Workers’ education (2009)

Pamphlet Review from the December 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Plebs. By Colin Waugh, Post-16 Educator. 221 Firth Park Road, Sheffield S5 6WW. £3

This large-size pamphlet is misleadingly subtitled ‘The lost legacy of independent working-class education’, giving the impression that it deals with a larger subject than it actually does. As an account of the Ruskin strike of 1909, it is a useful summary, giving extensive background to the decision of the highly politicised Ruskin students to boycott lectures in defence of Dennis Hird, the Principal dismissed in the struggle to extend University control over the college. There is a section on the influence of Daniel De Leon on some of the students and on the choice of the word “Plebs” (from his pamphlet Two Pages of Roman History).

However, rather more information would have been appreciated as to the results of the strike – namely the establishment of the Central Labour College as a radical alternative to Ruskin and what became the National Council of Labour Colleges as a riposte to the Workers Education Association. The fate of these organisations, namely withdrawal of funds by the trade unions, is particularly important because the author asserts a need for ‘independent working class education’ in the present day. We in the Socialist Party agree that it is necessary to understand all aspects of capitalism in order to bring about social change but point out that such education cannot be the work of defensive organisations such as trade unions but must be part and parcel of the work of the offensive political organisation of the working class.

Kaz.

50 Years Ago: The Failure of the Labour Colleges (1975)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

By dint of strenuous and persistent agitation the National Council of Labour Colleges (NCLC) has won its fight for recognition by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. It and the London Labour College are to be permitted to take part in an Educational Scheme in co-operation with their old enemies the Workers’ Educational Association, Ruskin College and the Co-operative Educational Committee.

Elated by being recognized, the Plebs League and other supporters of the NCLC appear not to have recognized that this event has a quite other significance . . . the death of an idea, it gives the final blow to the theory of Independent Working Class Education which they have proclaimed and popularized. The scheme means co-operation with the organizations which in the past have been denounced by the NCLC and the Plebs League as camouflaged instruments of capitalist propaganda.

★

The hard truth is that independence can be had only at a price. You cannot base an educational system on the urgent need for the overthrow of capitalism and yet honestly gain the financial support of Trade Unions whose members would not approve the overthrow of capitalism . . . the NCLC and the Plebs have just decided that the price is too great.

(From an editorial Working Class Education — the Failure of the Labour Colleges, published in the Socialist Standard, July 1925.)

FOOTNOTE: In The Times, 2nd May 1975, Mr. J. P. M. Millar, General Secretary of the NCLC had an article “How the Labour Colleges were Destroyed” detailing the way in which the TUC, once it got control, closed down almost all the activities of the NCLC and has caused the Plebs magazine to cease publication.

The Failure of the Labour Colleges. (1928)

From the April 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July, 1925, we wrote on the significant action of the National Council of Labour Colleges in joining its old enemy, the Workers’ Educational Association, in an education scheme sponsored by the Trades Union Congress. We pointed out that the acceptance of money from the Trade Unions to co-operate with such bodies as the W.E.A. and Ruskin College meant the passing of the independence of the “Movement for Independent Working-class Education.” The “Plebs’ League” tried to derive comfort from the fact that, while urging the N.C.L.C. to accept the scheme, they themselves were not bound in any way and could continue their independent propaganda and criticism.

Time has justified our warning. The “Plebs’ League” has ceased to exist as an independent body and three years later others, including men in the N.C.L.C. itself, are recognising the truth of what we then anticipated.

In the Sunday Worker (22nd January) is a letter from Mr. W. N. Dias, Tutor Edinburgh District, Scottish Labour College, commenting on a book review in which T. A. Jackson had directed attention to the essential weakness of the position of the N.C.L.C.

Mr. Dias wrote as follows :—

“Contact with the local Labour Colleges convinces one that there is a gradual desertion of the whole position taken up by the Labour College Movement in the past, and it is gradually becoming another edition of the old W.E.A., which years ago it (rightly) condemned.”

In a subsequent issue of the Sunday Worker, a correspondent, who is described as being “prominently connected with the N.C.L.C.,” gives further support to our criticism. The N.C.L.C., he says :—

“is now fast becoming merely a piece of educational machinery, hitched on to the Trade Union machine, with its own staff of officials concerned mainly with administrative work . . . the N.C.L.C. is tending to come increasingly under the control and influence of this bureaucracy (i.e., the trade union officials) which finances it” (4th March).

In particular the N.C.L.C., as we long ago pointed out, cannot hope to receive Trade Union money if at the same time it exposes the part played by Labour and Trade Union leaders in supporting the capitalist system and its ways. The N.C.L.C. had to choose and it chose the money in preference to the independence. We wrote in 1925 :—

“The price of independence in the existing state of working class indifference and political backwardness is to be left outside the main field of trade union educational activity; and the N.C.L.C. and the Plebs have just decided that the price is too great.”

The significance of that step is now becoming evident.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Working class education. The failure of the Labour Colleges. (1925)

Editorial from the July 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

By dint of strenuous and persistent agitation the National Council of Labour Colleges (N.C.L.C.) has won its fight for recognition by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. It and the London Labour College are to be permitted to take part in an Educational Scheme in co-operation with their old enemies the W.E.A., Ruskin College and the Co-operative Educational Committee. The participating bodies are to retain their separate organisations and machinery, and each may continue to operate independently any educational scheme it can arrange in addition to the joint scheme.

Elated by being recognised the Plebs League and other supporters of the N.C.L.C. appear not to have recognised that this event has a quite other significance. No doubt it represents a personal success for the active N.C.L.C. workers, and a propaganda victory for the organisation; but it also signifies the death of an idea, it gives the final blow to the theory of Independent Working Class Education which they have proclaimed and popularised.

The scheme means co-operation with those organisations which in the past have been denounced by the N.C.L.C. and the Plebs League as camouflaged instruments of Capitalist propaganda. Against this the right to operate separate schemes is of little value. A circular addressed to Plebs members by a Plebs E.C. sub-committee admits that in practice “individual Unions…. would probably sooner or later feel it incumbent upon them to transfer their support to any general scheme approved by Congress.”

Nominally, the freedom of action of the N.C.L.C. is guaranteed by a paragraph which concedes “the rights of criticism on propaganda” to the separate organisations “provided that there shall be mutual abstention from criticism of the good faith of any educational organisations recognised by the T.U.C. …” A moment’s thought will show it to be an inadequate safeguard, and this the Plebs E.C. feel for they urge “the importance of getting a clear decision, at the outset of exactly what is implied by the paragraph.” Can one describe the W.E.A. as a body of Capitalist apologists, built up on Capitalist money without “criticising their good faith? ”

In passing, one cannot but ask if the Plebs Leaguers really do believe that working class education is likely to be assisted by the association of mutually warring elements claiming to speak from fundamentally different standpoints. Clarity goes the way of independence and confusion comes into undisputed possession.

