Science and the “Social Problem”. The Logic of the Socialist Solution. (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Common Error.

Emile Zola, in his realistic novel, “Work,” pictures science as the peaceful means by which the “evils” of modern society will be removed. He tells us that the continued application of science to industry will solve “the social problem,” the political action of the working class being unnecessary. Zola’s attitude has been adopted by others, and the popularity of contemporary science has led many intelligent workers to hold aloof from social and political movements and to occupy themselves with natural science. It is opportune, therefore, to consider the relation of science to the interests of the workers.

The greatest living biologist. Prof. Haeckel, opens his work “The Riddle of the Universe,” with these words :

“The close of the 19th century offers one of the most remarkable spectacles to thoughtful observers. All educated people are agreed that it has in many respects outstripped its predecessors, and has achieved tasks that were deemed impracticable at its commencement. An entirely new character has been given to the whole of our modern civilisation, not only by our astounding theoretical progress in sound knowledge of nature, but also by the remarkable fertile application of that knowledge in technical science, industry, commerce and so forth.

“On the other hand we have made little or no progress in moral and social life in comparison with the earlier centuries; at times there has been serious reaction and from this obvious conflict there has arisen not only an uneasy sense of dismemberment and falseness, but even the grave danger of catastrophes in the political and social world.”

In his later essays, “The Wonders of Life,” the same writer describes the conditions of life around him thus :

“Misery and want are increasing among the poor as the division of labour and over-population increase ; thousands of strong and active men come to grief every year without any fault of theirs, often precisely because they were quiet and honest; thousands are hungry because with the best will in the world they cannot find work; thousands are sacrificed to the heartless demands of our iron age with its exacting technical and industrial requirements. On the other hand, we see thousands of contemptible characters prospering because they have been able to deceive their fellows by unscrupulous speculation or because they have flattered and served the higher authority.”

The Capitalist Squint.

After having shown the great contrast between the advance of science and the terrible state of the mass of the people one might have expected this leading thinker to inquire into the cause of this phenomenon. But the bourgeois professor looks at things from the capitalist standpoint, and all we get from him is, a tilt at the Catholic Church—as though poverty was absent from Protestant England, heathen Japan or France with Secularists at the helm !

Sometimes, also, over-population is hinted at as the cause of the trouble, but the facts provide a crushing refutation of this claim. Misery is widespread in France, where a falling birth-rate gives rise to the cry “race suicide,” and has prompted the suggestion that parents of more than three children be given a bonus by the Government. The population of Ireland, 8½ millions in 1850, is now only 4½ millions, yet distress abounds in the land. Many examples could be given, but these suffice; the fact remains that poverty exists to-day in the very midst of plenty “such as was never seen on earth before.”

Why then has social life lagged behind while signal progress has been made in other fields ? Simply because science has not been applied in dealing with the “social problem.” Science is systemised knowledge, and it teaches us that all effects have an adequate cause. This teaching is acted upon when treating most subjects, but the men of science do not adopt scientific methods when dealing wilh social questions—perhaps because they know that it would menace the interests of the ruling class.

Reform is Fatuous.

View the “social problem” scientifically and we see that it is useless to continually attempt to end the evils that exist by merely palliating the effects ceaselessly produced by the system of society itself. The revolutionary policy of the Socialist is, then, in strict accord with the message of science because, seeing that the awful condition of the working class is caused by the robbery of the workers by the class that owns the means of producing wealth, the Socialist seeks to overthrow that class and abolish this system, and so remove the cause from which the social evils spring.

Consider some of the methods pursued toward many phases of industrial and social life, despite the volume of scientific knowledge acquired in in this “wonderful century” (as Alfred Russell Wallace calls it). Consumption and kindred diseases find their victims chiefly among the working class, owing to the conditions under which they work and live. This is admitted by the National Association for the Prevention of Consumption, and was clearly indicated at their Edinburgh Conference in July. They state that “the prevention of consumption raises the whole question of poverty,” but (like all reformers) they shrink from considering the question further.

The awful sufferings of those stricken by “the white scourge” is beyond description here. Seventy thousand persons die annually from it in the United Kingdom, but myriads linger on, bravely struggling to win sustenance for their dependants. A few may be “fortunate” enough to be sent to a sanatorium, and after a few months treatment are returned to the factory hells and slums, flung once more into the relentless grip of their foul foe. Many of the best of the race devote years to tending the afflicted, but these votaries of medical science are blind to the necessity of acting in line with the logic of science ;that is, to abolish the miserable conditions of the worker‘s lives, which are such a fertile source of disease.

Prostitution of Science.

That science is prostituted to the service of the capitalist class was made plain at the recent Food and Drugs Exhibition at Caxton Hall. The display showed how the ingenuity of the chemist was used to adulterate the food of the workers in order to increase the profit of the manufacturers. Bread, coffee, milk, jam etc., are so faked as to be detrimental to health. In the large factories (Packingtown is a flagrant instance) chemists are employed to give a false appearance to rubbish in order to make it saleable, regardless of the injury it inflicts upon the, toilers. A recent case of poisoning demonstrated that the cheap boots which the workers are only able to afford, are dangerous owing to the chromic acid used in preparing the “leather.” All along the line the same thing occurs. Reflect upon the fact that medical science is called upon to treat those people who suffer from the use of science in industry by the capitalist class. Science used by the possessing class is uniform in its effects upon the working class. Inventions and discoveries are pressed into the service of the profit-hunters and are used to increase their profits by saving wages, with the consequence that able-bodied men are flung into the streets to starve. The undeveloped bodies of the children—the potential parents of the race—are brought into the factory and workshop to operate the machines. When, as an inevitable outcome, physical deterioration sets in, the “healing art” once again comes on the scene to patch up the effects of the ever-potent cause !

The application of science to industry to-day enables the masters to speed up the toilers with the result that last year, for instance, the casualties in the British factories numbered over 328,000. Here again surgical science is ever busy tending the maimed and wounded, who, upon recovery, are compelled to go back to the death-traps of capitalism.

The question now arises, if science is applied to the “social problem,” what system of society does it point to, as the solution ? Let us turn to social science for the answer.

Where Spencer Failed.

Herbert Spencer showed that this system of society, like every other manifestation of life, has evolved to its present stage. That great thinker refused, however, to follow the logic of his own teaching, and the sorry spectacle was witnessed of the talented author of “Synthetic Philosophy” stooping to write such poor stuff as “Man versus the State” and “Facts and Comments,” in which he defended private property in the means of producing wealth, and sought to show that this institution must remain in the future. Though Spencer proved that society has developed to its present position from lower forms, he did not inquire into the laws of social change. That was done by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Already in 1847 Marx and Engels, in studying and criticising the philosophy of Hegel, had come to the conclusion that the method of producing and distributing wealth, and the social organisation arising from it, formed the basis upon which the political, legal and religious institutions are built up. They prove that throughout history the development of economic forces had rendered inevitable changes in the forms of social life. Since civilisation began the property conditions have led to the division of society into classes, with opposing interests, and the class straggles that ensued resulted in political revolutions with the rise of a new class to power each time. An analysis of the capitalist system of society showed that the capitalist class obtained their wealth by employing workers to use the instruments of production which they (the capitalists) owned, returning to the workers just sufficient to keep them fit to go on producing, and appropriating the difference between the wages paid and the value created.

