Equality and the Wages System. (1931)

From the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The changes in the administration of some of the State industries of Russia, recently announced with the usual pomposity by Stalin, have given the capitalist press another chance to extol the alleged economic superiority of capitalist methods of production over what they mistake for Socialism.

Actually, these changes merely make more clear the essentially capitalist character of the Russian State industries, frequently pointed out in these columns.

Piece-work is to be extended, and many of the "worker-administrators” are to be sent back to the factories. The specialists and managers are to be given greater powers of control, and be more liberally treated. These changes, however, involve no new principle. Ever since the introduction of the New Economic Policy ten years ago things have been moving along this direction, albeit spasmodically and inconsistently. 

Nevertheless, we have the "Manchester Guardian” seizing upon the occasion in its weekly issue of July 10th to expound a little capitalist economics. Speaking of the workers in the factory, the editorial scribe asserts that, "He may work slowly or badly but he will draw his wages just the same unless there is some system of fines or piece rates." It would seem that this brilliant journalistic gem dwells in a world where the "sack” is unheard of.

Wages are paid only in order that employing concerns may squeeze out of the workers that profit which it is the object of their existence to obtain. This applies whether the workers are on piece rates or not. Piece rates have the advantage, however, in those industries where the system can conveniently be utilised, from the capitalist point of view, of reducing the need for supervision to keep up the pace of production; a fact which led Marx to declare, “that piece-wage is the form of wages most in harmony with the capitalist mode of production,” "Capital,” p. 567 (Sommenseheim).

Stalin and his supporters, however, claim to be "Marxists.” They declare that, "it is necessary to organise a system of a sliding scale of wages which would take into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour . . . Marx and Lenin say that this difference will exist also in Socialist society even after the abolition of classes; that only in a Communist society will this difference vanish. Therefore, wages, even under a Socialist regime, must be regulated in accordance with the work accomplished and not the need felt.”

Then they proceed to condemn "those trade unionists and economists who are in favour of equal wages” as being opposed to Marxism and Leninism.

To take the last point first, Marx certainly exposed the absurdity of the demand for "equal wages,” a demand which figured prominently in the propaganda of a section of the Communist Party in this country (in the "Workers’ Dreadnought” particularly) in its early days.

On page 31 of "Value, Price and Profit,” Marx says, "Upon the basis of the wages system the value of labouring-power is settled like that of every other commodity; and as different kinds of labouring powers have different values, or require different quantities of labour for their production, they must fetch different prices in the labour market. To clamour for equal or even equitable retribution on the basis of the wages system is the same as to clamour for freedom on the basis of the slavery system.” (Italics Marx’s.)

It is obvious enough that Marx is referring here to wages under capitalism, but where did he speak of wages under Socialism? Stalin does not tell us. Wages, whether equal or unequal, are ‘part and parcel of capitalism, i.e., a system based upon the ownership by the master-class of the means of living, and the consequent enslavement of the working class by whose labour alone all wealth is produced. Or, as Marx himself put it in his criticism of the Gotha Programme, "The system of wage-labour is therefore a system of slavery and a slavery that becomes more and more arduous as the socially productive forces of labour develop, and independently of the question whether the labourer is better paid or worse.” (Section II, par. 5.)

The wage-labour system in Russian State industries, like the system' here and elsewhere, is a system of Slavery. The spread of piece-work will intensify the slavery; it will enable the "Communist” rulers to squeeze more surplus-produce out of Russian workers, just as it has helped the Conservative and Liberal capitalists of this country. Alleged “quotations” in support of it from Marx merely brand Stalin & Co. as hypocrites and their followers as ignorant dupes. The Russian Government must make a profit in order to pay interest upon its loans if for no other reason, and this fact alone is sufficient to explode the myth that Russian State industry is run on Socialist lines.

The Russian Government has to borrow money to run its industries, like any other capitalist concern, because it has to pay for machinery and raw material, because its employees have to pay for the food, clothes and houses they need; because, in a phrase, all the means by which these requirements are produced are private property. It has not established an oasis of Socialism in a capitalist desert. Had it tried to do so it would have been speedily annihilated.

Does this then prove that capitalism is the only possible economic system, as the “Manchester Guardian” would have us believe? Is the equality, which the Socialist Party fights for, incompatible with productive efficiency? In order to answer these questions it is necessary to be clear as to what we are to compare capitalism with, and also exactly what we mean by equality. If we compare capitalism with the forms of society which preceded it, we find that it has resulted in an enormous and unprecedented increase in the produce of labour; but it has also resulted in the concentration of the bulk of this produce in the hands of the few.

The gulf between the workers of to-day and their capitalist masters is greater than that which separated the peasant-serfs from the robber barons or the chattel-slaves from their patrician masters. Before the increased productive power of modern labour can become an advantage to the whole of society the instruments of production must become common property. They are socially operated; they have yet to become socially owned and controlled.

This of course involves the abolition, through political action, of the “rights” of the capitalists to own and control the land, factories, railways, etc. It implies the conscious assumption by the working- class, organised for the purpose, of complete control of the machinery of government so that they may obtain control of the entire industrial resources of society.

This abolition of classes is the equality at which Socialists aim (not a mathematical equality of income which is fantastic and unwanted); but an equality of access to the means of living and of obligation to contribute to their production. Such an equality would render the term “wages” a meaningless one, for no one would be in a position to buy the services of others in order to make a profit, just as no one would be in the position of having to sell their energies in order to obtain a bare subsistence.

Under such a system it would be to the interests of all to expand the material resources of society as rapidly as possible in order to increase the common stock of Necessities and amenities. For so long as these resources are fettered by capitalist ownership, whether in the form of private capitalism or nationalisation, the workers will be restricted to the consumption of such a quantity of goods as is sufficient to enable them to go on producing a profit. Hence we find everywhere that the capitalists, faced with a quantity of goods which cannot be sold, are compelled to take steps to restrict production.

Socialism will abolish the need for such restriction and while, even with the present resources of production, it would immediately increase the wealth available for the workers' enjoyment, it would also render possible a considerable expansion of those resources in order that the free development of every individual should be translated from a dream into a reality.