The Plebs E.C., while supporting the entry of the N.C.L.C. into the scheme, try to “have it both ways.” They comfort themselves with the argument that “The Plebs League, not being bound by the agreement or signatory to it, will in any case retain the fullest freedom of criticism, and as before show that co-operation with Capitalist-controlled universities and dependence on financial grants from non-working-class sources (as practised by the W.E.A.) are inconsistent with working-class independence.”

The logic is curious. It is wrong for the W.E.A. to associate with Capitalist Universities but not wrong for the N.C.L.C. to associate with the W.E.A., although it always used to be wrong. The N.C.L.C. is right in signing away its independence and Plebs members are to support them in doing so; but in the same breath the Plebs congratulate themselves because they are not doing what it is right for the N.C.L.C. to do.

If the Plebs do continue to denounce the W.E.A. they will find it a little difficult to explain why they urged the N.C.L.C. to co-operate with the W.E.A.

And, moreover, what in fact will be the value of the “fullest freedom of criticism” which the Plebs will continue to enjoy? The “Plebs Magazine,” the chief vehicle of criticism, happens to be the organ of the N.C.L.C., which is giving up its “fullest freedom of criticism.” It is perhaps good propaganda for the vanquished to go on claiming the right to fight while giving up their arms to the victors; but it is not war.

The reasons why this co-operation appears as a desirable object are frankly stated in the Plebs circular. They are the threatened loss of financial aid from Trade Unions and the fear of being “left outside the main field of Trade Union educational activity.” These admissions bear out what we have always contended—that the movement for “Independent Working Class Education” never was really independent. Because their “educational policy,” in the words of the Plebs E.C., “has been from the beginning to win Trade Union support,” the N .C.L.C. had to proclaim and the Labour Colleges had to teach theories which did not offend the reactionary members and officials of the Unions which put up the cash.

To please the miners they were forced to pretend that industrial organisation is the method of achieving working-class emancipation. It is a cruel fate which has reduced the Miners Federation to a state of confessed impotence.

They styled themselves Marxians, but had to take great care, when explaining the significance of Imperialism, not to give offence by exposing the part played by the Trade Union officials in leading the workers into the war.

They talked of the need for revolutionising society, but had to keep on good terms with the Labour Party opponents of revolution.

They followed the popular school of orthodox economists of the Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties in regarding inflation of currency as the chief cause of high prices in Great Britain. Events have here, too, rewarded them unkindly. Although we have returned practically to 1914 currency conditions, including gold export, yet prices remain 75 per cent. above 1914 level.

The hard truth is that independence can be had only at a price. You cannot base an educational system on the urgent need for the overthrow of Capitalism and yet honestly gain the financial support of Trade Unions whose members would not approve the overthrow of Capitalism. Still less can you avoid discussion of the ways and means of achieving emancipation, and if ways and means are to be discussed you cannot escape the responsibility of approving or condemning particular theories and existing industrial and political policies.

To try to teach Marxism without pointing out the political implications of the class struggle is to rob it of its meaning and value. The exponents of Independent Working Class Education set out determined to preserve their independence ; but they also wanted to succeed and show tangible results, a very human but, nevertheless, dangerous weakness. The price of independence in the existing state of working class indifference and political backwardness is to be “left outside the main field of Trade Union Educational activity,” and the N.C.L.C. and the Plebs have just decided that the price is too great.

"The Plebs Atlas" (1934)

Book Review from the April 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Plebs Atlas: Sixty Maps for Worker-Students. Drawn by J. F. Horrabin. N.C.L.C. Publishing Society, Ltd., 15, South Hill Park Gardens, London, N.W.3.)

The N.C.L.C. has published a revised edition of “ The Plebs. Atlas," containing sixty maps.

The series of maps are set out in a manner which simplifies an understanding of the events they describe. Each map has an explanatory footnote. The author has followed the method of leaving out all matter not considered essential to the lesson he wants to drive home. For example, in the map of Europe each country is shaded to illustrate its dominance by French, British, or American capitalism; other physical and geographical features which usually characterise maps being left out. There are maps showing the postwar changes in the boundaries of Europe; maps explaining the “Polish" Corridor," the "Balkans Problem," the "Far Eastern Question,” etc. A study of these will leave the student in no doubt of the reasons for the last war and will show him the conflicts of capitalist interest which may lead to another. One map shows the zones of influence of the chief capitalist powers; another is illustrated to show the chief industrial centres; others the ramifications of British capitalist interests throughout the world.

Altogether, the Atlas is a useful work: useful when studying history, and handy for reference in connection with current political events and press reports. The price of the Atlas is 1s., well within the reach of most students.

DON.

Correspondence. (1923)

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

Gentlemen,

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

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

Yours sincerely,

J. Hutchinson.

Answer to J. Hutchinson.

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

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

Jack Fitzgerald.

* * *

March 23rd, 1923.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

17, Mount Pleasant, 

London, W.C.I.

Dear Comrade,

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

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

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

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

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

Are we to clearly understand from the above sentence :—

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

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

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

Yours fraternally,

Wm. Walker.

Answer to “W. W.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question (b) is disposed of by the above.

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

Jack Fitzgerald.

The Labour College. Our Criticism "Answered." (1919)

From the September 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the May issue of this journal I dealt with certain statements which appeared in the "Plebs Magazine" for April. Among these was a long paragraph by Mr. W. W. Craik, in which he attempts to explain the meaning of capital. As that paragraph was misleading I pointed out where it was wrong and gave a a definition of capital more in accordance with Socialist knowledge and principle. An anonymous writer in the July issue of the "Plebs" attempts to rescue Mr. Craik from the results of his ignorance of Socialist economics by declaring that the definition used by him was that of an opponent which he was endeavouring to ridicule. I give here the writer's remarks.

The May number of the Socialist Standard, the organ of that truculent band of last-ditchers, the S.P.G.B., contained an article entitled "Economics at the Central Labour College," which "was full to overflowing of instructive and edifying information. It was signed "F.F." Whether those initials stood for Fearful Fool or Funny Fellow we are unable, except on the evidence of the article itself, to conjecture, Give ear: —

  The mistaken notions of the S.W. miners and the Liberal politics of the Labour Party form the basis of the College instruction, which is carried back to the T.U. and I.L.P. branches as independent and scientific knowledge of the working-class position.

