The queer side. (1911)

From the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under a capitalist regime one is either exploiter or exploited ; there is ever a gulf between the two sections of society, and that gulf widens as the system developes. The affairs of every-day life give the lie to those who, from ignorance or interest, promulgate the idea of the identity of interest between robber and robbed.

* * *

“Before an audience of 10,000 sightseers and guarded by a band of 300 police, Lord Deceis has been married to Miss V. Gould, heiress of Mr. G. Gould . . Lord Deceis is 45 years of age, his bride 18. . . A cake costing £200 was imported for the purpose from Scotland. . . . The bride wore a dress of white satin embroidered with silver . . and a rope of diamonds.”

* * *

“That the worst of slums may exist even in fashionable Folkestone was proved at an inquest on the body of an old woman, of 72 named Mary Sellars. The evidence proved that she died under the most terrible conditions of suffering and neglect. ‘In a small attic 8 ft. x 10 ft., which contained as furniture an iron bedstead, an old chair and a pail,’ said the coroner’s officer, ‘he found the deceased, in the midst of the squalor, lying naked save for the protection of a pair of trousers, an old skirt and a coat thrown over her.’ The deceased had suffered from pleurisy and peritonitis, and had not had any food for hours before death.

“The husband was a corporation labourer earning 18s. a week. The coroner censured him severely, and the jury returned a verdict that ‘Death was due to natural causes.’ ”

* * *

The above cuttings are from the same issue of Reynold’s Newspaper (12.2.11). The first refers to a marriage of members of the capitalist class—people who have never performed a necessary function in the production of the wealth they waste. The latter records the death of one of the exploited—a member of the class that produce the wealth that loafers such as Lord Deceis may roam the world in luxury and comfort, and that the daughters of millionaires may purchase titles.

Such is the evidence of the “identity of interest.” Wealth produced by one class whose members starve, and owned by another class whose members squander.

* * *

“Death was due to natural causes.” It is, of course, natural for a person to die under such conditions, but are the conditions natural ?

It was natural for a policeman to die after receiving a bullet in a vital part, but the twelve “good men and true” returned a different verdict. But then the policeman was a defender of private property, while the woman was only a worn-out toiler. More evidence of the “identity of interest.”

* * *

A writer in the same paper says “Pauperism is the question of the hour. . . The public mind is aroused to the importance of the subject and measures heroic are advocated in order to strike at the root of the evil.” He also quotes Dr. Chalmers as having said “It is thus, then, by a sort of festering and spreading operation, the sphere of destitution is constantly widening in every parish where the benevolence of love has been superseded by the benevolence of law. The following might be given as an example of the benevolence of love.

* * *

The Evening Times, reporting an interview with a Mr. Mumford, chairman of the Paddington Works Committee, quoted that gentleman as follows :

“These figures might be given as an approximate estimate of the numbers of willing to work “out of works” in the building trade :

Painters 3,823

Plasterers 297

Bricklayers 847

Carpenters 597

Navvies 1,269

Labourers 5,254

“It is a simple proposition in the economy of labour to suggest that housewives get their houses in order early this season in order to give work to the painter and others, and to save the extra money they will have to pay when the men are in demand for the Coronation week.”

* * *

The usual form of “benevolence.” Get the work done now, primarily in the interest of the poor unemployed workman, but incidentally—quite incidentally of course—to save money. That means that the same amount of work will be spread over a longer period at a reduced cost. It means that, in the long run, less wages will be paid. That appears to me to be a good method of increasing poverty—but then, of course, the more poverty there is the greater scope for the “benevolence of love,” for this particular sentiment, like appetite, “glows by what it feeds on.”

* * *

The other brand of benevolence can be witnessed in the spectacle of the kind Liberal Government endeavouring to persuade the aged pauper to leave the workhouse and starve outside on five bob a week. According to a writer in the London Quarterly Review, the cost of London indoor paupers, including all charges, amounts to £34 15s. 11¾d. per head per annum. The benevolence of the law offers them £13, and that fierce democrat, Lloyd George, swells his manly buzzum and talks about “sweeping poverty from every hearth.”

* * *

The fringe of the evil is not touched by such reform, much less does it “strike at the root.” The cause, as Lloyd George admits, “lies deep down in the social system,” where also that antagonism of interest finds its root—in the ownership by a class of the means of life. It is indeed questionable whether George & Co. could do anything if they desired to, as all things work to the interest of those who own.

* * *

A contributor to the Nineteenth Century Magazine (Jan., 1911) says that the introduction of State maintenance means that the husband gives the wife less for housekeeping because the children are now provided for by the benevolence of the State. True, and the unemployed worker will reduce the price of the said husband’s labour-power by the amount so saved in order to obtain a job, and so in a short space of time the average wage will suffer a depreciation equal to the diminution of the burden placed upon it.

Nor does it necessarily follow that money wages will drop. The cost of living of the working class is continually on the increase. The Board of Trade Labour Gazette (January, 1911) shows a steady increase in the price of necessaries. The price of food in 1909 reached a point that has net been recorded since 1884. So, even did money wages remain stationary, the workers’ condition would be worsened. The same official return for Feb., 1911 shows a fall in the total wages bill of £49 per week, while the number of unemployed has increased.

The interest of the ruling class is to rule and to keep a subject class as cheaply as possible and all such alterations will be toward that end.

The interest of the working class is not to be ruled, but to shake from their backs those social parasites who keep them poor and insult them by talking twaddle and endeavouring to prove what is obviously untrue, that these tinkering reforms and proposals are introduced “in the interests of the masses.”

Twel.

Jottings. (1912)

The Jottings Column from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Dean of Lincoln (Dr. Fry), speaking at Kennington recently, gave utterance to the following characteristic remark : “I wake in the morning with a joy I have not known for years to think that we may, in a few weeks, have the Cross over St. Sophia and Constantinople.” Which means, to give it its true interpretation, that if there are any pickings to be had, they mean, vulture like, to be among the first at the feast, brazenly disregarding the fact that the history of Christianity is bloodier even than that of the Turks.

* * *

It is interesting to note with what alacrity the wealthy class have protested against the flogging clause in the White Slave Traffic Bill. One would suppose that they were actuated by motives of honest indignation against a survival of Middle Age methods of torture. To the Socialist, however, the reason is quite clear. For is not this the class from which the “White Slavers” draw most of their clientele ? And are they not responsible in a double sense, inasmuch as it is due to the exploitation of labour by this class that the degradation of women exists, thus making “white slavery” possible.

* * *

According to news from Paris, a lady has been seen in the Champs Elysees, accompanied by her dog, which was wearing india-rubber boots laced high up the legs, ear protectors, goggles to shield the eyes from cold and mud, and a Raglan overcoat lined with, thick flannel, and provided with a pocket from which projected a tiny handkerchief with a monogram on it, with which to wipe its dear little nose.

In order to more fully appreciate the above I cite another instance of riotous extravagance taken from the same paper (“The London Budget,” 27.10.12).

“An old soldier with the best of characters complained to the Westminster magistrate that everything he possessed, except a small bundle, had been taken from him for a balance of 5s. under a hire-purchase agreement and 3s. 6d. for a week’s rent, which he was unable to pay through being out of work. He showed receipts covering a period of two years for instalments amounting to £12 11s. paid for goods priced under the agreement at £12 16s.” After this who wouldn’t prefer a dog’s life ?