The economic forces in society have developed to such an extent that thousands of workers co­operate in a factory, where the use of the most modern appliances and methods result in a vast mass of wealth being produced by a tithe of the men previously required. The private ownership of these great productive powers causes each individual owner to try and sell to an ever larger number of buyers, with the outcome that at frequent periods a large number of toilers are thrown out of work, the goods they have made being unsold. The machinery of industry is brought to a standstill during these “economic crises” ; those capitalists unable to tide over the period of stagnation “go under,” and thus the field is left to the larger concerns. These periods of industrial anarchy are becoming longer and more frequent, and if the development of society is to proceed, the ownership of these productive forces must pass from the few individuals to the whole of society; the method of ownership must be brought into line with the co-operative character of industry—Socialism must be established.

Many leading anti-Socialists have borne testimony to the truth of Marx’s teaching. Mr. W. H. Mallock says (“Nineteenth Century Review,” March, 1909) : “His survey of economic history broadly corresponds so far as it goes with facts, and must be accepted as forming one of the most important contributions to economic thought in the course of the 19th century.” Professor Flint, of Edinburgh University, whose work “Socialism” the anti-Socialists describe as the “best book written against Socialism,” says : “Where alone he (Marx) did memorable service was in his analysis and interpretation of the capitalist era, and there he must be admitted to have rendered eminent service.”

Many opponents of Socialism pose as being scientific, and urge that Socialism is contrary to Darwinian teaching. They say that the struggle for existence between individuals and the survival of the fittest—through natural selection—is a permanent feature of human existence. These people falsely interprete Darwin’s famous theory in order to combat Socialism.

That the Socialist position is based upon the facts of life is, however, clear. When man lived almost in a “state of nature” and the power of obtaining food, etc., was consequently limited, the struggle for existence was fierce. Frequently man fought against man for sustenance. But experience taught men that by co-operation they could better protect themselves against hostile forces and increase their power of getting the means of life. That co-operation has played a large part in social progress is admitted by leading biologists. Haeckel in “The Wonders of Life” (page 139) states that “the association of individuals is a great advantage in the struggle for existence.” Huxley (Evolution and Ethics, p. 33) points out that “every forward step of social progress brings men into closer relation with their fellows and increases the importance of the pleasures and pains derived from sympathy.” Professor J. Arthur Thompson, a prominent scientist of to-day, says (“The Science of Life,” p. 196) : “But even when the phrase (struggle for existence) is literally appropriate, we must remember the altruistic colouring of many facts of life, attraction between mates, reproduction, sacrifice, parental and filial affection, the kindliness of kindred, gregarious sociality and mutual aid.”

The control of humanity over nature now enables us to produce wealth sufficient to assume comfort, and even luxury, for all. Therefore the real necessity of a struggle for existence between man and man has long since passed ; but the fruits of industry are to-day monopolised by a few, with the consequence that men, women and children of the working class are forced to fight like animals for the opportunity to earn the necessaries of life. The spectacle of a father competing with his children for a job. brother against sister, husband against wife, is not by Nature ordained, but is the result of the economic condition imposed upon the workers by those who see in cheap and numerous wage-slaves, a chance of ever-increasing profit for themselves.

It is important, too, to realise what the phrase “Survival of the fittest” implies, because many of our unscrupulous opponents twist its meaning. Mr. Mallock, for instance, in his “Aristocracy and Evolution,” endeavours to show that because the great capitalists survive and flourish, they are, therefore, the “flower” of the race. A definition from one of the leading biologists of the nineteenth century will be useful here. “In the living world one of the most characteristic features of this cosmic process is the struggle for existence in the competition of each with all, the result of which is the selection, that is to say the survival, of those forms which are best adapted to the conditions which at any period obtain and which are in that respect and only in that respect the fittest.” (Huxley, “Evolution and Ethics” p. 4.)

Under capitalism those who rule are not the best intellects, the “men of ability,” or those possessing qualities fraught with the greatest happiness for the many, but it is the favoured few who, by inheritance, spoliation and fraud, come into possession of the means essential for producing the necessaries of life. Herbert Spencer himself was often financially embarrassed when desiring to issue the products of his facile pen. Compare him with a linen draper, Mr. Ch. Morgan, who last year left a fortune of over 13 millions ! Grant Allen, whose remarkable works drew praise from Herbert Spencer, embodied over twenty years patient study and investigation in “Plant Life,” “Physiological Aesthetics,” “Evolution of the Idea of God,” “The Hand of God,” and other works, yet this cultured author had a bitter struggle to provide for himself and wife. The pitiful story of how he had to turn to and write novels such as “The Typewriter Girl,” in order to “keep the wolf from the door” in after years is an illuminating example of the “reward” of ability under capitalism. As Allen himself well said (in a review article upon “Socialism and Natural Inequality”), “Look at the lives of our truly great men—our thinkers, our organisers, our men of science, our discoverers, our poets, our men of letters, our artists. Is it not a commonplace that the majority of these have had to pass through a period of early struggle, that crippled some of them, soured not a few, drove mad or disheartened or permanently weakened many ? Is it not a well-known fact that numbers of them died poor or starving or gave up the struggle in disgust, or lived on, mere wrecks, or took to suicide ?

“The worker who invents some valuable surgical appliance, some new anaesthetic, some scientific instrument, some optical improvement, usually makes next to nothing, sometimes looses even his all in the attempt to perfect or bring out his discovery.”

Socialism, a system in which the means of producing the requirements of life would be possessed in common and worked in the interest of all, offers us the prospect of extending our control over natural forces and assuring the comforts and pleasures of life to all in return for a minimum of labour. It presents us with the great incentive of ourselves being able to enjoy the wealth that we create, instead of seeing idlers consume the fruits of our toil. Under Socialism the struggle for existence will have ceased because, as Huxley says in the work referred to (p. 35), “When the ethical process has advanced so far as to secure every member of the society in the possession of the means of existence, the struggle for existence between man and man in that society is at an end.”

Instead of “a mere squabble round the platter,” the spirit of rivalry in the intellectual arena, the possibilities of self development then afforded, will result in an intelligent and informed population able to appreciate the beauties of literature, science and the arts, thus giving to the best minds in society the knowledge that their work can be understood and valued at its worth. How different to the present, when the majority of the people are so sunk in ignorance, with intelligence blunted and minds cramped, the every-day question of getting bread and butter filling their whole horizon and engaging all their time. Taking an interest in the study of the sciences, they can then help to extend the boundaries of human knowledge and increase the harvest in fields where the labourers have been all too few. Science is to-day cultivated by but a minority, but Socialism provides the means of leisure for all to take part in the work of wresting from nature secrets of infinite significance for human welfare.

Many sciences to-day are in their infancy and provinces such as psychology and “the problem of heredity” are really virgin fields awaiting cultivation still. Even one of the leading opponents, Dr. Schäffle, says of Socialism : “The very fabulous quantity of leisure would favour the rise of the more industrious as well as the more highly endowed individuals both in science and art, even if they were all obliged to spend 3 hours daily in manual labour. . . . Taste, natural gifts and love of art would still remain unalterably various.” (“Impossibility of Social Democracy,” p. 161-2.)

It is hoped that the necessity has been made plain for organising to speedily end this system and to institute Socialism. That Socialism is possible was admitted by the arch-individualist Herbert Spencer, who, writing to his old French colleague, M. G. Davenay, in Oct. 1905 said: “Socialism will inevitably triumph in spite of all opposition.”