Eric Boden

Editorial: The Great Fiasco: Contemptible "Labour" Government (1931)

Editorial from the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have just witnessed the inglorious exit of the second “Labour” Government after more than two uneasy years of office—two years of deserted principles, political bargaining, and cowardice. During that time the cherished theories of the Labour Party have been tried, and every one found wanting, and abandoned.

The Labour Party was to be a “high-wage” party. More than four million workers have had their wages reduced since Mr. MacDonald became Prime Minister in June, 1929. The Government confessed its inability to prevent the reductions, and indeed played an active part in some of them—notably those affecting its own employees,

It was confident that unemployment could be reduced by means of its schemes of development. Yet we have seen unemployment mount to a record figure, 2,700,000; the percentage of insured workers on the unemployed register equalling the highest previous figure (23%), attained under Mr. Lloyd George’s Government in 1921.

Foremost in the Labour Party’s programme was the belief that the workers could be protected against the worst evils of the capitalist system by means of social reforms, and further that their standard of living could be supplemented and fundamentally raised by these additions to wages. In practice social reforms which reduce the necessary expenditure requiring to be met out of wages, have the effect of permitting corresponding reductions in the workers’ wages without detracting from their efficiency as profit producers for their employers. The Report of Lord MacMillan, who was appointed by the Labour Government to inquire into the wages of wool textile workers, accepted this as a matter-of-course, and recommended lower wages on this very ground, that the social services had relieved the workers of expenditure on unemployment, on medical attention, and on maintenance during old age.

The Labour Party for the whole of its existence had preached Nationalisation. Then, when they came into office on this occasion, their spokesmen calmly abandoned that doctrine and put in its place the advocacy of public utility corporations of the kind introduced by Liberals and Conservatives in the Port of London Authority, and the Central Electricity Board. Mr. Herbert Morrison frankly accepted these as the model for his proposed London Passenger Transport Board. Neither Nationalisation nor public utility corporations would solve any working class problem, but the Labour Party, until it took office, professed to believe in the former as a panacea, and rejected the latter.

One of the principal arguments put forward for nationalisation was that state employees would be better paid than the workers in private industry, and thus the standard of living as a whole would be lifted by the nationalisation of one industry after another. Yet the seven Labour Party supporters on the Civil Service Commission, three of them Labour M.P.’s, signed the report rejecting this doctrine in its entirety. They declare that Government employees must not be paid more than is being paid for comparable work by private employers. They recommend lower pay for certain Government clerks for no other reason than that private employers are getting similar types of workers for a lower wage.

The sum total of all the Labour Party schemes of reform was to be a process of conversion by the example of practical works. The Labour Government would give the workers one after another of its sheaf of beneficent reforms, rousing more and more of them to a pitch of enthusiasm, until a majority would be led to vote for Labour Government.

The events have been far different.

The enthusiasm of even the staunchest Labour voters has been undermined by instance after instance of successful attacks on their wages and working conditions, carried through without a word of protest from the Labour Ministry. How, indeed, could they protest while they were reducing the low pay of their own Post Office and other workers, and while the co-operative societies were doing the same ?

The general defence of the Labour Cabinet was that they were the victims of an “economic blizzard.” But it was precisely because they professed to be able to protect the workers against such blizzards that they went into office. No words can disguise their failure. “Economic blizzards” are a normal and recurrent feature of capitalism. It is an illusion to suppose that capitalism can exist without these crises of over-production.

Their promise to give the workers “something now” in the shape of reforms was not only unfulfilled, but they ended up by proposing to make a direct attack upon the existing social reforms.

The “Daily Herald” in its issue for Monday, 24th August, admitted that a majority of about 12 members of the Cabinet, out of a total of 21, were in favour of reducing unemployment pay in order to meet the wishes of the Conservatives and Liberals and the banking interests. This was the cause of the final crisis. The “Herald,” in its Editorial, admits that the existing scale of unemployed pay is “barely sufficient to keep them in a state that will enable them to step back into industry when the time comes.”

We are told that heavy taxation and the size of the Budget have brought the country to a critical position, and that economy is the only way out. Yet we observe that taxation was heavier in 1920 and 1921, and the Budget nearly twice as large. Is it that the crisis has been exploited with the object of forcing reductions on unwilling workers?

Alongside its other principles the Labour Government also shed the last vestige of its boasted independence. It took office on Liberal votes, just as it did in 1924. It carried on constant discussions and negotiations with the Liberal leaders in order to keep their support. At the end the negotiations were extended to include the Conservatives also.

Now we observe that Mr. MacDonald is to be Premier in a new Cabinet containing Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Snowden, Sir Herbert Samuel, and other Liberal, Labour and Tory Ministers. It is expected that Mr. Snowden will be Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reason for the inclusion of Labour Party Ministers was foreseen and disclosed by the “Western Morning News” (4th August, 1931) :

  Labour interests, which are bitterly hostile to economy in any form, may be brought by a Labour Government to recognise the facts and the unpleasant consequences which will result from ignoring them. They will take from Mr. Mac-Donald and Mr. Snowden what they would not accept from a Conservative Premier and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for that reason, if no other, it is desirable to keep Labour in power.

The Labour Government failed to do this, but the Labour Ministers in the National Government will serve the same purpose. So the Labour Party’s supporters are now confronted with the humiliating spectacle of their leaders being once more—as during the war—part of a great capitalist coalition to solve the problems of the capitalist industrialists and bankers.

The “Daily Express” and “Manchester Guardian” reported (24th August) that the Labour Government’s last miserable effort to cling to office was the submission of its economy proposals to the banks for their approval! The Labour Party stands now divided and discredited. Its Cabinet has fought no battle for Socialism. It has lived dishonestly and dies meanly and unlamented.

Where We Stand.

It is an opportune moment to restate the position of the Socialist Party. We contend that there is no solution for the workers’ problems except Socialism.

It is not possible for the Labour Party or any other party to administer capitalism in such a way that the workers’ problems can be solved within the framework of the existing system. The failure of the Labour Government is not an accident. It is not due to mistakes in tactics, or to the failure of the personal element.