* * *

A circular has been going the rounds of late, issued by that confused set of scaremongers known as the Anti-Socialist Union. It is a wild appeal for “help and support,” promising that “neither the names of members nor subscriptions are published without permission.” In the course of the appeal (which is anonymous, as usual) it states that “predatory Socialism” is rampant in the House of Commons. According to the “antis” there were 40 Socialists in Parliament in 1911, and since 1897 the National Debt had risen from £545,171,525 to £733,072,610, ostensibly due to their advent in the House.

This is certainly news to me, yet I would be satisfied if the A.S.U. would furnish the name of one Socialist in Parliament, now or any other time. This sort of stuff may do to frighten the commercial and business class to whom these leeches make their appeal, but to the Socialist it is laughable.

* * *

Here is another sample : “One of the first principles of Socialism is the repudiation of the National Debt. That is why Socialists show no concern at the rapid piling up of the nation’s liabilities.” This is both right and wrong. It is wrong in so far that Socialists do not repudiate the National Debt, for the simple reason that it makes no difference to the workers of this country whether the nation has a big National Debt or none at all. The workers’ condition remains the same. They don’t make the debt, and they don’t pay the debt. Therefore the Socialist doesn’t concern himself with the National Debt, even to the extent of repudiating it. It is right in that the Socialists have no concern with the nation’s liabilities. The liabilities are not theirs, be they piled as high as that beautiful place they tell us about. On the other hand, having regard to the fact that Socialism will not be established except as a world-wide system, all national debts, liabilities, Anti-Socialist Unions, and other capitalist institutions will automatically become defunct. Meanwhile, spread the light !

* * *

Keir Hardie, “the famous British Socialist” (according to the Americans), has recently returned from a lecturing tour in that land “flowing with milk and honey.” Asked by an interviewer how he became a Socialist, Hardie (it is reported) answered : “I can’t just say how my own life turned me to Socialism, I think I got my first ideas from reading Robert Burns and Thomas Carlyle. Then came the New Testament.” Good heavens ! I have several times wondered where he got it from !

It seems that Hardie’s services had been requisitioned to give a fillip to the S.P. of America (an organisation similar to the I.L.P.), since Roosevelt had stolen all their platform, and left with them no distinguishing principles upon which to fight. It had been suggested to the party that Hyndman be asked to perform, but the offer was declined on the score of expense. Instead, Hardie was booked at £10 a lecture !—at least, so grumbles “Justice.” It would be very interesting to know what Hyndman’s figure would have been, seeing that Hardie was considered to be a cheap substitute at £10 a time.

Considering he addressed 43 meetings it cannot be said that he did badly, and yet it certainly was indiscreet of him to tell the interviewer that “the commonsense of humanity is bound to manifest itself sometime.”

Whilst agreeing that this is probable, yet, it seems to me, if its manifestation depends upon the dissemination of Carlyle and the New Testament at £10 a dose, then it is a very long way off indeed. Happily, however, there are teachers of Socialism in the field.

* * *

The Executive of the Labour Party has been wroth with Mr. J. G. Hancock, M.P., because he announced his intention of attending the meetings of the Mid Derby Liberal Association and reporting to them his work in Parliament. The Executive does not see how he can square this attitude with his pledge to support the Labour Party ‘s constitution.

To me there appears to be no difficulty whatever. Events have proved that the Liberal Party stands for all that the Labour Party stands for. Besides, was not Mr. Hancock congratulated years ago by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George on his former successful campaigns in Mid-Derby ? Why was he not pulled up before ? Simply because the Labour Party has known all along that Mr. Hancock was a Liberal. He has never disguised the fact. Again, did not Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself say that Socialism was to be approached, “not by a broad, ready-made road, but through morass, through forests, up hill and down dale, round this corner and that” ? (Oxford, 13.10.11.)

Numerous instances could be cited where Labour M.P.’s have admitted their identity with the Liberal Party. So why blame a member if he elects to go “round this corner and that” ?

* * *

If those who support a Labour policy are desirous of doing a little house-cleaning, they have set themselves a huge task, for upon observation we find the same treachery throughout the movement. On the occasion of the conference of the freedom of the City of Liverpool upon Lord Derby, we find Mr. “Jim” Sexton present on the platform in spite of the resolution passed by his Trades Council, forbidding members to take part in the ceremony. Not satisfied with this, he needs must inform his audience that he “regarded it as a very considerable privilege to be there.” I can quite believe it, and hope Lord Derby will duly appreciate his services. “A small section of the community,” said Sexton, “have expressed, their disapproval, and whilst I do not doubt their sincerity, I cannot appreciate their motives.”

After this is there any doubt as to which class Mr. Sexton is serving ? Of course, nothing will happen. The only difference is that on this occasion a Tory was supported, whereas it is usually the right thing to support a Liberal.

As Mr. W. C. Anderson, the Chairman of the I.L.P., says in the Liberal “Daily Citizen” (13.10.12): “Some would argue that the Labour Party must prove its independence of the Liberals by voting against the Government, even when the Government are supporting some useful (!) reform. But that is not independence: it is much nearer being an advanced stage of political lunacy. On a number of political questions—Lords’ Veto, Plural Votes, and Home Rule—the Liberals are certainly more advanced than the Tories. On all such questions Labour will go into the same lobby with the Liberals without the slightest sacrifice of independence.” Which is quite true. It would be difficult indeed for them to sacrifice something which, for them, does not exist.

At Manchester last month, during the municipal elections, both Labour and B.S.P. candidates signified their willingness, if elected, “to work for the unification of Rates” and “the transference of Rates from property to site values,” for which they were promised the support “by word, deed and vote” of the League of Young Liberals. These are issues, be it noted that are of no import to the workers, but are intended solely to benefit one section of the capitalist class by shifting the rates burden onto the shoulders of another section, incidentally using the worker as a mug in order to accomplish it.

* * *

According to Lady Aberconway, there are “only two ways for a woman of the upper classes to obtain money ; one by inheriting from the dead, and the other by begging from the living.” I venture to affirm that this is not quite correct. There are three ways of getting a living : by working for it, by begging, and by stealing. Knowing that the “upper” class neither work nor beg for their living, there is no other conclusion left us than that they get it by stealing—from the workers.

* * *

Robert Blatchford has recanted on the question of compulsory military service, of which he was such a strenuous advocate. He admits that “universal military service under the control of the ruling ‘classes’ would result in slavery : it would undoubtedly lead to the enslavement of the workers.” (“Clarion,” 1.11.12.) Which is an admission on the part of R.B. that his position, after all his protestations to the contrary, was the wrong one. It has taken him a long time to find it out, which, in itself betrays the fact that he has not devoted much time to the study of Socialism. Seemingly it requires concrete instances, such as the employment of troops as blacklegs in the recent strikes, to force home to him the absurdity of his position. The point is, what becomes now of his “Britain for the British,” seeing that one position conditions the other ?

Tom Sala

Pathfinders: Cheating the reaper (2025)

The Pathfinders Column from the December 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here’s a dark and ghoulish story for your Christmas-time delight. Back in September, just before the wall-to-wall media orgy of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un met up for a big military parade in Beijing, accompanied by their chums Lukashenko of Belarus, Pezeshkian of Iran and Min Aung Hlaing of the Myanmar junta. This self-congratulatory Comic-Con of the Marvel Supervillain Universe was chiefly notable for a ‘hot mic’ moment in which Putin and Xi were overheard talking about the prospects of human longevity. According to reports, the conversation went like this:

Putin (aged 72 at the time): ‘Biotechnology is continuously developing… Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become, and [you can] even achieve immortality.’

Xi (also aged 72): ‘Some predict that in this century humans may live to 150 years old’.

