The failure of the “Co-operatives”. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A writer in the Co-operative News (28/7/23), signing himself “Vigilant,” offers what pretends to be a criticism of an article on co-operation appearing in our July issue.

This critic endeavours to take a “safe” line. He ignores what is essential in our article, and aims his criticism at three particular points.

In our article we made clear the present position of the worker, and showed how he was limited by his enslavement. That his funds for investments were practically nil; that he is forced to buy in the cheapest market regardless of “ideals” ; that, as a preliminary step, he must obtain control of political power before he can abolish slavery ; that once in control of the political machinery, he can alter the economic basis of society to suit his requirements.

These points our vigilant critic ignored, preferring to “pass by on the other side.”

He opens his criticism with a false statement, and winds up with two lies.

He writes :

“An editorial article in the July issue of the ‘Socialist Standard,’ an organ of the Socialist Labour Party.”

The Socialist Standard is the organ of the Socialist Party of Great Britain; a political party that is opposed to the Socialist Labour Party. The latter is a body professing to overthrow capitalism by “Industrial Action.”

This opening’ error of “Vigilant” speaks volumes for his vigilance, and suggests how similarly “reliable” his succeeding statements may be.

He endeavours to prove that the Co-operative movement has “enormous” capital at its disposal, but admits how small “its financial resources seem in comparison with the capital holdings of great trusts and combines.” Then he inserts figures to show the large amount of money belonging to working men that is in the hands of industrial insurance societies, but handily omits either the source of his figures or information of what the figures represent—whether money paid in or the amount of the policies.

Co-operation is indeed in a bad case when its advocate has to drag in such matters as the above to try to build up capital “in the air.” Even giving him the benefit of his figures, such capital is still small in comparison with that which the trusts and combines control. And the latter also control the sources of raw material which, together with political power, gives them the key to the situation.

Here is a sample of “Vigilant’s” method of arguing :

  “If the working people are determined to obtain their supplies through the co-operative stores, the powerful capitalists are more likely to suffer than the co-operators should they precipitate a struggle.”

It is easy to demonstrate the absurdity of the above. Taking things as they are at present the working people can “determine” what they like, but their wages determine what they can spend and how they can spend. Wages in general are at such a low level that the workers are compelled to buy in the cheapest market, and that market is where the trusts control; they only go to the co-operative for the dividend dangled before them, and when that fails co-operative sales drop.

  “Practically every society in the country is crying out for more and yet more trade, yet many members have stopped purchasing at their own stores because there is no dividend or there has been a reduction in the amount of dividend, arid they take their trade—the life blood of the movement—to establishments where no dividend is ever paid.”—(“Co-operative News,” 18/8/23.)

Farther on “Vigilant” completely smashes the co-operative position. He points to the fact that the Co-operative movement is now taking political action. If they could extend their business so as to beat the capitalist in the economic struggle, why bother about political action? Have they at last obtained a glimmering of the fact that political power gives its controllers the means to smash any opposition?

As a prop to his contention that the capitalists cannot smash the Co-operative movement if they wish, “Vigilant” makes the following remarks :

  “Twenty-five years ago private capitalists banded themselves together to launch their offensives on the co-operative movement. Co-operators were dismissed from private employment, and the flow of goods from private producers to distributive societies was checked. Backed by public opinion, co-operators then beat the boycott, and have since adopted an even more menacing attitude towards the meat, soap, tea and tobacco trusts, their efforts becoming more effective as their control of the productive processes has tightened.”

So menacing has been the attitude of the Co-operatives and so effective their control that at the present moment the above-mentioned trusts control the market in their respective spheres and the Co-operative is nowhere ! Moreover, “Vigilant’s” little fairy tale is shattered by evidence from his own side :

  “In reality, the big financiers and captains of industry did not discover that the co-operative movement was really what it was until the war was well on and they found it nipping in the bud here and there their well-devised schemes for plundering the people through the necessities of the war. In all former wars it had been recognised that, contracting for the Government was a sure means of securing a quick rise to fortune by the supply of shoddy materials at treble prices, and one can imagine the chagrin of those firms who found the two Co-operative Wholesale Societies insisting on charging the Government reasonable prices and supplying goods which were value for the prices charged. This was the beginning of the awakening of capitalism to the co-operative menace, but when once they became thoroughly awake it did not take them long to devise means for clipping the movement’s wings.” —(Editor article in “The Scottish Co-operator,” 23/6/23.)

The above admission proves our contention that the capitalists can smash such an organisation as the Co-operative when they consider the latter a menace. The entrance of the Co-operative into the political arena is further proof that they recognise their own weakness economically.

“Vigilant” scouts our contention that the Co-operatives exploit their workers and makes the curious remark :

  “Theoretically, there can be no exploitation in a co-operative system of society.”

In the first place we are dealing with the Co-operative movement and not a co-operative system of society. We pointed to the frequent strikes of co-operative employees, and particularly the recent one in the C.W.S. Our wily critic, however, carefully ignored these facts, although the columns of the Co-operative News (even the one in which his criticism appears) are full of these subjects.

The President of the N.U.D.A.W. wrote to the Co-operative News (18/8/23) pointing out that the wages in the C.W.S. are lower than those of a private firm doing a similar trade to that at Pelaw and quoted’ the following figures :

  “The flat rate for all women at the C.W.S. is 27/3. In the private firm they are graded into four classes and even the least skilled receive 4/3. per week over the C.W.S. rate.”

The above figures were printed and have neither been questioned nor denied by the Co-operative News.

The same issue of the Co-operative News states that notices of wage reductions have been posted in the various jam works of the C.W.S.

From the above it will be seen that the Co-operative concerns carry on business in. the same way as any ordinary capitalist concern, so far as their workers are concerned.

We now have an illustration of “Vigilant’s” knowledge of economics :

  “An elementary knowledge of economics disposes of ‘Gilmac’s’ final point. To increase co-operative production is to reduce prices, and at the same time increase the purchasing power of the common people by distributing higher ‘surpluses.’ Consequently, demand is stimulated, production booms, and more and more workers are absorbed into the co-operative industry.”

An “elementary knowledge of economics” will very easily dispose of these early nineteenth-century free-traders’ slogans.

