Finance and Industry: Who goes bust? (1966)

The Finance and Industry Column from the November 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who goes bust?

Many workers refuse to accept the hard fact that they have been condemned for life to work for a wage or salary for those who own the means of wealth production. Spurred on by stories of how ordinary workers have risen to be wealthy capitalists, they imagine that they, too, can do this. Such people long for their own shop or snack-bar or garage to escape from wage-slavery, Unfortunately for them they often find they have to work harder for themselves (or their creditors) than they had to when working for wages. For some it’s even worse—they go under and are cast back into the working class, less their savings.

The latest annual report of the Board of Trade on bankruptcy gives as the top lines among the 3,404 who went bust in 1965:

The list continues with hardware and electrical goods retailers, confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents, meat retailers, plumbers, fruit and vegetable retailers, general stores, electrical contractors, commercial travellers and so on. In other words the small shopkeepers and businessmen that workers often wish to be.

Next time you hear the story about how good capitalism must be because so-and-so rose to be a capitalist, remember the other side of the story: for every one who succeeds hundreds fail completely and thousands more are condemned to a life of drudgery and worry not unlike the rest of us. Besides capitalism can’t work without a working class, which means that most of us don't even get a chance of becoming a petty capitalist.

World Capitalism

Socialism can only be world-wide because capitalism, the system it will replace, is already so. Modern industry has a world-wide character which ignores frontiers. But although millions co-operate to produce wealth this wealth does not belong to society as a whole; it belongs to just a part of society. Today wealth is produced socially but owned privately. This is the basic contradiction of capitalism. Private ownership of the means of wealth production in fact conflicts with modern technology. One aspect of this is the division of the world into competing, and often warring, states.

Many people don’t realise that the typical firm today is not the small builder or motor repair man mentioned in the previous section. Production, in many lines, is dominated by a few giant, international firms such as Shell, ICI, Unilever and Philips. Sir Paul Chambers, head of ICI, made an interesting speech at the International Management Congress in Rotterdam on September 20. He doubted whether the creation of a Western European economic bloc could be more than a short-term solution to the problems created by the vast size and international character of some modern industries. Modern technology, he said, could be a source of “strife" if its international character were not taken into account. Chambers went on:

I have pointed to the aircraft industry and the inevitability of the growing integration of aircraft firms on an international basis. Almost every emergent country wants its own airline, but it has to rely upon the major makers—mainly British and American—for its needs. A similar trend can be seen in computers and in photographic materials and equipment. In car manufacture the integration of firms is beginning to take on a similar international character. The complete sovereign independence of small states is becoming inconsistent with the growing economic dependence upon large international industrial groups domiciled elsewhere. (Financial Times Sept. 21, 1966).

Men like Sir Paul Chambers do not think in national terms. They know that capitalism is international and act on it. The workers, those who run these industries from top to bottom , in all countries, might well learn from this.

The right to be lazy

Are you tired even before you start work? Do you dislike having to work hard for eight or more hours a day?

Peter Lennon, in the Guardian of September 22, wrote up some of the views put forward on these and other questions at a recent international conference on psychosomatic medicine in Paris:

Many citizens manage to reach a condition of distressed exhaustion before doing anything at all. They wake up tired, grouse through the day, and at night mourn departed sleep. A scrabble and tangle of humanity, they stew in bad air and petty psychological turmoil, buffeted by noise and needled by a multiplicity of unrewarding duties. In eternal competition with shadowy colleagues and goaded by social obligations beyond their capabilities they experience a feeling of impotence and inadaptability. Neurotic fatigue is the result.

Professor Chombart de Lauwe claims that fatigue, other than muscular fatigue, has its origins in the discrepancy between our means and our needs: between aspirations and social pressures—the eternal discrepancy between a possible life and the life we are forced to live.

At least one concrete conclusion to rejoice the civilised emerged from the conference: laziness, far from being the shameful attribute of the social renegade is the man of sensibility’s criticism of an unnatural activity: hard work. It is also his defence against a barbaric way of life.

A hard look at the conclusions of these eminent specialists leaves us with these convictions: the prestige attached to daily strenuous toil is a myth and a shabby modern one, and it is seriously probable that, in spite of generations of domesticity, intense, sustained daily work is incompatible with the realities of human physiology.

Lennon writes in an amusing way. But, when you come to think of it, it is a serious matter that most of us should be condemned to a lifetime of boring, toil. The least we should do is ask: Does this have to be?

Work, of course, is necessary in any human society. But it does not have to take the form of “intensive, sustained daily work”. If such boring, unsatisfying toil is “incompatible with the realities of human physiology” (as most of us must suspect anyway) then socialist society can abolish it. Indeed it should abolish it. Work itself cannot be abolished. However it is up to the defenders of capitalism to show that wealth can only be produced by people, working under unhealthy conditions, doing jobs they find dull and uninteresting.

Adam Buick

Mrs. Partington again. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

John Bull for June 10 published an article headed “Is the Small Trader Doomed? The Multi-Shop Octopus.”

Once again the wild, despairing cry of the small shopkeeper is heard deploring the passing of his kind. After describing the methods by which the great firms oust the “little men,” the position of the combine’s employees is summed up thus :

“The lot of the employees is very unsatisfactory, the majority of these companies refusing to employ a man who has been in the service of their rivals, no matter why he left his previous situation. They are discharged on the merest pretext, as the continuous advertising amply proves, and their wages compare unfavourably with those paid by the small trader. One of the managers recently remarked that he did not think it advisable to keep a man more than 6 months as by that time they had exhausted all his ideas. Pick his brain and throw him on the human scrap heap !”

“The remedy” for the small trader is, John Bull tells us, “for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a tax on multi-shop trading, as is done in Germany.”

Is this a case for Bottomley’s “Business Government” or—the Lunacy Commissioners ?

A. Kay

Blogger's Note:

Once again mention of a 'Mrs. Partington' crops again in the early issue of the Standard. Once again, here's a link to give you the background details.

The Romance of Modern Trade. (1909)

A Short Story from the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

A recent issue of the Storekeepers’ Journal contained a paragraph with the heading printed above. It stated that the writer was sanguine enough to believe that storekeepers throughout the country would, without exception, join in the chorus of congratulations that had been showered upon Sir Timeous Skipton at the honour so recently conferred upon him by His Majesty the King, an honour which was not merely a personal one, but was shared by the whole trade of which Sir Timeous is so shining a light. It recalled the now well-known fact that Sir Timeous started storekeeping in a very humble way in the South only a few years ago, and by his industry, pluck, and keenness has become one of the largest of the successful produce distributors of modern times. As head of the international concern with which he is associated, his name has become a household word. Such a career, concluded the writer, is a complete answer to the croakers who say there is no scope to-day for the enterprising man, and that the opportunity for the individual to succeed no longer exists. Let such remember and act upon the Scriptural injunction, “Go thou and do likewise.”

I showed the paragraph in question to a friend whose commercial affairs bring him into contact with many who fail as shopkeepers, and he told me the following life story. He called it

THE TRAGEDY OF MODERN TRADE.

Many years ago. long before the advent of the “Merchant Storekeepers,” “Multipule Traders,” and the like, a young married couple, whom we will call Mr. and Mrs. Jones, opened a grocery and provision shop in a fairly large town in the Midlands. They both worked in the business, rarely took a holiday, regularly paid their wholesale houses and thus remained on good terms with them, brought up their children healthily and educated them as circumstances permitted. As they grew up the sons assisted in the business and looked forward to ultimately taking it over, whilst the daughters cheerfully performed the household duties. They had no idea of trouble—at any rate, business trouble—ever coming their way. The town’s population grew, and Mr. Jones, being widely known and greatly respected, increased his turnover until it reached nearly five figures per annum, and his devoted, unassuming wife and himself were looking forward to shortly retiring upon a sufficiency to ensure their freedom from anxiety during their final steps in the journey of life. One day, however, a neighbouring house owner, in view of the development of the town, converted a number of houses adjoining the Jones’ shop into shop premises, and a few weeks after the one next door to Mr. Jones was opened as the local branch of Skipton’s Limited. The Jones were not greatly perturbed at first, although they began to talk among themselves when at the new shop cheese could be purchased at one penny per pound cheaper than Mr. Jones could buy it wholesale. Others of the shops were taken and opened by the Jampress Tea Co. (which the travellers who called upon Mr. Jones hinted was really being run by Skiptons Ltd. under an assumed name), the World’s Dairy Co., the Grey Mole Tea Co., the Inter-colonial Butter Co., and others, all attempting by methods quite foreign to Mr. Jones’ idea of legitimate business, to capture his trade, in which they ultimately succeeded. His customers gradually deserted him. His turnover dropped in a few years from nearly ten to about two thousand pounds, and at last the crash came. He called a meeting of his creditors, and they, realising that the old chap had been “broke” by the irresistible march of capitalist development (“unfair competition” he called it), generously presented him with the furniture to which they were legally entitled, and accepted their eight shillings in the £,, some of them reflecting that it was not the old chap, honest, sober, industrious, aye, and Nonconformist and Liberal as he was, who had succeeded in life, but that, despite all these virtues he had “gone under,” largely through the successful efforts of the “Merchant Storekeeper” who had been so recently honoured by His Majesty.