Ha ha, they wish. One of the few consolations of being an elderly worker in capitalism is that no matter how rich these capitalist bastards are, they can’t cheat death any more than you can. This little soundbite reveals that they are keenly aware of that fact too. It’s just not fair, is it? You go to all the trouble of demolishing democracy, crushing your opponents, cowing your population, and making yourself dictator for life, only to have death pull the rug from under you just like it does for the little people.

It’s not just the autocrats, of course. Donald Trump, while not believing in exercise or healthy food, nevertheless appointed ‘longevity enthusiasts’ including RF Kennedy to key health posts. Rich Silicon Valley tech bros like Peter Thiel and Jeff Bezos also harbour Methuselah aspirations, reasoning that if there’s any way to extend life, their money will find it . There are individuals like Bryan Johnson who are so obsessed with longevity that they will put themselves through the most punishing and joyless regimes in order to wring life out to the very last drop. Instead they are likely proof of the old joke that renouncing all pleasures doesn’t make you live longer, it just seems like it .

Though it’s still considered ‘fringe of the fringe’, there is a history of research into longevity, from plasma therapy to fusing old and young mice together, and even injecting pureed monkey testicle into the human scrotum. Instead of seeing death as the great leveller, why not treat it as a preventable disease like any other, for which treatments can be found? The Greenland shark can live for 500 years or more, and only starts dating at 150. There must be sound biological reasons for that, aside from living in a perpetual icebox.

The World Health Organization in 2018 included old age as a disease in its 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, until vigorous protest made them remove it again. For critics, pathologising a universal process involves serious ethical concerns, stigmatising old people as ‘having something wrong with them’ .

And there is the big picture. Death is the reason we exist. If animals didn’t die, there would have been no evolution and therefore no us. If humans became immortal, society might ossify, and you’d have to abolish children. But never mind big pictures and bleeding hearts, think of the profits. ‘They are interested only in the biomolecular and the monetisable… They seemed strangely uncurious [sic] about the enemy they have declared war on. Ageing to them is simply a technical problem that can, and will, be fixed’.

In any case, no one wants to make workers immortal, only the super-rich. Putin, famous for his ludicrous bare-chested-on-a-horse publicity photos, is fixated with being a ‘healthy strongman’, and goes everywhere with ‘an army of doctors’. He doesn’t drink or smoke, and has put billions into anti-ageing research, stem-cell cloning and organ transplant technology. It’s also scurrilously reported that he bathes in deer blood, a traditional Siberian shamanic ‘remedy’. In all this he is no doubt encouraged by his inner circle of hangers-on, who warmly appreciate that keeping him alive is their ticket to staying in power.

What’s the reality behind the hopeful hype? Professor of vaccine immunology John Tregoning points out that you can’t keep swapping out failing organs indefinitely because a) general anaesthetics are a calculated risk that increases with age and each operation, and b) there’s a high risk of MRSA infections, including sepsis, with every transplant op. Putin would be playing Russian Roulette, over and over. Cloned organs are not a thing, so you’d need a lifetime of immuno-suppressants, with an ever-present threat of fatal infections. There is not an endless supply of suitable organs, in fact there’s a world shortage. There is some state-of-the-art work using genetically modified pig organs, but if you survive six months after a transplant, that is considered an ‘amazing feat’.

Meanwhile, Tregoning adds, the rest of your body would still be ageing. The largest organ is your skin, and how would you replace that? ‘Even if you could replace all of the internal organs, you’d need to replace your muscles, your bone, your skin, everything is aging at fairly constant rates…. Just putting a new heart in is like taking a 1980s Ford Cortina and putting a brand new Porsche engine in and expecting it to run fine’.

On top of all that, brain connectivity declines over time too, and there’s no known way to reset that. There is some horizon research into a class of drugs called senolytics, which eat dead cells and scar tissue and may be a way to reboot the human body from the inside out, but for now they only work with fruit flies and nematode worms, and have toxic side effects.

Happily, today’s ruthless autocrats stand no chance of cheating the reaper. But new ones will replace them as long as capitalism survives. The world’s workers need to wield the political scythe where it would do most good.

Paddy Shannon

What We Are After. (1908)

From the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has for its OBJECT:

The establishment of 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 interest of the whole community.

Obviously the present social system is not so based. Its characteristics, class division and antagonism, riches and poverty, overwork and idleness, its law, public institutions and mentality, arise from and have their basis in the ownership and control of these means and instruments by a small part of society—the members of the capitalist class. Our wealthy mentors and their Press and platform hirelings admit as much when they tell us that if we abolish the “sacred rights of property” the whole social fabric will totter to the ground, even though, they conclude with the gratuitous assumption that “anarchy and chaos” will follow.

So that there may be no mistake, let us at once state which are the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution that Socialism demands shall be owned in common and controlled democratically. They are those winch are essential to the community’s well-being—those which it is worth the people’s while to acquire, hold and administer ; which, as private property, enable their owners to get rent, profit or interest—those things, in short, which enable their possessors to exploit the workers. Thus the carpenter’s favourite plane, the wife’s knitting needles and a host of other odds and ends that deluded opponents of Socialism love to quibble over are excluded. The means of production and distribution that count, that are indispensible and worth going after, are, broadly speaking, the land, factories, warehouses, machinery, ships and railways.

Given, then, such a fundamental change in the basis of society as will be the social control of industry, in place of the existing private control, and tremendous changes must inevitably follow in the whole social superstructure. The capitalist-landlord class, deprived of its unearned incomes, will either have to come and do its quota of necessary labour like the rest of us, or accept the alternative it offers us workers—starvation. The census of 1901 shows that there were then 663,656 adult men who did not even profess to have any occupation. These “gentlemen” together with their numerous female dependents, and the myriads of domestic servants who pander to their luxury, constitute a potential supply of labour power which, when applied, will help to vastly increase the supply of goods and services available to the community. The thousands of clerks to-day employed in booking profits will, with the abolition of the profits system, be set free for work of social utility. The same applies to the innumarable agents, commercial travellers, advertisers, printers, redundant shopkeepers and assistants.

There being no longer an enslaved class to keep in subjection and no longer any need to forcibly hold markets or protect capitalist investments abroad, the stupendous amount of energy now wasted in the maintenance of arnies and navies will become available for the satisfaction of society’s needs.

Thus at a stroke tho establishment of the Socialist Republic involves an immense increase in the productive powers of the community, and consequently of the possibilities of enjoyment and of leisure ; and further, the abolition of war and vice-breeding, parasitic idleness. The security of well-rewarded, brief labour would spread over the land a happy and bony people.

The condition that necessarily follows from the attainment of the OBJECT of the S.P.G.B. is then, seen to be infinitely preferable to the conditions at present obtaining, at least from the workers’ standpoint.

The product of industry now divided into a small part wages and a large part profits will then remain entirely with and at the disposal of the industrious. Then invention and more economical methods will not, as now, spell unemployment and misery, but greater comfort and leisure, giving opportunities for such, physical and mental development as but few of the working class even hope for to-day.

Many poor, half-fed workers, carefully gulled by the political and journalistic organs of the beneficiaries of the present system, will bring forward this and that (as they think) awkward question and objection ; but if they will reason out logically the consequences that flow from the S.P.G.B. Object applied to each case they have in mind, and compare the results as they affect themselves and those they love, with the results of the present capitalist system, they will realise, indeed, that the workers have nothing to lose but their chains, and a world to win.