  Comment (on which would only spoil  its touching simplicity. We quote it to show how much the man who wrote it is in touch with the world outside his hermitage.
"F.F." has also something to say about W. W. Craik's article in the April "Plebs," the unsoundness and anti-Marxian character of the economic views expressed in which are duly exposed. As thus :

  Mr. W. W. Craik, dealing with the Coal Commission, asks a simple question in economics— "What is Capital?" But although economics is an important subject at the College, and a correct definition of capital is very essential to that subject, the writer seems quite unable to give one. "What is capital?" he asks. "Wealth used to produce more wealth," he replies.'

And then follows a criticism of this alleged "reply" ! . . . . This is a new method of controversy indeed! I quote some ridiculous remark made by an opponent, and instantly a high-browed S.P.G.B.'er leaps up and accuses me of having uttered the very nonsense which I am doing my best to ridicule! " F.F." should read articles before he reviews them. He might then save himself some time which he could devote to the study of Marx, That he stands in some need of such a course of study is fairly evident from his assertion that capital is a thing, and that the source of capitalist power is the political machinery.

In Mr. Craik's article there is no mention of opponents. The definition is imputed to no one; it is not in quotes, nor is it questioned by Mr. Craik. He says : "But does not capital make some of this wealth possible? Does it not contribute to the creation of value? What is capital? Wealth used to produce more wealth! That does not tell us much, not even who produces it."

Such a definition is a favourite one with anti-Socialists because it includes practically all wealth, and makes the wage worker a capitalist by virtue of his tools. If Mr. Craik disagreed with it why did he repeat the fallacy in another form, and in the same paragraph ? He said :

  "Capital is the ownership of labour, the ownership of the labour of yesterday and of to-day, of the labour materialised in the pit props, the steel cage, the winding engine, and of the living labour which sets all in motion and embodies itself in the saleable product coal, in the value and price of coal and, therefore, in the forms of revenue which are derived from value—the wages of the labourer, the profits of the coal-owner and coal merchant, and the royalties of the landowner."

In this sweeping definition, which is undoubtedly the product of Mr. Craik's brain, all wealth is included, with the exception of virgin soil, undiscovered minerals, and such other forms of natural wealth not yet appropriated or transformed by the application, of human energy. Mr. Craik's champion says that "F.F." should really read articles before he reviews them. From the foregoing it will be seen that it is Mr. Craik's apologist who does not read his articles. Instead, he indulges in silly guesses as to whether "F.F." stands for Fearful Fool or Funny Fellow—all in the name of education.

Following on his remark about reading articles before reviewing them, the writer of the "Plebs Bookshelf" says: 

  He [the present writer] might then save himself some time which he could devote to the study of Marx. That he stands in some need of such a coarse of study is fairly evident from his assertion that capital is a thing, and that the source of capitalist power is the political machinery.

This statement at once puts the Labour College out of all decent discussion. To deliberately misquote an opponent is not only contemptible, it is an admission of a bad case. Below is the paragraph referred to as it appeared in the May "SS."

  Now it must be obvious that capital is something that is owned, and not the act of ownership, and Mr. Craik is only adding to the confusion that already prevails when he tells the "Plebs" readers that capital is the ownership of pit props, winding gear, machinery, etc. Adam Smith's definition that capital is 'wealth used for the production of profit' is a far more scientific one, and always good enough for the Socialist, because it can easily be shown that there are no profits without exploitation.

It will at once be seen that the Labour College prefers to misrepresent its opponents rather than admit itself in the wrong or attempt to discuss the question at issue with the object of ascertaining the truth. The lack of understanding and the confusion of the workers today is largely due to false or ill-considered definitions of economic terms. Nowhere is this more forcibly shown than in the works of Marx. In every chapter of "Value, Price, and Profit" economic errors like that of Mr. Craik are exposed, and in simple language Marx shows that there is no need for fantastic hypotheses, the Socialist philosophy being built entirely on facts.

Similarly, there is no need to draw conclusions from anything but facts, with regard to the inference of the Labour College that the source of capitalist power is not the political machinery. What is power? The control of physical force. What physical force do the workers control that is at all comparable with the armed forces controlled through Parliament by the capitalist class ?

The Industrial Unionists and Direct Actionists have been repeatedly challenged to show how the workers can overcome the organised forces that are used against them by the ruling class. The only reply vouchsafed is to ridicule the notion that the armed forces will be used, or to assert that the soldiers will not shoot, or to claim that they will be Industrial Unionists too, or other nonsense of that kind. But they never attempt to meet the Socialist argument that the workers, possessing as they do, the majority of the votes, can, by organising as a political party, capture Parliament and control the armed forces, as a first step towards expropriating the capitalist clats and establishing Socialism.

But the Labour College is not alone in denying the political character of the class struggle. The numerous adventurers in the trade union movement advocating what is called "Direct Action," all claim that the working class can afford to ignore the political fight. Though none of them ever produce a single argument that would justify its adoption by the workers as a means to their emancipation. They are thus the best friends of the ruling class because they persuade the workers to continue their present fruitless struggles on the industrial field, while leaving the real power in the hands of their masters.

The South Wales Miners in particular are enamoured of this doctrine, and in small matters affecting their working conditions have carried it further than most trade unionists. But on questions where the mine owners have elected to oppose them they have been no more successful than other sections of the workers.

Notwithstanding the repeated failures of the strikes to effect anything of importance for them, they cling to it and use it more frequently than most workers, as a weapon against the master class. But frequently as they are in collision with the masters, they have not yet learned that the forces that beat them in every strike are placed under capitalist control by their votes. They still continue to vote Liberal and Liberal-Labour, thus placing in the hands of their enemies or their agents, the power that defeats them on the industrial field.

This wooden-headed policy is applauded by the Labour College because the South Wales Miners is one of the two unions that owns that institution, and, as Philip Snowden once said in connection with the I.L.P. in similar circumstances, "those who pay the piper call the tune. "The "Plebs Magazine" for December 1916 Says ''The Central Labour College is owned and controlled by the South Wales Miners and the National Union of Railwaymen." But this in itself would not justify me saying, as I did in the May "S.S.," "The mistaken notions of the South Wales Miners, and the Liberal politics of the Labour Party, form the basis of the College instruction, which is carried back to the trade union and I.L.P. branches as independent and scientific knowledge of the working-class position. Thus neither the College nor unions can get beyond the compromising and reform attitude of the Labour Party."

What does justify the statement is the fact that the pages of the "Plebs Magazine" are almost entirely devoted to the advocacy of ideas that dominate that union. The "Plebs" is an organ for advertising the methods of the South Wales Miners, and the College is an institution that confirms them in their sterile methods by educating new misleaders on the lines of the old.