As for the sons, one of them became a machine-like manager of a “multiple” shop at a “salary” of thirty-two shillings and sixpence per week, out of which princely sum all shortages of stock were deducted, and before being appointed signed an agreement not to accept a position in a similar business within a radius of fifty miles for a period of ten years. He gave up attending chapel and went, instead to the Sunday meetings of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. After hearing the speakers trace the ruthless development of industry and trading to the Trust stage now existing, and realising, in view of their teaching and his own bitter experience, that the day of the small man and the small concern was passed, he eventually joined their ranks and worked for the realisation of the only system wherein the individual will have the opportunity to lead a full and free life. The operations of Sir Timeous Skipton had prepared his mind to receive the truth, as they are preparing that of many another man.

The other son “went to the dogs,” was arrested for sleeping on the Embankment and was sentenced by Alderman Sir Timeous Skipton to imprisonment with hard labour for being a “rogue and a vagabond.”

X. Y. Z.

The Proletariat (The Working Class). By Karl Kautsky (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from November issue

Specially translated for The Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

6. The Growing Extent of the Working Class. 

The Commercial and the "Educated" Proletariat. 

It is not only by the extension of industry on a large scale that the capitalist mode of production makes the proletarian conditions general. It is also caused by the position of the wage-workers in industries on a large scale becoming the standard for the position of the wage-workers in other spheres of activity. And their conditions of work and life are revolutionised by the large-scale industries.

The advantages which these workers may perhaps have possessed over those employed in capitalist industries are now, by the influence of the latter, changed into so many disadvantages. Where, for instance, to-day the worker of a handicraft still boards and lodges with his master, the aforesaid change results in this handicraft worker being worse fed and housed than the wage-worker who has a household of his own. The long apprenticeship was, in times gone by, a means for preventing a glut of workers in handicraft; to-day the system of apprenticeship is the most effective means of producing a glut of cheap workers in handicraft and of depriving the adult workers of their livelihood.

Here also, as in other directions, things that under the domination of petty enterprise were reasonable and a boon, have become nonsensical and a hindrance owing to the capitalist mode of production.

The endeavour of guild-masters to revive the old guild system may in the main be ascribed to the desire to create, by the revival of the old forms, new means for the purpose of exploiting their workmen. They seek to save themselves from the bog by throwing down and stepping on proletarian bodies.

And these gentlemen grow indignant when the working class fails to become enthusiastic over this method of delaying somewhat the inevitable extinction of petty enterpise.

Commercial trading undergoes a similar development to handicraft. The large enterprise squeezes out of existence the petty enterprise, even in the sphere of petty trading.

The small commercial undertakings need not, therefore, diminish ia number. Petty trading becomes the last refuge of those who have gone bankrupt among the small producers.

In the German empire there were employed per thousand workers in each particular group :—

ESTABLISHMENTS	INDUSTRIAL		COMMERCIAL. (including Licensed Victuallers.)
	1882	1895	1882	1895
With 1 – 8 employees	551	399	757	697
With 6 – 50 employees	186	238	202	243
Over 50 employees	263	363	41	60

From this table it will be gathered that in commercial and licensed establishments petty enterprise predominates far more than in industry and declines less rapidly—speaking relatively. Speaking absolutely, petty enterprise is on the increase in commerce and the licensed victuallers’ trade. The number of employees in these callings increased from 1,013,981 in 1882 to 1,509,453 in 1895.

To restrict petty trading—for instance by restricting hawking or peddling—would mean nothing else but to sweep those who are getting their livelihood in that way completely off their feet and to force them into the ranks of the loafing class ; that is to say, to compel them to become beggars, vagabonds, or jailbirds—which would indeed be typical social reform.

The influence of the development of industry on a large scale, as far as petty trading is concerned, does not find expression in a decrease in the number of small trading concerns, but in their actual dwindling away. The existence of petty traders on their own account becomes continually more insecure and more like that of proletarians. Besides, there is a steady increase in the number of those employed in large concerns, who become real proletarians, and have no prospect of ever going into business on their own account; child- and woman-labour continues to extend, the latter accompanied by increased prostitution. Overwork, unemployment, and the cutting down of wages also enter this sphere of employment. The position of the commercial employee is approaching that of the industrial proletarian. The former can be distinguished from the latter almost in only one way, namely, by his keeping up the appearance, at a great sacrifice, of a higher social position, while the industrial proletarian knows nothing of practising such deception.

And yet another category of proletarians begins to develop: the educated proletariat. To be educated has, in our present mode of production, become quite a separate business. The scope of knowledge has grown immensely and is widening from day to day. And capitalist society as well as the capitalist state, require more and more men of science and art for the conduct of their affairs, for the subjection of the forces of nature, be it for the purpose of production or destruction, or for the luxurious utilisation of their increasing affluence. But not only the peasant, the handicraftsman or proletarian, but even the merchant, the manufacturer, the banker, the stock-exchange gambler and the large land-owner have no time to devote to art or science. Their time is fully taken up by their business and amusements. In present society it is not, as under former systems of society, the exploiters themselves, or at least a section of them, who foster art and science. They leave that occupation to a separate class, whom they pay for their services. Education becomes a commodity.

But until several decades ago it was still a rare commodity. There were but few schools, and study involved considerable expense. The peasants were mostly not in a position to be able to raise the means for sending their sons to the higher schools. Handicraft and commerce on the other hand were still in a prosperous condition ; hence, whosoever was engaged in these callings remained in them; only the fact of being specially gifted or in exceptional circumstances induced the son of the handicraftsman or merchant to take up the study of art or science. While the demand for officials, technical experts, medical men, teachers, artists, etc., increased, the supply was almost entirely restricted to the progeny from such circles.

The commodity education commanded therefore a high price. Its possession brought at least a comfortable living to those who turned it to practical account, like lawyers, officials, medical men, professors, etc.,—often fame and honour also. The artist, the poet, the philosopher were the companions of kings. The intellectual aristocrat considered himself superior to the aristocrat by birth or money. His only concern was the development of his intellectual gifts. Consequently the educated could be idealists, and often were such. They stood above the other classes and their material aspirations and antagonisms. Education meant power, happiness, and amiableness; therefore the conclusion lay near, that, in order to make all men happy and amiable, to surmount all class antagonism and to abolish poverty and degradation, nothing more was required than the diffusion of education.

Since then the spreading of higher school education—and here it is only a question of higher education—has made gigantic strides. The number of educational establishments has immensely increased. The number of scholars has grown to a still greater extent. Petty enterprise in commerce and industry no longer offers chances of prosperity. The petty bourgeois is unable to save his children from drifting into the ranks of the proletariat unless he can manage to give them a university education, providing, of course, it is possible for him to rake together sufficient means for this end. And he must think of providing not only for his sons but also for his daughters; for the progress in the division of labour gradually transforms, as already mentioned, household work into separate occupations, thus reducing more and more the work in the home, so that a marriage in which the wife is only the housekeeper, and not at least partly bread-winner, becomes increasingly a luxury. At the same time, however, the petty bourgeoisie falls into greater poverty, as we have seen, so that it loses the ability of affording a luxury. The number of celibates increases, as does the number of families in which wife and daughter have to work to augment the income of the family. Thus female labour increases not only in the direction of the petty and large industry, and of petty trading, but also in the sphere of officialdom in Government and private employment, as, for instance, in the post and telegraph offices, railways, banks, art and science. However loud the protest on the grounds of prejudice or personal interest may be, female labour enters increasingly into the various spheres of intellectual activity. It is not conceit, neither insolence nor uppishness, but the compulsion due to economic development, which forces women to seek occupation in that particular sphere as elsewhere. While the men in some intellectual occupations, in which craft organisation still exists, have been successful in keeping out female competition, the women have been able to gain admission to callings unhampered by craft organisation, as, for instance, journalism, painting, and music.