By reasoning out for themselves and finding out the correct answer to the often trilling difficulties and objections brought against Socialism, instead of asking someone to think them out for them, our fellow working men and women will the sooner enjoy the novel satisfaction of being less often tricked and misled. Then, indeed, we shall be making headway toward our goal, realising that in Socialism, understood and fought for by a wide-awake and ever vigilant democracy, lies our only hope.

J. H. Halls

Forum: The Relation of Princes to Pauperism. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

The following is suggested as a suitable

Open Letter to Prince Arthur of Connaught.

Dear Arthur,—Has it not occurred to you that your visit to Glasgow to feast at the expense of the ratepayers displayed the worst possible taste, seeing that thousands of people were without bare necessities of life, owing to the fact that the parasite class to which you belong own and control the means by which the working-class live? Had a brick-bat been hurled at your royal nose you would only have had yourself to blame. You must not think that you will be allowed to insult the people’s poverty with impunity. You who have so much leisure time ought to begin to understand the trend of events. The people are gradually awakening from their long sleep, and the day is coming when a nod from a lord will cease to be a breakfast to a fool. When the working class understand their economic servitude to the master class, they will set about taking over the means of producing and distributing wealth in their own interest. At such time the gilded puppets who now mock the people’s woe will be found some useful job at which there will be some possibility of them growing into men.

—Yours fraternally, J. H. K.

#    #    #    #

What princes of the blood, or princes without blood, may do at the expense of the ratepayers does not affect the working class, who are not ratepayers, tuppence. Whether Prince Arthur is an amiable or callous fool, a gentleman of polish or a vulgar snob, doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. From a working-class point of view he is no more than a portion of the frilling of the capitalist system. When Socialism supplants the capitalist system out go princes of the blood. The only point in the visit of Connaught minor to the high priced junketting of the city fathers of Glasgow at a time when thousands of men women, and children in that “municipal Mecca” were (and are) literally on the verge of starvation, consists in the callous indifference of capitalism to the sufferings of the working class and the utter hypocrisy of the pretence of monetary shortage. If this assists in bringing home to the workers of Glasgow the futility of expecting the employing class to do anything more than they are absolutely scared into doing to ameliorate the sufferings of the unemployed it will have served its turn. The workers must however, always remember that, although the capitalists under pressure are prepared to give out of their hoard, derived from the robbery of Labour, some comparatively small percentage in doles, they are not, prepared to relinquish their powers to rob. They will fight to retain these to the last ditch. And as this accentuated poverty problem will always recur while the capitalist class hold to their powers, the workers’ only hope is to consciously organise themselves for the fight that must precede such an alteration in the present system as will secure for the wealth producing class the wealth that class produces. That way—by organisation on Socialist lines for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism, they will scare the doles out of the capitalists to-day, and at the same time forward their ultimate object. Organisation for the Revolution, therefore, will get that “something now” for which the one-step-at-a-time reformer pleads in support of his method, without setting back the revolutionary movement. Invariably this set back results from the adoption of the reformers’ idea of concentrating upon a particular immediate reform, for the obvious reason that the reform when realised is painfully limited in its operations—as all reforms must necessarily be—and not having the ameliorative effect that the workers in their ignorance may have expected, disappointment is bred, and out of that apathy, and that stagnating indifference that is almost the despair of the propagandist of Socialism.

50 Years Ago: Film Censorship and the Workers (1982)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is sometimes amusing, when temporarily relaxing from the stern realities of the struggle for existence, to notice the care taken by our masters for our moral welfare. This is exemplified by the recent warning of the Board of Film Censors to the film industry on the subject of “daring” films. Leaving aside the question of what are desirable or undesirable films, the warning in question is an example of the arrogance of the master class in claiming to decide what is good for us.

Commenting upon this in the “News-Chronicle" of 18/2/32, E. A. Baughan says:—

  Indeed, one could wish it were possible that the Board of Censors extended its veto and banned those films, mainly of American origin, which show how the wealthy classes waste their money (to put it at the lowest) in senseless orgies. What kind of effect must these pictures have on men and women who have the greatest, difficulty in buying the necessaries of existence?

Thus we are not only to be deprived of any temptation to forsake the straight path of virtue, but we may even be deprived of witnessing at secondhand the manner in which our masters enjoy their leisure, for fear it might make us just a wee bit jealous.

[From an article "Social Contrasts" by R. Milborne, in the Socialist Standard, August 1932.]

Nature study —the Cuckoo (1949)

A Short Story from the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The common cuckoo that lays its eggs in the nests of other birds, and lets them have the bother of rearing them is well known. This article deals with the habits of the Wingless Cuckoo or Parasitus Capitalismus.

This magnificent specimen has gone much further than the old type. For instance, the one that flies leaves the nest when fully grown, not so our second species.

The Wingless Cuckoo, so called because it never flies from the nest, has a neat racket.

The species developed very quickly in the 19th century, out of an earlier kindred type known as the Merchantus Parasitus. There were many intervening centuries between the early appearance of this bird and its fully-fledged descendant.

The Parasitus Capitalismus does not throw the young chicks of the parent birds out of the nest. It is astute enough to know that after the death of its hosts it requires other generations to bring it food.

It claimed the ownership of all the worms and grubs that birds eat. The new Cuckoo then said to the other birds, that is, to the male ones, “If I allow you to collect my worms for me, I shall let you have enough worms to feed you and your family.”

Then came the next bright idea: “If I give the male bird too few worms, then his female mate will also have to collect worms for me. If I work it right then I need only give them the same amount of worms between them and yet have two collecting agents working for me.”

The moral was obvious and was soon extended to the little members of the family.

It is said that after a number of years with many birds collecting for them, some of the Cuckoos used to say, “I came into this nest with no feathers on my back and by sheer hard work I now have an enormous pile of worms.”

Of course they never said whose hard work. Some bird-watchers perceived that the greediness of the Cuckoo was having a bad effect on the other birds. They were being allowed so little, that they were dying pretty quickly.

These bird-watchers realised that if the birds all died, then the Parasitus Capitalismus would soon become extinct itself. So they attempted to warn others of the danger.

Some wrote heart-rending stories of birds asking for more in the workhouse, and such-like tales. You see they did not wish the death of their favourite species.

They were fairly safe in writing stories, because at the time only the Cuckoos and the Cuckoo’s favourite servants could read.

The Cuckoos at last realised that something must be done (or more correctly, some realised and did so well out of it that the others followed suit).

A system called mass-catching was devised whereby each bird did only one operation, one bird with sharp eyes spotted the worms, one with a sharp beak picked them up and a pelican carried them back to the cuckoos’ nest. Yes, by now the nest had become the cuckoos’ and not the tenants’ property.

Thus they were able to leave the younger generation and yet still get more worms.

You might ask what do the other birds get out of this? The answer is as little as will keep them at work hunting or catching or carrying worms and slugs for the Cuckoos.

Then you will probably say, as there are more birds than there are Cuckoos why do they not band together and throw them out of the nest?

Again the answer is a simple one; the majority of them do not yet realise why they work all day and yet get precious few worms. They have not tumbled to it. When they do find out, they will know what to do.

A few of them have already done so, and are busy spreading the news abroad. What they need is the help of all you other bird lovers; so come on, lend a claw, and help us abolish Cuckooism.

J.J.S.