When they entered office Mr. J. H. Thomas declared on their behalf that they were going to do what they could to reduce unemployment while ”accepting the present order of society” (see “Daily Herald,” 6th July, 1929). That was an attempt which was bound to fail, and what is true of unemployment is equally true of the poverty problem in general.

We dealt in our issue of June, 1929, with the certain failure of the Labour Government. Our words will bear repeating. Our confident prophecy is being fulfilled.

 We deal elsewhere in this issue with the failure of Labour Government in Queensland. We prophesied that failure and with absolute confidence we prophesy the similar failure of Labour Government here. No matter how able, how sincere, and how sympathetic the Labour men and women may be who undertake to administer capitalism, capitalism will bring their undertaking to disaster. As in Queensland, those who administer capitalism will find themselves sooner or later brought into conflict with the working class. Like their Australian colleagues, the Labour Party here will find themselves in a cleft stick. Having no mandate to replace capitalism by Socialism, they have pledged themselves to solve problems which cannot be solved except by doing the one thing for which they have no mandate.

The reference to the Queensland State Government, although made in 1929, is relevant now because the Australian Federal Government—a “Labour” Government with a parliamentary majority, is at this moment carrying through a policy of reducing wages and of cutting social reforms exactly like the economy scheme of our own “National” Government.

Knowing that Socialism is the only solution and that it can be brought about only when the electors become Socialists, we have consistently opposed the Labour Party and its affiliated party, the I.L.P., which practise the dishonest political manoeuvre of seeking election on a programme of reforms of capitalism. It is dishonest because those who do it know that the reforms will not solve the problem. Their dishonesty has on this occasion soon been exposed. The logic of events has called their bluff. They fought the last election on the promise of an improved standard of life for the workers. The end of their inglorious tenure of office finds them hand-in-hand with their erstwhile opponents chanting the slogan of “sacrifices for all.”

Again we urge the workers to abandon these illusions and make their choice against capitalism, including its Labour Party supporters, and for Socialism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the only party in this country that has never betrayed the workers’ interests by supporting reform programmes or capitalist parties.

An Appeal For Funds. (1931)

Party News from the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are in urgent need of financial assistance, and make this appeal to our members and sympathisers to respond quickly and as generously as they are able. It is also necessary to point out that subscriptions are needed regularly because our dependence on donations is not exceptional but permanent. Perhaps some explanation, is due to new readers who do not know the circumstances.

We are at present necessarily a propaganda organisation, working to make Socialist principles better known. But that costs money. Printer's bills, the hire of halls, our rent and lighting, all of these things have to be paid for. The money comes in part from members' subscriptions, the sale of literature, and from collections at meetings. We have, however, no wealthy supporters, and those subscriptions and donations are not enough to enable us to carry on our present volume of propaganda, let alone to increase it. We go, therefore, to our circle of sympathisers for assistance to maintain and extend our activities. We are a growing organisation, but there is so much more that we could do if we had the means. By advertising we have during the past year added considerably to the number of readers of the “ S.S.” If we had the money there is an almost unlimited field from which to gain more readers. Our clerical work, and our propaganda work, is carried on entirely by members in their leisure hours after working all day for their employers. If we had the money we could vastly increase the effectiveness of our propaganda by employing full-time organisers.

If you will give now and give regularly, you will be enabling us to carry on more and more effective propaganda.

Send donations to the Treasurer at 42, Great Dover Street, S.E.l. Acknowledgment will be made by receipt and in the “Socialist Standard."

Letter: A Criticism from a Ruskin College student. (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July we published under the heading, “Is this Working-Class Education?” an extract from a book by Mr. J. G. Sinclair (“Portrait of Oxford ”) in which he dealt with the trade union students at Ruskin College. A Ruskin student sends us the following letter :—

93, Fairacres Road,

Oxford,

To the Editor, July 2nd, 1931.

“The Socialist Standard,”

Dear Comrade,

May I be allowed the space for a few comments on your article, “Is this Working-class Education ”

Of course it isn’t! Neither is it the truth about Ruskin students. I have been a student in Oxford for the last four years; previous to that I was a coal-hewer in Durham. For two years I was a student at Ruskin College, and I confess that I am glad I ever had the opportunity for study that Ruskin College makes possible to workers. I must confess that I never tried to dress like the "Undergrad”—I wish I’d had the sense. At the same time I never had so much affection for my colliery trousers as to wish to wear them anywhere where they were not needed; never mind where they would be ludicrous. All the miners of my acquaintance treasured a navy-blue suit—generally because the week-end was the only chance they had to wear it. In Oxford a blue suit would last about three weeks. There has not been anything better invented for sitting about in than grey flannel trousers; they do not "bag” at the knees, they do not shine, and they can be cleaned for a "bob.” And when you are hurrying from one lecture to another a cap is just a damned nuisance. Was our dress so perfect that a change was pure affectation? Was it so holy that a change was blasphemy? Do you have so little faith in those working lads who try to educate themselves as to accept the view of an arrant snob; that a miner, for instance, who went through the stoppage of 1926, could throw off his feelings with his cap? You may, as Marxists, criticise the curriculum, but at least give the lads credit for being as honest as yourselves.

The allegation that the Ruskin students cultivate the "Oxford twang” is just downright lying. That we tried to speak more correctly is true; but surely that is advisable? As for afternoon tea in North Oxford, I confess that I have often been invited—and gone; it is part of one’s education to meet people from other social groups. But I have met very few Ruskin students who would not admit their ignorance much more readily than they would claim knowledge. Mr. Sinclair has not tried to understand the working-class students’ position; I should say he is not capable of doing so.

May I now put another point of view. It strikes me as rather ridiculous that the working-class should not believe it necessary to educate its leaders. To send a man to Ruskin for two years is a waste of good funds; I say this after I have had the advantage of four years in this city of ‘‘dreaming towers and proletarian antipathies” The working-class movement prefers to rely on a bunch of middle-class sympathisers to act as leaders; they have had the opportunity to learn the art of "balancing the two sides of every question in good Balfourian style!” In Oxford "socialist” circles one will meet lots of people who believe the "dole” must be reduced to save the “insurance principle.” Most Ruskin students have had, or will have, a period on the "dole” and, if only for that reason, have other views. It must be pointed out that not all the fellows who come to Ruskin College are actively interested in politics or other branches of the working-class movement. Some are merely interested in education from a cultural standpoint. Even making allowances for those, Mr. Sinclair’s "portrait” is a disgusting distortion. More disgusting still is the manner in which so-called Working-class journals have literally “licked their lips.” If we are to accept the inference that working lads are not to be trusted, we are indeed in a bad way. Apparently we prefer the opinion of an insurance agent! .