A consequence of this entire development is, that the number of the educated persons has increased tremendously in comparison with the past; but the favourable consequences which the idealists expected to be derived from a greater diffusion of education, have not been realised. So long as education remains a commodity, the diffusion of education means an increased supply of the commodity, hence a lowering of its prices and consequently a worse position for the owner of the commodity The number of the educated has grown to an extent that more than satisfies the requirements of the capitalists and of the capitalist state. The labour market of the educated workers is to-day as overcrowded as that of the manual workers. And also the intellectual workers have already their Reserve Army—unemployment is as much known in their ranks as in those of the industrial workers. Those who wish to obtain an appointment under Government have to wait years, often more than a decade, until they are able to get one of the badly paid minor posts. With the others over-work is followed as much by unemployment and vice-versa as with the hand-workers, and the forcing down of wages is practised upon them as upon the latter.

The class position of the educated workers grows perceptibly worse ; if before one spoke of the aristocracy of intellect, one now speaks of the proletariat of intelligence; and very soon these latter proletarians will distinguish themselves from the other wage-workers by only one thing—their conceit. The majority of them will still think they are something better than the wage-workers ; they still consider themselves to belong to the bourgeoisie, but in a similar way as servants regard themselves as belonging to the family of their masters. They have ceased to be the intellectual leaders of the bourgeoisie and have become their hired prize fighters. The ambition to succeed develops among them; not the cultivation, but the turning to account, of their intellectual gifts now becomes their first consideration, and the prostitution of their being is the principal means of advancement. Like the petty traders, they, too, are deceived by a few big prizes in the lottery of their life; they overlook the numerous blanks which are facing them and bargain away body and soul for the mere prospect of drawing such a big prize. The selling of their own convictions and a marriage for money have become in the estimation of the majority of our “educated,” two self-understood as well as indispensable means for “making a fortune.” And that is what the capitalist production has made of its explorers, thinkers and dreamers.

(To be continued)

Blogger's Note:

It was the German SPGBer, Hans Neumann, who translated Kautsky's writings from the German into English for the Socialist Standard.

A Labour change of tune (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

Ten years ago, and twenty years ago, the Labour Party was vigorously defending the “little men” against the “great soulless corporations.” “Down with monopoly” was their battle-cry. As Mr. Clynes put it, a short twelve years ago, better a large number of small capitalists than a small number of large ones.

But capitalism marched on unheeding, and one day the Labour Party found itself in office, saddled with responsibility for tackling the problems of capitalist adjustment to changing economic conditions. At once the defence of the small man became inconvenient, and by the time the Labour Party entered office again, in 1929, the old coat had been turned inside out. It had been discovered by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Bevin, the late W. Graham and others, that monopoly is the salt of the earth. All the Labour leaders, except a few who resented this volte-face, now preached salvation by public utility corporations. So now the small shopkeeper is looking to new groups of politicians, Hitler and Dollfuss, Rothermere and Mosley, to save him, but in that quarter the old game of broken pledges is proceeding merrily.

[From “The problem of the Small Shopkeeper”, Socialist Standard, March 1934]

Life and Times: Being your own boss (2024)

The Life and Times column from the September 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

There used to be many local shops in my area. Now, as almost everywhere, they are few and far between. Yet this doesn’t stop some people, whether brave or foolhardy, from trying to buck the trend and open a new shop of their own. For example, not too long ago a gentleman knocked on my door and told me he was going round the area asking residents what they thought of his idea of converting the empty shop on the corner of my street into a sandwich bar-cum-delicatessen. Did I think it would work? Would many people use it? Would I use it? I didn’t want to knock his obvious enthusiasm, but I felt obliged to tell him, that, though I might use it occasionally, I didn’t think he would get enough customers for it to work. He carried on knocking on doors but the shop never opened and I’m sure he made the right decision. It was a venture that would have involved time and energy in abundance not to speak of significant financial outlay, so he was obviously right to do his ‘market research’ first.

Doughnut shop vs cafe

But not everyone is equally strategic. Earlier this year a new shop did open just round the corner from me – a doughnut shop. It offers a wide range of doughnuts to take away or to eat with tea or coffee or chocolate at tables. It’s an inviting ambiance and the doughnuts look – and taste – very nice indeed (I’ve tried them myself). I saw the local family who own it spend literally months setting it up with all the work, energy and expense that involved and they’re now running it with the utmost friendliness and obvious efficiency. But my first thought (perhaps I’m a born pessimist) was that it couldn’t survive. It’s offering a non-essential item at a time when, by common consent, there’s a cost-of-living crisis. Yet maybe I was wrong, because initially there were queues down the street. And even when things settled down, there always seemed to be people in there. But now, as I pass by, custom seems increasingly sparse. The many students who live in the area have gone home for the summer and it seems empty most of the time. It has begun advertising ‘special offers’ – eg, 3 doughnuts for the price of 2 – and is advertising itself on the local community Facebook page as a place which groups can use free of charge for their meetings. But that doesn’t seem to be working and, though, at the time of writing, it’s still open, I seriously wonder how long it will last. The return of the students is some way off and it’s obvious that a small business of that kind needs consistent and ongoing trade to be successful. That’s not happening now and will it happen even when the students get back?

Then, to make things worse, down the road, no more than a couple of hundred yards away, another shop is about to open up – a sandwich and cakes café in a premises that’s been derelict for years. It’s bound to constitute competition to the doughnut shop, while at the same time, after perhaps an initial flourish, being itself unlikely, at least in my judgement, to attract enough regular clientele to be commercially successful. And this, just like the doughnut shop, after much time, energy and expense put into it by its hopeful owners.

Domination

So what’s happening here? Well, for those people who own little but their energies and skills as a means of making a living (ie, the vast majority), the only option – if they can find it – is employment by a boss of some kind for a wage or salary. But a small number see an escape route in trying to set up their own business and so becoming self-employed. In this way they will at least escape the domination of a boss. The trouble is that, as many find, this is also a risky and insecure route, since they do actually remain subject to a boss – a different one that dominates the system we all live in – that unfathomable, uncontrollable force called the market. It’s true that a few such businesses – very few – will succeed, provide a living for their owners and even prosper and grow. But the vast majority fail, often fairly quickly and with severe financial and other consequences to their owners and families. So, in the case of my local doughnut shop, no matter how friendly and efficient its owners are, the sad bottom line is likely to be that all their trouble and expense will be in vain and they will end up regretting they decided to try and become their own bosses.

Dead company walking

Of course, this can also be the fate of large and established businesses. A current BBC radio series, ‘Toast’ has delved into the demise of once thriving and well-established companies such as Safeway supermarkets and Little Chef road eateries. Its conclusion was that they went under due to ‘market conditions’ becoming unfavourable, then of course causing their employees to lose their jobs and large swathes of all kinds of resource having to be scrapped. Another recent programme, ‘Dead Company Walking’, attempted to find an explanation for the fact that businesses are currently failing at a higher rate than ever. But its explanation remained at a fairly superficial level, one of symptoms rather than causes. Above all it failed to touch at all on the real reason for failure, whether of small or large companies, which is the built-in instability and unpredictability of capitalism with its market system, from whose potential ravages no business of any kind is safe. Nor, of course, did the programme mention that there is in fact an alternative to the colossal waste of time, energy and resources all this involves, which is for workers of all kinds (ie, the vast majority of the world’s population), to act consciously and collectively to put an end to the market domination they live under and opt for a society of free association and free access.

Howard Moss

Letter: Small Fry (1976)

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

Small Fry

I read with interest your reply to Robin Cox, entitled “Working and Class” (March Socialist Standard), in which you say that a self-employed business man employing a handful of people cannot be classed as a member of the capitalist class proper. With which I agree, but by the same token, if a person retains the full value of his own labour and the surplus value of, say, 5 or 6 other people then he cannot be classed as a member of the working class proper.

I remember reading an article which, if my memory serves me right, made this very point, saying that the labour theory of value was very elastic and that the small business man came into an economic “grey area”, but that these people were such a small minority of the world’s population it was of no importance to the scheme of things. It also rightly pointed out that a self-employed person’s interest lies more with the working class than the capitalist class, as often in an economic crisis many find themselves fighting for their very existence. Indeed, thousands have found themselves relegated to the ranks of the dole queue in competition for the sale of their labour-power.

I would be most interested in your comments.

E. Higdon. 

Auckland, N.Z.

Reply:

In addition to the answer you yourself give, we would say the following. The kind of small enterprise you suggest is seldom independent and would not be capable of competition with larger companies. Instead, it is commonly dependent on one or another of them. It supplies components, or sub-contracts, or plays a part in distribution.

