Low is that many of these estates have been broken up merely because of the tempting opportunity of netting big gains, owing to the demand for building sites.

Then to show how every worker tends to become a capitalist, Sir Sydney refers to the increase in the number of privately-owned motor cars. He says : “By the end of this year there will be 700,000 self-propelled private vehicles in England. And who owns them ? For the most part people of moderate and even small means.”

Our opponent, evidently thinking this fad not sufficient to convince the sceptical, put forth further evidence to show that some day every worker will be a capitalist. This time it is houses. He tells us that “since 1923 600,000 new houses have been bought by middle class and working class tenants.” These houses have been built with State, or municipal, aid. And then “hundreds of thousands of others already in existence or erected by private builders have been sold to occupiers of the same kind.”

“House owning,” he goes on, “is not the only method whereby the man of limited income is turning himself into a capitalist. He tends more and more to become an investor.” As evidence, Sir Sydney informs us, “National Savings Certificates are now issued to the value of over £642,000,000. It may safely be asserted that almost the whole of that £642,000,000 represents capital belonging to the small investor.” But does it in fact?

In 1922, that is, before the workers’ savings had been drained by five years of trade depression, unemployment, short time and lowered wages, the Montague Committee were only able to express the opinion that “at least half” of the total sold up to the 31st March, 1922, represented the subscriptions of small investors (see Colwyn Committee Report, page 21).

Mr. W. T. Layton, the Liberal economist and statistician, estimates that small investors hold £455 million out of a total £6,592 million, which makes up the Internal National Debt, the magnificent proportion of 7 per cent. (“Economic Journal,” June, 1927, p. 204.)

However, enough! Is it the private ownership of a motor car, whether a Ford or a Rolls-Royce, that makes a person a capitalist? No. Is a man a capitalist because he owns the house in which he lives? No. Is it the possession of a few Savings Certificates that makes a man a capitalist? No.

What, then, is a capitalist? A capitalist is one who owns enough property in the means of living such as land, factories, railways, steamships, raw materials, etc., to be able to live without needing to work. The income derived from this private ownership frees the capitalist from the necessity of working for his livelihood.

It may be asked, what, then, is a worker?

A worker is one who, not owning any or sufficient property, is forced to sell his labour-power to the capitalist class, in order that he may live.

Sir Sydney speaks of the “lower middle class and the “higher working class.” This is “confusion worse confounded” as there are only two classes in modern capitalism, those who live by working and those who live by owning. And, as shown above, it is the manner in which a person obtains his or her livelihood that places him or her in one of these two classes.

As to wealth spreading out amongst the workers, heaps of evidence could be put forth to show the contrary to be true. First of all the workers are painfully aware of the constant dwindling in their wages, and ever-present unemployment.

In the report of the Ministry of Health, 1926-27, it is stated : “Poor Law Relief has risen nearly 350 per cent. since 1914, but outdoor relief has risen by over 1,000 per cent. The number of persons receiving out-relief were, in 1914, 387,796; 1927, 1,722,084 ” (“Daily News,” 16.9.27).

Then Mr. Harold Cox, who is a defender of capitalism, writing in the “Sunday Times,” 31.7.27., says: “In round figures pauperism in 1914 represented 21 per 1,000 of the population, and in 1927, as stated above, just under 40 per 1.000. It is, therefore, not far from the truth to state that the proportion of paupers to self-dependant citizens has doubled since 1914.”

The above facts show the falsity of Sir Sydney Low’s argument. As capitalism develops, the major portion of the wealth produced ccncentrates still further into fewer and fewer hands. It is, therefore^ obvious that the poverty of the mass must increase relatively to the wealth of the propertied class.

And as bad as the lot of the workers may be at the moment, it will tend to become worse with the further development of capitalism.

The only solution to the poverty problem of the working class is not for individual workers to buy a motor car, a house, or a few Savings Certificates, but to organise in the Socialist Party in order to do away with capitalism, the cause of their poverty, and to bring into existence Socialism, the social system which will free them from poverty.

C.

Doctrines, dogmas and Marx. (1927)

 

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Essay in Clear Thinking.

A Canadian correspondent sends us a cutting from “The Sporting News,” No. 32 (of Winnipeg), and asks us for our opinion on it. As the cutting is undated, we cannot supply our Canadian readers with any further means of identification except that the article appears to be an editorial, and is headed “Capitalism.”

The article has a good deal to say about “doctrines” and “dogmas,” and the workers’ “lack of understanding,” but is itself written in such an ambiguous style that the reader is not assisted in his efforts to get at what the article is intended to make clear—if there is any such intention !

Here is a quotation from the early part of the article :—

“The point to be noted is that, all that passed for knowledge in those days [early, or prehistoric times] has long since been forgotten, but the struggles of mind over matter were passed on, and to-day the man who seeks to read history will not seek to damn Capital or Capitalism, but rather seeks to understand it. How natural for the pioneer of thought to make mistakes ; he but glimpses the truth, and the pain and struggles of the mass often supply just that portion of his idea which he has perforce left ambiguous. This has been so in all the fields of scientific research. Sociology, or the science of life, is difficult to understand. The worker untrained in the process of mind, though exceedingly clever with tools, often becomes a victim of his own misunderstanding and becomes lost twixt the philosophical and the scientific, the theoretical and the practical.”

Now what exactly is the meaning of this nebulous collection of statements? To write that “all that passed for knowledge” in early times “has been forgotten” is to write rubbish. The knowledge, for instance, that it is dangerous to stand under a falling tree, is as true to-day as it was when man first grasped the fact. And what is the precise meaning of “the struggles of mind over matter”? Is this not of the nature of a dogma? After all, the mind seeks to grasp the ways of the world including itself, and if the article is intended as a contribution to clear thinking, it should avoid phrases that are ambiguous, and confuse. An illustration or two would have helped readers to grasp what is meant by the pain and struggles of the masses supplying just that portion of a pioneer’s idea which he is alleged to have perforce left ambiguous !