Yours fraternally,

A. Dowdell.

Reply.

Let us first dispose of the least important part of the controversy, i.e., that part relating to the clothes and ways of living of Ruskin students. Mr. Sinclair, himself a Ruskin College student, makes certain allegations about his fellow students and draws certain conclusions. These our correspondent hotly repudiates. We are not in a position to settle the question by a personal inquiry, and in the absence of further evidence we are quite content to accept Mr. Dowdell’s statement that the picture drawn by Mr. Sinclair may not be an entirely accurate one.

The other part of the question is by far the more important. It was indicated by the heading to our paragraph which gave offence to Mr. Dowdell, viz., “Is this Working-Class Education?” We have always said—and this quite apart from Mr. Sinclair’s gibes—that Ruskin College is not engaged in working-class education. The promoters of the College regarded it as a means of securing industrial peace between the owning and the non-owning class, but in practice its chief function appears to be that of training young workers to become labour leaders. Our correspondent admits this to be true, or rather he thinks that it ought to be true. He remarks that it is “rather ridiculous that the working-class should not believe it necessary to educate its leaders.” If Mr. Dowdell were familiar with the Socialist Party’s case he would know that we regard it as even more ridiculous, in fact, absolutely fatal to the working-class,  that they think it necessary to have and to follow leaders at all, whether "educated” according to the standards of Ruskin College or not. The training of individuals, whether of working-class or capitalist class origin, to become “leaders” of the workers is most emphatically not working-class education. The leaders thrive not on the knowledge of the workers but on their ignorance. Whether they are honest or dishonest these leaders cannot bring about Socialism for the working-class—that the workers have to do for themselves. Which means that they, and not merely their leaders, have to acquire knowledge. It is the purpose of working-class education to give the workers the knowledge. Such is not the purpose (or the result) of the activities of Ruskin College.

Our correspondent complains because the worker trained at Ruskin College gets cut out by the "bunch of middle-class sympathisers.” This is hard luck for the Ruskin College student to whom the Labour Movement is a career. We are not concerned with blaming him or his more successful rival for so regarding it. What we are concerned with is the need to get the workers to rid themselves of their dependence on, and faith in, leaders.

Our correspondent invites us to put more trust in one kind of leader than another. Judging by results there is nothing to choose between the uneducated tub-thumper, the worker trained at Ruskin or the Labour College, or the "intellectuals” who have fastened on the working-class movement.

(For what it is worth, a case has indeed been made out by Professor Michel in his "Political Parties” for the view that the leader drawn from the ranks of the propertied class is more to be trusted than the ambitious worker who climbs to that position of eminence.)

Coming to Mr. Dowdell's last paragraph, the “working lads” with a desire to "lead” the workers are no more to be trusted than, and are every whit as dangerous as, their rivals drawn from the other class. Until the workers rid themselves of their trust in leaders they will continue to be misled, defeated, and betrayed, whenever suitable occasion offers. On the other hand, when the workers begin to grasp the essentials of Socialist principles they will not continue to hug the delusion that Ruskin College is an institution concerned with working-class education.

Editorial Committee

The Socialist Forum. (1931)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Should Socialists compromise?

To the Editor,                            

Dear Comrade,

I believe myself to be just as revolutionary and equally Socialistic as any member of the “Socialist Party,” according to the policy laid down month by month in the “Standard.”

I am a Socialist and a member of the “Labour Party,” also, I am expecting to help to improve the lot of the worker by winning a seat on the local Town Council.

I see only one way of helping the worker, as a member of a minority group on the Council, and that would be to compromise.

How would you suggest an uncompromising Socialist would act under similar circumstances?

Yours sincerely,

Matt Quinn,

Grimsby

Reply:

The answer to Mr. Quinn’s questions is simple. Either Socialists form a majority of his electors or they do not. (We have no doubt whatever that they form a very small minority.) If they formed a majority then the only way to get elected would be to stand as a Socialist, on a Socialist programme, and as a member of the Socialist Party. If Socialists are a minority then the only way to get elected would be to stand on a non-Socialist programme in order to get non-Socialist votes. Mr. Quinn is in a horrible dilemma. As he says he agrees with us, he must know that nothing but Socialism will solve the workers’ problems. But as an observer of the electorate in Grimsby Mr. Quinn also knows that if he tells them so they, not being Socialists, will vote against him. To be a non-Socialist Town Councillor, or to be a Socialist non-Town Councillor? That is the question. If Mr. Quinn succeeds in being a Town Councillor backed up by non-Socialist votes, Mr. Quinn’s ability to help the Socialist cause will be nil; he will have to pursue non-Socialist policies because otherwise his party and his electorate will turn against him. The answer to his question, what would we do under similar circumstances, i.e., if we were non-Socialist Town Councillors, is that we would not be in those circumstances. In other words, Mr. Quinn is quite mistaken when he thinks that he agrees with us and we with him. Our object is to get Socialism. Mr. Quinn wants to become a Town Councillor more than he wants Socialism. We suggested that if he wanted us to consider his policy on its merits he should send us his election address. He replies that he has not yet got an election address but “In any case I should not have done so.” We are surprised that a “Socialist” should be so reluctant to let us and our readers see the sort of bait with which he is trying to catch the non-Socialist votes of Grimsby.

May we ask readers in Grimsby if they will kindly help us to prevent Mr. Quinn from hiding his queer light under a bushel, and send us a copy of his election address?

Editorial Committee

#    #    #    #

Have we made a mistake?

A correspondent explains why, in his opinion, we should alter our methods.

The Editor,

“Socialist Standard.”

Heygaka,

Wealdstone, Harrow.

Dear Sir,

When one looks into history we find that all movements live in action. In English history we have revolutions, riots, and strikes. Now I cannot conceive capitalism lasting that length of time in which your party will have converted the majority of the working class into class-conscious Socialists.

