Meetings, Lectures, etc. (1936)

Party News from the October 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Outdoor Propaganda Meetings (1936)

Party News from the October 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Educational Classes (1935)

Party News from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• 'Stewart' was Stella Stewart, who is better known today as Stella Jackson, and who was the daughter of SPGB founding members, T. A. Jackson and Kitty Hawkins. By 1935, T. A. Jackson was a longstanding leading member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
• 'Hayden' was Harry Hayden. He joined the Battersea Branch of the SPGB in April 1932, and was a member of the Party until he resigned his membership in December 1959. He rejoined the Party in July 1975 and remained in the Party until his death in 1992. His obituary appeared in the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• 'L. Otway' was the husband of May Otway. Both joined Walthamstow Branch of the SPGB in October 1924. Whilst May Otway resigned her membership of the Party in April 1940, L. Otway was lapsed from Party membership in May 1942.
• 'Reginald' was Augustus Snellgrove's pen-name/ party name.
• 'E. W. Brightmore' , a former member of the Labour Party and the CPGB, was a member of Leyton Branch from 1933 until his membership was lapsed in 1936.
• 'Goldberg' was David Goldberg. He joined the Hackney Branch of the SPGB in March 1925. He's mentioned in Barltrop's book, The Monument, as dying during World War Two. He was killed in action in Italy in 1945.

Outdoor Propaganda Meetings (1935)

Party News from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The over-population myth (1948)

From the September 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

In orthodox economics the population theory of Malthus, British Economist, 1766-1834, has long played the role of “The fat boy.” With certain modifications successive generations of economists have sought to “make our flesh creep” from the dismal conclusions he drew from it. To-day there are still many who would seek to give us Malthusian goose-pimples.

The substance of Malthus’ “Essay on Population” was a shameless plagiarism of earlier writers like Townsend and Dr. Wallace. He contended that population always tended to increase faster than food supply. This created a vicious circle. Increased wealth only brought even greater increases in population. Too many people meant too little food. Famine and a high death rate then came automatically into operation. As a result population sank below the level of food supply: then the cycle began all over again.

Malthus’ remedies for this alleged population “evil” was small families, late marriages and abolition of all forms of public assistance.

In view of all this his controversy with Ricardo in which he defended the consumption of the wealthy land-lord class on the grounds that it offset the effects of capital accumulation and thus helped to prevent gluts is not without certain sardonic implications.

Incidentally his “Essay” was an attack on the proposed Poor Law reform of Pitt whereby the Tories were attempting to cope with the dislocation arising from the passing of feudal society and the emergence of a new social order. It was also shrewdly aimed at the Utopian thinkers who under the stimulus of the French Revolution had carried to its most optimistic conclusions the doctrine of utilitarianism—“The greatest happiness of the greatest number,” by an advocacy of an ideal based upon equality of property and sex.

To say that increases in population tend to out-run food-supply is of course the merest of truisms. It would only have force if the productive powers of society were themselves incapable of progressive improvements. Such has not been the case: Indeed since Malthus lived all evidence has gone to show that wealth has tended to increase at a faster rate than population.

Ironically enough it has been these very increases in population which Malthus apparently dreaded so much that have contributed so decisively to making large-scale production, and the enormous increases in wealth production that went with it, possible. For it is clear that only when population has reached a certain level can that co-operation of mass aggregates of labour-power, working and organised for a given end, take place. It is in fact, as Marx points out, this very form of large-scale co-operation basic to capitalism that brings in a new economic force, the social productive power of collective labour. “When the labourer co-operates systematically with others he strips off the fetters of his individuality and develops the capabilities of his specie.” “Capital” (Vol. 1, p. 319, Kerr Edition.)

At the same time this large-scale power-motivated form of production has produced its own type of inventiveness and specialised forms of scientific application and technical skill. Moreover the capitalist greed for more and more surplus value has acted as a perpetual spur to increase the productivity of workers by seeking to constantly revolutionize technically the existing means of production. Such things of course would be impossible in a smaller society based upon agriculture and handicraft.

For Malthus, however, and those who followed him, poverty and pauperisation were simply the product of a growing population which provided more mouths than could be fed from the extant cultivated soil.