The Co-operative obtains its “surpluses” by conducting business on strictly capitalist lines—cutting down expenses by reducing wages and sacking workers. Carrying on their work more economically, i.e., by saving labour wherever possible, Unemployment will therefore increase. If a worker has less wages, and even, in some cases, no wages at all, lower prices (if the latter did come about !) would not increase their buying power beyond its present state.

It may, perhaps, be news to many admirers of the Co-operative movement to learn that a considerable amount of the Co-operative funds are invested outside the Co-operative movement. For instance, in 1915 they had “between four and five millions in bank balances and non-co-operative undertakings, of which the railways claim a fair share” (Labour Year Book, 1916, page 391), and “the investment for the movement in the War Loan of July last reached £1,500,000” (same source, page 389).

Here is further evidence that the Co-operative funds are used to exploit workers.

They also were not above “turning an honest penny” out of the slaughter of working men in the European shambles.

It is unnecessary to labour these points further, as they have already been covered in the last two issues of our paper, and “Vigilant” has not met the arguments therein set out.

Before concluding, we cannot pass un-mentioned the last paragraph in “Vigilant’s” alleged criticism. It reads as follows :

  “We note that ‘Gilmac’ refers proudly and often to history in the course of his dissertation. When next he treats of co-operation we hope he will offer more than one historical fact, and that he will take it from a more authentic source than a current issue of the ‘Daily News.'”

In the first place the source of an historical fact is immaterial, provided such a fact is a fact. The “fact” in question was the strike of 15,000 employees of the C.W.S. against a reduction in wages. Significantly enough “Vigilant” sneers at the source, but makes no comment on the fact.

In the second place there are lengthy quotations from G. J. Holyoake; an examination of the workers’ present position under capitalism (which “Vigilant” again completely ignores) ; a statement of the ideas of Robert Owen, which can be verified by anyone from Owen’s short Autobiography; and much more, all of which are historical facts, and not taken from a current issue of the “Daily News.”

To conclude, after all the fairy tales and superficial statements of “Vigilant,” the present position of the Co-operative movement is as follows :

  “The net result of the change is that, relatively to its rivals and enemies, co-operation is weaker than it was nine years ago ; weaker financially and weaker administratively.”—(“The Scottish Co-operator,” 23/8/23.)

Gilmac.

A student of frauds. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The recent debate in the House of Commons on a resolution of Mr. Snowden’s gave rise to quite a number of articles in the press on what is understood by most people to be Socialism.

Now, most of the writers in the daily press who pretend to deal with Socialism—generally, once and for all—display the most pitiful ignorance of the subject. Not one of them appears to know anything of the writings of Marx, except through other writers and critics who have been either incapable of understanding him, or who have been wholly interested in perverting or misconstruing him.

Marx proved conclusively—and showed how—that capitalism is a system where the mass of the people, the workers, are robbed of the wealth they produce by the class that calls itself capitalist. Hence, the capitalist and those who serve him find themselves in direct opposition to those who have adopted the truths discovered by Marx. They are totally unable to deny, or even meet, these truths. There has never yet been either an honest or dishonest critic who has discovered any weakness or flaw in the reasoning of Marx, nor anything false in his facts or the evidence on which they are built.

The book writers who have spelt out dreary criticisms through dry volumes have involved themselves in endless contradictions, and only succeeded in branding themselves as wordy ignoramuses, or, what is worse, perverters of scientific truths. The latter is more likely to be the correct estimate, as such writers usually show that they have some intimacy with the works of Marx.

The average writer in the press, on the contrary, is as serenely ignorant as the majority of his readers as to the nature of Marxian philosophy or the real meaning of Socialism. Their ignorance, however, is easily accounted for. The slight knowledge they possess is obtained from parties like the Independent Labour Party, which only recognises one fact in common with the Socialist Party—the fact of the workers’ poverty. They have never yet proclaimed the cause of that poverty, never admitted the antagonism between the capitalist and Working Class, and never declared in unmistakable language that the workers must abolish the capitalist system and establish a new order based on the common ownership and democratic control of all the means of wealth production. All they have done is to recognise the poverty of the workers, foist themselves upon them as leaders with promises of reforms, and bleed them. Truly, ignorance of Socialism is seen to be, not a disadvantage, but an asset, for Labour leaders, industrial and political, as well as for the average political writer. They can, one and all, write or speak in accord with popular fallacies without fear of the truth getting in the way of better-paying utterances.

Mr. Snowden’s definition of Socialism was, “The public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.” A writer in the Daily Chronicle (18/7/23). calling himself “A Student of Politics,” accepts this definition and quite easily shows what a failure it would be from the workers’ point of view. There is no quibbling with words on his part: “Public ownership” means exactly the same for him that it does for Mr. Snowden and the I.L.P. He argues that the public ownership of the instruments of production means the transference of capital from private capitalists to collective possession by them. He points out quite correctly “That it brings no message of comfort to the worker that henceforth his employer will be an omnipotent abstraction called the State”—a point which the Labour Party has never met when challenged by the Socialist.

With regard to the Labour Party’s proposal to buy out the capitalist, “A Student of Politics” says :

  “I can understand confiscation of capital such as has taken place in Russia. That is revolution and robbery. But Socialism which does not confiscate and refuses to rob anyone, seems to me to have no more virtue than a new system of book-keeping.”

To him nationalisation is “Capitalism in a new guise with the State as master” ; and he is quite correct when he describes it in his title as “Sham Remedies of Socialism.” All these kind of shams stand in the way of the real thing and hide it with senseless clatter and drivel.

If industry is nationalised, a “Student of Politics” points out, interest has to be paid on capital, while so much has to be put by for sinking fund, depreciation, etc., just as capitalists do at present. He then asks where is the money coming from for any great improvement in the workers’ position? The Labour Party has been repeatedly asked this question by Socialists. Obviously, if capitalist wealth is not appropriated—which is so-called confiscation— the payment of interest to buy out capitalists must be equivalent to present dividends. To talk of a fair rate of interest, as some Labour Leaders do, is only begging the question, because a “fair rate” would be an average rate on present dividends. But all such points are dust in the balance beside the main fact that only by cheaper production—less workers and reduced wages—can nationalised industries compete in the world markets.