Cuttings and Comments. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Consider ye the millionaires, how they toil not, neither spin, yet Solomon in all his glory couldn’t buy the gasoline for their automobiles. How do they manage to do it? It’s a cinch. You are foolish enough to work and they are sensible enough to let you. By ‘abstinence and thrift’ they have succeeded in gobbling everything in sight, so that when your poetic soul is filled with the noble aspiration to toil, you have to do it with their tools, in their factories. Whatever you make should logically belong to them. And it does. Out of the fulness of their pocketbooks they humanely return you enough so that you may live to work another day, and all goes as merry as a funeral until their warehouses are filled to overflowing. Then it becomes manifestly impossible for them to allow you to work any longer. You have been gluttonous and intemperate instead of taking your work in decent moderation and look what you’ve done.”

–++–

The reference to millionaires in the above extract from the Western Clarion (Vancouver, B.C.) reminds one of the Harmsworth publication, entitled, “Fortunes made in Business,” in which it is stated that

“The House of Rothschild is to-day one of the greatest powers of the world. Its members exercise more direct influence on human affairs than perhaps any king. Its agents, mostly unknown, are at work in a hundred lands. It creates new nations. At the bidding of its members kings stay their campaigns. . . . The total of their wealth can only be imagined. In the great capitals of Europe they hold their court—the money lords of the Eastern world. Their nod could produce, if they wished, the greatest financial panic the world has ever seen, sending hundreds of thousands to ruin almost in a day.”

–++–

The apologists of the capitalist system declare that the “common people” rule in this “democratic age.” The words quoted above will be useful to our propagandists who run up against such flapdoodlers.

–++–

From the same series we learn that the foundation of the Rothschild’s wealth was laid by an incident that occurred when Europe was in arms against Bonaparte. Hearing that Napoleon had sent an army to seize him and sack his country, the Landgrave of Hesse took flight, but before doing so he handed over his gold and art treasures to Rothschild (Mayer Anselm of that ilk) to mind. The Jew buried them and after the soldiers had left, having failed to discover anything, dug them up and sent the bullion to his son (Nathan Mayer) in London. He used it and luck being with him multiplied it exceedingly. Had Waterloo gone against the British, the Rothschilds would probably have been ruined and would certainly have lost the Landgrave’s millions. As it was, however, they were enabled to return his money and also considerable profits.

–++–

It is always advisable to be successful when you set out to gamble with others’ property. If you fail, you will probably be sent to jail, as often happens to solicitors and others who try to emulate the deeds of the Rothschilds and gamble with wealth entrusted to them to “mind.” But if you succeed and succeed on a sufficiently large scale, you will be appointed to high places in the State and may “exercise more influence on human affairs than perhaps any king.”

–++–

“We will never have Socialism until the working class become conscious of being a class and a disinherited class, and until as the result of this class consciousness they struggle as a class for the institution of a society in which they will be equal participators with all at the festal board of humanity.”

Wilshire’s Magazine (New York).

–++–

Messrs. J. Keir Hardie and J. Bruce Glasier of the Independent Labour Party, which Mr. Wilshire in his journal supports, declare there is no class war ; they say it is a “shibboleth” and a “reactionary and whiggish precept, certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism.”

–++–

But political job hunters will say anything.

–++–

“With a Labour party on a trade union basis Liberals could always work in sympathy, although they could not go the whole way with them. With a Labour party which had become the instrument of revolutionary Socialist propaganda they could have nothing to do. They accept Sir Henry Fowler’s words spoken so opportunely at Wolverhampton this week. With a scheme such as the Hull Conference has adopted for “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange,” Liberals “will have nothing to do ; they will oppose it to the utmost; they will oppose it in the interests of commerce and industry, and in the interests of the people themselves.”—Daily Chronicle, Jan. 24th.

–++–

Those who really understand Socialism know that neither Liberals nor Tories will help it along, they will fight it to the bitter end. That is why they advise the workers to abstain from voting for candidates of these parties. And when organisations such as the Social-Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party not only urge the working class to vote Liberal but also make arrangements with them for dividing the working-class vote it is evident that they do not really understand the principles of revolutionary Socialism.

–++–

“The laboring class, who perform the work of the world, must sell themselves to the ruling class. They cannot produce independent of the owners of the machines, mines and factories, because under competition only the cheapest production demands the best, most expensive and complicated machines. They are compelled, because of the fact that social progress and private property in improved machines is making vast numbers of them unnecessary in the process of production, to fight among themselves for any opportunity to live. If they are to rise an atom above the slaves’ portion, they must unite and fight side by side against the class of exploiters,”

–++–

Thus says the International Socialist Review for Australasia, but to fight against the class of exploiters means to fight against them all the time, not to oppose them in one district and support them in another as has been the practice of the professing Socialist parties, the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., in this country.

–++–

“If I have to take money from you does it matter whether I take it from your right or your left pocket ?” asked the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain in one of his Tariff Reform speeches.

–++–

As the working class must be exploited by the master class, does it matter to the former whether the latter call themselves Liberals or Tories, Christians or Jews, Imperialists or Little Englanders, Protestants or Catholics ?

–++–

“It (a minimum wage for State employment) should be fixed at such a sum that whilst it would be sufficient to support life on a scale of decency it would not unduly tax the resources of the capitalist system to afford it,” says Mr. H. Russell Smart, of the Independent Labour Party, in his pamphlet, “The Right to Work.”

–++–

How anxious the I.L.P. leaders are not to “unduly tax the capitalist system” ! Can the Socialist omelette be made without breaking the capitalist egg ?

–++–

At Fairbairn Hall, Canning Town, on Feb. 14, Cllr. J. Jones, S.D.F., in his well-known manly manner, persistently interrupted the speech of Mr. Masterman, M.P., on the Unemployed. When the speaker declared that the most he hoped for from the Farm Colony was that it would improve the men’s physical condition, Councillor Jones shouted: “Yes, for their masters to exploit them and make more money out of them.” Jones denouncing palliatives is a sight for gods and men.

50 Years Ago: The Unhappy Rich (1962)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Replying to Mr. H. G. Wells apropos of his article on “What Labour Wants” (quoted “Daily News” 5.6.12.), Mr. John Ward, MP remarks: “I am bound to say that I have never in all my experience met with any evidence of jealousy on the part of the working classes in reference to the employment (!) of the wealthy. All the elaborate pictures of envy, hatred, and uncharitableness are practically the outcome of the imagination. In their special way the working people get as much pleasure out of life as the wealthier classes.”

* 

Of course they do ! The pleasure is all theirs, John. And believe me, they haven’t a bit of thought for the rich. Look what ingratitude they show when the rich come along and offer to share their profits with them, or take them into partnership. It really isn’t good enough John, and I’m glad you’ve had the courage to speak your mind. Look at the fun they’ve been having just lately—going on strike, fighting inoffensive bobbies, upsetting the equilibrium of trade, in fact, playing the very devil generally. Of course, it’s all a part of their pleasure “in their special way.” When they are not having fun of this description I suppose they are busy with motor-cars, their yachting trips and their racing stables, which they quite overlook the cares and responsibilities that the unfortunate rich are compelled to undergo. You see, John, the question of what to do with their income is such a serious one, they haven’t time to spare a thought for anyone but themselves. 

* 

Selfishness, of course. But the time is coming, John, when the rich will be relieved of their “employment” and its consequent anxieties and responsibilities, and given a rest. In fact, I believe the need for them will be abolished altogether. So you can console yourself, John, with the thought that their woes will soon be over. I can assure you they’ll get all that’s coming to them.

[From the Socialist Standard, July 1912.]

Who are the malingerers? (1938)

From the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

To be unemployed means to be without work to do. But who is likely to worry much about that ? Does work give us such a grand and glorious feeling that we need lose sleep over its absence?