The shallowness of the contention that overpopulation is exclusively a cause of poverty and pauperisation is evidenced by the fact that the pauperisation and proletarianisation of large sections of the English population were taking place at a rapid rate during those centuries when the population was relatively static or at least increasing very slowly.

In Malthus’ time forcible evictions due to land enclosures reached a peak never before attained in the long history of land enclosures in England. It was the elimination of the peasant and small-holding section of the community, coupled with the ruin of the handicraft workers in face of the superior productive powers of industrial capitalism, that the condition indispensable for modern capitalism was fulfilled. The latter half of the 18th century and the first decades of the 19th century were the culmination of that long historic process which divorces the labourer from his productive means and converts his working energies into a commodity—labour-power. It was these large masses of the dispossessed which formed the “surplus” population which provided the human raw material for a rapidly expanding capitalism.

Although the population during the industrial revolution was many times greater than that in the Tudor period yet such was the demand by employers for ever fresh layers of labour-power that women and children, lunatics and paupers, plus heavy emigration from Ireland, were means by which the capitalist sought to increase the working population.

Density of population is of course no proof of over-population. One country may be densely populated, yet in no sense could it be said to be over-populated. On the other hand another country could have a sparse population without being under-populated. Note also that Ireland has suffered heavy depopulation due to a high rate of emigration. Yet there is extreme poverty in Ireland and also a surplus agricultural population.

Professor Carr Saunders, in “World Population” (p. 142) says that Germany and Italy have approximately the same density of population. There was, however, before the war a vast difference in wealth producing capacity between them. Obviously the possession of essential raw materials and the scope and efficiency of their respective industrial organisation, both economic factors, were responsible for this. In the same book (p. 142) Professor Carr Saunders says that there is no proof that the industrialised countries of Western Europe are over-populated.

Increases in population have never occurred in the absurd way Malthus suggested they did. Modern research points rather to the fact that increases in population since the latter half of the 18th century have been due to a declining death rate rather than any absolute increase in fertility.

History has also dealt Malthus and the neo Malthusians a shattering blow. Before the war it was rather a question of Malthusianism reverse. Then publicists, politicians and newspapers were prognosticating gloomily not on the dangers of a rising rate of population, but on a falling one. Many are still prognosticating gloomily about it to-day. In fact they assure us that if the population decline continues the optimum level of population will be seriously disturbed, i.e., according to them the best possible level of population which at a given time is most efficient for maximising wealth production. As a result they say productivity might decline, there would be less opportunities for capital investment, the standard of living lowered and unemployment possibly intensified.

Marx rejected the Malthusian doctrine in toto. He called it a libel on the human race. For Marx “Each specific mode of production had its own special law of population historically valid within its own limits.”

Capitalism, as Marx says, has a law of population peculiar to its mode of production. It is this law of population which reveals that poverty and unemployment exist, not because human labour is unable to wrest a sufficiency from nature-given materials, but because exploitation in the form of wage employment extracts unpaid labour or surplus value.

To put it simply, the capitalists are concerned with reducing costs of production. The most potent method of achieving this is to economise on the wages bill by the introduction of labour-saving machinery. This leads to the discharging of redundant workers. The net result of all employers seeking to do this is large-scale dismissals. Thus a relative surplus population comes into being. Should, however, an acceleration in production be such as to warrant additional supplies of labour power, then this surplus population, or as Marx terms it, ” reserve army of labour,” becomes a source of recruitment for the capitalist. Thus the expansion and contraction of employment is but a corollary and consequence of the expansion and contraction of the productive forces of capitalism. Added to this is the effect of crises which, because profit anticipation is lowered or threatened, leads to a sharp decline in productive activity and precipitates wholesale and widespread unemployment.

It is then this surplus population which, because of its active competition in the labour market, serves as a continuous downward pressure on the wage level.

In this way Marx indicated the mechanism which operates to keep wages in check and thus guarantees the appropriation of surplus value to continue and capitalist accumulation to go on.

Thus is the Malthusian population myth exploded. There is no “surplus” population in the sense that it is unable to contribute to wealth production. There is only a relative surplus population, relative, that is, to the needs and requirements of capitalist production itself.