The “business man” running such a firm is theoretically getting his living from the surplus-value produced by those he employs, but in practice he is supervising a segment of the larger enterprise. Usually the use of his own labour-power is as indispensable as that of the employees, and in effect he is himself employed and exploited. When the major company reduces production he is likely to be left with his outlet diminished or gone and his liabilities to meet: hence the many bankruptcies among small companies.

It is convenient to the capitalist class to let small enterprises go on in this way. Many of them produce cheaply because they are in sub-standard premises, employ part-time or casual labour, or believe sacrificial cheapness equals competitiveness and will get them more contracts; and the volume of goods or services supplied to a company in this way is not sufficient to be worth the company’s while to incorporate in its own production. As an example, a few years ago the Esso oil company operated a system of “authorized installers” for central heating. Under it, small businesses installed boilers, pipes and radiators for small returns—so that Esso heating oil could then be sold. Not much doubt who was, and who was not, realizing the surplus-value in that case.

Editorial Committee.

A Look Round. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Red” Leader turns Green! Another “Communist Hope” gone.

Under the heading of “Larkin not a Communist,” the Communist Daily Worker, March 12th, reports a meeting addressed on March 9th in Dublin for the Workers’ Union. Talking of the approach of St. Patrick’s Day, Larkin said, “This nation needs a spiritual uplifting.” He then praised the Government’s famous prison, Mountjoy—as “the best prison in the world.”

Another statement was, “I am not a Communist and I know very little about Capitalism.” Larkin finished by asking the audience to remove their hats and sing the Free State national anthem.

The Daily Worker, with its usual confusion, says : “Larkin’s renegacy removes one of the obstacles to the formation of a real Communist Party in Ireland.”

It is not long since Jim Larkin went to Moscow and was elected to the Executive of the Third International. To give an International flavour to this body the five or six calling themselves the Communist League of Ireland were taken into the Third International, and Larkin, with his notorious nationalism, Catholicism, and Labourism, was at once pushed on the Executive of the “World Communist International.” That alone shows how anti-revolutionary the Third International is, apart from the long string of adventurers who became leaders in its ranks. Willie Gallacher and Larkin were usually in close company and the anti-Socialist ideas of Larkin were well known to the other “Communist” Leaders.

It was common knowledge that Larkin in New York was busy supporting the formation of a Labour Party there, and talked of the great work of the British Labour Party, keeping silent on how the Labour Party here had betrayed the transport workers in 1913, when appealed to by Larkin himself for assistance in the struggle.

Larkin is a member of the Catholic Church and always pointed out that he was “a good member of mother church.”

That did not stop his enlistment into the Bolshevik International, but now, when his church is busy denouncing Bolshevism, Larkin falls in to the Pope’s call. Such are the great recruits to the Communist Party. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear from such a Catholic stronghold as the Free State that Bob Stewart, the Communist official in Dublin, recently spoke there, and said that Russia was fighting the Greek Orthodox Church only, and not the Holy Catholic Religion. How similar are Jesuits and “Communists” in their handling” of truth, with their doctrine,” “the end justifies the means.”

* * *

Capitalist can't give details—But they ask us for them.

How often do opponents demand details of life under Socialism? They insist upon blue prints of the future before they will support Socialism, regardless of the fact that those details depend upon the conditions, knowledge, and wishes of the population under Socialism.

The Capitalists, however, ask for support of their policies, but even on trumpery reform measures they decline to prophesy details. Listen to Lord Melchett in his book on “Imperial Economic Unity,” advocating Empire Free Trade and asking for support now :

“If at this stage I am asked whether my policy involves a tax on this or that, I decline to answer, because that is a question which can be answered only after the problem of each commodity has been investigated from every point of view.”

Push that in front of the next anti-Socialist who wants details of an entire social system.

* * *

Who's to have the best poison gas ! 

The Duchess of Hamilton in her article in the Sunday Express (March 2nd) against Vivisection complains bitterly against the War Office under a Labour Government, experimenting by means of poison gas on animals at a Salisbury Plain military experimental camp. Cats, monkeys, goats, horses, etc., are used to test the efficiency of poison gas. The Editorial of the same paper, commenting on the leisured lady’s article, says that “it is no use suggesting that such experiments should not be conducted in this country when they are conducted in other countries. Such a course would merely place this country at a disadvantage.”

Has not Professor Levinstein, of the Chemical Industry, told us that poison gas in war is more humane and kills quicker—possibly more.

What would the noble lady have the Labour Government do ? What is a War Office for ? It is to prepare for War—for markets, territory, etc., wanted by Capitalists.

She doesn’t oppose war, but war on cats, etc. A Labour Government must carry on the research, or how otherwise would they get the best poison gas ready for the next war. These scientific men employed by the Government used 1184 animals for poison gas experiments between November 1st, 1926, and April 20th, 1929.

The Duchess asks that poison gas should be suppressed. She expects war to be carried on more “humanely.” She doesn’t suggest war should be abolished by removing the cause. That would be Utopian. It is quite scientific to agree to preparations for wars as long as you kill in a gentlemanly way, such as sticking a bayonet in another man’s stomach or dropping bombs. The Labour Government must continue poison gas experiments, of course, because every other capitalist government is doing the same ! So the Sunday Express comes to the defence of the Labour Government !

* * *

“The Community Spirit.”

Mr. Ramsay McDonald presided at the Annual Dinner of the London Morayshire Club on March 1st, and among the guests were Lord Inchcape, Lord Furness, Sir Alex­ander Grant, and several other millionaire exploiters and opponents of the working class. So we learn from the Daily Herald (March 2nd).

This is the “United Front” of “Labour” and Capital. No class war spirit there.

* * *

The small shopkeeper finished !

“10,000 shopkeepers mainly trading in the villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”

“Bankruptcies among small shop­ keepers have increased 50 per cent. since the war,” said the manager of a trade protection agency.”

These two quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd), shows how the large stores have benefited by increased travelling facilities which brings the customers into the bigger cities.

The Capitalist Press are compelled to admit that the “small man” has no chance to-day. Only a week before the same paper told us about the rich men who started with nothing. Now they confess that modern competition causes large numbers to finish up “with nothing.”

C.

Capitalism and the Shopkeeper. (1911)

From the April 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist teaching of the truth that capital is becoming concentrated in the hands of a diminishing number of capitalists has been recently attacked, from two points of view, by the “illuminati” of the I.L.P. and by the Anarchists.

In both cases is the wish father to the thought. Both parties have a case to bolster up, and both have diligently sought for “facts” to support their tenets.

The Joint-Stock Company and the small shopkeeper are stock illustrations supposed to prove the theory of the division of capital among an increasing number of happy and deserving recipients. The “theory of increasing misery” has its converge in the theory of a slow but sure evolution into terrestrial paradise. No one will be able to say of any particular period: here ends capitalism and Socialism has its birth ; but the change will be gradual, peaceful, ethical—through the Joint Stock company and the small shopkeeper, and small reforms, vide Bernstein & Co. Let us look into the position of this small shopkeeper.

The English race have been reputed a nation of shopkeepers; the growth of multiple retail stores has suggested the remark that we are now a nation of managers. It is beyond dispute that the existence of thousands of company stores has limited the scope for individual success in the retail trade, and has driven the small retailer to accept the most casual and unremunerative portion of that trade. A huge business is carried on in multiple and chain shops, by mail-order businesses, departmental stores, and other massive concerns. They cause tradesmen great anxiety ; all along the line the small shopkeeper is exploited ; manufacturers are making attempts to deal direct with the consumer ; department stores are trying to filch suburban trade ; they are spoiling the retailer by well-organised mail-trading systems.

If the man with little capital can exist to day at all it is as a retailer; but even this small sphere of activity seems narrowing. Half a century ago little capital was required to become a retailer. In no branch of commerce is the personal factor, the knowledge of a customer’s wants and whims, of such value. The old tradesman was in personal contact with hundreds of his customers, and it was once thought that. here was a barrier to Joint Stock Company success in the retail trade. However, slower than in manufacture, but as surely, the big capitalist is gaining ground.

In the North of England the shopkeeper has two competitors—the multiple stores and the co-operative societies. These obtain the cream of the cash trade, and leave to the shopkeeper a hazardous credit trade, plus what he can catch when the stores are closed—for he works fifteen hours a day. Certainly, as one walks along and sees hundreds of small shops, it would seem as if the small trader throve in spite of powerful competitors. But even if we grant an increase in the number of small shops, it does not imply greater prosperity for their owners, nor that a certain number of proletarians have risen out of their class and become independent shopkeepers. In large towns hundreds of these “emporiums” are run by workingmen with the aim of adding a trifle to their petty wages, just as, as Kautsky has shown, in Belgium many of the belauded peasant proprietors work in contiguous mines and milk to help eke out a livelihood.