Yes, Socialism is inevitable—if the workers organise and fight for it—as they will.

Adolph Kohn

SPGB Burnley Branch. (1910)

Party News from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Revolutionary Proposition. (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued.)

We have seen that the present social system does not nor can be made to, fulfil its function of facilitating the satisfaction of the material needs of the people ; we have seen that a new social system, shaping itself from a basis of common, instead of private, ownership in the means of wealth production, is necessary to correct the faults of society so pregnant with misery for the only useful class in the social organism.

The evidence points to the desirability of such a change, at least from a working-class point of view, and those who agree will next ask if it is possible to carry the Revolutionary Proposition into effect, and further, how it is to be done.

Those who advance the Revolutionary Proposition claim that, much more than being possible, it is inevitable. It would be possible were it dependent upon, and within the powers of, human agency ; but it is inevitable because it is the work and product of forces superior to human direction, forces which make men mere instruments in their ceaseless operations. To show that the proposition is possible might still leave some doubt or argument resting upon the vanity of human wishes and the frailty of human endeavour. But to show that it is inevitable at once disposes of the question of possibility. It does more : it supplies the cold, strictly scientific reason for its consideration. A whole train of arguments may be raised upon any appeal to justice or humanity or other sentiment, but prove that it is inevitable and the only question left is how to forward or delay it.

We learned that the basis of society is the condition of ownership of the means and instruments of producing the necessaries of life, and we have reduced the Revolutionary Proposition to a proposal to change the present property condition for a certain other.

This property basis depends upon the stage of development of the means of producing wealth.

For instance, in a society in which the chase was the chief resource, and the bow and arrow and the spear the means of procuring sustenance, we find the land held in common by the whole community. The means of producing wealth being so crude and ill-requiting, there is no possibility of a surplus, or advantage arising from its monopoly. So it must await the development of the means of production—through domestication of animals and agriculture let us say—to a point of great fertility before land assumes the desirability which leads to private ownership.

On the other hand the very simplicity of the crude weapons of the chase places them within the reach of all, and while no barrier to private possession, would, in the last analysis, prevent their monopoly by a class. The means of producing wealth must wait until they reach a high state of development, until they become so costly as to be beyond the means of many, and so complicated as to require more than one pair of hands to operate them, before they pass out of the possession of those who use. them, and become a means of enslavement.

In this whirligig age no one can be unaware of the constant change and development of the means and methods of production and distribution. Invention follows invention in such hotfoot pursuit that one dares not give instances, because they are out of date almost before the ink is dry. Is it to be expected, then, that all this change in the productive forces of society is to be without effect upon that which has so far evolved with it ? To say so is to say that there exists complete harmony between the property relation and the productive forces.

This harmony can never become an accomplished and stable fact so long as classes remain, for while the development of the productive forces is outside human control, the property relation and the social structure which arises therefrom is the direct, conscious work of men. The class in power cling to old forms and old institutions, and uphold them with every force at their command, while the industrial evolution sweeps on, to raise up another class with opposing interests against them. The social edifice becomes out of harmony with the method of production, its institutions become bonds to industrial and social progress.

For instance, the feudal system, with the bulk of the people chained in serfage to the land, its guild restrictions in the towns and its hampering laws and customs and class privileges (for the wrong class, of course), fitting as it may have been when it first arose, was antagonistic to the rising system of capitalist production, which demands the absolute freedom of the workman to sell his labour-power as the first condition of its existence, and a plentiful supply of labour-power in the labour market, together with the free play of competition, as essentials of its development.

The discord exists at the present day. That inherent human hunger for material wealth which is the motive power of the development of the productive forces of society, has led the present ruling class to develope (in the sense of adopting improvements mainly thought out by their hirelings) industry beyond the capacity of their social system. The motive of production is profit. Profit (together with rent and interest) is that portion of the workers’ product which their wages do not suffice to buy back. With the improvement of machinery this surplus product which is filched from the workers increases, and its disposal becomes the real problem of the capitalist class. It must be sold—but where ? The bulk of the people are workers, and their purchasing power, relative to the total mass of the goods poured into the market, is steadily decreasing (because their output increases while their wages do not).

An increasing foreign market is an absolutely indispensable condition of the continuance of the capitalist system, whose very life depends on the disposal of its surplus products. But the foreign market has almost touched the limit of expansion. Every civilised country is entering the world-market with goods to dispose of—the surplus sweated out of their wage workers.

The day when the world market is incapable of further development must (at the latest) be the day of the downfall of the capitalist system. The unsold surplus is incompatible with further production. It must accumulate in the warehouses, glut the markets, and finally bring production to a stop.

This difference between the wage and the product is increasing by leaps and bounds, and it is helped by another factor. As the relative output compared with wages increases the number of workers compared with capitalists also increases. Competition leads to monopoly, and on the way indulges in the playful pastime of pitching the smaller capitalists out of the frying-pan into the fire. Particularly in times of industrial crisis the number who lose their seat at the capitalist table is very great. They are beaten down into the ranks of the workers, and with their children are compelled to sell their labour power in order to live. In this way control of industry is falling into fewer and fewer hands, while the number of those whose interests are served by the present system are becoming less in relation to those who would benefit by change.

Again, it is part of the work of the evolutionary process always to make the class which is next to attain power, conscious of the effort required, of it. This consciousness (since there has been class division and class interests in society) has been an essential condition of social change, because, while the development of the industrial means is beyond human control, the property relation upon which the social structure is raised, is the work of men governed by their material interests.

That they are not free agents in the matter is, of course, perfectly true, for each class has had to await a certain development of the industrial means before it could rise to dominance ; but the seizure of the means of living, upon which the successive classes have based their power, must always have been the work of men who understood that it served their interests to do so—men, therefore, who were conscious of their interests—and the safeguarding of their position by legal and other restrictions is a conscious endeavour to entrench themselves in power.

As each social system is dictated and upheld by certain interests, it requires the rise of oppos­ing interests to overthrow it. These interests must be developed before they can be perceived. This development is the work of the evolution of the industrial process. For instance, the de­velopment of the means of production—the evolution of the tool into the machine—raised up by the side of the feudal nobility, a class of manufacturers, whose interests as such were in opposition to those of the landed aristocracy. As time went on the interests of the two parties became more divergent, more acutely antagonistic, and with this the rising class grew more conscious of their interests. In this way the industrial development made the class-conscious material which was to effect the social change.

Similarly to-day development of the means and instruments for producing wealth is making sharper the antagonism of interests between the two classes in society, and making clearer the workers’ perception of that antagonism. The old idea that “Capital and Labour are brothers” is incompatible with increasing wealth of the capitalists and the deepening poverty of those who labour. The growing barriers against members of the working class climbing into the class above ; the withdrawal of the capitalists from even the remotest contact with actual pro­duction and the substitution of managers and foremen in their stead : these things draw clearer the line between the classes and show the workers that they alone produce all the wealth of society, that they are the only useful members of society, and finally, that they are robbed.

Then the trend of industrial evolution reveals the underlying principles of social development—the whence and the whither is known—consciousness of the class position ripens into consciousness of the way to emancipation, and the worker becomes a Socialist, destined to be the instrument of a social revolution.

All this shows that a social change is inevitable, but how do we know that this change will take the lines of the Revolutionary Proposition ?