Again, is sociology the science of life? Is it not rather the science which investigates the means and methods of human association? Surely Biology is the science of life ! The writer, or writers, having enlightened the readers with the above ambiguities and false phrases, then warms to the business in hand, and give to the world the following pearls of wisdom :—

“He formulated the three doctrines, viz., the materialist conception of history, the class struggle and the theory of surplus value. His work is the exposition of these doctrines. Does the world grasp them as doctrines to be used to influence understanding, “They do not” ; it is much easier to give them a dogmatic interpretation than to read and understand them. “Did Marx say the last thing in economic law?” He did not, in fact; history will ultimately show that he really said the first rather than the last. His three doctrines included all the knowledge known and all that was to be known, because the doctrines comprise the whole of existence. The workers have been left to understand Marx as best they may, and they seem to be making a sorry mess of the job. When dogma takes the place of doctrine, then imagination runs riot and reason is dethroned for the time being.”

We are told that Marx did not say the last thing in economic law, in fact, he said rather the first. Yet “his three doctrines included all the knowledge known [what is knowledge that is unknown?] and all that was to be known, because the doctrines comprise the whole of existence” ! Reason certainly seems to be a little bit off the throne here ! If Marx said the first thing in economic law, then what about Aristotle, Franklin, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and the rest?

May we suggest that it would have been a concession on the part of whoever is responsible for the article if they had hinted at the meanings of “dogmas” and “doctrines” so that readers would have had some small opportunity of piercing the veil of mystery surrounding the “points” in the article. A dogma is an opinion or doctrine accepted on trust or authority; a doctrine is a principle, view, or set of opinions taught. The principles put forward by Marx were arrived at after a lifetime’s examination of a veritable storehouse of facts; and the principles together with facts upon which they were based were set down for all to examine and criticise. The workers, where they have had the opportunity, and in spite of the intentionally pernicious effect of capitalist education, have succeeded in grasping the essence of Marx’s teaching, and this without the aid of a “higher education.”

To say that the workers are “making a sorry mess of the job” is either the empty words of an enemy or the cheap sneer of a cocksure blunderer.

“Leaving the materialist conception, and surplus value to one side for brevity, in this article, what interpretation do many of the workers put on the class struggle ? In the ordinary language of the day, it is “get ready for a fight, organize for a revolution,” and this dogma of the class struggle has sure brought much havoc among the workers. It was this dogma that organized the German Proletariat and got them ready to obey the Imperialism of Germany. It is the same “bunk” which inflamed Russia, who intend to inflame the rest of the world if they are allowed to have their way. The point in this connection between doctrine and dogma is that the three doctrines are a threefold conception, a theoretical conception from which lessons of understanding may be learnt. Where the three are understood, each in relation to the other, it presupposes an understanding which leads to the evolutionary rather than the revolutionary. If the revolution takes place in mind, it no longer is sought for in the national rough house tactics. It cannot lead to the destruction of wealth, war, and all it entails. It must lead to conservation of national life and the workers must needs fit themselves with understanding, so that those who direct the struggle shall be subdued by it. The class struggle is a doctrine, is theoretical, and will change with the process of changing industry, but as a dogma it, like many superstitious dogmas, will always remain the same till society outlives it. The worker may continue to damn capitalism, but it cannot be denied that it is the school-master of the iron and steel age, and materially shortens the distance towards emancipation in proportion as doctrine understood supersedes—Dogmas—the misunderctood too !”

The above is the last paragraph in the precious article. It may be noted in passing that the materialist conception and surplus value are put aside, at the beginning, for the sake of brevity, but brought in again a few lines later as inseparable from the class struggle theory. It may also be noted that nowhere is there an attempt to define any of them, beyond assuring us that they are “doctrine” ! It is asserted that many workers interpret the class struggle as a call to “get ready for a fight, organise for the revolution,” and then the assertion is made that this dogma was the cause of the downfall of the German Proletariat. This is a false interpretation of the situation, and is used for the purpose of bolstering up the ”Evolutionary” as opposed to the revolutionary view of social change. But first of all a word on the downfall of the German Social Democracy. This was the outcome of a long period of propaganda that had as its basis the view, still common among so-called leaders of democracy, that the main thing was to get a large body of workers organised, without bothering much whether they understood clearly for what they were organising. This had nothing at all to do with the class struggle theory.

“Evolutionary,” scientifically understood, signifies an unfolding, a movement from a relatively lower to a relatively higher state, and this, as applied to society, includes in the movement “revolution” as the expression of a complete change of basis. The people, however, who urge “evolutionary” as opposed to “revolutionary” views of social change interpret “evolution” to mean a gradual change of the social basis from private ownership of the means of production to common ownership, taking place step by step, a little at a time, on the quiet without anybody being the wiser until, hey presto ! the deed is done. Socialism is here, whoever would have thought it? And this is apparently the culminating idea in the article with which we are dealing. Lo, the mountain bringeth forth not even a mouse, but only the hair off the leg of a gnat !

Gilmac.