The object of the Socialist Party is the only possible definition of Socialism. Mr. Snowden and “Student of Politics,” together with a host of others with similar ambitions, are, either knowingly or unknowingly, wrong when they define it as anything else. How is it possible to end the capitalist system unless society is established on principles where wealth can no longer be used as capital? It is the use of wealth in this way that gives its name to the present system. The reverse of capitalism must be a system where the means of wealth production are owned in common and democratically controlled by the whole of the people.

Under such a system there can be no question of the State being the only employer, because there are no longer employers and employed, no longer capitalists and wage-slaves. Instead, there are men and women producing to satisfy all their needs according to a plan agreed upon as the result of experience, discussion, and majority voting.

“A Student of Politics” says :

  “There must be some more modern, some more English diagnosis of our trouble than that of the German Marx two generations ago.”

And if Mr. Snowden’s definition of Socialism were identical with that of Marx, “A Student of Politics” would be right. The Labour Party, however, has never analysed the capitalist system correctly; has never shown why we have poverty in spite of the material means at our disposal for production in plenty. Nor has its greatest exponents, or its most irresponsible wild men, ever outlined a course of action for the workers that would free them from their present exploitation.

“A Student of Politics” should study Marx for himself, when he would not make the mistake of supposing that the childish fallacies and futile reforms of the Labour Party and I.L.P. are built on, or in any way deducible from, the writings of that great thinker.

His own contribution to the subject, entitled “A Liberal Alternative,” is just as fallacious as that of the Labour Party :

  “To have more capitalists to distribute the rewards of industrial efficiency more fairly and to insure as far as possible that no industrial virtue should go without its capitalistic reward.”

The cure for hydrophobia used to be a hair of the dog that did the biting. “A Student of Politics” would substitute another bite for the hair. It requires little reasoning ability to see that an increase in the number of capitalists would mean greater competition for markets, a reduction in wages wherever possible in order to cheapen products, and a consequent intensification of the workers’ struggle for existence. Markets would be glutted more rapidly, and the usual “capitalist reward for industrial virtue”—the sack—would be dealt out to the workers more freely.

F. Foan

Letter: The Capital Levy. (1923)

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

To the Editor of the Socialist Standard.

Sir,

In your issue of August last you express your opposition to the Capital Levy and to my line of reasoning in defence of it. With your permission I propose to answer your criticism, and will be as brief as I can.

To begin with, let us see how far we are in accord. Firstly, I agree that “a small class does own the bulk of the means of producing wealth in this and other capitalist countries.” In my book on “The Capital Levy” I have demonstrated this (for Britain) by overwhelming figures.

Secondly, I agree that this small capitalist class in the main controls to-day the political machine. Thirdly, I agree that capitalists pay wages not because they are philanthropists, but because they are compelled by economic forces. Finally, I agree that the system of capitalism has many inherent evils and that there is no way out except by Socialism.

I do not agree with you however either (1) that under capitalism the workers as a whole have no “surplus over their minimum needs,” or (2) that under Socialism the burden of the National Debt will be automatically lifted.

With regard to (1), you yourself in another part of your article recognise that wages must be “broadly regarded” as based for “different section of workers under different climatic conditions, and with different social standards and different lines of historical development on their standard of living.” This is surely a much more elastic view than is implied by the words “minimum needs.” But, even so, I cannot admit your case. What I will admit is that standard of living and weekly wages are intimately connected. Take two men—a skilled mechanic earning £4 and a labourer earning £2 10s. The family of the former have a standard of living at the £4 rate, while that of the latter live at the £2 10s. rate. I suggest it is much nearer the truth to say that the standard of living depends on the wages, than that the wages depend on the standard of living.

If you ask me, “On what then do wages depend?” I will answer in your own words, “on the economic forces,” and these economic forces include such complex questions as the amount of unemployment, the state of trade, foreign competition, world prices, and so on.

Of course, this distinction between us is vital, for if once it is recognised (as I hold) that wages depend on something other than an automatically-assessed standard of living, then the worker is vitally interested in the lightening of the load of taxation, and stands to gain by a Capital Levy, which will enable taxes on tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, etc., to be taken off, and that on tobacco reduced. If, on the other hand, you are right, it would make no difference to the workers if the income tax, super tax, death duties, etc., were done away with, and all the revenue were collected from beer, tobacco, tea and the food of the workers. I would remind you that the apologists for the old French Aristocracy took this view in the middle of the eighteenth century and that the revolution followed.

Turning now to the other principal difference between us, I submit that even under Socialism there will be many important problems to be solved. I would remind you that Socialism does not imply the equal subdivision of all wealth, nor the collective ownership of all wealth. But unless Socialists are prepared to tackle the grave evil of maldistribution they will seriously disappoint their supporters. The first step in this direction is to get rid of the National Debt by placing it on the holders of the existing wealth of the country ; and I submit that this step if not already taken during the establishment of Socialism would certainly have to be taken immediately afterwards.

I should exceed the space you can afford me if I were to attempt to answer all the minor points you have raised, but as these two major differences go to the root of the whole matter they will probably suffice.

Yours, etc.,

F. W. Pethick Lawrence.

Reply.

I must first point out that I did not say that the workers have “no surplus over their minimum needs,” although, as a matter of fact, few of them indeed are able to accumulate any property worth mentioning. What I did was to take two alternatives—”the workers either receive a surplus … or they do not “—and to try to show that, whichever be correct, taxation could not affect them as a class. It was not necessary to say which is correct, and I did not do so, as without further explanation of “minimum needs” such an assertion would be misleading.

The assertion I did make was that referred to by Mr. Pethick Lawrence as “a more elastic view,” and I hoped when I wrote it that I had make it quite clear that the workers’ standard of living is not in my opinion “an automatically-assessed standard of living,” but is “elastic.” It is the resultant of a number of factors which change continuously, and moreover which include the workers’ political knowledge, assertiveness, and mental independence.

I need not labour this further or deal with Mr. Lawrence’s discussion of the relation of wages and the standard ol living, because I think he has not gone to the root of our disagreement. I will therefore restate my view.