In the first place we know that the new social system must be based upon common ownership because the industrial development is not raising up a new class in society, but is bringing to consciousness the working class.

Previous to the last social revolution it was the capitalist class that came to consciousness and power, wresting control from the aristocracy. But now it is the working class—the last class—who are being prepared by the evolutionary process—and it could not be otherwise, since there is no other class left.

When the working class capture power, therefore, any form of exploitation becomes impossible for there is no class to exploit. The sole reason for private ownership has gone. Indeed, if it is granted that another class is to come into power, that class must be the only other existing class—the working class. And if the working class come into power, there is no other conceivable social basis they can adopt than that of the Revolutionary Proposition—common ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

To sum up, the realisation of the proposition is inevitable for the reason that the present system cannot continue because it contains the ineradicable contradiction that its mainspring is the production of profit or surplus-value, which surplus-value, accumulating, must throttle production ; and because the projected scheme of things is the only possible alternative. And the evolutionary process—which makes the Socialist—is preparing the revolution.

A. E. Jacomb

[To be Continued.]

Editorial: The True Meaning of the "Labour Unrest." (1910)

Editorial from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Across the deadly dull controversey dragging through the columns of the capitalist Press, as to whether “Free Trade” or “Tariff Reform” is best for the workers to starve under, have flashed two intense rays of light exposing the bed-rock position of the working class in modern society.

In two different places, under different external conditions, but in essentials remarkably alike, we have seen two sections of the working class facing the same alternatives of either accepting conditions imposed by the masters—their employers—or trying how long their slender resources and desperate fortitude can stand against the masters’ piled-up wealth.

At Cradley Heath the chainmakers described by a Liberal newspaper as forming “the classic sweated industry,” have been locked out because they declined to accept the conditions their employers put forward, i.e., to work for another three months at the old rate of wages. In other words the chainmakers are deliberately deprived of the means of living unless they accept the master’s terms.

It is sometimes urged that if the chainmakers were organised into a trade union they could effectively resist the employers’ attempt to starve them. But leaving out of consideration for the moment the fact that they are unable to pay any subscription, however small, to an ordinary trade union, the statement is fully refuted by the experience of the boilermakers.

Here is one of the strongest unions, containing a large proportion of the men working at the trade, yet faced with the same position as the chainmakers—starvation or submission to the masters’ terms.

When to these cases are added the signs of trouble in the Welsh coalfields and the Lancashire cotton towns, the fact continually insisted upon by the Socialist—that the means of life are owned by the master class—is brought into clear light.

Whether the workers are organised on the economic field or not ; whether belonging to the (so-called) skilled or unskilled division of labour ; whether the employer calls himself Liberal or Tory ; whether it is under Free Trade or Protection, in every case and in every circumstance the worker is the slave of the employer, and must remain so while capitalism exists. And it is just this slave position that it is all important for the worker to study, while it is, on the other hand, just the one the employers and their agents seek to hide.

The Daily Express shrieks about the sacredness of the employers’ “contracts” when the men go on strike against a lowering of wages, though this “sacredness” has a curious knack of disappearing when the masters tear the contracts to shreds, from one end of the country to the other, by locking the men out.

The Daily News wails for a “public” arbitrator, as though the “public” were something apart from employers and employed, and in nonchalant evasion of the fact that the chainmakers’ trouble flows out of a Board of Trade arbitration.

Explanations of the “unrest,” as it is termed, abound on all sides, each differing from the others, but all having the one common quality of revealing nothing beyond their writers’ ignorance of the facts, or their feverish anxiety to conceal them. The significant vote of the boilermakers points clearly to the proximate cause of the trouble in that trade. The Edinburgh agreement, that “triumph of arbitration,” has been found to act completely in the masters’ interests and against the men. The clause stating that under no conditions shall the men go on strike has been taken full advantage of by the masters, who have reduced actual wages, increased the “speeding up,” and generally worsened conditions all round. When the men have protested long-drawn-out conferences have enabled the masters, as the Daily News puts it, to “turn an awkward corner.”

A series of such arbitrations has at last convinced large numbers of the men that it is hopeless to expect any settlement of disputed points in their favour under such a scheme. Hence the taking of matters into their own hands, and the “sectional” strikes in the various works and yards.

More important still is the fact that, at present at any rate, the men are refusing to place the power of extending such an agreement in the hands of their officials and leaders, who are so ready to once again act on the employers’ behalf and against the men. The unity of the capitalist Press—Liberal and Tory alike—with the officials in condemning this action of the men is sufficient evidence of how well those officials consider the interests of the masters, and of the masters alone.

But, as if this were not sufficient, those leaders have gone out of their way, in another place, to give further proof of their duplicity in these matters. At the Trades Union Congress held in Sheffield a stranger to their little ways would have imagined that this fundamental question of the slavery of the working class would have formed the chief topic of discussion. So far, however, from this being the case, we find that the greatest attention was given to the question “How shall we save our salaries ?” Nay, more than this, one of the first questions discussed was whether the Congress should have its opening ceremony presided over by a large employer whose workpeople were at that very moment on strike against his conditions of employment. Certainly a protest was raised by a few delegates, but the fact that an employer was asked to preside at all shows how completely these “representatives” are the agents of the masters.

The surprising vote of the boilermakers however, warned them not to play the game too openly. So a little farce was arranged and Earl Fitzwilliam, the employer referred to, while not abating one jot from his position, agreed to the matter being placed before an arbitrator. After this “victory” the delegates sit down to listen meekly to the platitudes of this “representative” employer.

It fell to Mr. Shackleton to give the premier illustration of “how to do ’em down.” A delegate had asked the awkward question how it was that the Parliamentary Committee were opposed to the premium bonus system, while a member of the Committee took the chair at a meeting in favour of the system at which Mr. Balfour and Sir Christopher Furness spoke. The member referred to was Mr. Shackleton. The chairman, asked when this happened, but the delegate was unable to tell him, and then Mr. Shackleton brazenly denied having taken the chair in such circumstances.

Had the delegate who raised the point been able to carry his memory back to Dec. 1908 he might have refuted the lie with the following from the Daily Telegraph (2.12.1908).

“In the chair was Mr. Shackleton, M.P., one of the most conspicuous Labour members in the present House of Commons; the chief address was delivered by Mr. A. J. Balfour, in his capacity as president ; and the vote of thanks was presented by three gentlemen representative of widely apart walks of life, namely, Sir Christopher Furness, one of the great captains of industry . . Professor A. C. Pigou . . and Mr. Amos Mann.”

The occasion was a gathering of the so-called “Labour” Co-partnership Movement, whose fraudulent character was clearly shown in the Socialist Standard of Feb. 1909.

As if to add further evidence to our case against the “Labour” M.P.s, Mr. Shackleton also stated that “they had done as much as was possible to keep in the front the fact that the payment of members and of returning officers’ expenses would not meet the case.” (Reynolds’ Newspaper, 18.9.10.)

But the cloven hoof was fully exposed when discussing the question of “bringing pressure to bear on the Government.” Shackleton’s hysterical defence of the Liberal Government could not have been surpassed by Lloyd George. And it is just at this point that the Socialist statement applies.

The master class are able to dictate life and death to the workers because, through their control of political power, they have control of the armed forces that are used to preserve the property of the master class against the workers. Hence the supreme importance to the master class of keeping the latter ignorant upon this matter. This accounts for the treachery of those who, posing as “leaders” of the working class, use all their influence to keep that political power in the masters’ hands, and fight against the Socialist propaganda, that shows to the workers the reasons they must capture that power.