The nationalisation fraud. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

While the workers are separated from their means of life, dependant upon the masters for work in order to live, all economies in doing that work mean fewer required. Nationalisation is one of those capitalist economies, and wherever it operates, as on certain railways, or over whole industries as in Australia, its effects have been detrimental to the workers. The capitalist class in control of political power will decide when and where privately run industries will serve their class better as State capitalist concerns, such as the Post Office. Despite empty phrases of Communist and Labour reformers, the workers will have no control what the masters own. “Forward” (13/8/-27), the Scottish organ of the I.L.P., says: “The whole of the Labour programme for the reconstruction of our two basic industries is based on the practicability of Nationalisation.” True, the Labour Party, with its lords, viscounts, parsons and capitalist financial support, require a programme that will win the votes of those who are tired of the orthodox parties, but it must appear to be one different from those parties. It must contain issues over which they appear to fight the capitalists, issues over which the workers can win a “great victory,” but which will still leave them workers as of yore. At the moment the Trade Union Bill and Nationalisation serve the purpose, as Home Rule, Free Trade, Votes for Women, etc., have done in the past—served to divert your attention from your slavery. But a problem confronts the Labour Party. With office and power looming in the distance, to make Nationalisation an issue would, with power conferred upon them, imply the necessity of introducing legislation to make it a fact : What would be the result? They would first lose a vote-catching stunt that has served them well when power seemed remote, but more important, its worsening’ effects upon the workers’ conditions would eventually disillusion those members of the working class who support capitalism masquerading as Labourism. J. H. Thomas, ambassador of class docility, sees this. Addressing an international gathering of school teachers on the subject of the practicability of Nationalisation, he told them plainly that as a Labour Party measure it is not practical now.

“Forward” (Ibid) quotes his statement from the “Manchester Guardian” (9/8/27), and appears to express astonishment. Say they : ”In the light of this, Mr. Thomas is surely entitled to give us an explanation of his statements at the Teachers’ Conference.” But stay! There is a gentleman whose photo appears on the same page as this request, from whom “surely” an explanation is due also. He is the Great God (capitals, please) of the I.L.P., Ramsay MacDonald. He saw the light sooner than J. H. Thomas, so is entitled to the first explanation. He has said : “I should not be doing justice to you or to myself if I told you that Nationalisation was going to get you out of your present difficulties; you know that I should be lying if I tried to spoof you in that way.” “Times,” (27 7/25). Here is a dilemma. According to this idol of the I.L.P., both they and the Labour Party, whose programme is based on the “practicability of Nationalisation” are lying and spoofing to you. Shall we be told it is not true because “we are only a small party,” or is it true because these more far-seeing leaders realise that things are only practical to them while they serve as vote-catching expedients.

W. E. MacHaffie

The role of the financier. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Finance, we are told, is the sinew of modern industry, the base upon which commercial operations rest, and the controller, in high finance, is one of the worshipful company of captains of industry. Now and again there is a storm in financial circles, one of its star performers comes to ruin, the veil is torn aside, and we get a glimpse of the nature of financial operations.

Such an instance has occurred lately with the ruin and suicide of the financier, James White. A fellow financier, Sir Edward Mackay Edgar, made a statement to the Daily News (2/7/27) from which we extract the following :—

 “Thousands of people will be ruined as the result of the wild speculations of the late Mr. James White. Already two of his closest friends have gone ‘broke,’ and God alone knows what will happen within the next fortnight. It will be the sensation of the 20th century in the matter of finance.

“The British Controlled Oilfields is my baby. I organised it and got it into a fine position. It was the aim of Jimmy White to obtain as many shares as possible and force up the price. Then he hoped to sell and realise a fortune. That was as far back as three years ago. I would not consent because of the advice of technical experts on the spot.

“On the Thursday before Good Friday, Mr. White came to me and asked me to join a pool to force up the price of B.C.O. shares. For five hours I was on my hands and knees in my flat imploring him not to engage in such a mad venture, knowing that disaster could be the only result. He left me that night, and I have only seen him once since.

“He entered upon a bitter campaign to reduce me to financial ruin. He failed in his efforts. He bought shares right and left. He relied upon by group of friends selling short. We never unloaded a single share, but kept them, and we knew that White on June 30th would have to meet his enormous commitments or go ‘broke.’ This last effort of his was a gambler’s last throw of the dice. I knew the crash was coming. All my friends were aware of it.”

The interesting side to us in the above statements is the fact that the foundations of modern industry are so frail that men like White can play ducks and drakes with it and bring chaos where order should reign, by indulging in lawful financial operations. Instances such as this bring to the front the question, “What is the object of industry?” Is it to provide people of a peculiar nature with an outlet for a glorious gamble, or is it to provide society with means to meet the mental and physical needs of the people composing society. Evidently our “great”captains of industry hold the view that the earth and the fulness thereof was made for their sport and enjoyment—and we are merely items too cheap to be worthy of consideration.

Gilmac.

Larkin protests. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the October issue we dealt with the Irish Election and the confusion caused by the conflicting policies of English and Irish Communists. We pointed out that while Larkin supported the Republicans and opposed the Labour Party, the English Communists who supported Larkin supported the Labour Party too. It appears that Larkin is not satisfied with this, and in the “Workers’ Life" (September 30th) is a statement to the effect that Larkin and his Irish Worker League have protested against what they regard as an “error” on the part of their English Communist colleagues. The matter is to be referred for a ”full report and discussion” to the Central Committee of the C.P.G.B.

It is, however, amusing to observe the ground on which Larkin objects. “The Irish Worker League, alone of all Irish political groups, is carrying on a revolutionary fight on behalf of the Irish working class.” (Italics ours.)

Larkin, with a peculiar logic of his own, while opposing the Labour Party because “The Irish Worker League alone is carrying on a fight, etc.,” tells the workers to support and vote for the Republicans !

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The fruits of “reform”. (1927)

Editorial from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who credit our present rulers with a special regard for the interests of the workers would do well to ponder upon the facts revealed at the recent inquiry into the fire at the St. Pancras film factory, when five workers’ lives were lost.