It may be true, it certainly is true, that labour is “an eternal nature-imposed necessity” to secure the continued existence of the human race, but it is equally true that the march of humanity from savagery to civilisation has been largely motivated by the desire to avoid “work" or to lighten its load. That in this process more and more work has been effected is another side of the story. Whichever way one cares to look at the matter the fact is that work in modern society has assumed such paramount importance that people have actually demanded the "right to work.” It was this that prompted Paul Lafargue, the able and witty son-in-law of Marx, to summon the working class to proclaim the “right to be lazy.”

The Unemployment Assistance Board has undertaken an enquiry into the "causes of prolonged unemployment in individual cases.” Lord Rushcliffe, chairman of the Board, in his report for the year 1937, says that—"It is expected that, as a result of this enquiry, information of great practical importance will be obtained. It has already become clear that there is a considerable number of men and women who have lost interest and are content to remain on unemployment allowance.” The report goes on to point out that—"There are those whose unemployment is due to wilful idleness, who avoid or refuse work when it is obtainable, or throw up jobs upon some flimsy pretext.” It is admitted in this report that the percentage of such cases is small, “but the number is sufficiently large to cause the Board much concern.” That ”much concern” is ominous! From inquiries made in December over 250,000 of the male applicants to the Board were 45 years of age or over, and of such men about 140,000 were 55 years of age or over. Nearly one-third of the men of these ages have been unemployed continuously for three years or more. But the significance of another statement contained in this report may, we are afraid, pass unnoticed. “It is obviously against good policy,” says the report, “that an able-bodied person when out of work and dependent upon public funds for support should be as well off as or, indeed, better off than he would be in work.” What a handsome reward for work there must be that it can be so bluntly stated that men are better off without it.

We are told that half the male applicants declare normal wages of less than fifty shillings per week. In about six per cent., or over 30,000 of the cases, the applicant was receiving an allowance from the Board which was within four shillings of his normal wages. And what is normal wages? The following instances are given in the report. Applicant, aged 48, wife and eight children—scale allowance, 54s., normal wages, 38s., allowance paid, 45s. Applicant, aged 31, wife and seven children—scale allowance, 48s. 7d., normal wages, 40s. 6d., allowance paid, 45s. These are figures that tell their own story, but let us leave it at that for the moment, we have some comments to make. This Britain, which is called ours, but which in reality does not belong to 90 per cent. of the population, is one of the richest parts of the world. Yet, significantly enough, this is but another way of saying that poverty is as commonplace here as anywhere on the earth's surface. For riches and poverty exist side by side under capitalism as surely as night follows day; the one lives, leech-like, on the other’s existence. The wealth of this country or of the world does not descend from heaven, nor does it grow from the earth in the manner of a tropical vegetation.

The rich or ruling class lives, as it can only live, on the proceeds of the labour of the poor, and the poor are the people who are known as workers. They work for the benefit of others because, as things are, they have no other means of obtaining a livelihood. But our highly industrialised, civilised form of society is such that not even all those who are able and willing to work have the opportunity of so doing. At the moment there are roughly about 1,750,000 men and women in this country unemployed. This means that the rich, or employing class, can find no profitable use for them. But the time is past when the ruling class can with safety to itself leave so vast a number of people to starve, they cannot be left to rot and die. Hence we have the “dole” and Poor Law Relief, besides various charity societies ministering to “the poor and needy.” Of course, the whole thing is at bottom a gigantic swindle. For take a glance at the position of those who have need of the dole or Poor Law Relief and charity. They belong to the only useful class in modern society, the only class which actually produces the wealth of the world. The wheels of industry and commerce are dependent for their motion not upon the rich but upon the poor. But what is their reward for all this under capitalism? If the average worker is fortunate enough to be in employment for the major portion of his life, he generally finishes up much as he began, without means and often in debt. Throughout their entire lifetime the workers’ experience is usually a “hand-to-mouth” existence. It has been calculated that out of a total population of 47 millions 13½ millions are seriously undernourished, are compelled to eke out a miserable existence on less than six shillings per week to spend on food.

As we are writing these notes there comes to hand a Press report of a woman charged with stealing goods valued £8 10s. She stated in defence that she stole the goods to sell them to buy food for her children. Two years ago her husband had to go into hospital through eye trouble, the eye was finally removed. Meanwhile, she fell into arrears with the rent and her home was taken from her. When the husband left the hospital he was confronted with the double problem of finding work and a home.

On being asked by the magistrate what she had for dinner the previous day the woman replied—” The children had an egg, I had a corned beef sandwich, and my husband had nothing.”

The woman was placed on probation for twelve months!

The Grand Contrast

But the above state of affairs does not apply to all. The ten per cent. of the population who practically own “this England of ours” experience no such sensations. They live without fear of economic insecurity, in luxury, are never “out of work”—and never in. The same editions of the capitalist Press reporting the case mentioned above and the “concerns” of the Public Assistance Board display picture after picture of the grand scenes at Ascot, that historical annual parade ground of every conceivable kind of social parasite.

“Ascot,” says a leader writer in the Daily Telegraph, “is like the King’s Birthday, the Tower Bridge, the cliffs of Dover, It has a purpose and a meaning. Do not run away with the idea that it is merely a race meeting. It is part of the English scene, as integral as a pack of hounds, a coster in his pearlies or a field of buttercups.” May we say that we haven't the slightest doubt about the integrity of it all. Ascot is as much an integral part of our great British tradition as the poverty of the woman who was placed on twelve months’ probation or that of the workers in general.

The King and Queen lead the way in the Ascot procession, not the stable lads who were recently on strike for a wage barely above the subsistence level. As a prelude a large dinner party was held in the Waterloo chamber of Windsor Castle. At this function the Press announced that the famous Windsor gold plate was in view on a specially-constructed stand and illuminated with tubular lighting. On the racecourse itself, “Beautifully-tailored coats and skirts of pastel-tinted silks were a dress feature.” The Duchess of Kent “wore a triple row of large pearls round her throat, after the style of a choker necklace, and had diamond clips in her hair.” And so on is one celebrity after another described in these Ascot scenes, which might conjure up to the mind the Arabian Nights or a horde of painted savages, whichever way one cares to look at it.

Shortly the King and Queen will visit Paris and their visit is to be marked by a banquet to be held in the Hall of Mirrors.

“M. Carton, President of the Association of the Chefs of France, has called for ten of the best-known chefs to collaborate with him in the preparation of the meal,” There is no mention in this forthcoming event about corned beef sandwiches. Perhaps those are reserved for the French waiters, to remind them of the great slogan of the French Revolution: "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.”

Now the Public Assistance Board have nothing to do with the class of people who dominate the Ascot parades. It is not they who are referred to as malingerers. Yet they are the people who “toil not, neither do they spin.” The wealth they enjoy is obtained from the blood and sweat of the working class. Among the men who are described by the Public Assistance Board as having been continuously unemployed for three years are those who have helped to make possible the wonderful clothes and ornamentation of these Ascot and other “society” gatherings. Malingering is a disease arising from the anarchy generated in human relationships through class exploitation. To live without working, to live above the standard of those who have to work, that is the hall-mark of “success” in capitalist society. Parasitism is an essential part of social life to-day, therefore, the fact that here and there a few who belong to the working class may sometimes attempt to “get by” without work is but mere child's-play when it is compared with the gigantic exploitation by ten per cent. of the population of the other ninety per cent. Socialism will end social parasitism in every form. Experience proves that when people are given decent and reasonably healthy conditions in which to work they do not shrink from the task. Even the report of the Public Assistance Board is compelled to admit that “of the 451,700 homes covered by the inquiry, 415,060, or 91.9 per cent., were described as well-kept, and only 36,640, or 8.1 per cent., ill-kept.” Further, the percentage of “ill-kept homes is, as might be expected, lowest where the dwelling is of good type."