The vote of the boilermakers, even if only a temporary phase with them, is a good sign as showing the decline of the “leaders’ “power to mislead. Let every working man and woman study Socialism and the way to their emancipation will be clear.

Surprising indeed! (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

OFFICIAL CONFESSION THAT THE LABOUR EXCHANGE IS A BLACK-LEGGING INSTITUTION.

The following from the Daily News of Sept. 10 so completely substantiates the worst we have said of the Labour Exchanges that we are constrained to publish the whole item.

 

“SURPRISING LETTER.”

 

“Bradford Labour Exchange and trade disputes. 

(From Our Own Correspondent)

Bradford, Thursday Night

“At to-day’s meeting of the Bradford Trades Council the following letter, issued to employers in Bradford and marked ‘Private and confidential,’ was read :

“‘Dear Sir,— Since the Labour Exchange opened on Feb. 1st, 1910, there have been two disputes in the woolcombing industry. During the progress of both unfortunate occurrences some employers applied to the Labour Exchange for men, and in both instances we were prepared to help them all we could in accordance with the regulations of the Labour Exchanges Act. May I appeal to you that, as matters have now resumed their normal course, that I may be favoured with your orders for men, women, boys and girls ?

“It seems to me there will be work-people whom it will be beneficial for you to get from us, and seeing that we are prepared to help your trade during troublesome times, I believe some reciprocation of our efforts may be shown by you giving instructions to your foremen to apply to us for labour now that trade has resumed the normal course. I may state that we have all kinds of textile workers registered here, and many other classes of workers. If you care to avail yourself of this genuine offer to help you, I should be glad to place the entire services of the Labour Exchanges at your disposal.—Secretary.’

“The letter was not discussed.”

————————————–

It seems the good I.L.P’ers and trade unionists of Bradford were too dumbfounded to even talk about it. These much-lauded institutions that (through the enumeration and classification of the unemployed) were laying the foundations of the Socialist Commonwealth, according to the very practical statesmen of the I.L.P., turn out to be what we have always said they were. “One of the measures that may engage the attention of Parliament is that concerning Labour Bureaux—which again is typical of the true Liberal policy of serving the masters. Labour exchanges, when controlled by the Government, directly or indirectly, become recruiting offices for blacklegs.” So ran the warning to the working class in our issue of March, 1909. No gift of prophesy was required to perceive what would be the upshot of this “palliative.” Merely a little of the much despised “Socialist theorising” based upon the facts of capitalist society—that was all.

What then, were the facts bearing upon the creation of and administration of Labour Ex­changes ? Are they not that working folks in order to live are compelled to sell themselves piecemeal ; and may only do this when non-workers—capitalists—can make a profit on the deal ? That further, the workers seek the highest possible wages and their employers the highest possible profits, and as a consequence, share a relation of now subdued, now open hostility ? That through the Liberal and Tory parties, and their general control of Government, the employers effectively control these agencies for the sale and purchase of labour-power ?

Our bit of theorising, the correctness of which is amply proved by the above cited news item (without detailing the cases we have previously published), simply consists, then, of the “one and one make two” calculation that, with the purchasers of labour-power in control, the Exchanges must inevitably be used in the interest of these and against the interest of the sellers—the wage-workers. The whole thing is simple enough, and one must be blinded indeed by the love of popularity or by capitalist claptrap, if one does not see through it. Here are a staff of managers and clerks anxious to keep their jobs and consequently forced to do the bidding of and seek to ingratiate themselves with the powerful ones of the earth—with those who have the dispensing or withholding of jobs and favours. What wonder, then, that they do all that they can to assist the employer when he is abandoned by his workpeople ? What wonder then that they hunt up blacklegs and strike-smashers and act as procurers for the masters ? 

The employers make their little calculation too. Say they to themselves, “If hands register at the Labour Exchanges it is because they have a difficulty in getting employment. These people are in a bad way and only too glad of a job below the rate of wages prevalent. We’ll pay these people accordingly.” And they do, too ! as many poor, struggling working men and women have found to their cost.

True, as Mr. D. J. Shackleton pointed out at the Trades Union Congress, you can’t expect the Exchanges to be run to deal with 11 million workers as though they were seeking the best possible conditions for 2 million trade unionists. Well, hardly ! no more than you can expect the average labour (mis)leader to explain honestly the workman’s position when he is virtually pleading for strike-breaking agencies founded by and administered for the exploiting class—when he is defending his place and pelf.

For remember that Mr. Shackleton, like the rest of the Labour M.P.s, “Socialist” or otherwise, owes his seat in Parliament to the Liberal support he gets—and earns and pays for by-leading the workers to slaughter.

Fellow workers, how much more of this devilish game are you going to stand ?

J. H.

Socialism and Work. (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

When surveying the sordid and miserable life of the toiler, and the conditions under which he is compelled to live to-day, one thinks of what those conditions might be, what they should be, and wonders why it is that so many of the working class have even the smallest interest in anything outside and apart from the all absorbing struggle for bread.

A slight examination of the product of the mediaeval craftsman reveals the individuality of the worker embodied in his production, and shows that the workman of old had knowledge of his craft, taste and living interest in his work apart from the idea of wages.

To-day all such interest is crushed : pleasure in work is impossible. The modern factory—usually a modern hell—has no place for art or for pleasure : its object being, not the production of beautiful things or of useful articles, but the wringing of profit from the exertions of the flesh and blood machines—the wage-workers—through the monopoly of the machines of iron and steel.

In the “golden age of labour” the craftsman owned his tools and used them for the production of beautiful and useful objects, which were his when made. It was to his credit to put the best that was in him into the things he produced, and all things combined, not only to give him opportunity, but to encourage him to exercise thoroughness in the construction, and to give his work that expression of his individuality which is the very essence of art.

He was his own master, free to embody his own ideas in his own product in his own time, not dogged at every step by some impatient holder of a stop-watch, and forced to inscribe on a time-sheet the moments of each stage of production.

How different is the position of the modern toiler (craftsman he cannot be called). Labour to-day is divorced from art. The labourer has neither right nor interest in the object upon which he labours. It matters not to him whether the article produced be ugly or beautiful, useless or useful. He is an automaton hired to do a certain task ; the slave of a machine speeding at a pace he can scarcely travel. He finds no art, no pleasure, in his work, and outside his work—what ? Sordid surroundings from which he cannot dissociate himself if he would, with neither leisure to cultivate the science of his craft, education to understand it, or cash to obtain the necessary instruction.

All along we find that modern commerce and the turmoil of the market has been the deadly foe of pleasure in production. We produce to capture the markets of the world. Nation competes with nation to manufacture, not the best, but the the cheapest—the shoddy and the most deceptive. Thousands of us are engaged in the production of useless and harmful things, pandering to the insipid taste of the luxurious idler, applying our energy, not to create things of joy and comfort for ourselves and our fellows, but in order to obtain the food necessary to maintain the spark of life within our wan and pallid skins.

Can art flourish in such an environment ? Can one expect anything from such bestial conditions except the weakly grotesque in design and ornament, the puerile in fiction, poetry, and the drama?