To my mind, and many others, I feel that the mass of the people will be ultimately led to their goal, without them all being convinced of the object in view.

Assuming in your opinion that all the other (so-called) Socialist parties have been wrong in the past, then from your party’s inception, I may deem you the infallible guides to Socialism.

Now, to sum up your impregnable position, it amounts to this: “If we do nothing, then we cannot make any mistakes. I also understand your party are opposed to all other political parties. This statement admits that Socialism is only possible through your party. Now, I want to look at your party’s progress from its inception, which, I think, is roughly 20 years. I assume your membership is approximately 1,000 strong. If we compare these two factors, and then consider the conversion of the majority of 20,000,000 electorate, your methods will not suit the mentality of the unemployed. Your Socialism is a good hobby for those in the best possible employment, they have a crust; but for those who are actually feeling the pinch and want something NOW, you’ll have to begin making mistakes.

Yours fraternallv,

Augustus Manning.

Reply.

Our correspondent’s letter contains several lines of argument interwoven with each other. The first argument is that history shows the need for “action,” whereas the Socialist Party believes only in theorising. What is wanted (especially by the unemployed) is something now. If the Socialist Party gives them “action” and doesn’t mind making mistakes, then we shall get Socialism.

The second argument is that capitalism will not last long enough for the people to become Socialists before the end.

The third argument is that the Socialist Party may be a good hobby for those in comfortable jobs but not for those who feel the pinch of capitalism.

The first thing we observe about these lines of argument is that they are mutually contradictory. In addition they are not supported or supportable by the facts of the situation. The second argument is that hoary old fallacy that capitalism will some day suffer a catastrophic collapse of its own accord. It is a vain assumption; but if it were true, what happens to the demand for action, for “revolutions, riots and strikes ”? Why riot or strike to overthrow a system which of its own accord will not last?

The first argument also contains a very far-fetched assumption about the use of riots, etc. History, it is true, provides many instances of revolutions, riots and strikes. Our correspondent then says in effect, therefore these methods without any Socialist knowledge will give us Socialism. But why? What makes him think that while the innumerable revolutions, riots, and strikes of the past have not given us Socialism, that they will do so in the future? He gives not a single reason in support of this extraordinary deduction.

Then we are told to go in for “action” like the “something now” parties. But the very fact that our correspondent tells us that it is necessary to do this is the best possible proof that it is a futile policy. Have we not had in office the largest and most successful of all the “something now” parties—the Labour Party. If that policy is the right policy what is our correspondent complaining about? If we are wrong and they are right, why does he come to us to extricate him from the mess into which the “something now” parties have landed him? What does he want us to do? (By curious coincidence the Labour Government have only recently pushed through their Bill which will take away unemployment pay from thousands of the unemployed.)

The assumption that the Socialist Party attaches no importance to action is grotesque. What we want is sound action, the action of Socialists who want Socialism. Of course we reject the unsound action of the “something now” parties. What else should we do? Would our correspondent have us participate in their actions, such as supporting the war, voting war credits, recruiting, carrying out armament programmes, voting for capitalist candidates, protecting the capitalist system, and—most important of all—preaching the false doctrine that the workers’ problems can be solved by the “something now” policy of reforming capitalism? If that is what he wants us to do will he give us reasons, showing how these actions are in the interest of the workers?

Our slow progress is merely a reflection of the success of the propaganda efforts of the capitalist parties, including the parties of capitalist reform. But not even their most skilful propaganda will serve permanently to cover up the woefully inadequate results of their “something now” actions. Even our correspondent who professes still to hold to that policy shows by his letter that he is dissatisfied with the results of it.

The third of our correspondent’s arguments is the weakest of all. Probably a third or more of our members are out-of-work now. Hardly any of them are so placed that they have not known unemployment or the threat of it. The three members of the Editorial Committee have all been out-of-work for lengthy periods. One was out for an unbroken stretch of twelve months. One is out-of-work now—and has been off and on for a year.

None of us, and none of the members of the Socialist Party, proposes to give up our action directed towards the attainment of Socialism, in order to perpetuate the endless, useless and dangerous mistakes of the ‘‘something now” parties. In due course the workers, disappointed with that policy, will join us and make Socialism a reality. We are optimistic enough to believe that we shall rope in our correspondent some day.

Editorial Committee

Answers To Correspondents. (1931)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. R. Hobsbaum (Tottenham). — We gather from your letters that you believe it to have been proved that a Socialist Party can be built up by emotional appeals. If you will us when and where this often-tried policy has been successful, we will consider the instance. —Editorial Committee.

Mr. J. Osborne. — A reply to your letter will be published next month.

What the I.L.P. Have Done for the Workers. (1931)

From the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we ask the I.L.P. why they support the Labour Party, in view of its non-Socialist programme and actions, we are always told, in reply, that the justification lies in the fact that the Labour Party helps the workers to obtain “something now.” In the New Leader for June 12th, 1931, is a statement issued by the National Administrative Council of the LL.P. concerning its relations with the Labour Party. It contains the following :—

 It must be noted as a remarkable fact that to wage a Socialist fight against the poverty of the working class is made more difficult when a Labour Government is in power than at other times, and that obstacles are put in the way of, and threats directed against, working-class organisations maintaining that fight.

If the I.L.P. believe this, why did their members in Parliament continue to keep the Government in office?

They cannot even pretend that they try to “wage a Socialist fight,” for Mr. John Beckett, M.P., one of their members, declared in an article in the New Leader (June 6th, 1930) that—

 Every fight put up has been for purely moderate and reformist measures,  strictly in  line with election  promises and  Party policy.

And even if the I.L.P. were to fight for what they regard (wrongly) as Socialist measures, nothing worth while would result for the workers. Mr. P. J. Dollan, a member of the National Administrative Council, writing in Forward on January 10th, 1931, stated :—

 There is nothing in the history of European democracy to equal the progress of evolutionary Socialism in this country within the last quarter of a century. Practically every reform urged by the I.L.P. in the ‘nineties, and many more not in the I.L.P. programme have been realised.