It is certainly the ideal of thousands of workingmen to “get out of the factory,” as the phrase goes, and live a life free from the factory buzzers, managers, and foremen ; alas, many are called but few chosen ! The majority of them have not even a sporting chance of obtaining a livelihood from their shop alone. Years ago such, small speculators had better opportunities of becoming successful retail merchants, but to-day they are snowed under by powerful enemies. The big fish, are swallowing the little fish even in a branch of commerce where so much is in favour of the small fry. The Marxian law surely stands unassailable everywhere if it is applicable to retail trading. The following figures relative to the number of shops in Prussia are taken from Bernstein’s “Evolutionary Socialism.”

Bernstein remarks : “It is not the large businesses that offer the most deadly opposition to the small ones; the latter provide it among themselves.” If he can obtain comfort from such statistics his position is surely in dire straits.

The better placed shopkeepers who manage to obtain a “living” are, too, getting more in the clutches of the big capitalists. Most retail tobacconists are merely agents for the Imperial Tobacco Company ; in the grocery line such firms as Lever Bros, are obtaining great power ; and in every department of retail trade we meet with combination and association. Competition is as dead as piety. Arrangements are made amongst manufacturers to keep up prices, and amongst retailers to do likewise. Small dealers attempt, through their associations, to buy collectively. A few weeks ago a Manchester ironmongers’ association actually discussed a proposal that they, as an association, commence a large store in the centre of the city, to enable them to fight the great firms with better prospect of success. These stores, it was stated, were stealing the most profitable portion of the trade ; and individually they could not compete with the splendid displays and powerful organisation of the stores.

The transition from a nation of shopkeepers to a nation of managers is the transition from “small to big industry,” analogous to the transition from handicraftsman to factory hand in the sphere of production. The journals which circulate amongst the various retailers are not blind to this change, however much the I.L.P. official gang may deny it. The “Boot and Shoe Trade Journal” is a better judge of the havoc wrought by company shops amongst small retailers than is Ramsay MacDonald or the editor of the “Labour Leader.” And when the present chairman of the I.L.P., Mr. W. C. Anderson, was peripatetic organiser for the Shop Assistants Union, his stock speech was a lament at the small opportunities possessed by modern shop assistants, of budding into independent shopkeepers.

The Socialist must wish for a quick awakening, both in the ranks of the shop assistants and those of the shopkeeper. The former in permanently proletarian, the latter liable to drop into the proletarian ranks at any moment. The assistant, working in a shop, amongst thirty more of his class, that shop being but one of six hundred owned by his employers, is better able to appreciate the vast changes in the retail trade than are I.L.P. critics and Anarchist theorisers with creeds to defend at any cost.

John A. Dawson

Editorial: The Fuel Tax Dispute (2000)

Editorial from the October 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fuel blockades last month—which threaten to return unless Gordon Brown cuts excise duty in the next few weeks—brought the operation of capitalism in Britain to its greatest point of crisis since the 1970s. Everyday life and the functioning of the emergency services were threatened in a way not seen since the dark days of the Winter of Discontent during the last Labour government.

This time it was not the organised working class in the trade unions that was battling the government. Instead, it was a tiny group of small businessmen and farmers who, without ballots and for the most part acting unlawfully, decided to try and hold the government and then other sections of the owning class—such as the oil companies—to ransom. Through receiving majority public support for their stand against fuel prices they were able to bring the country to a near standstill.

Looked at in the round, there are a number of points to be noted about this action:

• The protestors were only able to make headway because they received the tacit support of the bulk of the working class—including (for the most part) the oil tanker drivers
• The police did not immediately move against the protestors (who were guilty of secondary picketing, obstruction, a variety of road traffic offences, and periodic intimidation) until ordered to do so by the government, in sharp distinction to disputes like Grunwick, Wapping, and the Miners’ Strike. While at Wapping, thousands of pickets didn’t manage to stop a single Murdoch rag leaving the compound, a few hundred small businessmen from the shires were allowed to act with impunity in this dispute until Blair was forced to get tough with the police and oil companies so that the tankers could get rolling again
• That the government, with its control of the repressive agencies of the state machine, would ultimately have won out in the name of upholding “democracy” and “law and order”, even if the short-term damage was severe
• That the government has been hoisted by its own petard in being forced to blame high petrol prices at the pumps on the operation of the world oil market and the spiralling price of a barrel of crude—in other words the normal operation of the market economy, whose infallibility they previously lectured everyone else about whenever possible
• That the fuel protestors were not acting in the interests of the working class as they claimed, but in their own narrow economic and political interests. Many have been part of the so-called Countryside Alliance and many more have been bitter opponents of the working class movement at every turn (e.g. the haulage companies that crossed picket line after picket line during the Miners’ Strike).

None of the parties to this dispute have come out of it with any credit, and it has not been a dispute for the working class to get involved in. The real determinant of working class livings standards is not the operation, or precise level, of any one particular tax (and the government are always most likely to pay for reductions in one tax by raising others anyway) it is the overall level of economic activity and the ability of the organised working class to increase its living standards on the wages front. While oil companies try to pass fuel taxes on to the general population through higher prices, the workers tend to pass them on to the capitalist class as a whole through increased pay claims and subsistence payments made by the state, which is why taxation generally is ultimately a burden on the owners of capital rather than the non-owners.

If there is to be a battle against the government within capitalism for a better standard of living the wages front is the arena to fight it and where intervention by the organised working class can pay real dividends. And this is the arena where the workers, democratically organised, are most likely to come into conflict with all sides in this current dispute – the government, the multinationals and the whingeing petty capitalists too.

Letter: What is Socialism? (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is a letter from a correspondent, and our reply :—

London, October 20th, 1927.

Dear Sir,

I attended the debate at the Battersea Town Hall on “Socialism.”

Rather unfortunately, neither party defined Socialism, so the debate was rather a failure. Perhaps you can help me. “Socialism means the entire absence of private property. The State is to own and control everything.”

Would my P.O. bank account be confiscated ? Would they take away my little shop ? Should I be compelled, with a Grey Ticket, B.2, 48392, to deal at only one shop and take the goods they offer ?

Can I own a £5 note? Bernard Shaw says no, that would make me a capitalist. I heard him say that, at a lecture in answer to a question. Could I buy a cricket bat, and call it my very own ? How should I get the money ?

Could I buy a joint of beef without money ?

I am quite in a fog. Please discuss this and get the next Socialist Standard—a good paper—to reply.

Yours truly,

A.B. Firmin.

Our Reply:

Mr. Firmin claims acquaintanceship with the Socialist Standard, but he surely does not read it very carefully. If he did, he would have observed that the debate in question centred round the question which of the two parties should the working class support, and further, that every issue of the “S.S.” contains the definition of Socialism. Socialism does not mean anything so negative and silly as “the entire absence of private property,” nor is “the State” to “own and control everything.” The latter is a distorted description of State Capitalism which may justly be attributed to one section of the Labour Party. It is not Socialism, and has never received the support of the Socialist Party as our “Object” states (see last page). Socialism is “a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.”

Mr. Firmin will see here that ownership and control will be vested in the whole community, not in the “State,” that common ownership is concerned with means of production which, as our “Principles” go on to explain, refers to land, factories, railways, etc. We hasten to relieve our correspondent of the horrible fear that we propose the communal ownership and control of his toothbrush and collar-stud.

Far from abolishing “all private property/’ Socialism will place it in the power of all of the population to share in the varied kinds of wealth which society can produce—something which at present is denied in large measure to most of them.

As for Mr. Firmin’s “little shop,” we suggest that he probably wants it only as a means to an end, the end being the obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, recreation, amusements, etc. Socialist society will place these things at the disposal of Mr. Firmin as for the rest of the members of society. As it is to obtain these useful articles that we all at present endeavour to secure £5 notes, we shall most of us lose interest in the means, e.g., the £5 notes, when the end can be secured otherwise. (The exceptions will be those who have a taste for collecting useless oddities. Speaking for myself, Mr. Firmin may at that time have all my £5 notes, then as valueless as old Mark or Rouble paper money.)

We are not responsible for the reported vagaries of Mr. Bernard Shaw. Mr. Firmin would not need to BUY a cricket bat, but we assure him he could have one for his very own.