If the Labour College wants to prove that it is a genuine working-class institution, established for the purpose of giving the working class a sound knowledge of their slave position in capitalist society, their writers will need to do something more than refer to our indictment as "touching simplicity." Before they can justify their pretension to be an educational centre, fitting the working class for its historic mission—the abolition of class rule and the establishment of Socialism—they must not only understand Socialism themselves: they must unlearn the fraudulent practice of making statements they cannot prove, and denying truths merely because they are unpleasant to
 them or their supporters.

F. Foan

Economics at Central Labour College. (1919)

From the May 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Central Labour College was established in 1909, the working-class movement, according to its founders, was about to be placed on a sound educational basis. Young men from the trade unions were to be thoroughly equipped with the necessary knowledge to leaven the whole labour movement with revolutionary principles. Classes were to be formed all over the country, and the "Plebs' Magazine" was to be published monthly, in order that the workers might be instructed in Politics, History, Sociology and Economics.

The founders of the college advertised their wares so effectually among the trade unions that they have reduced the debt they started out with almost to zero, and are now completely subsidised by the South Wales Miners' Federation and the National Union of Railwaymen—the college being owned and controlled by these two unions. This fact accounts for the almost purely trade-union propaganda of the magazine: those who pay the piper call the tune, and the C.L.C. tune is trade unionism, industrial unionism, labourism, or any other ism where its pupils can find jobs after they have gained their "degree" at this "Clark's College" of the labour world.

In its curriculum the college advertises economics according to Marx. But in the columns of the "Plebs" the readers are treated to the same economics they get from Municipal Reform candidates at County Counoil elections. In the current number, for instance, Mr. George Barker (Miners' Agent, Abertillery), says: "There are about fifty millions of debt hanging round the necks of the workers of Europe. The worker cannot pay huge dividends to the capitalist class and pay the interest on this colossal debt."

Of course not ! as wage slaves they can only pay away what they receive as wages, and wages —even according to the "Plebs"—being barely sufficient to supply the worker with necessaries, must be spent on necessaries. If they were able to do more there would be something wrong with the capitalist system, which, generally speaking, operates in favour of the ruling class by compelling the workers to accept wages that only provide them with the wherewithal to live and propagate their kind.

In the same number Mr. W. W. Craik, dealing with the Coal Commission, asks a simple question in economics : "What is capital ?" But although economics is an important subject at the college, and a correct definition of "capital" is very essential to that subject, the writer seems quite unable to give one. "What is capital ?" he asks. "Wealth used to produce more wealth," he replies, quite ignoring the fact that, thousands of years before Capitalism evolved, men used weapons and tools to "produce more wealth," and no one—either then or now—with the exception, perhaps, of avowed anti-socialists, would think of describing such things as capital.

Of course, the anti-socialist uses this more general definition to cover up or mask the true one. Capital is wealth used for exploitation. But Mr. Craik is not obliged to accept the anti-socialist definftion, and, to do him justice, he does not seem satisfied with it; and as there appears to be no limit to the number of guesses allowed, he tries again. "Capital is the ownership of labour, the ownership of the labour of yesterday and of to-day," and further on still he refers to capital as "i.e., ownership."

Now, it must be obvious that capital is something that is owned, and not the act of ownership, and Mr. Craik is only adding to the confusion that already prevails when he tells the "Plebs" readers that capital is the ownership of pit props, winding gear, machinery, etc. Adam Smith's definition that capital is "wealth used for the production of profit" is a far more scientific one, and always good enough for the Socialist, because it can easily be shown that there are no profits without exploitation.

When the Central Labour College was established its object was stated as follows: "The Central Labour College is founded to train men and women for the industrial, political and social work of the organised Labour Movement, under the supreme control of the Labour organisations in the United Kingdom, and to assist in the establishment of similar institutions elsewhere."

The founders declared for independence in the three fields—educational, industrial and political. The so called independence of the Labour Party is, therefore, the measure of Labour College independence—no more and no less. The mistaken notions of the South Wales miners, and the Liberal politics of the Labour Party, form the basis of the college instruction, which is carried back to the trade union and I.L.P. branches as independent and scientific knowledge of the working-class position. Thus neither the college nor the unions can get beyond the compromising and reform attitude of the Labour Party.

Notwithstandingall their frothy denunciations of Capitalism, and their continued affirmation that they are travelling the right road toward the emancipation of the working class, they are merely supporting and countenancing a movement that opposes the ruling class within the basis of its own system, and with no definite or settled principles for carrying through the revolution for which they admit the necessity.

They ruled themselves out of the revolutionary movement right from the first, when they said: "Just as the needs of the individual correspond to his environment, growing in complexity with his development, so the needs of the working class change and become more complex with industrial evolution. Industrial, Political and Educational organisation are each in their turn called into existence by the development of productive forces."

Thus, instead of learning from Marx that the workers can achieve their emancipation as soon aa they acquire the knowledge of their class position, and see clearly that the source of capitalist power is the political machinery, the C.L.C. waits on industrial evolution—to instruct them in a new philosophy for each epoch—and marks time with the political and industrial labour leaders until the rank and file shall have marched past to achieve their own emancipation.

F. Foan

The “Plebs” Again (1923)

From the May 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Fitzgerald

"Plebs" and Pounds. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the temporary boom that followed the Armistice began to decline, the capitalist class instructed its agents in Press and on platform to give forth “reasons” for prices remaining high in this country, despite the wage reductions that were being enforced in all directions. One of the favourite "reasons” put forward to explain this apparent puzzle was "the inflation of the currency.” Tory and Liberal politicians, as well as economists from Cassel to J. A. Hobson, repeated this parrot cry without offering the slightest evidence in support of it.

The Labour Party conducted a so-called investigation into the matter of high prices and borrowed, without examination, the assertion of “inflation,” and gave it as one of the chief causes of those high prices.

An article appeared in the July, 1920, Socialist Standard, which, among other things, made a brief reference to this point of ‘‘inflation.” This called forth some correspondence that was dealt with in the September and November, 1920, and April, 1921, issues. The question was raised once again by a correspondent in the June, 1922, Socialist Standard, and answered in the same issue.

This answer has evidently upset some of the self-styled experts, as two issues of the "Plebs” Magazine (July and September, 1922) have been forwarded to us, that contain the complaints of certain correspondents about the "Plebs” repeating, parrot-like, the stupid assertion on "inflation.”

We have never accused the statesmen of the Labour Party of being guilty of any economic knowledge—Marxian or other— but the "Plebs” claims to be a journal for the spread of Marxian education, and it is the "organ of the National Council of Labour Colleges.” If their treatment of this question of "inflation” is a sample of their knowledge, it certainly shows the value of Labour College "education.”