When the workers awaken to an understanding of the causes of their social conditions they will realise the mockery and insults heaped upon them by the real malingerers, those who live upon the proceeds of their exploitation. The Socialist Party urges the working class to study their position to-day and to end it through Socialism.

Robert Reynolds

The Future of Leisure (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The phrase “working for a living” suggests a distinction between working and living which most people accept. But if “working occupies five or six days a week and fifty weeks a year, how much “living” is left?

That was the challenging question put to readers of the “Radio Times” some little while ago, in describing a programme on “What is Work?” The question is of particular interest to socialists, who advocate a form of society in which such a distinction between working and living (or the division of living into work and leisure) will no longer be recognised.

The present division which exists for most people between their work and their leisure is the product of historical conditions. Probably the concept of leisure as something apart from and opposed to work was unknown in societies in which there was no privileged class. Some primitive people have no word for “work” —work is for them the expression of living. And even the class-divided Greek civilisation evolved no separate word for leisure—the word they used also meant “school.”

The handicraftsman and artisan received a certain satisfaction from the work they did. They made whole articles, and used their skill and inventiveness to overcome the difficulties which arose. They were really educated by their labour. But the manufacturing division of labour under Capitalism has changed all that. A large proportion of workers are relegated to monotonous machine-minding and office routine, and few are able to gain real satisfaction from their work.

Even those who do make things that are useful to people often do not gain the pleasure of a good job well done, because of the tyranny of clocking-in, speeding-up, and down-to-a-price quality of products. Capitalist and worker alike are dominated by the need to compete successfully with others, since failure means an end to their “living"—yet success is bought only at the price of orienting one's life to goals that are trivial and artificial instead of basic and real.

Leisure Class

The emergence of a class in society that is not compelled to participate in production coincided with the beginning of private ownership. A leisure class was the outgrowth of an early discrimination between employments, some being considered worthy (“exploit” by the males) and other unworthy (drudgery by the females).

“During the predatory culture labour comes to be associated in men’s habits of thought with weakness and subjection to a master. It is therefore a mark of inferiority and, therefore, comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his best estate. By virtue of this tradition labour is felt to be debasing, and this tradition has never died out. . . . In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence. . . . A life of leisure is the readiest and most conclusive evidence of pecuniary strength and, therefore, of superior force; provided always that the gentleman of leisure can live in manifest ease and comfort.”—(“The Theory of the Leisure Class” Veblen, p. 36-8.)

Yet the fact remains that work is the foundation of any society. Hence, the value of work to society should be its prime consideration. But because, within property society, the dominating ideas arise from people who need not toil, and because a substitute for satisfaction from work must be found for millions who know it only as an evil necessity, leisure becomes the supreme goal.

Employment is a necessity imposed upon all but a privileged few. Consequently there comes to be a divergence between the conditions of working “for a living” and the kind of life which is held out by supporters of the system as desirable. The message preached is that the end of life is idleness and enjoyment. But workers, having absorbed the message, must return to the factory or office to earn the money without which they cannot live.

Machinery of Amusement

The means of mass influence—press, cinema, radio and television—all focus attention on those aspects of our lives that have nothing to do with everyday tasks. People figure in the “news” who are notable only for having money and time to spend. The constant display of wealth and leisure as desirable ends influences the standards of those who seek an outlet to express themselves which the conditions of their work deny them.

Various factors have combined to oust the old family-gathering type of popular leisure—doing has given way to watching and listening. Probably the Victorian party-piece was not as happily endured as many would have us believe, nor is the advent of television the unmitigated evil that some suppose. Nevertheless, leisure has largely taken on the form of a commodity that is passively consumed rather than an experience that is actively enjoyed. As Henry Durant writes in “The Problem of Leisure":

“All forms of leisure have become commercialised, endless devices are offered to the idle person, each to be enjoyed only on condition that he has money to pay. Without money he is condemned, unable to share in the pleasure and pastimes which press on him from all sides. But commercialisation does not merely erect a gate through which only those with the necessary fee can pass. It has a profound effect also on the nature of the fare offered. The ’machinery of amusement’ is run by business men actuated by business motives. Their concern is not primarily with the character of the entertainment or amusement they provide, for it is merely the means to the end of making profits.”

The ways in which leisure is spent are unavoidably influenced by the prevailing conditions of employment. Take, for example, the workers on a belt system in a factory who, in the course of their work, use only a small part of their brain capacity and nervous system. To stave off monotony their off-duty hours are mostly spent in such feverish pleasures as speedway and the more hectic forms of dancing—and their nervous systems inevitably suffer.

When work lacks interest it is either forgotten altogether on “knocking off” or else it is the subject of grumbling. It is not complimentary to be told that you can never forget your work; and those who do take their socially useless work seriously often develop boring personalities and have few interests outside their daily occupations.

Self-expression

Here we can do no more than touch upon the various ways in which people search today for something different, something outside of their own drab existence. The cinema is an obvious example that springs to mind, but there are others that are not so often considered. All the preparations, the plans, the excitements and the ballyhoo that surrounded the recent Coronation surely demonstrate the emptiness of most people's everyday lives. And what of the weekly football pool coupon that excites study and comment out of all proportion to its importance? The punters are members of a Happy Circle, so they are told—and the atmosphere of mock geniality is shattered only when a court action is brought over winnings. Then it is admitted that the “Happy Circle" is just an advertising circular.

Some imagine that the socialist revolution either will or ought to bring a state of affairs where all will spend their leisure as the wealthy do now. Certainly the atmosphere in which they move is one to which the adjective “drab" hardly applies. Yet if you ask those who minister to the “needs" of the élite whether the latter really have the control over their environment that is the mark of free men, then the answer may surprise you. According to one writer, for instance, the rich take up gambling more or less because they are driven to it—they find they are “out of it" unless they join in roulette or whatever happens to be in vogue. And so they drift from one aimless diversion to another . . .

Whilst the first onset of mechanisation has taken all the joy from work, it may be predicted that its final result will be to return to human activities a freedom that is absent today. Man will then possess the machines and use them selectively, thus restoring dignity to all human occupations. Labour, in Marx's words, will be not merely a means to live, but itself the primary necessity of life.

Stan Parker

Letter: Big money (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Big money

Further to my letter about top brass salaries and the labour theory of value, here is a news item from the Daily Mail 3.3.76. Sir Richard Dobson’s salary from British Leyland is £22,500 per annum or £450 per week and he got an £80,000 golden handshake when he left British American Tobacco. The Prime Minister defended Sir Richard’s appointment, arguing that “a rather wise, elder statesman” was needed.

What wealth does their costly labour-power produce? Supply and demand is a lame excuse as there are dozens of understudies who can do their “jobs”.

In fact they are absentee directors as well and assistants don’t produce a pea but get good pay. Well, how are these huge “wages” fixed according to the socially-necessary-labour theory embodied in a managing director as with a dustman? plus a few cigars at £80,000 for recreation?

Look at the pages of closely printed money — capital going into billions — in the Financial Times, chasing investment, creating nothing, getting a fat living out of dishing out other people’s surplus-value cash. It’s incredible!

Harold Shaw

Gloucester

Reply:

We think you are confusing two issues. First, as we said in our reply (April SS), some capitalists have nominal occupations, most commonly as “directors”, for tax purposes. An example in The Sun, 26th April, is of Peter Parker, proud to be a “socialist” and a capitalist. The Sun states that he has “a Rolls- Royce, splendid homes, no end of directorships, and an income around £55,000.” Enormous incomes mentioned elsewhere in the April SS represented shareholdings — not wages.