The standard of living is not measured simply by the amount of money wages received. It consists of the amount of real wealth, food, clothing’ and shelter, etc., finally consumed by the working class. The relation this amount bears to the whole product of the labour of the workers depends at any given time on the interaction of the “economic forces.” The capitalists, who are the legal owners of the whole, give to the workers just as much as they are compelled to give. Now, unless the Capital Levy disturbs this equilibrium of forces in the workers’ favour, their standard of living will not be improved. Or, as I put it in my article, “Would the capitalists, if there were no taxation at all, give the workers a larger share of the wealth produced, and if so, why?” This basic question has not been answered.

To say that some workers or all workers receive £4 and have to return £1 as taxes, only means that at the given moment £3, and not £4, is the money value of the standard of living produced by the existing forces. If that were not so, the workers would be able to demand and to get an increase of, say, £1 per week. Their ability to make such demands is limited always by the control the capitalists have over the key position, the political machinery.

Of course, Socialist Society will have its own problems to solve, but the National Debt will not be one of them. We are some of those rare people who, in spite of calling themselves Socialists, actually desire Socialism. Under Socialism—that is, a “system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth”—there will be no room for individuals to live by their ownership of some of society’s resources. We do not aim at the “equal” (or unequal) “subdivision” of anything; nor would we be so foolish as to advocate the “collective ownership of all wealth.” Wealth, as distinct from the means of producing wealth, does not permit of being collectively owned.

In view of Mr. Pethick Lawrence’s subsequent remarks, I must dissent from his opinion that he and I are agreed that, “there is no way out except by Socialism.” To me his “way out” seems to be merely a way cut into the wilderness. The Capital Levy is not Socialism ; it does not lead to Socialism ; and it still remains to be shown how its introduction would in any way better the position of the working class within the capitalist system.

Edgar Hardcastle.

[Mr. Lawrence can, if he wishes, have space to explain further his position and to deal with the points raised in the reply.]

Fiction and Fact. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

“If labour were going to establish their position in this country there must be no class of society which they could not touch. The time would come when labour would not be content to live under the old conditions. They needed more colour, more art, and romance and beauty, more pageantry and processions and music and dance to make themselves a power in the land.”

J. Ramsay MacDonald, in an address to a Labour gathering at Neath, Briton Ferry and Port Talbot.  Daily News. 7/5/23.

How these flunkeys of capitalism delight in clouding the class struggle. Here is another one on the same stunt:

 “The Labour Party is no longer a class party. It includes aristocrats and democrats, manufacturers and professional men among its representatives. Mr. H. G. Wells’ arrival among us is significant and valuable.”

Mr. John Hodge, Labour M.P., writing in the Star. 27/2/23.

“Whoever has come to a full consciousness of the nature of Capitalist Society and the foundation of modern Socialism knows also that a Socialist movement that leaves the basis of the class struggle may be anything else, but it is not Socialism.”

“No compromise—no political trading.”

William Liebnecht.

Quotes. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Might is Right. 

  “Between equal rights force decides. Hence it is that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working day presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working class.”

Karl Marx.

  “The rich will not move without ‘capital’ ; a goad—I have and hold—you shall hunger and covet—until you are strong enough to force my hand.”

George Meredith.

 

A rebuke for those who cannot think.

  “Science gives us the conscious domination over things and unconditional security in handling them.”

Joseph Dietzgen.

 

The Freedom of the Press!

  

  “Journalists are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, our lives, are the property of other men.”

Jerome K. Jerome. (The New Witness. 9/2/23.) 

MacDonald’s hypocrisy. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A minor storm hath arisen in one of the London districts in connection with certain past actions of one Ramsay MacDonald.

Some of our members in the district in question asserted in discussion that MacDonald had backed Sir John Brunner’s Bill to Amend the Education Acts and thereby increase child slavery.

Simplicity.

A Mr. Easton took up the point and, apparently so staggered at the suggested duplicity of his “honourable Leader,” wrote MacDonald on the matter. Below is a copy of what appears to be the second letter Mr. Easton wrote MacDonald :

[Copy.]

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P

Dear Comrade,

You will remember I wrote you a little while back re certain charges made against you by the Socialist Party of Great Britain. You suggested I should demand specific evidence. They have brought to our Branch of the I.L.P. a copy of the “Socialist Standard” for July, 1906, wherein is quoted an article of Frank Rose in the “Clarion” stating that you back Sir J. Brunner’s Bill to allow children to be worked by the capitalists. That is the charge, you would help the cause if you will give your reply. I think you were then General Secretary of the I.L.P., 1 am not quite sure.

I hope you will not think me impertinent in following up this matter.

All best wishes.

Your faithful comrade,

(Signed) Fred Easton. 

July 25th, 1923.

Phantasy.

Readers will notice that the charge contained in the letter is, “that you backed Sir John Brunner’s Bill to allow children to be worked by the capitalist.” To this charge Macdonald replied as follows :

[Copy.]

My Dear Easton,

Thank you very much for all the trouble you have taken. The statement that I backed a Bill of the nature described is nothing but a fabrication. I cannot remember the provisions of Bills I backed in 1906, but I know this perfectly well, and I think that I can ask you to accept my attitude on education and child labour as a proof of my statement, that whatever Bill I backed was to protect children from the capitalist and to give them a better chance of education.

From time to time, the section whom you are now fighting has misrepresented—sometimes on account of their ignorance, but not infrequently on account of their malice—things I have said and done, and I can assure you this is an instance of it.

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) J. Ramsay MacDonald.

July 25th, 1923.

His reply to the charge, then, is, in the first place, “The statement that I backed a Bill of the nature described is a fabrication.”

Fact.

Before the Brunner Bill was introduced into Parliament 12 and 13 were the earliest ages at which children might be partially exempted from attending day school.

In May, 1906, Sir John Brunner asked leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Education Acts. The description on the back of this Bill runs as follows :

EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT.

A BILL

To amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903. Presented by Sir John Brunner,

supported by

Sir William Anson, Mr. Burt, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Eve, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Masterman, Mr. George White, Mr. Whitley, and Mr. Yoxall.

Ordered by the House of Commons to be Printed 21st May, 1906.