In other words, the present appalling’ condition of the working class is the result after the application of “practically every reform urged by the I.L.P. in the ’nineties.” We have never said anything half so damning of the I.L.P. as this. Yet Dollan, far from being ashamed, far from being prepared to drop reforms and take up Socialism, can actually think of nothing better than to waste a further 25 years on more I.L.P. reforms!

Edgar Hardcastle

A Socialist Searchlight. (1931)

From the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

New Communist Tactics— Wholesale Burglaries. 

Workers' News (April 30th), a Communist paper published in Moscow for English-speaking workers living in Russia, contains an account of an unemployed demonstration at Wellington, New Zealand. The unemployed, “under Communist leadership,” attempted to raid the Parliament buildings. Many were injured and several were arrested, including the Communist leader. He told the authorities that “they would organise wholesale burglaries and looting, inevitably entailing general turmoil."

In this way the Communists, bankrupt of ideas and ignorant of Socialist principles, come back to the old and discredited doctrines of individual attempts at law-breaking. And whoever heard of an intelligent burglar telling the police where they can round up the intending breakers of the law?

#    #    #    #

Liberal-Labour Government.

As it is certain to be denied later on that there were ever formal negotiations between the Labour Government and the Liberal Party, the following extracts from the Daily Herald have an interest:—

From the Daily Herald of March 23rd, 1931 :—

  The fate of the Liberal Party depends on the events of the next few days.
 Either an arrangement must be reached which provides for a stable period of progressive legislation or an intolerable position must be ended by an appeal to the country.
 A continuance of the present deadlock indefinitely is unthinkable . . .   Already there have been a number of meetings between Labour and Liberal spokesmen and these will be continued during the week.
 Among those who have taken part in these discussions are the Prime Minister, Mr.  Arthur Henderson, Mr. Philip Snowden (before his illness), Lord Sankey, Mr. Lloyd George, Sir Herbert Samuel, and Lord Lothian.

From a Daily Herald editorial on May 29th, 1931 :—

Two years ago to-morrow the country gave at the polls the verdict which threw the Tories from power and made possible the formation of the second Labour Government.
Like its predecessor of 1924, it is a minority Government. And hopeful Tories prophesied for it a short, feeble, and sterile career.
They have been disappointed. ’They will be disappointed.
They forgot that minority Governments are not necessarily either feeble or short-lived.
The Salisbury Government of 1886 was a minority Government; but it lasted its full term, and it heralded 20 years of almost unbroken Tory rule.
History may very well repeat itself. Assured now of Liberal co-operation, as Salisbury was of Liberal-Unionist co-operation, there is no reason why Mr. MacDonald should not hold office for a full and fruitful term.

#    #    #    # 

Fascism and the Communist Party

Reply to the “ Pan-Pacific Worker.”

The "Pan-Pacific Worker," published at Sydney, Australia, is one of the disguises adopted by the "Communist International,” calling itself for this purpose the "Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat."

In the Australian Edition (12th May, 1931) a Mr. Herbert Moore, in an article on "Fascism,” has a word to say about the S.P.G.B., the Socialist Labour Party, and the Socialist Party of Canada. He calls us all "thoroughly discredited and decadent.” The other two bodies must of course speak for themselves, but the S.P.G.B. has never been in better form than it is now.

Mr. Moore’s reason for regarding us as decadent is that he believes we "hold the illusion that we must pass through Fascism.” He gives no evidence for this belief about us and he is, of course, completely wrong. We hold no such illusion. So-called "Fascism” is as old as capitalism, and simply means the readiness of the capitalists, whenever they think it necessary, to use their power for the violent and brutal suppression of any insurgent minority, either of workers or capitalists. This is a common feature of capitalist political history in every country, before as well as since the war. To say then that the S.P.G.B. holds the illusion "that we must pass through Fascism" is only true in the sense that capitalism without the possibility of such violence by capitalist Governments is, and always has been, inconceivable. But this is not the sense in which Mr. Moore uses it. He thinks that this so-called "Fascism” is something which has not yet happened in the English-speaking countries, but which may happen. Mr. Moore is quite wrong and should acquaint himself with the records of the British, the French, the American, and the Australian sections of the ruling class.

The Socialist Party’s attitude has been logical and consistent. The one way to prevent the capitalists from using their political power against the workers is to refrain from voting them and their agents into control of the political machinery. We have always urged the workers not to vote for any candidate who is a supporter of capitalism.

Compare our attitude with that of the Communist Party, which has Mr. Moore’s sympathy and support.

In Germany, at the time of writing, the Prussian Communists are voting for the referendum initiated by the Hitlerite (Fascist) Party and the German Nationalists.

In Great Britain the Communists have supported Labour leaders notorious for their willingness to use the armed forces against the workers.

There was Mr. Arthur Henderson, who, as a member of the War Cabinet, urged the forcible deportation of the Clyde strikers in 1916. For years the Communists have urged the workers to vote for Mr. Henderson.

In 1922 the Communists voted for all the Labour Party candidates while declaring of them that "they support British imperialist policy in Ireland and India.”

  In Ireland they stand by the British machine-guns of the Irish Free State against the declared will of the majority of the Irish people for a Republic.—(“The Communist,” November 4, 1922.)

One of the most striking illustrations of Communist trickery in supporting avowed enemies of the workers relates to Mr. John Hodge, M.P.

At the 1922 General Election, which took place in November, the Communist candidate, Mr. Harry Pollitt, stood down in favour of Mr. John Hodge and supported him on the Labour party platform (see "Communist Daily,” November 13, 1922).

Nine months earlier the local Communists had asked some questions of the Right Hon. John Hodge, who was already the Labour M.P. for the constituency. Questions and answers were published in the "Communist" (February 4, 1922):— 

Question.—"Are you, if elected to Parliament, prepared to support the Government in bringing out the White Guards against strikers, as you did during the Boilermakers’ Strike at Liverpool? "
Answer.—" Yes."

We commend this to the “ Pan-Pacific Worker ” for their consideration.

#    #    #    #

Socialism—“ For Export Only.”