According to Mr. Macklin, Inspector of Factories, “The outbreak of fire could have been avoided by the use of some other method of drying” (“Daily Chronicle,” Oct. 11th); while Miss Ada Dunch, another inspector, stated that she addressed a letter to the firm regarding breaches of the regulations as long ago as January. She further stated that there were over 4,800 factories and workshops in her district and that her staff consisted of one half-time man, and some assistance given by another inspector.

Asked by a representative of the Home Office if she found it difficult to carry out the annual inspection, she replied that it was impossible. Her statement was corroborated by Mr. Macklin already quoted.

In his classic examination of capitalist industrialism, Marx long ago showed how numerous Acts of Parliament (ostensibly designed to regulate conditions in factories) remained dead letters owing to the failure of Parliament to vote the funds for the necessary inspectors. Seventy odd years later we find that his criticism still applies.

Liberal, Labour and Conservative Governments have succeeded one another in the task of administering the affairs of the capitalist class; with the result that working-men and women still go needlessly to their doom in order that their good, kind masters may enjoy lives of culture and benevolence on the profits realised from the workers’ toil.

The wage-slaves of to-day pile up wealth in hitherto unheard-of quantities; yet it is too much to expect that they should be enabled to do so in security. It is cheaper to let them be burnt or buried alive than to pay for the necessary supervision to prevent such events.

The tragic death of five factory hands is of course a paltry flea-bite which passes unnoticed by the average slave who enjoys, by way of amusement, pictures of the wholesale slaughter of the members of his class when glorified by such names as “Mons” and “Verdun.” The putrid sentiment which clogs the minds of working-class patriots prevents them seeing the shrieking absurdity of a social order under which millions can be poured forth daily for years in order to produce a blood-bath while the money cannot be found to save women in England from a holocaust.

Over a million men and women on the Labour Exchanges and a shortage of factory inspectors ! What have you to say, you Tory, Liberal and Labour reformers?

The blood of the workers calls out for an answer!

"Capitalism's Big 3." (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The cartoon is unsigned but there was a William Cameron cartoon that appeared in the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Letter: What is Socialism? (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is a letter from a correspondent, and our reply :—

London, October 20th, 1927.

Dear Sir,

I attended the debate at the Battersea Town Hall on “Socialism.”

Rather unfortunately, neither party defined Socialism, so the debate was rather a failure. Perhaps you can help me. “Socialism means the entire absence of private property. The State is to own and control everything.”

Would my P.O. bank account be confiscated ? Would they take away my little shop ? Should I be compelled, with a Grey Ticket, B.2, 48392, to deal at only one shop and take the goods they offer ?

Can I own a £5 note? Bernard Shaw says no, that would make me a capitalist. I heard him say that, at a lecture in answer to a question. Could I buy a cricket bat, and call it my very own ? How should I get the money ?

Could I buy a joint of beef without money ?

I am quite in a fog. Please discuss this and get the next Socialist Standard—a good paper—to reply.

Yours truly,

A.B. Firmin.

Our Reply:

Mr. Firmin claims acquaintanceship with the Socialist Standard, but he surely does not read it very carefully. If he did, he would have observed that the debate in question centred round the question which of the two parties should the working class support, and further, that every issue of the “S.S.” contains the definition of Socialism. Socialism does not mean anything so negative and silly as “the entire absence of private property,” nor is “the State” to “own and control everything.” The latter is a distorted description of State Capitalism which may justly be attributed to one section of the Labour Party. It is not Socialism, and has never received the support of the Socialist Party as our “Object” states (see last page). Socialism is “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.”

Mr. Firmin will see here that ownership and control will be vested in the whole community, not in the “State,” that common ownership is concerned with means of production which, as our “Principles” go on to explain, refers to land, factories, railways, etc. We hasten to relieve our correspondent of the horrible fear that we propose the communal ownership and control of his toothbrush and collar-stud.

Far from abolishing “all private property/’ Socialism will place it in the power of all of the population to share in the varied kinds of wealth which society can produce—something which at present is denied in large measure to most of them.

As for Mr. Firmin’s “little shop,” we suggest that he probably wants it only as a means to an end, the end being the obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, recreation, amusements, etc. Socialist society will place these things at the disposal of Mr. Firmin as for the rest of the members of society. As it is to obtain these useful articles that we all at present endeavour to secure £5 notes, we shall most of us lose interest in the means, e.g., the £5 notes, when the end can be secured otherwise. (The exceptions will be those who have a taste for collecting useless oddities. Speaking for myself, Mr. Firmin may at that time have all my £5 notes, then as valueless as old Mark or Rouble paper money.)

We are not responsible for the reported vagaries of Mr. Bernard Shaw. Mr. Firmin would not need to BUY a cricket bat, but we assure him he could have one for his very own.

We ask our correspondent to remember that buying and selling, and the use of money as the basis of the economic activities of human society are relatively recent acquirements. They have served their useful purpose, and the means now exist (as a result of the development of Capitalism), for society to arrange the production and distribution of wealth without the intervention of money. We do not know what Mr. Firmin sells in his little shop, nor whether he is the father of young children, but supposing that a hypothetical Tommy Firmin occasionally asks for food and clothes, etc., it is most unlikely that Mr. Firmin would insist on the production of money from members of his family (if any) before he allows them to eat or dress at his expense.

We trust that our correspondent is no longer in a fog, but if he is, we shall be pleased to answer any further questions or criticisms.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The debate that Mr. Firmin attended was the one below.

Letter: Socialism v the I.L.P. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is a letter from a member of the I.L.P. :—

7/10/27.