In attempting to discuss any question, the first thing to be done is to settle the facts of that question and then use those facts to build up one’s case. In the question under discussion obviously the first point to be settled was “Has there been an inflation of the currency in the United Kingdom? ” The inquirer will be astonished to find that neither the Labour Party nor the "Plebs” have made the slightest attempt to examine—let alone settle—this fundamental point. Such is the slovenliness of the "Plebs” in dealing with statements devised to deceive the working class. In these circumstances a brief re-statement of the case will be useful.

The currency of a country consists of the article, or articles, that are chosen by general consent and experience to act as measure of value and medium of exchange. At first this is usually an ordinary commodity that is in general use. When the number and complexity of the exchanges grow to .a certain point the need for some guarantee of the invariable quality and weight of the medium of exchange is felt. This duty, sooner or later, devolves upon the Government of each country, and is usually done by stamping the articles concerned with some special device. The stamped article now takes up a new position in the commercial world and is removed from the place of an ordinary commodity to function exclusively as the measure of value, medium of exchange, etc. It thus becomes the currency of that country. Once the main use of a currency is understood the “problems” connected with it will be easily understood.

As the currency is used as a medium of exchange, it is evident that the amount of currency required at any given time will be determined, first by the total of the prices of the commodities exchanged at that time. This quantity of currency will be modified in practice by the amount of credit given by the sellers, which defers payment to some future date; by the number of payments falling due for articles previously sold; and by the speed at which the currency circulates. Thus, if £1 makes 52 moves in a given period—a year—it will circulate £52 worth of commodities in that time. Cheques, bills of exchange, etc., all add to the factors modifying the quantity of currency required, but these do not alter the main argument. Each country finds by experience the quantity of its own currency required to cover the total of the exchanges and transactions during a given period. This quantity will vary from time to time, particularly in the relative sense, but under normal circumstances these variations are easily met.

Previous to the declaration of war by England upon Germany in 1914, the quantity of currency used in the United Kingdom was £214,000,000. One immediate effect of the declaration of war was a sudden increase in prices of numerous commodities. Before any alteration of the currency was considered, let alone carried into effect, this increase of prices made an increase of the currency necessary to carry on business. Every increase in prices since has called either for an increase of currency or for some financial readjustment. In no case has the currency of this country been issued in excess of the business requirements. Yet this simple, glaring fact has been ignored both by the Labour Party and the "Plebs,” although it is fundamental to the question under discussion.

The new currency issued took the form, mainly, of Treasury notes. But mark here an extremely significant point. The Act authorising the issue of these notes says :—

  (3) The holder of a currency note shall be entitled to obtain to demand, during office hours at the Bank of England, payment for the note at its face value in gold coin which is for the time being legal tender in the United Kingdom.

And this portion of the Act has remained unaltered up to date.

Any student of economics knows that a convertible paper currency cannot be inflated by reason of its convertibility, and this fact alone shows that the statements of the "inflation” mongers are entirely false. But even those who are not students of economics can find proof of the fallacy of "inflation” in another way. That is to compare the increase of prices with the increase in the quantity of the currency. As shown above, an increase of prices, apart from the modifications mentioned, will require an increase of currency. What has happened in this country? According to the Government Report on "Currency Expansion, Price Movements, etc.” (Cmd. 734), the following changes in prices and currency have taken place in the United Kingdom. Both prices and currency in 1914 are taken as 100, and the increases on that figure on March, 1920, are given thus:

The retail prices of food were under Government control, and thereby prevented from rising as high as market conditions would otherwise have allowed.

These figures show that so far from any "inflation” having taken place there has actually been a relative decrease in the quantity of the currency. Perhaps the quidnuncs of the "Plebs” will try their skill in explaining that little fact? But how do they answer the questions already put to them by their correspondents?

In the first case they say:—

  If our comrade would like a summer holiday as the guest of His Majesty she has only to change her £1 currency notes into gold sovereigns, smelt them or sell them by weight for export. If she did succeed in doing this secretly she would find that a gold £1 outside of England bought more than a paper £1. Even inside England she would find people who would give her more than 20s. for it.—(Plebs., July.)

This "answer” is such a sheer evasion of the question that it is difficult to believe it can be other than deliberate. It is on a par with suggesting that an inquirer should commit a burglary in France for the purpose of finding the cause of the fall of the mark in Germany! For, as even the editor of the "Plebs" might know, it has been illegal to melt down currency coins all through the centuries that Coinage Acts have been in existence. Moreover, it is illegal at present to export gold from the United Kingdom without a Government licence. This is also the case in America. But the second statement clinches the position, as it shows that the "Plebs” editor realises he is unable to show any "inflation” in this country and so has to advise his correspondents to go abroad to test the matter. And where in England, may one ask, can more than 20s. be obtained for the Gold Sovereign? Only among illegal thieves and receivers of stolen property. In all the enormous mass of normal trade and commerce of this country the £1 Treasury note will purchase just as much as the gold sovereign. Which is another fact completely disposing of the tale of "inflation” here.

But now a more serious query, of the absurd position of the "Plebs,” is sent in, this time from a Social Science class apparently connected with the Labour College.

The tone adopted in the second answer is distinctly different from that used in first one. A whole class is, seemingly, a more serious proposition from a business point of view than a single reader, though the same display of ignorance occurs when we are told :—

  If enough currency notes were issued then they would exchange precisely on the basis of the socially necessary labour needed to reproduce them. —(Plebs., September, 1922.)

But why are they not exchangeable on that basis now? Immediately because of their convertibility. And once more the correspondent is referred abroad to find out if “inflation ” has occurred here !

The answer in the June, 1922, Socialist Standard is mentioned, and we are told :—

  The Standard writer, instead of simply answering a question, recites his little piece about how the S.S. has always denied inflation; and it is his remarks apparently which have worried the Bentley class.—(Ibid.)

The above is not quite correct, for we have not merely denied “inflation” here, we have proved it had no existence. Then follows a paragraph in the “Plebs” admitting almost all our arguments as being correct, though they had denied them by implication previously, but trying to save the wreck of-their case by saying:—

  But increase in credit and increase in currency react upon each other and it is certainly wrong to deny that inflation of currency was not a factor behind high prices in our own country. The fact that the “Fisher” is convertible does not prevent inflation for it is only convertible in theory.—(Ibid.)

How does the “Plebs” editor know that the Fisher is “only convertible in theory? ” He does not say, and for the simplest of reasons; because he has not a tittle of evidence to back his baseless assertions. The reader can be left to judge the value of the “Plebs’ ” unsupported word when pitted against an Act of Parliament.