We ask our correspondent to remember that buying and selling, and the use of money as the basis of the economic activities of human society are relatively recent acquirements. They have served their useful purpose, and the means now exist (as a result of the development of Capitalism), for society to arrange the production and distribution of wealth without the intervention of money. We do not know what Mr. Firmin sells in his little shop, nor whether he is the father of young children, but supposing that a hypothetical Tommy Firmin occasionally asks for food and clothes, etc., it is most unlikely that Mr. Firmin would insist on the production of money from members of his family (if any) before he allows them to eat or dress at his expense.

We trust that our correspondent is no longer in a fog, but if he is, we shall be pleased to answer any further questions or criticisms.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

The debate that Mr. Firmin attended was the one below.

The wealthy workers ! (1927)

From the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

The concentration of vast capital into the hands of a continually decreasing number of Capitalists, accompanied by more efficient methods of production, swells to an enormous extent the wealth of this class. While, on the other hand, this development brings with it a more intense form of exploitation, greater insecurity, unemployment, and poverty of the wealth producers. The result is that, as Capitalist society develops, the distinction between the two classes becomes wider and clearer; and the opposition of interest more intense.

These facts are having a powerful influence on the minds of the workers, and are slowly but surely preparing them to accept the principles of Socialism.

Having progressed so far towards an understanding of their class position, they become less easy to deceive. Consequently the older political parties, who openly defend the present system of society, and claim that there is no alternative, can no longer command the support of an overwhelming majority of the workers as they did in the past. Hence the need, to the Capitalist class, of a political party that can secure the support of this discontented section, by criticising the system, and when necessary expressing sympathy towards Socialism, and that can, at the same time, be relied upon to maintain Capitalist society.

This is the cause of the rapid growth of the Labour Party. Experience and Socialist propaganda, however, will complete the lesson the workers have commenced to learn. They will then realise the futility of fighting for anything but Socialism, and will join the Socialist Party, that has Socialism, and that alone, for its object.

The awakening of the workers to their class position is, to the Capitalist, a serious affair, and it is the endeavour to delay that understanding which prompts them to publish articles, such as this from which we quote :—

“According to most Socialist, and all Communist, writers and speakers this country is divided between the “capitalists” and the “workers,” that is to say, the Haves and the Have-Nots. They try to delude people into believing that practically all the capital is in the hands of a relatively small minority ; the rest of the community consisting of the toiling but unpropertied masses. Nothing could be a more ridiculous travesty of the facts. The truth is that a very large proportion of the people of this country, including the workers with hand or brain, are owners of capital. “—(The “Daily Mail,” 11/6/27.)

It will be most gratifying to the workers to realise that, after all, their poverty is only a delusion. But what a pity the million miners did not know that they had such resources to draw from when they were locked out. And why did King Fuad of Egypt feel it incumbent on him to donate £1,000 to the London poor during his recent visit?

Another point that is often raised is the increase in the number of small investors. This appears at first sight to contradict the assertion that capital is concentrating into fewer hands. But upon closer examination it will be seen that the contrary is the case, and the increase in small investments is actually an effect of that concentration.

In the first place, this increase only applies to money invested in savings banks or public companies, and takes no account of capital held by people who use it as private traders. Consequently, if they are compelled to sell their business and invest the money in one or another of the concerns mentioned, that would be registered as an increase in the amount of capital held by an investor of moderate means. But all that has happened has been a change in the form of their property. Take, for example, a man with a capital of £3,000, and using it to run a private business. He finds his business failing on account of competition from a more powerful competitor. Now, according to the way he acts, we get the following results :—

(1) He may see the danger before much harm is done, and be successful in selling his business without any great loss, and transfer the money to one of the concerns mentioned. With the result as above, the transfer of capital would be reckoned as an increase, when no increase had taken place.

(2) Assume that, before he is able to sell his business, he shows a considerable loss, and is compelled to accept for it half its former value, viz., £1,500, which he invested in the same way as in example No. 1. Here the result is that there is registered an increase of £1,500 in capital held by people of moderate means, but in actual fact there is a decrease of £1,500 owned by this group.

(3) Or again, he may hang on to his business until he is forced out, as a bankrupt. In which case there is a loss of £3,000, but it is not registered as a decrease by these one-eyed statisticians, because a view of this side of the question would be fatal to their case.

If we take the period 1906 to 1926, and consider the rate at which small businesses have either been crushed out or absorbed by larger ones, and they in turn swallowed up by more powerful combines, it is easy to account for this increase in the amount credited to depositors of small means, running parallel with the concentration of capital. The greater the concentration, and the more general large-scale production becomes, the greater becomes the amount of capital that is forced out of the channels of private trade into those of investment. And the fact that a few of the small fry are able to rescue a part of their capital from the share-shark infested waters, and place it in the safest position they know, accounts for this supposed prosperity of the working-class. A delusion which arises, as we have seen, through the competition between Capitalists—the weaker being pushed, at an ever-increasing pace, into the ranks of the “Have-nots.”

In face of the trials the workers experience in their struggle to live, such attempts to mislead them must fail. And as the system develops, the need for a change in the basis of society from the private ownership in the means of life to common ownership becomes more evident. When the majority of our class realise this simple fact, they will join with us in the fight to secure control of the political machinery and armed forces for the purpose of establishing what must be the one and only object of a working-class political party—Socialism.

Ted Lake

Capitalist Federation or International Socialism? (1940)

From the May 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing for the Workers !

In our previous articles, published in the March and April issues of the Socialist Standard, we have shown that a Federal Union could not bring permanent peace or improve the lot of the working class.

The claims of Federalists are extravagant and Utopian, because they are based upon misunderstandings of the capitalist system. Like all other reformists who have preceded them, the Federalists are attempting to achieve the impossible : they want to retain capitalism, but wish to eliminate the evils it engenders. Reformists of one school or another have, for generations, been trying to realise that happy state of affairs. With what result? The development of capitalism proceeds unhindered and defeats their efforts every time: wars, degrading poverty, malnutrition, overwork, unemployment and countless other evils inseparable from capitalism are still with us.

In discussing Federal Union, we have been compelled to arrive at this conclusion: there is not the slightest reason to believe that Federalists would succeed where other reformists have failed. Capitalism cannot be adapted and made to function for the benefit of the mass of the population.

As a matter of fact, some advocates of Federal Union are aware that their scheme can do little for the workers as a whole. Perhaps this accounts for their attempts to win the approval of the tax-paying capitalist and the better-paid sections of the working class. Perhaps this accounts for the promises of easier travel, or reduced taxation and even the promise of new careers for the educated sons of the well-to-do, who are now finding a difficulty in obtaining “suitable” places in capitalist society.

We read in “Federation and World Order,” by Duncan and Elizabeth Wilson, that “the institution of a Federal government would open a wide choice of new careers in the new civil service that would have to be formed” (p. 178).

Whilst the “brains” would have new careers within the Union, the two writers just quoted have to admit that, for the ordinary person, life would proceed much as it does at present. Here is what they say : —

“First it must be emphasized that in many ways of ordinary life the average man would notice little change ” (p. 177).

Presumably the everyday sufferings peculiar to the working class would remain: the worry of making ends meet, the anxiety about employment, etc.

In fairness to the Wilsons we must add that they promise the average person “the absence of a sense of insecurity which has of late become part of his consciousness.” But we have already shown that Federal Union cannot give anybody “security” from war nor from the threats of war, because it does not touch the economic rivalries which are inherent in capitalism.

When the worker is asked to support Federal Union, he ought, thereore, to remember that even according to some of its supporters “the average man would notice little change.” That is our contention, too; Federal Union can do. nothing for the working class.

Federal Union—A Bulwark of Capitalism

Federal Union stands for the retention of capitalism. Let there be no mistake on that point. It has been openly admitted by several of its advocates.

Mr. Streit, one of the principal supporters of Federal Union, states clearly and definitely in his proposed constitution that Federal Union would safeguard private property. According to him, Federal Union must give “Freedom . . . from having property taken for public use without just compensation.”

Of course, were Streit allowed to have his own way, were his idea to be rigidly adhered to, there could never be a Socialist society. Compensation for property socialised means that previous owners would have a right to claim some of the products of industry. In other words, he wishes to ensure that present property owners will continue to live without working, that they will continue to claim, as their own, wealth produced by our class.

Socialists are opposed to the capitalist class living, like parasites, on the backs of the workers.

Mr. Curry goes further. He wishes to see the ownership of property as widely diffused as possible. It is thus that we shall obtain, he thinks, a population that is “independent,” that “cannot be easily bribed, coerced, or bullied ” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 101).

It is a pity that the Federalists do not get down to facts instead of dreaming and indulging in wishful thinking !