To make really beautiful things the worker must be interested in his craft, must throw himself into his work and labour for the delight of that labour itself. He must have leisure to study his craft and the education lo understand it. His life and surroundings must be pleasant, and conditions must obtain such as are impossible under a system of wage-slavery, where men are mere profit-grin ding machines—cogs in the mechanism of industry and commerce.

We are forced to recognise that capitalism in every part of its system is rapidly killing all idea of art, crushing out every desire but that of gain. To make profit becomes its sole aim, and none but the thoughtless and the ignorant, apart from the few who sponge up the wealth that contains the blood of the toilers, can longer defend it.

To raise the workers from the level of the machine and to place them in the position of men is the object of Socialism.

We who are Socialists are not satisfied with our condition, bound, as we are, slaves to a merciless machine. It is our desire, not to return to the method of production of the Middle Ages, but to obtain the happiness and comfort, and the security of life enjoyed by the craftsman of that day, by making ourselves masters, collectively, of our tools, material and time, shapers of our own destiny.

Society is divided into two opposing camps. The one for the retention of the capitalist system of class domination, with a proletariat without joy in labour, without comfort in rest. The other the camp of the Socialists, who desire nothing but the abolition of that system, knowing that with its overthrow the one restraining force is removed that prevents the onward movement towards that society wherein work will be a comfort and not a curse, and all shall be united in a communion of hopeful and pleasurable labour.

Twel.

The Cycle “Maker”. (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not an uncommon sight within the past few years was the cycle “maker” riding one machine and carrying the frame of another on his back, en route to the “enamelers’ and nickel-platers’ shop. Usually a racing man, belonging to a cycling club and possessing some mechanical knowledge, he was able to turn it to account and “make” machines for his fellow clubmen. At the time of the boom of ’96-’98, a large number of machines were put on the road by these small makers. Buying the fittings, tubes, saddle, tyres, etc. from the factors and their agents, they executed the necessary brazing, filing and erecting in cellars, sheds, back kitchens, and other places more or less suitable, yet they were able to turn out very creditable jiggers, and, moreover, they reaped a very substantial monetary advantage.

The appliances were few and not costly. Beyond a vice, gas-brazing hearth (usually a tray filled with coke), and a few files, no other tools were necessary. With the development of capitalism these small makers are fast disappearing, and in their place have arisen the cycle engineers, who have brought to their aid every appliance of ingenuity and science, availing themselves of automatic machines uncanny in their movements and amazing in their output. An outcry (emanating from the capitalist Press of the cycle trade) for the standardisation of bolts, nuts and fittings generally, was raised and met, with the result that the number of firms catering for the rider is gradually being reduced, and the amalgamation of the Edie Manufacturing Co. with the B.S.A. Co.—together employing thousands of “hands”—means that the small manufacturer of fittings, like the small cycle maker, is being completely crushed out.

The slight mechanical knowledge imparted at the schools of to-day by engineering and drawing classes, is largely responsible for the leaning shown by lads towards the engineering trades. But the youngster on entering the factory is soon made aware that he is allowed, much less required, to learn but very little of the trade. Placed under a tyrannical foreman (picked out from his class by virtue of his “directing ability,” i.e. his hustling powers) the lad is put to work a machine previously set up by a charge hand (a prospective candidate for foreman’s honours) and simply performs an operation on some part of a cycle fitting ; and he keeps on “a doin’ of it” all day long, week in and week out, so long as he can be exploited. It will be understood that machine-tool manipulation is not the only process required to turn out bicycles—the filing and fitting is so simplified by systematic handling and constant repetition that waste is eliminated.

Upon reaching the age of 25 or so our cycle hand is ripe and fully qualified, from the capitalist point of view, for investure with the order of the “sack.” Younger and cheaper men are pushing him out, or he is getting “slack,” and sees the futility of awaiting promotion. So here is the result of ten years’ cycle “making.” During this period he may have learned to work some three or four machine tools, or, to be correct, to finish a few kinds of repetition work on them, and possibly to fit or assemble parts at the bench. So sure as slack times occur the older “hand ” is discharged to swell the ranks of the unemployed, with only the poor chance of getting a job as an engineer’s improver left him. Should he, however, gain the favour of his foreman he may be placed in the tool room, to devise means of quicker production. And the results of his observations and experience are the extension of output per “hand,” and consequently the reduction of the relative number of workers required.

Fellow worker, so long as the master class own and control the means and instruments of production, so long must the present system of wage-slavery exist. Having only your labour-power to sell you are compelled to slave, and cut one against the other to get a job, receiving on the average no more than sufficient to reproduce your efficiency, and the spectre of unemployment hovers about you always. As the cause of this is private ownership of the means of production, the remedy is to establish yourselves as owners in common of those means.

SPOKE.

The Tree and Its Fruits. (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

What the workers really need.

Perhaps one of the most frequent statements we who are out for the emancipation of our class are confronted with is, that as such-and-such a thing exists at present “it always will be the same,” In other words, as evils exist to-day under capitalism, they will also exist under Socialism.

Now if the base of a tree is rotten it stands to reason that the tree itself will not be very strong, and in some cases propping up will become necessary. But if the tree has a good foundation, one can expect it to be sound and healthy, and no propping up will be required. The same applies to society.

Even some non-Socialists admit that the present basis of society—the ownership of all the productive wealth by a few to the detriment of the many—is rotten, and that the basis of Socialism—common ownership of the productive wealth of society—is sound, and yet they immediately state that any new form of society will bear similar fruit, and what is required is reformation of the system. The base is to be left untouched, and therefore still rotten.

Others argue that “human nature” must alter for Socialism to be practicable, at the same time overlooking the fact that what they are pleased to term “human nature” is very amenable to the influence of environment, and that with the totally different conditions of life obtaining under Socialism, the same necessity for detrimentally struggling one against the other will have disappeared.

Some recognise that at present antagonism arises between owners and non-owners of the means of life, but fail to recognise that when these means are socially owned such antagonism will cease.

If only those who continually enquire of the Socialists “would there be so-and-so under Socialism ?” would always remember that the whole community would possess the instruments of wealth production, and the interest of each would be the interest of all, and then think for himself or herself whether “so-and-so” would be necessary or to the advantage either of the individual or the whole community, Socialists would be relieved of a certain amount of the work that falls upon them.

Perhaps it would not be out of place to instance a few of the things that would not exist under Socialism.

In the first place there would be no POOR, as all the means of wealth production would be jointly owned by the whole community, and as a consequence CAPITAL (wealth used to create profit) would not exist. Seeing that there would be no poor and needy, the necessity for CHARITY and PAWNSHOPS would be dispensed with. STARVATION would not be known, for to starve a person would mean that society would be deprived of that person’s assistance.

The so-called UNEMPLOYABLE that exist to-day are persons who, having been unable to find a purchaser of their labour-power, have gradually sunk lower and lower—for even their clothes do not last for ever. They would not exist as such under Socialism, but would have the opportunity of performing their share of the labour necessary for the maintenance of society, and have their needs satisfied from the common store they had helped to produce.

The “FALLEN WOMEN” (numbering 80,000 in London alone, according to the report of the London Lock Hospital and Rescue Home) are those who, being unable to sell their labour-power, are forced to sell their bodies in prostitution in order to live. The necessity for any woman to descend to this awful depth of degradation could not arise under Socialism, for every woman would have unrestricted entry to the field of useful social service, the reward for which would be full enjoyment of the material products of the social labour.