Mr. J. T. Walton Newbold has for some time been a member of the Social-Democratic Federation. Until a month or two ago he was Editor of their journal, "The Social-Democrat.” During the War the Social-Democratic Federation called itself the "National Socialist Party” and devoted all its energies to helping the British capitalists win their war. In the "Writers’, and Artists’ Year-Book” the "Social-Democratic Federation” advertises its journal in the following choice phrase : "Though Socialist, was pro-Ally during thfc War.”

All of which leads us up to an article by Newbold and W. Craik, published in the Winnipeg "One Big Union Bulletin” (July 16). In this article, which describes the political Situation in Germany, the writers denounce and ridicule the German Hitlerites on the ground that their official title, "The National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” is a "contradiction in terms.” They point out that it is a useful name because it enables the party to attract all kinds of support, both big and small capitalists and also workers.

But why is "National Socialist” a contradiction only in Germany and Canada? Why not in England? Why is the policy of building up a party out of contradictory elements (vide the British Labour Party, or the Social-Democratic Federation) sound in England, where Newbold supports it, and unsound abroad? Why is Newbold so anxious to prevent his foreign readers from knowing the kind of policies he pursues at home?

# # # #

The Fabian Bolsheviks.

Mr. George Bernard Shaw, who received an idolatrous reception on his nine-day visit to Russia, has enormously cheered the Communists by his approval of their political and economic system. If they had stopped to consider exactly what Mr. Shaw says of them, they might be less happy about it. He told the I.L.P. Summer School that "the first thing I discovered, with great gratification, is that Socialism as established in Russia is Fabian Socialism” ("Manchester Guardian,” August 6, 1931). This particular description was used many months earlier by the Liberal, Lord Lothian, who was Shaw’s companion on the Russian visit, and Mr. Shaw is not above borrowing a smart phrase when he hears it. It is absurd, of course, to describe Fabianism as Socialism, and we have for a quarter of a century attacked that misconception, but it is indeed true that the Fabian nightmare of State capitalism run by "intellectuals” is. in many ways similar to the scheme of things in Russia. Long ago the similarity was referred to in these columns.

We wish the Communists joy of their new convert, who so lately was worshipping at the feet of Mussolini. We would, however, warn them that policies have a queer knack of "blowing up” as soon as Shaw endorses them. On August 10th, 1921, Shaw-congratulated the Russians on their existing policy, including forced labour. Twelve hours later the Russian Government announced the abandonment of their policy and the introduction of the so-called "New Economic Policy,” because the old one would not work.

On the present occasion Shaw’s approval was hardly in print before the Russian Government announced a big extension of their existing policy of inequality of pay between different groups of workers. Yet Shaw, it will be recalled, defines his "Socialism” as "equality of income.”

In one thing we can agree with Shaw, that is, in his assertion that the theories of the Bolsheviks are not the theories of Marx.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Founding of the Socialist Party. (1931)

From the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fifty years ago books and pamphlets dealing with the fundamental problems of social life were neither so plentiful nor so accessible as they are to-day. The principal writings of Marx, Engels and others were hardly known outside the few in this country who had a knowledge of languages other than English. Consequently when the Social Democratic Federation was founded in 1881 as a professed Marxian organisation (though Engels would have nothing to do with it) very few of its members were acquainted with the writings of Marx. The new organisation had the merit, however, of pushing the name and works of Marx before groups of working men. Although the few well-to-do people who were at its head, sought to keep it in their pockets as a private concern of their own, the information they made available bore fruit after a number of years and led to much questioning of principles and finally to an attempt to clarify the basis and policy of the organisation to bring it more into harmony with the political needs of the working class movement.

A good deal of the early policy of the Social Democratic Federation consisted of urging the adoption of measures of reform supposedly designed to ameliorate certain outstanding grievances of sections of the working class. These ameliorative measures were not sufficiently embracing to meet the aspirations of a group of radicals who had become dissatisfied with the Liberal Party, but wanted a programme that would appeal to the so-called “professional classes." This group, therefore, formed the Independent Labour Party in 1893. Still there was a feeling that even the new programme of remedial measures was not nebulous enough to attract the large body of people desired, so the leaders of the new party, assisted by certain trade union officials, took part in forming in 1900 yet another new organisation—the Labour Party (known until 1906 as the Labour Representation Committee). From that time onwards the problem of uniting these three parties occupied a good deal of the time and attention of their respective officials and members, and periodical “Unity Conferences” were held. The idea put forward being that they should present a “United Front” to the “Common Enemy”—an idea that still befogs many who claim to be acting in the interests of the working class.

In the meantime dissatisfaction with the equivocal policy and hero-worship of the Social Democratic Federation had been growing, and a small group of critics developed who determined to try and tie the organisation to class conscious political action, and induce it to cut away the self-destructive reformist policy.

At the 1903 Conference the discussions were lively, and at the Conferences during the following two years they were livelier still. On the one side was a small, youthful group endeavouring to keep the class basis of the party clear, and on the other side the official group of older men (mainly well-to-do) who wanted to rule the party and broaden its basis to include all “sympathisers who were against social injustice,” and were straining hard to achieve unity with other non-socialist bodies. Another bone of contention was the equivocal "attitude of the Party Organ, “Justice,” edited by H. Quelch, but owned by a private group over which the party had no control. At one time it opposed the I.L.P. and the Labour Party and their leaders, and at another time it patted them on the back. At one time it denounced Hardie, Snowden, and others, and at another time urged members and branches to help in the election of these people to Parliament. The members who objected to this policy and urged genuine independence, were dubbed by Quelch "The Impossibilists.”

In August, 1902, a paper commenced to appear in Scotland published by Scottish members of the Social Democratic Federation, with the title "The Socialist." The third issue contained an attack on the leaders and policy of the S.D.F. signed "Impossibilist.” Subsequently the attitude of the paper gradually became more hostile, until in 1903 its adherents formed the Socialist Labour Party, copying the American organisation of the same name. This party was crippled at birth, however, with the fatal platform containing "immediate demands.” At first the new party held to the position that the immediate object should be the conquest of political power, but later, under the influence of its American parent, it was swept away by industrial unionism. In fact it soon became apparent that the members of this party had really only changed their idols; Hyndman, Quelch and company were deposed, and De Leon and Connolly took their places.