Printed by Eyre and Spottiswoode, etc., etc. [Bill 220.]

On the cover (or first page) of this Bill it states :

“Memorandum.”

  “This Bill provides that local authorities may fix thirteen as the minimum age for total exemption from attendance at a public elementary school if they frame bye-laws for the attendance of children so exempted at some recognised continuation school for at least three evenings a week until they attain the age of sixteen years. In the rural districts it is provided that the local authorities may fix twelve as the minimum age for total exemption in the case of boys who have definite and regular agricultural employment, and whose parents desire that they shall be so employed, on condition that they attend a continuation school for at least two evenings a week during the winter months until the age of sixteen.”

Page 1, Clause 1, contains the two paragraphs covering the above two points.

It will be seen that, where formerly children were only partially exempted from day school attendance, i.e., half-timers, this Act gave them total exemption, thus allowing them to be worked, their whole day, in the mind and body destroying atmosphere of modern industry at an earlier age than formerly, and thereby increasing the amount of child slavery—the essence of the charge against MacDonald.

He “cannot remember the provision of Bills I backed in 1906.” Oh, perfidious politician ! Was it then of such small account as to be easily forgotten, this attempt to smother youthful bloom in factory hells? The brutalisation of childish minds; the maiming and dwarfing and mis–shaping of tiny limbs under the influence of the machine?

Not content with working children of such an early age, the whole day long they must needs complete the diabolical work by driving them to school in the evenings, instead of allowing them this small opportunity for the rest and amusement so essential to childhood. They take away the child’s opportunity of acquiring education during the normal time—the daytime—and seek to pump knowledge into him when he is too tired to think. And this is done in the interests of those who want cheap labour.

Imagine the harm suffered by a child leaving the suffocating atmosphere of a factory to work in the close atmosphere and artificial light of a schoolroom ; or leaving the backaching work of the fields to stoop over a desk and cramp little fingers striving to form letters ; or leaving the work of a long day of concentration upon work under a foreman or overseer to force the wandering thoughts to concentrate upon figures under the exacting rules of the schoolroom.

Was this action of MacDonald’s such as “to protect children from the Capitalist and to give them a better chance of education” ?

As to the “better chance of education,” the harm done to the general health and mental capacities of children in the towns where the half-time system nourishes has been frequently dwelt on. Educational experts have pointed out that the children come to school tired and sleepy and lose education during the most important time of their lives ; and of this MacDonald, as a one time teacher, must have been well aware.

Duplicity.

To estimate more fully the depth of MacDonald’s treachery one should consult the Report of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the I.L.P. (1905), page 55, and read clause 5 of their programme of “demands,” which demands—

“The raising of the age of child labour, with a view to its ultimate extinction.”

Compare this “demand” of the party of which he was secretary with the terms of Brunner’s Bill which he backed, and it will be easy to decide from whence comes the “fabrication.”

No wonder Macdonald said, at a Westbourne Park Fellowship meeting on March 12th last:

  “The work of the politician was one long experiment with truth.”—(“Daily News,” 12/3/23.).

If Mr. Easton wishes the evidence of his eyes to verify the statements quoted above, he can obtain it in two ways. Either obtain the Brunner Bill from the Government stationery office, or visit our Head Office and examine the document by arrangement with the General Secretary. The same remark applies to other “unbelievers.”

Gilmac.

“Agriculture and the Guild System” (1923)

Pamphlet Review from the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

“Agriculture and the Guild System.” By Montague Fordham. 24 pages, price 4d. I.L.P., 308, Grays Inn Road.

Mr. Fordham summarises his proposals in a paragraph, thus (p. 9) : —

  “… we have to secure Democratic Control of agriculture, the limitation of the rights of private owners over the land, the establishment of just prices and just pay, and the replacing of the dealers and other middlemen by co-operation. Then, we can get what we should have been aiming at all the time—farming for food, with a reasonable return, many well-paid workers on the land, and the economic basis for restoration of a jovial country life.”

He sees, however, that the bear has to be caught and killed before it can be skinned.

   “It is quite unwise to suppose that what is substantially an agricultural revolution can ever begin, whilst power remains in the hands of the landlords, large farmers, land agents, solicitors, bankers, dealers and middlemen.” (Page 10.)

He tells us also on page 10 that control cannot be obtained through the Trade Unions, but does not tell us how it is to be obtained. He skips this, and goes, straight on to tell us what the parish will do when control has passed “out of the hands of the landlords” into those of a “National Chamber of Agriculture . . . responsible to Parliament alone.” As the owning class control Parliament, we have in fact first to capture that seat of power— a detail Mr. Fordham apparently overlooks. It is by no means an unimportant detail, because the present ruling and owning class, will never willingly yield to any denial whatsoever of the rights of private property. They may be willing to listen to suggestions, for the better ordering of their economic system, and one section of the capitalist class may be not only interested but quite enthusiastic about a harmless-looking scheme which will in effect enable them to plunder some other section. It will be .noticed from Fordham’s statement quoted above that he is not proposing to destroy private ownership, only to “limit” it; and behind some interesting, but quite irrelevant, discussion of the economic machinery operative under the total different conditions of the Guilds in Mediaeval England, we find that Fordham’s suggestion is simply a form of indirect subsidy. He adduces arguments which he considers should weigh sufficiently with the financial and industrial capitalists to make them willing to maintain the agricultural industry, temporarily at least, out of their profits. Since the eighties of last century British agriculture has been badly hit by competition which arose when railways opened up the interiors of North and South America and, later, Russia, thus making it possible to ship foodstuffs to industrial Europe. The first two had virgin soil needing no fertilisers, and so vast as to permit extensive cultivation, and the wheat from all three was put on the home market at a price which forbade profitable arable farming except under very advantageous conditions. This was profitable for the manufacturers, for whom cheap food meant low wages. They had discovered this in 1846, when they repealed the Corn Laws. Incidentally, the ruin of agriculture and the depopulation of the countryside was also good for them, as it increased the supply of cheap labour in the towns.