There would be no necessity for WAR, under Socialism, as interests being common, no clash of interests could give occasion for armed strife. And of course, with the abolition of war would go the need for ARMIES, NAVIES, BOY SCOUTS and so forth.

There would be no need for CORRUPT PRACTICES (which still flourish in spite of the Act) under Socialism. They are prevalent to-day because those who cannot succeed in the competitive struggle in a straight-forward way, naturally find themselves compelled to adopt any other means that may be within their reach to advance their interests, and adulteration, fraud, lying and trickery are the result. It is quite clear therefore that there is an incentive to deceive, cheat and defraud, and while such incentive exists all the teachings of Christianity and all laws and police and judges and jailors in Christendom will never succeed in preventing corrupt practices.

The IGNORANCE which exists to-day is caused by the fact that it is to the interest of the master class to keep their victims in darkness, and because excessive toil and lack of leisure allows no opportunity, and crushes all desire, for study. Under Socialism, the abolition of classes and the consequent unification of interests would make it to the interest of all that everyone should receive a thorough education, in order that they might develope and be of best possible service to society.

The state of affairs which allows an IDLE CLASS to exist, while another class work all hours imaginable, would not be possible under Socialism. This present idle class would have to do their fair share of the necessary work, without privilege of any sort, and so help to alleviate the task of the others.

These examples of evils that certainly would not exist under Socialism could be added to very largely, of course, but they must suffice.

The present system of society is like the rotten tree referred to, and the fruit it bears are the institutions that now exist.

What the workers want, therefore, is no more fighting for props (according to Lord Loreburn, the present Liberal Lord Chancellor, the workers find life more strenuous to-day than 50 years ago, in spite of reforms); no more vain striving after palliation in a system the very nature of which defies palliation, but a great and final endeavour for emancipation through a new social system on a sound basis. The institution of such a form of society is the object of the S.P.G.B.

R. A. M.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For October. (1910)

Party News from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar. Some of these names (and details) you have seen before:

• A. Barker. See this previous post.
• H. Cooper was H. J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. I should post the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• C. Ginger: Another member of Tottenham Branch. Charles Ginger was one of those SPGB members who joined the Party more than once. There's a suggestion that C. Ginger could also be Frank Grainger, who had originally left the SPGB to join the Herald League. (See Ken Weller's book). Frank Grainger eventually rejoined the SPGB in the 1930s, and was actually selected as the Party's parliamentary candidate for the East Ham North constituency, which the Party was planning to contest at the probable 1940 General Election. (WW2 intervened.) According to Ken Weller, after he resigned from the SPGB, he later worked for the Economic League.
• J. Halls was John H. Halls, who joined Paddington Branch of the SPGB in June 1907 (a Mrs Eleanor B. Halls joined Paddington Branch in July 1907). A regular writer and translator for the Socialist Standard in the Edwardian period, he eventually resigned his membership when he moved abroad (Paris).
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch of the SPGB. He joined the SPGB in October 1907.
• J. Kelly was a member of the Tottenham branch of the SPGB. There were two 'J. Kellys' in the Tottenham Branch of the SPGB (father and son?), both joining the Party in late August 1909.
• J. Kemble was possibly John Kemble. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in November 1907. There's no details of when he left - or why - but a John Kemble joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in January 1918, lapsing his membership in July 1923.
• F. Leigh was Fred Leigh. See this previous post.
• H. Martin was Harry Martin. He was a founder member of the SPGB, and was a member of its Peckham Branch. He was originally expelled from the SPGB in April 1905 for his activity with the Lambeth Unemployed Association but he rejoined the Party in June 1908. Martin was one of the signatories of the 1911 Provisional Committee Circular (The WB of Upton Park affair), and resigned from the SPGB in 1911. He went on to form the Socialist Propaganda League. His obituary appeared in the May 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• J. E. Roe. Jonathan Roe's obituary appeared in the August 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• F. W. Stearn was a member of the Tottenham Branch. There were actually two 'F. Stearn's in the branch at the time - possibly father and son - so I don't know which one was a listed speaker for this month.

Asked & Answered. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another footsore pilgrim half-soled-and-heeled while he waited.

“Philos Sophia ” writes as follows :

“I shall be glad if you will throw a little light on a few points on which I seem to be in darkness.

” ‘The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article.’ (“Capital,” p. 149. Karl Marx.)

(1) Am I correct in understanding this to mean that the value of labour-power is determined by the labour-time requisite for the production of the labourers’ means of subsistence ?

” ‘Suppose that in this mass of commodities requisite for the average day there are embodied 6 hours of social labour, then there is incorporated daily in labour-power half a day’s average social labour, in other words, half a day’s labour is requisite for the daily production of labour-power. This quantity of labour forms the value of a day’s labour-power or the value of the labour-power daily reproduced. If half a day’s average social labour is incorporated in three shillings, then three shillings is the price corresponding to the value of a day’s labour-power.’ (”Capital,” p. 151.)

(2) How is this three shillings determined to be the value of a day’s labour-power ? Is it determined by the supply of or demand for labour-power, or by the labour-time required to produce three shillings ?”

Reply:

If you carefully study the first argument of your second quotation you will find that it completely answers your first query. Your supposition is quite correct.

Regarding your second query, the three shilllngs is not the value of the day’s labour-power, therefore nothing determines that it is. It is “the price corresponding to the value.” It is an equivalent—in one respect only : they both have embodied in them the same amount of labour-time. But the value of each is contained in each, and it is only the likeness of each that is reflected in the other.

Supply and demand do not enter into the question of value at all, but only regulate the exchange ratio of the moment. When the supply of any particular commodity is greater than the demand for the same, that commodity will tend to sell below its value ; that is to say, the commodities for which it would exchange would on the whole, have less labour-time embodied in them. When, however, the supply is less than the demand, the exchange ratio of that commodity rises. These fluctuations gravitate about the point of value, and cancel one another, and the net result is that commodities in the long run exchange at their value.

Value is only the embodied labour (measured by time) in an article of utility, therefore the only thing that can determine that the value in the three shillings is equal to the value in the day’s labour-power is the fact that the same labour-time is necessary to produce either.

A. E. Jacomb

Answers to correspondents. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

H.—(Philadelphia.) The economic organisation of the working class is to be .Socialist—on class lines, not industrial. For articles on Industrial Unionism see the following issues of this journal : October and November 1906, April, August and November 1907, and July 1909.

Fine graft. (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The proudest boast of the old-time robber barons was that they never robbed a poor man.”

 

“Those fellows were amateurs at the game,” explained the great Captain of Industry, “and didn’t understand how much money there was in it.”—”Puck.”

The Salvation Army and the Working Class. (1910)

From the March 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Safety of England lies in her Sunday.”—Guizot.

A Notable Utterance.

At the time this famous bon-mot, was uttered (1848) any one who had travelled much on the Continent of Europe would naturally contrast the mental equipment of the English workers with that attained by the proletariat of other countries. To such an one the witty saying of the “great” French statesman would have been pregnant with meaning. Sunday was the “day of rest.” The tavern and its next door neighbour, the chapel, were then practically the only means of Sabbath recreation open to the worker. This being so, he would be little likely to bother his head with theories about the reorganisation, of society.