Federalists defend capitalism, so they must be prepared to put up with its inconveniences. The fact is that it is inconceivable to have capitalism and an independent population, to have capitalism and a population of property-holders. As Marx observed in “The Communist Manifesto,” nearly a century ago, the development of capitalism destroyed private property for the majority of people. The small peasant was either robbed of his land or else driven out of existence by the competition of large-scale capitalist farmers. The petty artisan, with his small tools, likewise could not compete against the giant machinery possessed by the wealthy capitalist. In both cases, the result was the same. The small peasant and the petty artisan lost possession of their means of production (land, tools, etc.) and became DEPENDENT on the capitalist class for their livelihood.

Nor has this process ceased. As time goes on, capitalism concentrates the means of production into fewer hands, the small capitalist being precipitated into the ranks of the property-less.

Does Mr. Curry think he can fight against this tendency of capitalist society ? Does he think he can turn back the wheel of history ? This is the dream of a Utopian.

What blindness when Mr. Curry says: “Middle-class independence depends upon economic security.” Which economic security?

Capitalism offers no economic security to the “middle class.” Doesn’t Mr. Curry remember the last economic crisis and the thousands of small capitalists it ruined ? Has he forgotten the streets of towns with their shop windows bearing the “To let” posters?

In case he has, these quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd, 1930) will serve to refresh his memory and show how little security small tradespeople have : —

1) “Ten thousand shopkeepers, mainly trading in villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”

2) “Bankruptcies among small shopkeepers have increased 50 per cent, since the (1914-18) war.”

The independence of the small capitalist is a myth. The general trend of capitalism is to replace him by, or make him dependent on, the big combine.

The position of the “middle-class” managers of big firms is little more secure than that of the small tradesman. Technicians and administrators are now trained in such numbers that, if capitalist firms so choose, they can replace them without much inconvenience. This being so, the independence of the salaried worker is also a myth.

To sum up, this is our point. When the masses are divorced from the means of production they cannot be other than dependent upon the capitalist class. When the majority depend on the few for the necessities of life “bribery,” “coercion” and “bullying” are natural normal features of life. Not Federal Union, but Socialism can alone put an end to that dependence.

A Vital Factor

The Federalists reject Socialism on the grounds that some remedy must be found quickly to put the world in order. “Time,” says Mr. Curry, “is an absolutely vital factor.”

This argument has repeatedly been used to dissuade the workers from studying the real cause of their plight, capitalism, and to dissuade them from studying Socialism, the one solution of the world’s ills.

In rejecting Federal Union as being worthless from the point of view of the workers, we take this opportunity of urging them once more to study Socialism.

Earlier in these articles we have shown that capitalism is responsible for the many sufferings inflicted upon the workers. These sufferings will continue as long as capitalism lasts, until the workers take matters into their own hands. Mr. Curry is again wrong when he says: “Mankind is not faced with the immediate alternative, Socialism or disaster.” We say that until Socialism is established working-class history will be one long-series of disasters. These disasters will show themselves in the form of wholesale massacres, prolonged periods of unemployment, struggles to maintain their standard of living, strikes and lockouts. These disasters will confront the working class, Federal Union or no Federal Union. Time, then, is a vital factor. Socialism must be established as quickly as possible.

It is Up to You

The workers can put an end to capitalism as soon as they have the knowledge and the will to act.

The means of production have now reached a stage of development when they could be used to produce enough to satisfy the wants of all. Frequently new processes of industry are not utilised because the markets of the world cannot absorb all rhe good things that are produced. Frequently, too, things are burned or destroyed so as to keep up prices and profits. Obviously production for profit is becoming a more serious fetter as time goes on. Even cabinet ministers and economists have occasionally been obliged to admit that we are living in an age of plenty, that because wealth is being produced in such abundance unemployment and poverty are forced upon the working class.

The Socialist solution for the world’s ills is a simple one, but it needs the co-operation of the majority.

In Socialist society all will co-operate to produce and distribute the things man needs. In return, every member will have free access to the means of life.

Poverty will not exist, because we shall have production for use only, and modern technique assures us of a gigantic output of goods.

Unemployment will not exist, because all those who are physically and mentally able will assist in production.

Wars will cease, because there will be no rivalries for markets. Goods will be made solely for use, not for profit. National boundaries will become meaningless, since the workers of all lands will be co-operating to satisfy each other’s needs. Their interests will be identical. The effort that is now put into the manufacture of armaments will, under Socialism, be directed to the providing of the things all can enjoy.

The armed forces, being unnecessary in Socialist society, its members will give their energies to production.

Obviously, the standard of living of the workers would be greatly increased by the introduction of Socialism, and would go on increasing with each new invention and improved process of production.

It is up to you, then, fellow worker. Are you going to support Federal Union, which, as some of its advocates rightly say, will leave you in your present position, or are you going to organise for Socialism, and win the world?

Clifford Allen

Notes by the Way: No Politics in the Army (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

No Politics in the Army

Under the heading “Every Soldier Must Learn Why He Fights,” the News Chronicle (August 21st, 1941) reports a scheme of discussions now being arranged for soldiers by the Army authorities.

“Free discussion will be encouraged . . . but politics will not be introduced, and officers must not emphasise their political views.”

After they have solved the problem of explaining war without mentioning politics, they should turn their attention to explaining beer without mentioning alcohol, and explaining air raids without mentioning aeroplanes. It will be just about as profitable.

* * * *

The Poacher Comes into His Own

The following is from the Daily Herald (August 4th, 1941) : —

“The Army needs poachers and ex-poachers.

Gamekeepers and men with experience of poaching have been asked to give in their names to commanding officers.

The poachers need have no fear that their illegal activities will be charged against them. The Army will gladly take them for special duties.

Such men would be able to detect, by means of the movements of birds and animals and through broken twigs and tracks, the presence of concealed troops in woods and undergrowth.

They would be very valuable if there were an invasion.”

This should produce some entertaining back-chat in rural courts after the war, when poachers return to their normal pastimes.

* * * *

Those Who Direct Us

The classical defence of the present system is that, whatever its faults, it brings to the fore in industry and politics the best brains and best characters. Two newspaper editors who ought to know their subject don’t appear to be satisfied with the result.

There are more boneheads in positions of authority in this country at this moment than at any previous period in our history. We are suffering from national ossification of the brain. And unless we make some very swift and drastic changes we shall rue the day.—Mr. John Gorden (Sunday Express, July 20th, 1941.)

There is no doubt in my mind that the present system of selecting directors of these big corporations (banks and railways) is definitely bad.—Mr. O. R. Hobson, City Editor (News Chronicle, June 3rd, 1941.)

Mr. Hobson has to admit that some of the directors are “chosen for their military, political or social powers, and for their business connections rather than their business acumen.”

By the way. Mr. Hobson believes that the Capitalist era has already passed away : —

“Contrary to the belief of many people true Capitalism, the system under which the man who provides the capital runs the business, hardly exists any longer.”

* * * *

Hitler’s Dupes

Much argument has been going on as to whether any distinction should be made between Nazis and Germans, or whether all Germans should be held responsible for the crimes of Hitler. One German, a former County Court Judge, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (July 18th, 1941) made quite a telling point when he asked : —

“Shall they be blamed for trusting the words of a man who succeeded in cheating the informed, educated and scrutinising governments outside the Reich?”

After all, when it is remembered how many influential people in this country described themselves as trusting admirers of Adolf Hitler and his associates, it will be obvious that if all of Hitler’s sometime admirers and dupes are to be liquidated, there will be quite a lot of empty seats in the House of Lords and elsewhere.

* * * *

Sob-Stuff And Its Uses

Speaking in London recently, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree said: —

“Sob-stuff is no good in wages conditions. I have sobbed myself when telling employees I could not afford more wages.”

If this is meant to imply that employers as a whole could not pay higher wages than they do, it is, of course, all eyewash. Employers are primarily concerned with making profit, not with paying away as much as they can afford to their employees.

A recent report of a wine auction—published by the Daily Telegraph (June 10th, 1941)—indicates that quite a lot of people who do not work for wages have been able to sob themselves into a very comfortable taste for expensive wines.

 A wine auction, with attendants grave as priests carrying around sample glasses as gravely tasted, is always an enjoyable mixture of festivity and almost religious ceremonial.

 Yesterday’s was notable for enthusiasm, too. Men in the wine and catering trades had to reckon with spirited bidding from private connoisseurs, including several women and a bearded R.N.V.R. officer.

  “The prices,” said a representative of Christie’s, “delighted us, and I am sure they will delight the sellers.”