But during the present century this supply of cheap food from abroad has shown signs of decreasing. Railway freights in U.S.A. have steadily risen, virgin soils are being exhausted, and intensive cultivation has had to be substituted, while the growing industrial populations of these countries are coming to need all their home supplies. Russia has left the market, and, curiously enough, in that country now we have just the reverse of the policy Mr. Fordham suggests. The Bolsheviks are driven to subsidise their bankrupt industries out of agriculture. Whether they can succeed in such a policy will depend on their maintaining their control of the Government. They are at least realists, but Mr. Fordham thinks he can carry out his scheme without capturing political power.

In view of the changing agricultural situation, the British industrial capitalists have had to consider of recent years whether it would not be worth their while artificially to stimulate agricultural production by subsidies, in fact of the declining quantity and threatened rising price of foreign wheat. The problem was temporarily brought to a head during the war, when a bonus was given for the growing of wheat and oats, coupled with a statutory minimum wage for agricultural labourers. The whole of this machinery was scrapped in October, 192l. Mr. Fordham does not want the re-introduction of the Corn Production Act, but he wants prices to be “stabilised” and “a just price to be based on cost of production.” This, he thinks, would also cut out the middleman who at present gets the bulk of the retail prices of farm produce, and lead to the formation of Distributive Cooperative Societies.

Fordham admits that the limitation of imports would be necessary, which means that prices would, in spite of his statements to the contrary, be raised above world prices to benefit agriculturists. In short, through all the fog of Mr. Fordham’s reasoning we see that the essence of his case is that the industrial and financial capitalists are to be asked to dip their hands in their pockets to guarantee to farmers the average rate of profit on their capital.

The necessary adjunct of capitalist private ownership, the wage system, is to remain, but wages of labourers are to be secured at an “adequate” level by the price-fixing authority.

The introduction of this scheme will depend, while the capitalists remain in power, on their view as to whether the economic, political, and military gains to them justify the expenditure. Mr, Fordham should therefore offer his advice to the proper quarter.

As Mr. Fordham says (page 6), various things will happen, “If the British Government will give facilities,” etc., etc. There is just one thing for which the British Government will not give “facilities” ; that is Socialism. It yet remains to be shown by Mr. Fordham how a slave class can improve its position except at the expense of its masters, or how propertyless workers can emancipate themselves except by appropriating for the use of society the private property of the present owners.

If the workers capture political power for the purpose of introducing Socialism, they can, in abolishing capitalism, also sweep away the minor evils and problems of organisation which worry Mr. Fordham.

I notice with amusement that he receives most flattering notices from G. K. Chesterton and A. J. Penty. Chesterton once remarked of Penty that he was one of the two or three really original minds of our day. I wondered then who was the third. It now only remains for Mr. Fordham to say something really nice about Chesterton.

Personally, I wish all of them would find some little hell of their own on which to inflict their precious schemes for the Feudalisation of society. The workers would do far better to learn something about capitalism as it really is to-day, than to be misled by the fantastic pictures of Mediaeval Europe drawn by these three romantic humbugs.

Edgar Hardcastle

Produce more—children ! (1923)

Editorial from the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the meeting of the British Association in Liverpool some of the scientists demonstrated once again that the payer of the piper calls the tune. Official science must give evidence, now and again, that it is a bulwark of capitalism, so that learned professors may obtain the wherewithal to live and carry on their studies.

Many years ago it was alleged that an important cause of the workers’ poverty was the largeness of the worker’s family. Since that time war has swept away a huge number of the pick of manhood. In spite of this latter fact, there are, at the present time, nearly two million workers wanting employment. One would imagine, therefore, that any present restrictions in the size of the worker’s family would be welcome, particularly as so much is made of the difficulty of handling the “unemployment problem.”

But the capitalist does not aim at solving unemployment. If he did solve this problem he would be placed in a similar position to that in which he found himself during the war—forced to pay comparatively high wages on account of the shortage of the labour supply. Since the war the labour supply has overflown the demand, and the capitalist has been able to press wages down.

Under capitalism business moves at varying rates of speed. At one time there is a rush of business ; at another time there is a slump. The employers require a supply of labour sufficient to meet the demands, of brisk business and still have a sufficient number of workers over to prevent those in work from demanding wages above the normal. In periods of slump the number of workers over during the busy time is swelled by the number the slump throws out of work, and the unemployment problem becomes acute.

The growing difficulty of sustaining life, even at the best of times, has a tendency in recent years to force the workers to limit the size of their families. The capitalist sees in this a dangerous symptom—a symptom that might reduce the industrial reserve army and limit the extent of his profits.

It is just here that the scientist can lend him some aid—and he does his “duty.”

The Special Correspondent of the Daily News, reporting the speech of Dr. Vaughan Cornish, President of the Geographical Section, writes :

  “In his opinion if you are to do your duty to the Empire you must have at least four children. He made it clear that you should not invite children into the world for their own pleasure or amusement, but should enlist them, as it were, in an army for home defence.

  “In his view it appeared children were merely potential soldiers.

   “In order to have strategic security in this, island,” he insisted, “we must be able to meet the air force of a European combination as well as to carry out our traditional plan of dispatching a powerful expeditionary force for the support of a friendly Power. This active defence requires a large population.”—(“Daily News,” 14/9/23.)

Imagine urging us to increase our families so that our children may provide food for guns ! And the monuments to the “glorious dead” are still being covered with wreaths, though their dependants cannot find the necessary covering to shelter them from the inclement weather.

But the patriotic plea put forward is only a cloak for the masters’ desire for cheap labour.

Not only do the masters require an industrial reserve army, but they also require a plentiful supply of youthful labour. Machines are taking a greater part in industry as time goes on, and the operation of these machines is becoming more and more the work of children. In spite of official regulations, the half-time system is growing. According to the Westminster Gazette (27/8/23), there are 3,437 children between the ages of 12 and 13 at work in Staffordshire alone. In Rochdale the number of half-timers increased from 871 in 1915 to 1,219 in 1920.

Therefore, workers, if you would raise-up multitudes of youthful competitors and provide the employers with cheaper labour, then heed the advice of the scientist—be fruitful and multiply.

Letter: The Socialist Party and Trade Unions. (1923)

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

Manchester,

July 5th, 1923.