To the Editor of the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

I have been very interested in the discussions contained in the “S.S.” from time to time, especially between your Socialism and that of the I.L.P. I, however, fail to see any gulf between the objects of the S.P.G.B. and the I.L.P., and its kindred association. It, therefore, seems to me unfortunate that speakers of your party should be continually denouncing the representatives of working-class interests, and it would be better if they devoted their speeches entirely to making Socialists. I have before me the “S.S.” of September, 1926, in which you say (page 12) that “no fundamental change in the object and policy of the I.L.P., however, is dreamt of,” and later on “These champions of Nationalisation . . . would not solve the wages problem.” I will, and have only the time, to deal with these two points.

(1) Firstly, “no fundamental change” is necessary, as their object is, has been and always will be, to transfer the private ownership of land and means of production, etc., into social ownership. You are at liberty to criticise their tactics, but not their object. Advice from technical and economic experts must be taken in the transformation of society, and we must be assured that this advice is in the interest of the working-classes. These experts must be, then, of the working-class.

(2) Secondly, the I.L.P. fully recognises that the wages system has got to go, and here again, the method to be adopted must be one that will not injure the class whom they desire should benefit.

(3) It is obvious to you that the so-called “living-wage” proposals, in my opinion, are held out to the masses as so much bread and butter to them under the Capitalist system, and that by intensive propaganda, more support will be given to the party in order to conquer the political machine and to use it without inflicting too great a hardship on their supporters. For instance, if in one sweep, a Socialist party abolished interest, some of the people who would be hit the hardest are those who are trying to live on a starvation wage, plus a few shillings resulting from a small investment—say £200 5 per cent. stock. When it is a matter of principle, there must be no discrimination between one form and another.

(4) If you have any suggestion as to what a Socialist Party should do when it has been returned to power, and at the same time retain the confidence of its supporters, I should be glad to hear of it in your next issue alongside of this letter. Could you spare me the space, please?

I.L.P’er.

Ruskin House,

Croydon.

Our Reply.

For convenience of reply we have numbered four paragraphs with which we propose to deal.

(1) It is news to us that the I.L.P. propose to abolish private ownership. It will also be news to the I.L.P. The abolition of private ownership would involve the abolition of all forms of living by owning property, i.e., rent, interest and profit. Asked as recently as August whether the I.L.P. proposed to abolish “rent, interest and profit,” Mr. E. E. Hunter, Secretary of the I.L.P. Information and Research Department, replied in an official letter, dated August 22nd :—

“Many Socialists are in favour of their complete abolition, while others have held the view that complete abolition is not desirable.” (Of course, when Mr. Hunter writes ” Socialists,” he means here “members of the I.L.P.”)

The “Socialist Programme” published by the I.L.P. (1923) is more definite. Under the heading “A Socialist Programme for Industry,” it says (page 24) :—

“The present shareholders in mines and railways could receive State mines or railway stock based on a valuation and bearing a fixed rate of interest.”

Mr. J. R. MacDonald, in his “Socialism, Critical and Constructive” (page 274) says :

“When Labour uses capital and pays its market value, property is defensible . . .”

This may be the aim of “I.L.P’er,” but it is decidedly not Socialism.

(2) The I.L.P. will be equally surprised to learn that it. proposes to abolish the wages system. The constitution adopted at the 1922 Annual Conference states under “Political and Industrial Democracy,” that the “basis of industrial democracy must be the organisation of the wage and salary earners.” (See the “Story of the I.L.P., page 20.)

(3) “I.L.P’er” believes he knows why the I.L.P. advocates its “Living Wage Policy.” We do not know that, but we do know that Socialism is not going to be introduced by a political party which has been placed in power for some other purpose by electors who are not Socialist. If “I.L.P’er” will recall the administration of Capitalism by the Labour Party in 1924, or the experience of various Labour Governments (e.g., New South Wales in September of this year) he will perceive that when electors find themselves deceived by a political party which fails to carry out its promises, or which goes beyond its mandate, they express their disapproval by voting against it at the first opportunity. It is interesting also to recall that the Labour Party in office appealed to the miners not to embarrass it by asking for more wages, and threatened striking transport workers with the Emergency Powers Act. That seems to us to be a curious way of expressing the I.L.P.’s enthusiasm for a living wage. (As well over 50 per cent. of the Labour M.P.’s at that time were I.L.P. members, the I.L.P. is fully accountable for all of the anti-working class actions of MacDonald’s Ministry.

(4)”I.L.P’er” here overlooks the important point that Socialist Party candidates will only be elected to the House of Commons on a Socialist Programme (not on a programme of Capitalist reforms), by a Socialist electorate (not by electors who want a living wage, or family endowment, etc., etc.) and for the single purpose of establishing Socialism. The only way of retaining the confidence of a Socialist electorate will be to work for Socialism just as it is now true that the only way I.L.P. M.P.’s can retain the confidence of their non-Socialist electorates is to work for everything other than Socialism. If Socialist M.P.’s fail to do the work for which they are elected, the voters will get rid of them at the first opportunity.

Edgar Hardcastle

SPGB Meetings, Debates and Lectures. (1927)

 Party News from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The Economic League's Major H. J. Gillespie D.S.O. was an ex-Fabian who'd recanted his longstanding Labourism and was now taking the Economic League's shilling. It happens. Ken Weller mentions in his excellent book, 'Don't Be A Soldier', that Frank Grainger left the SPGB in the late 1930s whilst he was the prospective parliamentary candidate for the SPGB in the East Ham North constituency, and later turned up as a lecturer for the Economic League. 

The December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard gives a brief report of some of the meetings listed above.