From 1902 until 1904 the columns of "Justice” contained a good deal of correspondence from members criticising the attitude of the party and its leaders, and much impatient denunciation by Hyndman, Quelch, Lee and Max Beer. At the 1902 Conference there were some heated discussions on the political arrangements with Liberals, Tories, Labour, & co. There were also some caustic remarks made about the public banquet to Hyndman to which people of all political persuasions were invited, and at which they all indulged in back-patting, in spite of previous mutual denunciation as sworn enemies.

During 1902 a member (P. Friedberg) wrote a criticism of the party and its leaders which, as "Justice" did not publish it, he sent on to the American "Weekly People” (the organ of the American Socialist Labour Party). For this action the Executive expelled him and, later, expelled his Branch (Finsbury Park) for supporting his action. The matter came up at the 1903 Conference and, under the influence of the ruling clique, the expulsion was endorsed and another member (G. S. Yates), who supported the action, was also expelled by the Conference on account of articles in the "Socialist” criticising the S.D.F. It is interesting to recall that E. E. Hunter (a member of the present Labour Party) was at that time a fervent supporter of independent class conscious political action; defended Friedberg, Yates and the others, and wrote articles on similar lines for the "Socialist.” 

Throughout 1903 the volume of criticism against the autocratic attitude of the Executive Committee and its compromising policy grew stronger and more articulate.

At the 1904 Conference at Blackburn matters were brought to a head. The Conference met on Friday, April the 1st, and immediately protests were called forth by references in the E.C. report to "Impossibilists,” and a warm discussion followed. The next day (Saturday) the Conference had hardly assembled when Herbert Burrows asked for and was granted urgency to move that those who were constantly criticising the E.C. be called upon to apologise to the Conference and pledge themselves, without any reservations whatever, to cease such conduct in future. This was carried by 56 votes to 6. The six were then called upon for an explanation or an apology. None of them apologised. After hearing their explanation two of them were summarily expelled and left the Conference. The two expelled members, J. Fitzgerald and H. J. Hawkins, were candidates for the new E.C., and some of the delegates present (who had voted for their expulsion) had been instructed to vote for them to the E.C. In speaking to the expulsion resolution, H. Quelch had accused Fitzgerald of fostering discontent by means of economics classes!

The official group complained that the "Impossibilist” movement was a campaign of calumny and intrigue against old and experienced members and therefore against the entire body. They appealed to the Conference on the sentimental grounds of age, connections and years in the struggle, assuring the members that their experience had justified the necessity of political arrangements, "broadening” the basis of membership, and of supporting political representatives who did not share their basic views. Many of the delegates were members of the E.C., past members of it, and personal friends of E.C. members. It was with the assistance of these delegates that the E.C. secured a vote giving them full powers to expel without appeal any member or Branch who did not fall in with the E.C.'s view. 

The two members expelled were delegates from Branches who had received instructions to vote on certain items on the Agenda dealing with questions of policy, but they were expelled before the items came up. The significant fact was that both had been nominated for the E.C. by several Branches, and therefore constituted a menace to the old official group. In fact, at a subsequent meeting of London members, J. Kent (since Conservative Mayor of Acton!) stated that he was present on the evening when the expulsions were arranged by Hyndman, Quelch and company around the tea-table on the evening of the first day of the Conference.

After the Conference the Watford Branch wrote to the Executive asking why their delegate (Fitzgerald) had been expelled. They were informed, that unless they too complied with the Conference findings on the question of criticism they also would be expelled. This was an example of the method that was being adopted all round. The majority of the members of the S.D.F. were unclear on principles; the Executive deprecated discussion on principles, claiming that "we are all Socialists, we want to get on with the practical details." It was alleged that narrowness had hindered the growth of the S.D.F., which "was no longer a sect surrounded by hostility." It was sought to "broaden the base" and unite all "progressives" on temporary objects. The official group carried a packed Conference with them, and secured a vote giving them power (for three years) to expel members and Branches who were not prepared to give unqualified support to the compromising and reformist policy that was being followed.

Gilmac.

(To be continued.)

Rationalisation in Agriculture. (1931)

From the September 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The March issue of the International Labour Review contains two very interesting and informative articles on Rationalisation in the U.S.A. and Canada, "The Economic Depression in North America ” and "More Mechanisation in Farming.”

In the United States, between the years 1919 and 1929, the output per head in manufacturing industries increased by 45 per cent. In agriculture the output increased by more than 25 per cent., and as a consequence during this time three million workers left the land to seek employment in the towns. 

So much is American capitalism in the grip of rationalisation, that American capitalists estimate their costs and profits on the basis of providing a complete re-equipment of machinery every two or three years.

   "Out of 200 large representative firms questioned on this point by the President’s Economic Survey, 43.6 per cent, required new equipment to replace its cost in two years, and 64.1 per cent, in three years ” (page 320).

To the uninitiated it might appear that there is very little room for further mechanisation in farming. This is not so.

There has been introduced into American and Canadian farming during the past two years machinery which has created a technical revolution. One machine, in particular, is worth special mention. It is known as the "combine,” and both cuts and threshes the grain in one operation, thus eliminating a whole series of manual occupations between the cutting and threshing of the corn that were formerly necessary. Operated by only two men, it can harvest as much as 40 acres a day. The results are a huge displacement of labour and the halving of the cost of production (page 336).

A large firm which formerly took on 30 men in the Spring and a further 120-150 during the harvest, now employs only 14 men throughout the year (page 305). It abolishes the need for additional harvest labour. "No extra harvest hands have been required during the last two years.” Bang goes the English unemployed worker’s chance of spending a holiday harvesting in Canada.

The "combine” was invented 10 years ago, but has only recently been introduced and applies as a result of competition. It can be applied to other crops besides corn, e.g., cotton.

A substantial part of the 1929 crop is still in the granaries, and the 1930 crop is still unsold.

As a warning to workers who might be considering emigration, a Canadian provincial government minister is quoted as follows: "We have now too many people because there is no work for them.” "And," says the article, "that in a territory of great wealth with little more than two to the square mile" (page 306).

Wealth, over-abundance, misery and suffering side by side! When will the workers see this glaring anachronism; and the remedy, the dispossession of the owners of the means of living, and the establishment of Socialism?

Harry Waite