Comrades,

Your contention that the workers do not pay rates and taxes on the basis that what he hasn’t got he cannot part with has always seemed to me quite sound. But in this month’s Socialist Standard Comrade Reynolds declares, “For, bad as the condition of the working class is, only a fool would deny that it could be far worse.” This seems to me to contradict the above, for if his condition can be made worse, to say nothing of far worse, it surely can be made so by the capitalists collectively (taxation) as by the capitalists individually (wages).

The point I would wish to make is that, according to our friend Reynolds, the worker has a surplus or margin above the bare subsistence level, thus rendering him susceptible to taxation in his degree even as the man with £10,000 a year.

Yours fraternally,

Inquirer.

Reply:

Our contention that taxation does not affect the working class is in no way contradicted by the statement quoted from the July Socialist Standard. The statement is made to indicate the fact that the struggle of the workers on the economic field over the question of wages, hours, and the general conditions of employment does to some extent act as a brake upon the tendency of capitalism to worsen the condition of the working class. The writer does not imply that the workers have “a surplus or margin above the bare subsistence level, thus rendering them susceptible to taxation”; on the contrary, he implies that it is necessary for the workers to carry on the struggle in order that they should realise the value of their labour-power.

Of course, the workers have no surplus above the subsistence level, out of which to pay taxes. But it does not follow that because of that fact their condition could not be worse than it is at present. The social condition of the workers not only could be worse, but is actually becoming so as capitalism develops. For instance, as more efficient methods of wealth production are introduced, unemployment increases, and, with the consequent increase of competition for jobs, the workers are subject to a more intensive exploitation, their position is more insecure, and their poverty becomes greater than ever.

Now “Inquirer” seems to be of the opinion that the level of subsistence is a fixed point. But that is not the case. The workers sell their energy to the capitalist at the cost of their subsistence, but the cost of subsistence depends upon, among other things, the standard of living which varies, in different trades and in different countries. The standard of living is a product of historical and social forces, and may be raised or lowered. As Marx puts it :

  “The value of labour is in every country determined by a traditional standard of life. It is not a mere physical life, but it is the satisfaction of certain wants springing from the social conditions in which people are placed and reared up. The English standard of life may be reduced to the Irish standard ; the standard of life of a German peasant to that of a Livonian peasant.”— (“Value, Price and Profit.”)

And, as the whole history of capitalism shows, the tendency is in the direction of lowering the standard of living of the workers, to the extent, to use the words of Marx, of reducing the whole working class to the “utmost state of degradation.” Around this question of the standard of living a constant struggle goes on between the workers and the capitalists. The former endeavouring to maintain it at a certain level, and the latter endeavouring to reduce it to its lowest point. It is precisely here where the organisation of the workers on the economic field functions. By means of withholding their labour-power, or threatening to do so, the workers do, to a certain extent, put a brake upon the encroachments of capital. In other words, whilst the workers by trade union action cannot altogether prevent the worsening of the social condition, they can slow down the worsening process.

To state such an obvious truth, namely, that the condition of the workers could be far worse, is something totally different from saying that the workers have a surplus above the subsistence level out of which to pay taxes. For the workers to be susceptible to taxation would necessitate their getting a surplus above the amount necessary for their subsistence as wealth producers for the capitalists, and this they do not get. Consequently, the capitalists cannot make the condition of the workers worse by means of taxation. They can and do, however, by means of reducing wages and intensifying exploitation, a fact with which we as workers are painfully acquainted.

Robert Reynolds

A professor on the equality of opportunity. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

  “What are the great poetical names of the last hundred years or so? Coleridge, Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, Landor, Keats, Tennyson, Browning, Arnold, Morris, Rossetti, Swinburne—we may stop there. Of these all but Keats, Browning and Rossetti were university men; and of these three Keats, who died young, cut off in his prime, was the only one not fairly well-to-do. It may seem a brutal thing to say, and it is a sad thing to say; but, as a matter of hard fact, the theory that poetical genius bloweth where it listeth, and equally in poor and rich, holds little truth. As a matter of hard fact nine out of those twelve were university men, which means that somehow or other they procured the means to get the best education England can give. As a matter of hard fact of the remaining three you know that Browning was well-to-do, and I challenge you that, if he had not been well-to-do, he would no more have attained to writing “Saul” or the “Ring and the Book,” than Ruskin would have attained to writing “Modern Painters,” if his father had not dealt prosperously in business. Rossetti had a small private income ; and, moreover, he painted. There remains but Keats, whom Atropos slew young, as he slew John Clare in a madhouse, and James Thompson by the laudanum he took to drug disappointment. These are dreadful facts, but let us face them. It is—however dishonouring to us as a nation—certain that by some fault in our commonwealth the poor poet has not in these days, nor has bad for two hundred years, a dog’s chance. Believe me—and I have spent a great part of the last ten years in watching some 320 Elementary Schools —we may prate of democracy, but actually a poor child in England has little more hope than had the son of an Athenian slave to be emancipated into that intellectual freedom of which great writings are born.”

(Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, “On the Art of Writing,” page 33, 1923 Edition.)

£1000 Fund. (1923)

Party News from the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Freedom of the Press (1923)

Quote from the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Journalists are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, our lives, are the property of other men."

Jerome K. Jerome.

(The New Witness, 9/2/23.)

Jingo Communists. (1923)

From the October 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the strongest holds the capitalists have over the minds of the workers is given by the workers' ready acceptance of the dogmas of patriotism. Before the rise of class society, and even until comparatively modern times before locomotives and steamships broke down geographical barriers, the workers did have a real interest in the country of their birth. But now that independent craftsmen and tillers of the soil have become wage earners the basis of patriotism has gone. Still the sentiment persists when even religion is fast decaying, and the master class who control the forces and services of the State are able to identify their own private interests with the instinctive patriotism of the class which has now no stake in the country. This degenerate patriotism is strong enough in the mother countries of the great empires, but it appears in its most degraded form among the members of the so-called subject races. The British Empire is at once the foremost in power and extent, and it has developed this national spirit in its possessions to the greatest degree. In its modern form patriotism began to become a striking-feature during the last quarter of the nineteenth century when, after the unrivalled trade expansion between 1816 and 1875, a period of depression and competition set in. During the previous period sufficient development on capitalist lines had taken place in India and Egypt to lead to the rise of organised agitation for independence, or at least for some measure of self-government.