The Comrade Jacobs mentioned above who was lecturing at Bethnal Green Library on the subject of 'Political versus Industrial Action' was either longstanding SPGB outdoor speaker Alf Jacobs, or it was Dick Jacobs, the secretary of the Bethnal Green branch of the SPGB. Alf Jacobs joined the SPGB in its earliest days and was known in the East End of London as a popular SPGB outdoor speaker. (Especially at the outdoor speaking pitch in Victoria Park, where in 1914 he repeatedly took to the outdoor platform to denounce the war.) Dick Jacobs had only just joined the SPGB in January 1927 (he'd formerly been a member of the Labour Party), but was to remain a member of the SPGB until his death in 1977. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the speaker was Alf Jacobs.

Hero Worship: A Conversation With a Visitor from Mars. (Part 1) (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The first Friday in every month, I receive in my small suburban house a distinguished and eminently intellectual visitor from Mars. Where I met this worthy gentleman, in what contrivance he effects his journey to Earth, and how he mastered the English tongue, I must not divulge for I am bound to secrecy on all these points. Yet I cannot forbear from recording the conversations which have taken place between us. My friend’s remarkable criticisms of worldly institutions concerning which his mind is free from prejudices and accepted opinions, his sage interpellations and remarks, and, above all, his insatiable curiosity which has prompted me to explore and examine many aspects and phases of human life, have changed me from a meek peruser of a daily paper (the name of which rhymes with “Wail") to an eager and regular reader of a certain Socialist monthly journal.

However, on Friday, August —, the Martian entered my study, and after inquiring as to the state of my feet (in the usual Martian way), proceeded to make himself comfortable in my best arm-chair, and fixed me with his relentless inquisitive gaze. I groaned inwardly for I realised that I was doomed to the usual merciless inquisition; nevertheless, batting him playfully over the bean, I exclaimed, “Marty, old son, your little top-knot must be full of vague wonderings and misgivings again; pray unload them to your kind uncle.” He did so to the following effect—

"Esteemed and respected friend, in the course of my peregrinations and observations here below, I have noticed with astonishment that there are always various and differing individuals exalted above their fellows, and that these individuals either through accident of birth, ridiculous actions, criminal deeds or (occasionally) illustrious achievements, are regarded with almost divine reverence by their fellow-men. Now I plainly see that the conditions on this wretched planet foster and nourish this primitive "hero-worship"; ignorance, of course, induces men to believe in the superhuman powers of others higher up in the social scale, and the ignorant, aware of their own pitiful mental condition and limitations, behold with awe and amazement the petty achievements of a slightly more developed brain, moreover, 'hero-worship' is certainly aroused and nourished by your noxious newspapers. Sir, in a solitary issue of one of your vile dope-sheets I read glowing eulogies of individuals dubbed ‘princes,’ ‘duchesses,’ and 'ladies,’ sticky journalese accounts of ‘the world’s greatest cricketer,’ ‘the greatest soldier of to-day,’ ‘Hollywood’s daintiest actress,’ and even longer accounts of poor miserable wretches, who, warped by environment and damned by heredity, have committed atrocious crimes.

“But —” here the Martian jumped to his feet in his excitement and indignation, “I hear not a word except of detraction or abuse about the great masses of manual and brain workers by whose labour alone the social machinery is kept going, and I laugh aloud when I hear the results of economic conditions attributed to the ‘energy’ or the ‘wisdom' of great men. Now, sir," continued the Martian, looking at me dubiously. "I assume you know something concerning the origin, development, and effects of this hero-worship cult—pray enlighten me.”

Gracefully placing a lozenge in my mouth and coughing importantly, I spoke as follows :—

“Mankind, Marty, until quite recently, was in the main unaware of the quantitative or qualitative laws of physical causation, and natural phenomena were invariably attributed to supernatural agencies: and, sad to relate, even in the year A.D. 1927, very few mortals can interpret sociological phenomena scientifically. Thus it is not strange that the course of civilisation is considered as little else than a mere story of remarkable individuals and their actions. Last century, a rhetorical wind-bag by the name of Thomas Carlyle, expressed this opinion in the following words:—

  “ ‘As I take it, universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the history of the^great men who have lived here.'

“Marty, old boy, pass me Spencer’s 'Study of Sociology’.”

The Martian did so, and I read aloud the following:—

"Round the camp-fires assembled savages tell the events of the day’s chase; and he among them who has done some feat of skill or agility is duly lauded. On a return from the war-path the sagacity of the chief and the strength or courage of this or that warrior, are the all-absorbing themes. When the day or the immediate past affords no remarkable deed, the topic is the achievement of some noted leader recently dead . . .”

"That is a rather vague idea of the origin of ‘hero-worship,' ” remarked the Martian ; "would you favour me with a more detailed account?”

  

“In primitive human societies of the ‘totemistic ’ or ‘savage' type,” I began, “private property, except for small personal belongings, was, in the main, unknown, and land, boats, fishing-nets,, tents, etc., were generally the property of the tribe in common. Such societies provided little scope for 'heroes’; nevertheless, the germ of ‘hero-worship' was in being, as is shown by the fact that among the aborigines of Australia at certain times, ceremonial dances and songs are indulged in (under the direction of the 'Biraark' or witch-doctor), in which great events in the 'Alcheringa’ or distant past are commemorated, and ancient heroes are extolled. Moreover, the witchdoctor in these savage organisations often encourages hero-worship and plays upon the supernatural dreads of the tribesmen.”

At this juncture, I noticed that Marty seemed to be dozing.

“Are you asleep?” I exclaimed peevishly. “Not at all,” rejoined the Martian, blandly. “I can always think better with my eyes closed.”