On the other hand members of the working class are employed as executives. The production of surplus-value is easiest explained first in terms of those actually engaged in production, but it must be understood as a social process. Capitalism is a complex system which needs banking, salesmen, advertising and management etc. It is the working class as a whole which runs this system. Socialist society will not require people to occupy prestige and leadership positions, but these jobs are necessary to capitalism.

We think you should raise your sights beyond the fact that some workers receive amounts much in excess of the wages earned by the majority. Our opposition is to the capitalist system itself.

Editors.

The Capitalists’ “Directive Ability”. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Lessons from recent happenings.

The Need for the Parasite.

One of the stock arguments of the anti-Socialist is that the worker will be unable to control industry under Socialism, as, in order to enable affairs to run smoothly, men are required with some weird, mysterious and miracle-working power called “directive ability.” The “anties” contend that we could not get along without these powerful individuals, and that (grande finale) these men are the ones who to-day possess wealth and position, i.e., the Rockefellers, Liptons, Devonports, and so on.

Let us just test this contention with a few facts and see how the miracle-workers run this system.

During the last few months a case has been attracting much attention in the courts. In this case certain civilians (past or present employees of Liptons, Ltd.) and some Army officers have been accused under the Bribery and Corruption Acts. In the evidence it transpired that Liptons have been in the habit of giving inducements to Army officers to secure Army canteen contracts. One of the defendants, Col. Whitaker, had received £540 from a firm of brewers, who supplied the beer to Col. Whitaker’s regiment at Malta. The Colonel said that he received the greater part of the money for using his influence to secure a contract from a colonel of a regiment at Crete. It also turned in the evidence that a member of the Government, Lord Saye and Sele, had written advising Col. Whitaker to take a holiday and go to Crete to “smooth a ruffled bird” (Col. Bird) for a consideration !

In summing up the case the judge said : “I am bound to say that the evidence before the Court satisfies me that these defendants, employed by Lipton’s, in so far as they made payments for the bribery of persons capable of influencing contracts in favour of Lipton’s, were acting on a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, after there had been consideration given as to whether to stop that system or not.” (“Times,” 28.5.14.)

Now is this the way the capitalists run the show ? Is this the way they pile up their fortunes ? Is this the line “Directive Ability” takes ? When the capitalists themselves are faced with these facts and called to account, what do they answer ? Just what Lipton would have answered : “We do not know anything about it ; we did not attend to the business. You must blame our managers.'”

Tarred with the Same Brush.

Those who have memories a little longer than the usual working-class memory will recollect that when the directors of the company con­cerned in the Putumayo rubber atrocities were brought before the commission, four of them admitted that they did not even know the lan­guage in which the business at board meetings was conducted !

Let us now turn to another recent instance of “Directive Ability.”

The coalfields of Colorado have lately been drenched with the blood of miners who struck against the conditions obtaining in the mines of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co. A condition of affairs was in operation out there similar to what existed in England before the factory legislation began. The miners were compelled to trade at the company’s store, paying 25 to 50 per cent. more than outside prices, to buy coal off the company, pay the company’s doctor, and live in the company’s shacks.

When the miners struck on September 3rd last wholesale evictions followed, and men, women, and children were turned into the streets with their few belongings, to go where they could in the rain and snow that kept falling through the next two days.

A Heroic (Rocke)feller.

During the strike the mine-owners, following their usual custom, imported as mine guards riff-raff of every description—armed thugs who could be depended upon to commit without hesitation the most cold-blooded of murders. “No authentic account,” says the “New York World” in a candid moment, “of anything that has happened in Mexico compares in cold-blooded brutality with what took place at Ludlow, Colorado. Dr. A. S. Harvey, a physician who testified at the inquest, said that while the “women and children lay in the safety pits which had been dug under the tents, the militiamen applied torches to the canvas and burned the structure over the heads of the terrified refugees. He declared that one ranch-house, in which dozens of women and children had taken refuge, was under fire from the militiamen the whole day.” The militia mounted machine guns and swept the strikers’ quarters with bullets. Over 200 lives were lost in this mine war.

We now come to the “directive ability” side of the matter. As a result of the allegation that the rioting was caused by agents provocateur, and that the troops acted with great brutality in charging and shooting down men, women, and children indiscriminately, a Congressional inquiry into the matter was ordered. When John D. Rockefeller, Jun., who is a director of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co., was questioned he “blandly professed entire ignorance as to the details of the rioting and causes of the strike. He admitted that his father owned 40 per cent. of the company’s stock, but declared that neither of them interfered with the management of affairs, and they knew very little about the matter. ‘We have so many interests that it is impossible for us to supervise personally everything.'”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

An Obliging Conscience.

How they get out of it when anything is brought up against them ! Capitalists, say our opponents, supervise industry, therefore deserve their profits. Charge Rockefeller with the murder of the Colorado miners, however, and he immediately begins to squirm, and says he knows nothing about the matter. He does not “supervise personally” when the butcheries have to be accounted for, but only when the “swag” is divided.

When one of the committee very pertinently pointed out that Rockefeller found plenty of time for “social uplift” work and vice investigation, and asked him why he did not investigate the conditions in his own business, the canting, hypocritical scoundrel at once replied : “My conscience acquits me of any responsibility in the matter.”—(“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Rockefellers, by the way, seem to be rather accomplished hypocrites, and, incidentally, men after God’s own heart. The father of the aforementioned unctuous humbug, John D. Rockefeller, Sen., was referred to last June by Mr. Bustard, the pastor of the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, Cleveland (of the congregation of which Rockefeller is one of the oldest members) as “one of the rose bushes in God’s garden.” The same reverend soft-soap and chloroform dispenser also paid a tribute to those faithful followers in the church who, like Mr. Rockefeller, “have for years lead religious lives and been steadfast in the Lord’s work.” Comment on this is needless.

Before leaving for his father’s Pocantico Hills Estate young Rockefeller “issued a statement, in which he admitted that his investigations into the riots had disclosed conditions more terrible than have yet occurred in that or any other State.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 3.5.14.) In his concluding statement before the commission, however, he disclosed his true capitalistic soul, and showed himself as the advocate of free and unfettered sweating. “He got rather angry when it was pointed out that the newspapers had given plenty of details as to the working conditions in Trinidad, and that a word from his father would have stopped the bloodshed and ended the strike. He declined to agree to submit to arbitration, and declared that the company would rather sacrifice the whole of its property in Colorado than recognize the miners’ union if it hampered the company’s freedom.”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Company’s Freedom.

Well, what about “directive ability” now ? As a matter of fact, about the only directive ability the masters ever exercise is in employing managers, foremen, etc. to run their concerns for them while they are enjoying themselves, and if it large enough dividend is not regularly forthcoming they want to know the reason why ; if a sufficient reason is not given the official gets the sack. Owing to the contradictory nature of present society the workers are compelled to fight each other for jobs. The overlooker and manager are working men like the rest of us, dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and just as likely to get the sack at any moment. Their particular job consists in using every method they can to get the greatest possible amount of work out of their fellow-workers. Thus on the industrial field workers find themselves compelled to fight, not only their masters, but also each other in order to get a living. When the workers take over production then the “directive ability” of our fellow-workers (the absent bond-holding capitalist does no work in production at all), will be employed for the common good instead of, as to-day, for the misery of their fellows.

G. McClatchie