There had, of course, always been widespread dislike of the foreign rulers, and to this was now added the resentment of educated natives, lawyers, state officials, merchants, etc., who felt themselves arbitrarily deprived of the best opportunities, and whose discontent was of great importance because it was capable of expression. The growing body of native capitalists and traders were, besides, coming to see what a glorious field of exploitation would be open to them if they could but use this volume of discontent to throw off alien rule. In Ireland, although there was no great gulf of race, historical tradition of suppression and religious bigotry supplied all the necessary zeal to the struggle for independence. There were, too, the very real economic grievances of the Irish farmers and merchants, and these latter, with their intellectual leaders and publicists, were able, without great difficulty, to deceive the workers into the belief that all their troubles, too, were due to foreign tyranny. This was, of course, untrue. The workers' only useful aim is to dethrone the capitalist class. It has nothing whatever to gain by assisting one group against another. The Irish workers who were foolish enough to help Irish capitalists to win Dominion Status from Great Britain now have the chance to learn that the capitalist system is the same wherever it exists, and whatever the nationality of the rulers who use the State forces to keep the workers' hands off their property. We, as Socialists, have no sympathy whatever with the demand for independence made by native capitalist groups. We would no mare assist them than assist the British Government against them. A plague on both their houses ! Our only interest is to try to get the workers in both camps to mind their own business and leave this quarrel about the right to exploit to the people who gain from exploitation. Many so-called Socialists think, or at any rate act, differently. Some of them are still very much the victims of the mental disorder called patriotism, and their understanding of Socialism is nil; others are playing a double game which they call "tactics." They argue that as the people among whom it is desired to propagate Socialism are still entirely wrapped up in all kinds of antiquated illusions, then the way to clear their minds is to tack their superstitions on to the Socialist case. It is hard to imagine anything less calculated to further Socialism. When Socialists are so adaptive that they can be Catholic in Dublin, Protestant in England, Atheist in France, Free Trade, Protectionist, patriots and anti-patriots, their propaganda becomes a farce and they degenerate usually into the more or less open tools of local business interests. Some of our blustering wartime pseudo-Socialist recruiting sergeants had a more intimate connection with the "Trade " than is gained by looking down a pint pot.

Whatever differences there may have been between the various independence movements, they had one thing in common there was money in them. In addition, the Irish movement lent itself to the vote-catching of the Liberal and Labour Parties in this country. Owing to the brilliant lack of success of the "tactic" in making Socialists, the professional Parliamentarians at the head of numerous stagnant parties in this country were anxiously looking for new sources of revenue. These political brigands, who live on and by the ignorance of the workers, found what they wanted by lending themselves to the political wire¬pulling of the subject nations. They were willing (they said in the interests of Socialism) to encourage the vilely anti-Socialist national fanaticism which we find invariably associated with such movements. The Communists of this country have given their indiscriminate support (for what it is worth) to a round half-dozen capitalist movements of this kind, and have attempted to justify their attitude by resurrecting a plea that was familiar and discredited in the Socialist Democratic Federation thirty years ago. They talk about smashing up the Empire as a preliminary to the final struggle with the capitalist class. They forget some things. First, there is no movement or combination of movements which has the power to scratch the British Empire, much less dismember it. Secondly, the effect of their attitude is simply to strengthen the patriotism of the British worker and make him still more ignorant of, and hostile to, Socialism.

Thirdly, assuming independence could be obtained and any real progress took place in the development of Labour movements in these countries, the home capitalists would want to come back into the Empire for the assistance of a strong central Government against their own workers. The stampede back would make their present agitation to get out look sick in comparison. The Irish Communist Party, which ought by now to have learned something from experience, is not one whit better. It has pandered to Catholicism and suppressed the Moscow attitude to religion, and it has stooped so low as to appeal to the foul Jingoism which makes the Irish worker so blind to his class interests.

In the Workers' Republic, June 23rd, 1923 (official organ of the Communist Party of Ireland), half a column is devoted to the exposure of a "scandal." The scandal is that the capitalist Free State Government has placed orders for army uniforms in London instead of in Dublin! This staggering charge "can be proved to the hilt if needs be."

Just consider with me the enormity of it. The Free State capitalists keep troops to protect their property against the propertyless Irish workers. During the last few months, for instance, troops have been openly used to help farmers in Waterford against strikers. If the Communists or anyone else kick against the Free State Government they will get shot, and the remedy they propose is to have the uniforms made in Dublin! They wouldn't like to be shot by a man in an English-made uniform, but these internationalists will be perfectly happy if the uniforms are made at home. Their joy would have no bounds if the bullets were Irish through and through, and what would happen if they were made by Trade Union labour as well it is beyond me to imagine.

But we must be fair. Communists are economists as well. "Can you wonder why their is so much unemployment in Dublin?" To think, dear reader, that it has never occurred to you that if only all the capitalists had their army uniforms made at home the unemployment problem would be solved. It never struck these Simple Simons that contracts and jobless workers have a habit of going to the best market, and that if, owing to bad trade, prices are lower in Dublin, the English manufacturer would sub-let the work to the Dublin sweat shops, even if they are not, as is probably the case, already working in harmony.

The Workers' Republic writer, in fact appears to have decidedly more than a grain of sympathy for these clothing bosses; because they "have had to close their doors for want of contracts, and others are standing off their workers for the same reason." These people occasionally have the nerve to call themselves Marxists !

And the excuse for all this lying and humbug is always the same. They are in a hurry and want to bring the poor benighted workers in. On this ground, more than any other, their policy is damned. Not only are the recruits, soaked in religion and patriotism, totally unreliable and of no conceivable value in their present state for Socialism, but their numbers are not sufficient to justify the telling of the whitest and most forgivable of fibs, let alone the turgid stream of corruption these Communists call propaganda. The sooner they give up pandering to working-class political ignorance and devote themselves to teaching (and learning) Socialism, the sooner will the nationality problem be solved. The capitalists of the subject nations will line up with the Central Government of the Empire for protection against the growing unity of the working class, and the way will be cleared for the real fight — the fight for working-class emancipation.

Edgar Hardcastle