I continued:—

"The second stage of social development is called the Patriarchal society, and in this social organisation ‘hero-worship' was much practised and encouraged. In the Patriarchal stage, paternity is the leading fact, and men are counted relatives because they are descended from the same male ancestor. This fact led to the adoration of, and the glamour of, romance, which gradually enveloped the ancestors of the different tribes; in fact, Marty, even now, in the East, ancestor-worship is the basis of religion. In the Patriarchal stage, hero-worship is essentially the common root of music, of drama, of poetry, and other miscellaneous types of literature. This is evident whether you scan the Bible, the Iliad, or the old Keltic legends. The Old Testament, Marty, is a wonderful galaxy of personalities—many of whom, incidentally, are not the patterns of virtue so regularly assumed. We are told how Abraham (after the necessary precaution of girding up his loins) journeyed to such and such a place according to the Master’s orders, and how Daniel (without the aid of a saucer of milk) showed his prowess as a lion-tamer. Jewish institutions and customs on the whole merely creep in to add colour to the biographies of the 'great men.' The old heroes were certainly revered and scoffers at the 'great men' were summarily dealt with. In Homer’s ‘Iliad,’ one Thersites, addicted to the dangerous habit of thinking for himself, foolishly questions the orders and opinions of the chiefs — his answer comes in the form of a lusty swipe from the sceptre of Ulysses.”

“But,” asked the Martian, "were there no writers or thinkers who saw that the 'worship’ of the heroes was due to the accumulation of false and supernatural tales?”

I pondered for a moment, and then answered—

"Yes, much later in the early 2nd century A.D., Lucian held up to ridicule the gods and the old heroes in witty little burlesques, in which Jupiter, Hercules and the like, become little more than buffoons. But the voice of Lucian was 'drowned in the hubbub of the book market,’ where the hero, boosting works of Pausanias, Ovid, Pindar and Euhemerus held undisputed sway encouraged by the ruling class and their literary sycophants.”

"By the way, my friend,” said the Martian, "here’s a little thought about these 'great men’ of your world. The origin of a 'great man’ is, I suppose, natural, and thus I submit he should be placed with the other phenomena which brought him forth, as the product of environment and heredity, that is the product of conditions. The offspring of two Chinese is never a Red Indian, and the son of a black reared in darkest Africa is hardly likely; to become a great philosopher or dramatist. I mean, my friend, that the 'great man’ only arrives under conditions favourable to his appearance. But please continue about the development of hero-worship after the Patriarchal stage.”

I did so.

"Sad to say, Marty, the origin of the State or Political Society coincides with the development of the art of warfare. Centuries before the decline of the Roman Empire, the drying-up of the lakes and rivers in Central Asia compelled the inhabitants of N.W. Mongolia and E. Turkestan to press westward into the broad valleys and push forward the original inhabitants of the plains; thus stems upon stems were thrown into Europe. Later, the increase of population and the desire to plunder the riches of the husbandman and the craftsman led these numerous Germanic tribes to wage war upon the more civilised societies. Thus a society dependent on great war-lords arose, and the fighting units of the society became bound by bonds of loyalty and obedience to their chief. This form of society gave a great impetus to 'Hero-worship,’ because the examples of former warriors were cited in order to stir the spirits of the youths, the adventurous life itself gave abundant opportunities for mighty deeds of valour, and, moreover, after a time, the causes of the wars seemed in the eyes of the wagers to be romantic and noble rather than economic. Then, when the host-leaders obtained permanent control of a definite territory, states evolved, while the life of the community remained essentially one of military allegiance. This is the age of Chivalric Romance. The alleged deeds of the great warlords in the earlier period were made into songs which were sung at the courts of great nobles by wandering minstrels.”

Then, taking "Romance and Legend of Chivalry,” by Hope Moncrieff, from my book-case, I read aloud the following:—

  

"Chivalry which found an organisation in the feudal system and a consecration in the wars of the Crusade, had its origin in the robust Teuton stock that mainly overspread the downfall of the Roman Empire. Tales of chivalry abounded everywhere,” I continued, "and in particular the legends connected with Arthur and Charlemagne increased and spread all over Europe. It was Cervantes in 'Don Quixote’ who gave the death-blow to the last lingering regard for romances of heroes which had become truly pitiful in their total disregard for worldly possibilities.”

"Surely they were never so ridiculously idealistic and false to worldly life as are the ‘best-sellers ’ of to-day?” interposed the Martian.

"More so, Marty, my lad. Our Ethel M. Dell’s could learn much from these later romances! However, the 'hero cult’ thus fostered by literature and encouraged at the courts became enveloped in innumerable conventions, and not a few hypocrisies, and thus the Middle Ages became the epoch of chivalry. The 'ennobling’ hero-worship and theoretical condescending regard for women ('high-born’) which were the two leading features of chivalry, did not prevent the scions of 'noble’ families from dealing with insubordinate peasants in the way Ullyses dealt with Thersites, and in France particularly, the 'chivalrous'  nobles maintained this attitude towards their providers till the Revolution of 1789. In the 'epoch of Chivalry,' also, Marty, occurred what is popularly assumed to be an essentially romantic and 'heroic’ war—the Hundred Years’ War. But this war was fought primarily not because of the heroic qualities of Edward III, the Black Prince, Henry V or Joan of Arc, but owed its origin to economic reasons. In short, the Hundred Years’ War was the struggle of England to prevent Flanders from falling under French domination, and thus ruining England’s wool trade with the Flemish manufacturing towns; as Thorold Rogers says, "From the 13th to the 16th century, wool was King." (From 'Economic Interpretation of History.)