Drugged and stupid with heavy doses of “Beer and Bible” Sunday, but little inclination on his part would be evinced to rise in revolt against his masters. The bourgeois could therefore comfortably settle himself in his cosiest arm-chair, and, as he sipped his glass of after-dinner port, purr softly to himself, “God’s in his Heaven, all’s right with the world!”

Could the shade of the astute middle-class Gaul in this our present day revisit this country, we can well imagine him adding further point to his epigram in some such words as : “and in her Salvation Army.”

Two great assets the masters rely on to keep their wage-slaves in a state of subjection. The armed forces of the nation—which they are able to manipulate to suit their own ends—and secondly the lamentable state of almost hopeless ignorance in which the workers are still steeped.

Chloroforming the Workers.

In fostering and keeping alive this state of ignorance numerous charitable and philanthropic agencies play an ever-increasing and important part. The bourgeois in this our beloved country is a greater adept than his French or German confrere at the gentle art of building temporary bridges across the yawning chasm which lies between him and the proletariat. In the attempt—too often, alas, successful—to hide the running sore of working-class degradation, more time, money and effort are spent in this country than in any other under the sun. Coals, blankets, soup and the visitation of the sick are a very present help whenever it is desired to trail a red herring across the path of the deluded worker.

This, of course, also applies to Continental Europe, but there either the drug is administered in much smaller quantities, or the trick is clumsily performed. Verily, his “charitable institutions” are a tower of strength to the British “employer of labour.” This being so, we shall not have far to seek for one of the chief reasons why the English worker is as yet so unresponsive to the teaching of the Socialist. “Where ignorance is bliss, t’were folly to be wise.”

The Vicar of Hell.

Among the many agencies employed by the capitalist class to bring about this state of affairs, the Salvation Army is one of the most successful.

We have no hesitation in saying that the influence of the Salvation Army on the mind of the working class is wholly evil.

In two ways : Firstly, by its drum and trumpet performances at the street corner, coupled with the exhortations of the “captain” and the “Hallelujah lasses” to “come to Salvation,” a by no means inconsiderable section of the workers is persuaded that “conversion” is the one thing needful, and that the reformation of the individual and the building up of character must precede any attempt to better material conditions.

In this way the worker, being “well saved” “snatched from Satan” (or whatever form of expressive but inelegant cant is used), his eyes turned from his material interests (the only ones that matter) towards a heavenly throne (which doesn’t), is gradually reduced from a potential thinker to a docile, humble and obedient slave.

And that is exactly what the masters want.

The “Great Idea” Fraud.

Thus in a recent issue of a great daily paper [Daily News Dec., 4, 1909] we read the following:

“SALVATION ARMY IDEAL.

In a “foreword” to the annual report of the social work of the Salvation Army—written by Mr. Arnold White under the title of “The Great Idea”—the author expresses “the conviction that in the Salvation Army we have a strong barrier against Godless Socialism,”

“To grasp the Great Idea,” he adds, “is to understand the height and depth of the self-sacrificing devotion, the reason for the common-sense, the resource and readiness of the Booths and their officers, in seeking the rescue of the Lost Brigade. It imparts hope to the man whose failure in the battle of life is due to his own character and conduct.”

Now science knows no such thing as an individual character, apart from social surroundings.

In the second place, the worker’s mind is muddled and befogged by the “Army’s” ministrations to his creature comfort in the shape of “Soup and Shelter.”

Sentimental Slosh.

How often is the Socialist critic met with some such question-begging argument (!) as this ?—”When I was out of work the officer came round and helped my missis and the kids. Don’t say anything against the Salvation Army or I’ll, etc., etc.”

(This, of course, loses sight of the fact that our diatribes are levelled at the “Army” as an institution, not at the inoffensive and often sorely-sweated wage-slaves of that venerable fraud, the autocrat of Queen Victoria Street.)

Or again—”Whilst you fellows are spouting at the street-corner, General Booth and his men are feeding people and giving them shelter from the cold ! Why don’t you do something for the poor? ”

Saving the Rates.

The fact cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the Salvation Army provides the bourgeois with a cheap and effective form of sticking-plaster wherewith to cover up the hideous ulcer which is eating out the vitals of our class. For are we not told by Mr. F. A. McKenzie—the “Army’s” spokesman for 1908—that “it is the business of the Salvation Army to help and reform. And where I have worked out costs on both sides the Salvation Army does for £1 what costs the Guardians £3.“—”Waste Humanity,” 1908, p. XVIII. (The italics are ours.)

This is letting the cat out of the bag with a vengeance !

We are well aware that the workers in other capitalist countries enjoy the blessings of the “Army’s” efforts to please, both on the religious and the material side. Stray items of news do sometimes filter through from “foreign parts” to show that the rate-saving dodge is not confined to British soil. The following paragraph will serve as an illustration.

"COUNCIL SEEKS ARMY’S AID. 

The Helsingfors Town Council has again turned to the Army for a solution of its unemployment problem. Numbers of out-of-works had adopted a threatening attitude towards the authorities, and demanded 10,000 Finnish marks from the council for food and clothes.

In their dilemma, the authorities approached The Army and handed over the sum of £200 (half the money demanded), with the request that we should find some of them work.”—War Cry, Feb. 12, 1910.

But it is in Britain and “our” colonies that the operations of this gigantic many-sided fraud can best be observed from the point of view of working-class economics.

The “Army” and the Public.

Articles and paragraphs criticising the Salvation Army have from time to time appeared in various magazines and newspapers. We nevertheless believe that no detailed attempt has yet been made to approach the subject from the Socialist point of view. Even Mr. John Manson’s monumental work on the subject [“The Salvation Army and the Public,” by John Manson. Routledge, 4½d] (to which we have gone for many of the facts and figures to be herein quoted, and which should be read by all Socialists) deals mostly with the “Army” from the public’s (i.e., the capitalist public) standpoint. We are emboldened to quote, when necessary, from Mr. Manson’s work for two reasons.

First, it is almost impossible for anyone who does not possess an inexhaustible stock of time and patience to gain direct and straight forward information from the Queen Victoria Street authorities themselves. Secondly, although the work above referred to was first published in July 1906—a subsequent and cheaper edition being issued in 1908—General Booth and his assistants have never yet thought fit to make any reply to the charges brought against them, although repeatedly urged to do so by their journalistic supporters in the capitalist Press. The vague and airy nothings of the “General” on this subject can be at once eliminated—e.g.: “These attacks are too silly to need refutation” [General Booth, 1906.] (although a few months previously an interviewer was informed at “Headquarters” that the book was officially admitted to contain “a good deal of truth.”)

(Here let us state that, in accordance with our custom, the columns of the SOCIALIST STANDARD are at all times open to apologists for the “Army,” official or otherwise.)

With the manipulation and management or mismanagement of the Salvation Army’s funds the Socialist is not directly concerned. The money collected is subscribed out of surplus-value, the donations of the workers being, we believe, in proportion to the whole a negligible quantity.

As Socialists our business is first and foremost with the effect the “Army’s” schemes have upon the economic position of the working class. Our enquiry will naturally fall into two divisions.

A. The results of the purely “tradesman” or “shop-keeping” operations of the “Army.”

B. The inception, growth, and present position of the “Darkest England” scheme with its manifold ramifications, viz., Elevators, Farm Colonies, Emigration, etc.

With the first of these divisions: “The ‘Army’s’ Trading Schemes,” we shall at once proceed to deal.

“Fritz”

(To be continued.)