Note how the bombastic assurance of the first reply, with its jeering suggestion to the single correspondent to commit a couple of illegal acts to prove an empty assertion, has given way to an admittance that the bulk of our case is correct, and only the weak—nay, childish —remark “it is certainly wrong ” to deny “inflation,” in the second answer. “Wrong to deny” a statement proved to be false ! What logic?

As a matter of fact, it was for those who postulated “inflation” to have given proof of their contention. Not one of them attempted to do so. Instead they merely repeated like parrots the unsupported assertions of the agents of the capitalist class. And as a specimen first of bombastic ignorance and then of a shuffling crawl, the “Plebs' " answers on currency take front rank. 

Jack Fitzgerald.

Letter: The Ostrich Policy. (1923)

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

Gentlemen,

Your issue of December, 1922, contains a vituperative article by J. Fitzgerald, attacking the attitude of "Plebs" on the question of currency inflation. (How it is ever hoped to attain the noble ideal of a Socialist state of society by the use of abuse will to me forever be a mystery. Lack of solidity within the Christian Church has led many people to regard Christianity as false; a smaller number who have pursued the matter further have found that the lack of solidity is in all verity due to the falseness of Christianity. Lack of solidity amongst parties who vouch for the desirability of supplanting a capitalistic state of society by a socialistic one must lead many people to doubt the desirability; only a few take the trouble to probe the matter further and find out for themselves that dissension in this case is due to superficialities only, and not to fundamentals, as in Christianity.)

I write, however, to point out that your contributor has, in the instance I quote above, let his love of abuse over-ride his adherence to facts.

I am not an economic expert ; but my reason declines to accept his contention that the total of prices of commodities governs the amount of currency required at any given time. In page 246 (first column), he states that a sudden increase in prices necessities an increase of currency. Not at all; it is the increase in the quantity of currency, or the prospect of such increase, which causes the increase of prices. That is, the wily capitalist knows that (when war is declared), through an increase in non-productive work, and work on production of articles not for sale to the general public, the quantity of currency available to purchase articles on sale to the public is much greater in proportion than in normal times. He has a natural desire to become possessor of as large a share of this increased currency as possible, hence high prices.

What your contributor contends—that prices sometimes go up before the currency is available—is correct; but the prices only go up because there is every prospect of the currency being available My reason declines to accept the argument that any shopkeeper or vendor of commodities places a price on his goods higher than, so far as he can judge, the quantity or immediately prospective higher quantity of currency available justifies. To keep within this maximum is his sole chance of doing business. If an increase of prices causes an increase of currency, we can safely presume, speaking generally, that the amount of currency in circulation will be gauged so as to just meet the situation. How, then, does your contributor account for people (during the late war) being in possession of currency with which they desired to purchase, say, potatoes, butter, etc., when no such commodities were available, and there was no prospect of their becoming available? In other words, how does his theory account for the increased quantity of currency being there when there was no price to have caused such increase? The logicality of the reverse theory is, I contend, obvious.

Before closing, as a further instance of your contributor’s regrettable lack of adherence to facts, I would point to his quotation from “Plebs” in column 2 of page 246, and his misquotation (from that quotation) lower down the column contained in the sentence, “And where in England, may one ask, can more than 20 shillings be obtained for the  £1 Treasury Note?” (The “Plebs” writer says distinctly “gold £1." Incidentally, I have never handled a copy of the “Plebs.”

Yours sincerely,

J. Hutchinson.

Reply:

Mr. Hutchinson open his letter with an entirely unsupported charge—that the article on “Plebs and Pounds” was vituperative—and follows by ignoring the facts presented in that article, claiming that his “reason” is superior to those facts, and therefore he wall not accept them.

A similar policy was ascribed to the ostrich, but it always ended in failure—for the ostrich.

Mr. Hutchinson’s question as to how the “theory” put forward in the Socialist Standard can “account for the increased quantity of currency being there when there was no price to have caused such increase” contradicts his own contention that an increase of currency is the cause of the rise in prices. Our answer is that we do not pretend to explain non-existences. At no period of the war was the total level of prices below the amount of currency. The rationing of certain articles of food and the fixing of certain prices did not make the slightest difference to this particular point.

When Mr. Hutchinson is prepared to collect and examine the facts before applying what he calls his “reason,” he may reach some glimmering of the truth. While he holds to his present method his quest will be hopeless.

The printer’s error that Mr. Hutchinson calls a "misquotation" (though it was easily seen to be an error by the most casual reader of the article) was overlooked until the issue was printed. The necessary correction was given in the January issue of the Socialist Standard.

Jack Fitzgerald

Letter: Answers To Correspondents. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. H. Baker (Wickford, Essex) writes, objecting to the statement that there will be a period of transition after a Socialist working class have gained control of the machinery of government. He says that ”the moment Capitalism is abolished Socialism will start.” He forgets, however,. that economic re-organisation is not a task to be completed in a moment by the simple issue of a decree, even although the majority of the population support the re-organisation. You cannot in a moment convert industries from the production of luxuries for the leisured few to the production of. necessaries for the population as a whole.

Mr. Baker adds that the change-over will involve "as little fuss” as a general election. This, of course, depends largely upon the attitude of a dissentient minority. But whether there is fuss or not, there certainly will be very difficult economic problems requiring to be solved before society will be running smoothly on a Socialist basis.

Mr. Baker also states that a Plebs League speaker at Southend asserted that Socialism has been established in Russia. The statement is totally untrue, and the Bolshevists in Russia do not now make any such claim. We have repeatedly invited those here who ignorantly repeat this statement to produce their evidence, which they are, of course, unable to do. The Russian working class do not "own and control the factories and run them for their own benefit.” The Russian workers are wage-earners, like the workers here. Rent, interest and profit are in Russia as here, paid to home and foreign Capitalist investors.

[Editorial Committee]

The "Plebs" on China (1927)

From the July 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the June "Plebs,” a writer signing himself “Zed,” tries to explain the meaning of the Chinese Nationalist movement for the benefit of the Marxists who can see in it "no more than in the various bourgeois nationalist movements of the past.” As we are Marxists who can see in capitalist nationalist movements nothing but capitalist nationalism (except, maybe, nationalised capitalism) possibly "Zed” is speaking of and to us. When, however, he says that the “defection of Chiang-Kai-Shek” must seem to these Marxists "an inexplicable surprise,” we can assure him that the boot is on the other foot. The people who were most surprised—apart from the Chinese workers whose heads Chiang-kai-Shek cut off when he had no further use for their propaganda activities, were precisely those who urged the workers to support the Chinese Nationalist Movement and its leaders. As was pointed out in our May issue, almost at the moment when Chiang was openly suppressing the trade unions, the Labour Research Department was explaining why the workers could go on supporting him with confidence in his aims and integrity. It is not a personal question, but one of class interests, as "Zed” correctly remarks, but it is emphatically not correct that the Chinese Nationalist Movement is “a bloc united by a common interest . . . against Imperialism.” "Zed” is led astray by his unquestioning acceptance of the view that peasants and workers can be lumped together as one class. This is as unsound as his further assumption that these two classes and the Chinese capitalists have a common interest in resisting foreign capitalism. True, peasants and workers are both, in their different ways, exploited, but the formers’ desire for private ownership of the land free from punitive taxation, and their desire for good marketing facilities for their products, do not make them allies for the workers, either in the struggle for higher wages or for the abolition of capitalist. In the fight for and against private property they are on opposite sides.