"Now in modern times, Marty, a very curious conception of a 'hero’ has arisen. In the chivalric period, the 'hero’ was necessarily a man of 'renowned’ and 'noble’ stock, with 100 per cent. blue blood in his veins, and a son of the soil, who took it into his head to perform deeds of valour, would never be regarded as more than a 'good common soldier.’ Traces of the adoration of the 'high-born hero’ can still be seen in the enthusiasm awakened in childish minds by the movements of ’aristocratic’ nonentities, whilst in rubbishy literature, the story of the brave penniless youth who turns out to be the heir of a piffling kingdom, of which the geographical locality is not specified, still has a considerable though declining popularity; But, Marty, the rise of the bourgeois state gave birth to a 'hero’ of a different type. He is the man who is 'master of his fate'; he is the man who sweeps aside all obstacles that stand in his way to success; he scoffs at prejudices and customs; often he performs his 'wonders’ by proxy, but in that case his is the 'organising brain’; always he emerges victorious from the fight with circumstances: in short, Marty, the 'hero’ of our time is the 'self-made man.’ By far the greatest of this modern type of 'hero’ is Napoleon Bonaparte. H. G. Wells, with his typical bourgeios self-satisfaction, pours wholesale contempt upon the mental and social qualities of Bonaparte. He points out that his notebooks, crammed full with miscellaneous and unconnected observations, show little of a great brain; he states that Napoleon is not known to have had a single genuine friend, and he asserts (with considerable justification) that historical evidence points to the fact that all his actions primarily sprung from egotistical impulses. The very success of Napoleon’s career, however, gives the answer to Wells' unwritten insinuation that Bonaparte compared with the talented writer of 'The Outline of History' would cut a very insignificant intellectual figure. Also we must distrust Wells’ valuations of the abilities of others, when we consider his condescending attitude towards Lenin in an interview generously granted by the Russian in the busy time of the winter of 1920-21. (See Trotsky's "Lenin," chapter 8.) 

W. J.

To be continued.

Link to Part 2.

East Ham (1927)

Party News from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

East Ham, Manor Park and Barking sympathisers are invited to attend the newly-formed branch at East Ham, which meets at 1, Tyrone Road on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. Come and strengthen the new branch.

The Anatomy of Capital: Sir Arthur Keith's Economics. (1927)

From the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Professor Sir Arthur Keith is an anatomist with a considerable reputation. He occupied the presidential chair at the annual meeting of the British Association at Leeds barely two months ago, and caused a journalistic stir by his review of that controversial topic, “Man’s origin.” This has recently been published, with additions, by Messrs Watts (price 7d.). It is with the concluding essay that the present scribe proposes to deal.

It is entitled “Capital as a Factor in Evolution,” and advances the view that capital is an indispensable element in all progress, organic and social. We are fairly well acquainted with that type of anti-Socialist to whom all tools are capital, and consequently all tool-owners are capitalists, no matter whether it be plain Bill Smith who has “set up on his own ” as a plumber, or romantic Robinson Crusoe, when he discovered the utility of a hammer.

Sir Arthur, however, presents us with a rather interesting variation of this fantasy. According to him, any means of subsistence not immediately consumed is capital. Thus the bees which store up honey, fowls which lay eggs, our mothers when in a certain condition (with milk available) are all really capitalists, little though they may dream it. One can imagine the bosom of the speculative investor swelling with pride at finding himself classed with such time-honoured institutions.

We fear, however, that Sir Arthur has been too well brought up to be sufficiently comprehensive.

For instance, he omits entirely to mention those interesting examples of industrious capitalists, the bug and the common flea. It is a matter of observation that they cannot pursue their activities indefinitely but make periodical retirements in order to consume the sanguinary fluid which they have so assiduously acquired and stored up within the appropriate portion of their anatomy. Small wonder that the average pseudo-Socialist is staggered when faced with the question, “ What would you do without capital?” Existence would be unrecognisable to him.

To return to our professor. “There is,” says he, “in most of us a wish to save something from our daily income, be it large or small, to carry us over days of dearth or sickness. We save, too, for quite another purpose, namely, to give our children a start in life . . . and if it so happens that those parts of unconsumed wages, etc., are not required for instant use, then we consult the financial columns of a newspaper, or produce a stockbroker’s list, and presently our savings are turned into capital. Before we realise it, our savings are being used to build a merchant ship, or a cotton factory, etc.”

Notice the naive way in which our anatomist (so keen in his own department of knowledge) skips over the vital point. At one moment all savings are “capital,” irrespective of the use to which they are put, from the corn in the granaries of Ancient Egypt to the stores of food which Scottish students used to bring from their fathers’ farms to keep themselves through the winter at the universities. Then, in the same breath as it were, we have the implied admission that savings require to be “turned into capital” by the process of investment. The merest tyro in finance knows that money is not invested simply in order that it may return to its owner at a later date. It is invested in order that it may yield a profit, or acquire an increase. Sums of money cease to be capital when they are simply spent on articles of personal consumption, no matter how long they may have been saved. To "live on capital” is to destroy capital. Capital can only live on labour. It must maintain contact with the process pf production. By ignoring this elementary fact the henchman of "science" loses the meaning of the term he discusses.

In the course of its development capital takes a variety of forms. Here it is means of subsistence of the workers, there it is the tools with which they work; but in either case these things are capital only because they are consumed with a view to producing commodities for sale at a profit. Because capital takes the form of means of subsistence and tools, some people assume that all tools and means of subsistence are capital. One might as well say that because admirals are sailors, all sailors are admirals. If, for instance, the tools of the handicraftsmen in the middle ages and their food stores and raw material are to be regarded as capital, then the distinction between capitalism and all previous forms of society disappears. We are left without any reason for describing other systems as feudalism, patriarchalism, etc. This loose mode of thought destroys the meaning of words and robs them of all value.

All of which goes to show that men of science can be just as useful to the ruling class as agents of confusion as the priesthood. As Sir Arthur himself puts it in his preface, “men of science and religious leaders have the same ideals. ” In other words, they are both maintained by, believers in, and upholders of—capitalism.

Eric Boden