  By far the largest stock of champagne came from the cellar of Sir John Buchanan-Jardine. The prices for all the leading brands for a good year like 1921, and for Lord Moyne’s Pol Roger, 1915, were about the same—from 250s. to 260s. a dozen.

  Lot after lot, three dozen in each, were bought at this price by a white-haired man in a raincoat who might have been a rather austere farmer, but actually is a well-known figure in the catering world.

  Despite the popular notion that champagne should not be more than 12 or 15 years old, 260s. was paid for Perrier-Jouet, 1919; and even two dozen and 11 half-bottles of Bollinger, 1903, practically museum pieces, brought 75s. a dozen.

  Anyone with a less fastidious palate could have St. Marceaux, 1919, Brut, slightly ullaged—an ullaged bottle is not as full as it should be—for 135s., or Lemoine, 1911, for 115s.

  Among some distinguished clarets Chateau Latour, ’93, sold for 230s., Haut Brion, of the same year, 240s., and several lots of Cheval Blanc, 1921, 310s. and 320s., after very lively competition. By contrast, some Chateau Lafitte, 1870, ullaged, went for 135s.

  Good sherries averaged 130s. and ports 80s. to 94s., with some special Cockburn. 1900, reaching 180s.

  Cigars sold extraordinarily well, prices ranging from 260s. a hundred for first-class brands to 325s. for A. Allones “Lonsdales.”

* * * *

The Finnish Labour Party and The War

The attitude of the Finnish Labour Party in supporting the war against Russia is an example of the difficulties that are bound to arise when workers’ organisations are involved in international disputes under Capitalism. When the Soviet Government picked a quarrel with Finland in order to destroy the Mannerheim Line and push back the Finnish frontier further away from Leningrad, they were denounced by the British Labour Party, and the latter, along with the British Government, gave help to the Finns. Now the Russians claim (and rightly as far as purely military considerations are concerned) that subsequent events have fully justified their action in removing a potential German threat to Leningrad. But against the purely strategic argument is the fact that in so doing the Russians stirred up bitter enmity towards themselves in the minds of many Finnish workers and thus paved the way for the present situation, which sees the Finnish Labour leaders urging the British Labour Party to support their attitude even though Finland is associated with the German attack on Russia.

Mr. Tanner, who is now in the Finnish Cabinet, representing the Finnish Labour and Trade Union movement, says: —

“Surely Britain is not ignorant of the fact that Finland is fighting for all Democratic principles based on the right of self-determination which the Russian aim is to destroy.” — (Daily Telegraph, July 8th, 1941.)

Now comes another development. The reactionary Field Marshal Mannerheim has announced that in addition to trying to recover the territory lost to Russia, Finland should also take Karelia “to make the frontier easily defendable”—(Manchester Guardian, August 2nd, 1941.)

Once grant the necessity for nations to have rival interests necessitating the existence of armed forces, there is no answer to the argument that frontiers must be rectified in order to make them more easily defendable, and no escaping the fact that there is no limit to such claims, quite apart from the certainty that every movement of a frontier in one direction stiffens the demand in the country affected to have it shifted back again and more also.

* * * *

A Squint-Eyed Parson

The following is taken from the Sunday Express (July 20th, 1941): —

Was This Our Life?

Criticising life in the pre-war years, the Rector of Eynesbury, Hunts, the Rev. J. E. Cowgill, in his parish magazine, says:—”We have taken the Beatitudes in St. Matthew’s fifth chapter and altered them somewhat, thus:—

  Blessed is he who looks after himself, for he shall collect many pennies.

  Blessed is he who wins a pool or a sweep, for he shall have something for nothing.

  Blessed is he who makes a promise, for when he breaks it it costs him naught.

  Blessed is he who oils his tongue, for he can deceive other people.

  Blessed is he who scamps his work, for he shall be looked on as clever.”

The Rev. J. E. Cowgill, though perhaps he does not realise it, is condemning an attitude that is the outcome of Capitalism, for it has always been Capitalist doctrine to praise the accumulation of wealth and to condone the tricky ways in which it is done; not to mention the basic fact that the whole system is based on the exploitation of the workers.

Notice in particular the things that escape the attention of this parson. He has not observed other Capitalist Beatitudes, such as : —

  “Blessed is he whose father was a millionaire and who was thus able to live in luxurious idleness all the days of his life.”

  “Blessed is he who gambled on the Stock Exchange or made a fortune in the last war.”

 “Blessed is he who sold shoddy goods and became universally recognised as a public benefactor through his gifts to charitable institutions.”

 “Blessed is the politician who wins an election for his party by promising to solve the unemployment problem.”

* * * *

Mr. Pollitt Again

Mr. Harry Pollitt, of the Communist Party, who supported, opposed, and now again supports the war, has been telling the workers at a meeting in Manchester that “even now this country was only playing at war. . . . How long, were the Russians to be allowed to fight in isolation? The way effectively to help them was by the opening of a second military front in the West.”—(Manchester- Guardian, August 25th, 1941.)

During the eighteen months or so that Mr. Pollitt opposed the war, he and other Communists (echoing Moscow propaganda) had one simple formula which they applied to every fresh outbreak of fighting. They opposed it on the ground that it was an extension of the area of war, and urged their then policy of opening peace negotiations. Now it is Mr. Pollitt who wants to extend the area of war by invasion of the Continent.

Those who appreciate how closely Communist policy and Communist explanations and apologies adhere to Russian foreign policy, will notice, for possible future reference, Mr. Pollitt’s further statement : —

 “Unless we were prepared to organise something .that would take a great part of the German pressure away from the Eastern Front we would have no right to be surprised at anything that might happen on that front.”

Mr. Pollitt also had a word for the workers in the factories: —

  “They would have to set a personal example, in the way they did their job. There must be no limit to what they produced in the way of munitions of war, and they must produce them in the shortest possible time.”

* * * *

Not Too Old at 60

Men and women workers have, in peace-time, always had to view with apprehension the oncoming of age. Instead of being able to count on easier conditions as they became older, they had to fear losing their jobs to younger workers. Now there is a shortage of labour, and the Press is full of items like the following : —

 The position is becoming serious, and, in my opinion, could be greatly eased if more of the “over-forty” women would volunteer to become shop assistants.

 There are tens of thousands of women between the ages of 40 and 60 who could easily do this kind of work, even without experience.

  But they are not coming forward as we had hoped.”— Mr. J. M. Paynton, Secretary of the Drapers Chamber of Trade (Evening Standard, August 23rd, 1941.)

  “The employable age limit for women in City offices has advanced at least ten years within the past few months. This is due to the increasing shortage of office staff.

   Now, London secretarial employment agencies report that good posts are being given to women up to 45, provided they have had good experience within recent years or have other good qualifications.

  One London agency is proud of having placed a 65-year old woman clerk this week.”—(Evening Standard, August 23, 1941.)

What will be the position when the war is over ? Will employers then be willing to ignore the age of applicants for jobs ? Will they and the Government come forward to make provision for workers who are too old in recognition of their services during the war ?

If there were no other evil result of Capitalism than the callous treatment of workers past their prime, it would stand condemned as a system of society.

It is one of the ironies of Reformism that one of the changes demanded by reformers (the institution of pension schemes for clerical, etc., workers, in order to provide a pension on retirement) has actually had the effect in recent years of making things harder for workers no longer young. It is a condition of many of the pension schemes that staff shall not be eligible to join and make contributions unless they are juveniles, with the result that many firms which previously were willing to recruit staff without special regard to age now refuse to take anyone on the permanent staff unless their age is about 16-18. All that is left for them is temporary work.

* * * *

The Big Trader Calls The Little One “Dishonest”

When the Capitalist system was younger, and the small trader and small manufacturer were typical, it was customary for economists and business men to praise the virtues of the little business man. Now the case is altered, as witness the following from the Sunday Express (July 27th, 1941) : —

 One of the big London stores has, in its annual report, made an extraordinary attack on the small trader.

After a grudging admission that the elimination of the small trader is “certainly regrettable from some stand-points,” the report says:—

  “Many a man and woman who as an independent trader would be dishonest or extortionate or a petty tyrant is a far better citizen in a position in which he is under less severe economic pressure or not free to give way to bad tendencies in his own character.” It states also that the small trader “has tended to become a byword for petty knavery and for cringing deference to his customers.” He is “obviously destined to disappear.”

The Express condemns this and assures us that small traders are still the backbone of a free, independent and efficient State; “they keep alive healthy competition and a spirit of comradeship.”

It would seem that the Express has been missing a lot of things going on around it. If the war is, as the Express says, a war against the day “when big business has killed the little man,” many little men would have to conclude that the war, for them, has already been lost.

Edgar Hardcastle