"Zed” does not offer one scrap of evidence that the Chinese workers have an interest in fighting foreign capitalist governments. The interests served in China by the Nationalist Movement are those of the Chinese capitalists and peasants, not those of the Chinese workers. We therefore expected from the first that the leaders of that movement would never permit their own workers to get out of hand, and that any danger to capitalist interests from that quarters would be ruthlessly suppressed. Nor are we surprised to learn that Chang, the Northern anti-Nationalist dictator, who represents another section of the exploiters, contemplates hoisting the flag of nationalism to cover the too blatant class interests he represents. It is only the too-trustful "Zed” and the Chinese dupes of this anti-working-class theory who are surprised at what takes place.

“Zed" goes on to consider why, in such movements, the capitalist nationalists ultimately ally themselves—on terms—with their "Imperialist enemies." It is because we recognise that this is inevitable that we urge the workers everywhere to oppose their own capitalist class from the outset and build up their own independent organisations. If this were done, so soon as the organisations of the workers became anything of a power, the employers would come to terms with foreign capitalists, and the confusion of a nationalist struggle, with its obscuring effect on the class issues, would be avoided. To justify the alternative policy “Zed" needs to offer some substantial evidence that the workers have ever gained by supporting the employing class in a struggle with foreign capitalists. In which of the European nations between 1914 and 1918 did defence of the "fatherland” bring: gains to the working-class movement.

What were the concessions won from capitalist governments by the fraudulent “National Socialist Parties” which littered Europe in those days, whether our own Labour Party, that in Germany or those in the new Polish, Czecho-Slovak and other republics?

Let "Zed” tell us what the Indian, Egyptian and Irish workers have secured by pursuing the will o' the wisp of nationalism. In truth, of course, none of these movements ever pretended to aim at working- class emancipation. The Kuomintang, like Sinn Fein, has purely propertied-class aims. In "Lansbury’s Labour Weekly" (another journal urging support of what it is pleased to call "Socialist-nationalism”) Feng-Yu-hsiang, Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese Revolutionary Army, sets out "Our Programme" (June 4th). It contains not the slightest reference to any working-class problem. It is "revolutionary” enough : it involves, among other things, the complete evacuation of all foreign troops, but "Zed" must surely appreciate the fact that revolutions are not the monopoly of the working-class, a change over from feudal land tenure to peasant proprietorship in China is a revolutionary change, but it is not one which will aid the workers.

May we advise "Zed” to read in the same issue of the "Plebs" an article on Ireland. In it A. Ellis writes as follows:— 

  Republican capitalism once it had become a partner with European capitalism sets about to share the exploitation of the Irish workers. Their reactionary measures have strengthened the hands of the reactionaries in the North, providing additional material for the division of the workers as Loyalists, Republicans, Nationalists, Catholic and Protestant, to the confusion of the real issue of capital versus Labour.

The Irish workers have gained nothing by helping the Republican Movement. There are yet hardly the beginnings of a genuine working-class movement in Ireland. The war for independence has only embittered the relations between the Irish workers, and workers outside the Free State, by stressing racial and religious divisions, and by strengthening the illusion of a common bond between the classes in the Free State. "Zed" wants us to persuade the Chinese workers to copy this fatal example.

In passing, it is amusing to notice that, in exchange for the spilling of much blood, the Irish have not even won the sentimental satisfaction of having done for ever with the hated British troops. Their Minister for External Affairs recently declared in the Dail that the Free State troops "would co-operate in resisting a general attack" on Great Britain, and Ireland, and that "it is practically inconceivable that our army would be opposed to the British Army.” (“New Statesman,” February 19th).

In the last war the Irish effectively resisted the application of conscription in that country. Having fought voluntarily for "freedom,” they have great hopes next time of enjoying the compulsory privilege of being enrolled with their British fellow-dupes. What a victory for nationalism!

Edgar Hardcastle

China: Another Chapter (1927)

From the August 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

“How vile a thing is the abstract noun. It wraps a man’s thoughts round like cotton wool.” Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch here states a truth which has yet to be perceived by the motley crowd of followers and leaders who make up what is known as the ‘‘Labour Movement.” Liberty is an abstract noun, and China is at present being devastated by the worshippers of that nebulous and seductive word. Liberty, and Justice, Equality and Fraternity, mean all things to all men. They are on every lip except the Socialist’s. We do not fight for justice, but for the property, the means of producing wealth, now owned by the capitalist class. Every one of the numerous factions in China has liberty emblazoned on its banner and each interprets it, consciously or unconsciously, to square with the material interests of the class it represents, The Chinese workers, with that sublimely silly devotion to the fatherland owned by their exploiters which characterises the working class everywhere, cheerfully offer themselves up as cannon fodder in the armies of all the contending feudal, peasant and capitalist rivals. They will fight and die in any cause but their own. It can be said in their defence that they are too inexperienced to know that it is unsafe to trust to the gratitude of governing classes, when gratitude conflicts with class interests. A slave-owning class will be kind, but it will not free its slaves. There is no such excuse for the European Communists and others who still cheer the Chinese workers on to suicide in the cause of illusory national independence.

First they gave their approval to Chiang-Kai-Shek. He and his backers were going to liberate China. Then Chiang cut off the heads of his Communist followers and smashed up the trade unions, and was indignantly denounced as a traitor. Then Feng (the “Christian” general) was the man for a few months, until they found him out as a “traitor” too. Feng, it appears, really belongs to the camp of the “liberal counter-revolution,” and is hand-in-glove with wicked Chiang. So at least says Bukharin (Sunday Worker, July 3rd). Their third and best saviour was the so-called ‘‘Communist” Government at Hankow. This was positively a winner. “Zed,” a writer in the “Plebs,” who is one of the enthusiasts for Chinese nationalism, was greatly pleased at the growing strength of the Hankow Government, and claimed it as a vindication of the position taken up by the Chinese Communists (July, 1927). It is doubtless comforting to be ‘‘vindicated,” especially for “ Zed,” who is sufficiently far from Hankow not to have to back his opinions by action. Unfortunately many of the Chinese Communists will never know how their policy was vindicated because the “Communist” Government of Hankow has cut off their heads. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent reports (July 19th) that 4,000 executions of trade union and peasant leaders have taken place. Wise after the event, the Executive Committee of the Communist International now issues orders to the Chinese Communists to withdraw from the Hankow Government and denounce it as an enemy of the workers’ movement (Sunday Worker, July 17th, and Daily Herald, July 15th).

At the time of writing no announcement has been made as to the name of the successor of Chiang, Feng, and the Hankow Government, so that it is not yet possible to state who will be the executioner of the next batch of Chinese workers.

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: The Failure of the Labour Colleges (1978)

The 50 Years Ago column from April 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July 1925 we wrote on the significant action of the National Council of Labour Colleges in joining its old enemy, the Workers’ Educational Association, in an education scheme sponsored by the TUC. We pointed out that the acceptance of money from the trade unions to cooperate with such bodies as the WEA and Ruskin College meant the passing of the independence of the “Movement for Independent Working-Class Education”.

Time has justified our warning. The “Plebs League” has ceased to exist as an independent body and three years later others, including men in the NCLC itself, are recognising the truth of what we then anticipated.

In particular the NCLC, as we long ago pointed out, cannot hope to receive trade union money if at the same time it exposes the part played by Labour and trade union leaders in supporting the capitalist system and its ways. The NCLC had to choose and it chose the money in preference to the independence.

From an article “The Failure of the Labour Colleges”, Socialist Standard, April 1928.

Working Class "Education": Plebs Leaguer Puts Marx Right. (1926)

From the April 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

Winifred Horrabin is Honorary Secretary of the Plebs League. She reviewed in the “Sunday Worker” (15 Nov., 1925) "A Worker Looks at Economics," written by Mark Starr, a fellow member of the League. After warning the workers to beware of Capitalist explanations of economic facts and figures she writes:—

   “Don’t let us expect that when our employers pay us 5s. for 10s. worth of our labour power that their explanation of that odd 5s. is going to be the same as ours.”

Now, although it will be news to Mrs. Horrabin, Marx based his explanation of profits on the assumption that employers do pay 10s. for 10s. worth of our labour power. The value of labour-power in the long run is determined by the cost of maintaining the labourer, educating him and so forth. The profit arises from the simple fact that the working class produce a mass of values greater than those they consume. Profit is made by buying labour power at its value—according to Marx, but not according to this “Marxian” educator of the workers.

She may reply that to worry about the theories of Marx is mere pedantry—but if so, why does she pose as a Marxian?

We can understand, even while we reject the view of those who say that there is no time to educate the workers, that action and action alone is what counts. We can equally understand Capitalist propagandists who seek deliberately to mis-educate the victims of Capitalism. But we really cannot understand those who, wanting to overthrow Capitalism, have no time to learn and teach the truth, but time enough and cheek enough to offer as knowledge the bewildering half-truths which satisfy mentally indolent superior persons.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: The Plebs Leaguer and Marx (1926)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

Confession from Winifred Horrabin 

We have received the following letter from the Honorary Secretary of the Plebs League referring to our criticism in the April “Socialist Standard” :—

The Editor,

     “The Socialist Standard.”

                              April 11th, 1926.

Dear Comrade,

‘‘The Socialist Standard,” ever up to date, criticises in its April issue a review of mine that appeared in the “Sunday Worker” in November of last year and in criticising what I wrote launches a bitter personal attack on me, calling me “a mentally indolent superior person,” finishing up by asking me why I "pose as a Marxian.” 

May I be allowed to answer?

First of all. I accept the correction with gratitude and humility. I may be superior, I hope not in the sense meant by your critic, but I certainly hope that I am sporting enough to acknowledge an error when I have made one, and in accepting the correction may I say that it would have lost none of its forcefulness if it had been more polite. After all, if a person is right and has knowledge on their side and insight to see the errors of others, then that person should be calm and could afford to be kind.

I am even willing to abase myself still further and to admit that many of the details of the economic theories of Marx are not clearly understood by me, hence my error, then why do I pose as a Marxian?

Because the materialist conception of history seems to me to he a scientific and true explanation of the events of history, and because I believe that emancipation can onlycome through a realisation of the class struggle.

After all, the main point I wished to make in the incriminating sentence quoted by you, was that the capitalist’s explanation of anything and the worker’s explanation were not the same thing. I can’t help feeling that a criticism of the book (or even a word of praise for it) would have been more to the point than a tirade about me

I am not ashamed to say that I was a human being before I accepted the Marxian theory of society and that unfortunately I am prone to error. It must be nice to feel one is always correct.

     

                                                                                                                          Yours fraternally,

Winifred Horrabin.

Our Comment.

The statement criticised by us appeared in the "Sunday Worker” and was as follows :—

  “Don’t let us expect that when our employers pay us 5s. for 10s. worth of, our labour power that their explanation of that odd 5s. is going to be the same as ours.” 

After showing the glaring error here and contrasting it with Marx’s teaching, we penned the following comment:—

   "She may reply that to worry about the theories of Marx is mere pedantry—but if so, why does she pose as a Marxian ?
  “We can understand, even while we reject the view, of those who say that there is no time to educate the workers, that action and action alone is what counts. We can equally understand Capitalist propagandists who seek deliberately to mis-educate the victims of Capitalism. But we really cannot understand those who, wanting to overthrow Capitalism, have no time to learn and teach the truth, but time enough and cheek enough to offer as knowledge the bewildering half-truths which satisfy mentally indolent superior persons.”

We note that Miss Horrabin accepts our correction with gratitude. We did not ask her why she posed as a Marxian. As readers will see, that question hinged on the possibility of a reply ridiculing Marx.

Our criticism is sound; and it is indolent for a secretary of a Labour College organisation to offer her readers such complete ignorance of Marx’s economic teaching. The fact that profit is made by buying labour power at its value is a fundamental and essential point in Marxian economics, and it should be known by those who set out to teach economics.

We learn that Winifred Horrabin was a human being before she accepted the Marxian theory of society. We accept her statement. Her plea that being human she is liable to error is a platitude that does not excuse ignorance of one of Marx’s most fundamental economic teachings. And in defining herself as a Marxian she states that she does so because she accepts Marx’s theory of society and the class struggle. Thus she avoids the question of Marx’s economics altogether, although she is prepared to write in the "Sunday Worker” warning the workers of capitalist economics. It is nice; and, after all, Winifred is human !

—Editorial Committee.