The Marxian law of population remains then the most fruitful way of looking at the population problem, not from the restrictive standpoint of population growth as such, hut from the standpoint of sufficient increases in the working population to sustain and maintain the growth of capitalist accumulation.

It can also be shown then that the Marxian law of population is independent of the postulates of various population theories. Should the natural increases of population be such as to make labour-power relatively plentiful and cheap there will be less stimulus for the capitalists to introduce labour-saving machinery. On the other hand, should a decline in population rates bring about a diminution of the available, labour-force then there will be a strong incentive for the capitalists to replace men by machines, and so help to restore a situation more favourable to themselves. As a result of a diminished labour-force the acceleration of labour-saving devices will intensify the contradictions inherent in capitalism. Over-production, under-consumption, crises and unemployment will still be normal and recurring features of capitalist society. Marx’s law of population can then be shown to work with the same validity in an increasing or declining population.

The existence of unemployment is not in any way a test of over-population. In the first place the growth of population can be shown to have been steadily ascending. On the other hand unemployment has occurred in sharp and violent fluctuations. It is obvious then that there is no sign of any relationship between population growth and the appearance of a labour reserve army. Anyone who thinks that periods of continued and widespread unemployment are due to excessive numbers in the Malthusian sense must hold that this and other capitalist countries have been over-populated every few years. Following the same logic we must also conclude that in times of boom, when there is a demand for labour-power, they are under-populated.

Again in the U.S.A. there arc only 50 persons per square mile as against 700 in England. What is more the United States is highly favoured over its capitalist rivals in natural resources and geographical location. There cannot be any question of over-population in America. Yet unemployment has in recent years been more severe in America than anywhere else in the world. It is obvious that only the Marxian law of population can adequately account for this phenomenon.

Recently Sir John Boyd Orr told us that soil erosion and exhaustion and the waste of labour and materials on armaments threatens the world with famine. This then is due not to the niggardliness of nature but to the colossal misdirection of human effort, which because of capitalist imperialist rivalries is building up a mighty war machine instead of “applying,” as Boyd Orr said, “the world’s steel and industrial production to conserving the land.” Clearly it is capitalism and not nature that threatens the world with, famine and destruction. Clearly it is capitalism that must go if we are to remove that threat for ever. Alike in agriculture as well as industry, capitalism sows its dragon’s teeth. It is the peoples of the world who will reap its grim harvest.

Ted Wilmott

Dr. Sweezy on Marx’s theories (1947)

Book Review from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the late Lord Keynes wrote his General Theory of Employment Interest and Money it was hailed in certain quarters as a step towards Marx in its method of analysis in respect of the problems of present day society. His conclusions revealed, however, that so far as any realistic evaluation of the nature of contemporary Capitalism was concerned, he had taken two steps away from Marxism. Undoubtedly a renewed interest in Marx’s economic teachings has been stimulated by the recent development of Capitalism and certain economists going further than Keynes have attempted to reconcile their own academic teachings with the objective analysis of Capitalist Society carried out by Marx in the middle of the last century. The results we need hardly say have been barren and, at times, ludicrous. To students of Marx, therefore, any book which sets out to present his doctrines in the light of modern capitalist evolution is of interest. Dr. Sweezy, a Harvard economist, attempts this and in some respects succeeds in his book The Theory of Capitalist Development, although in others he overwhelmingly fails.

His opening chapter on the methodology of Marx is interesting; methodology being another name for scientific method or the mode of investigation by which systematised knowledge is acquired. This involves the great importance of the process of “abstraction” which is essential to scientific method. A process which, as Sweezy says, “constitutes the method of successive approximation, or moving from the more abstract to the more concrete in a step by step fashion.” To put it another way, it is a question of going from the simple to the complex. When analysing a complex situation one must at the outset eliminate anything that is extraneous and likely to complicate the issue. To use a scientific axiom: to understand is to omit. Thus to understand the essential it is necessary to exclude what is non-essential for the purpose of the immediate investigation. A single example will illustrate our meaning. By the process of abstraction we can recognise the identical elements denoted by the objects, man, horse, bird, fish, etc., and combine them into a general concept—”vertebrate.” Thus we have the perception of a common property or identity of structure, which exists independently of their differences. To use scientific terminology, in order to arrive at this underlying relationship which exists between these different forms of life, they must be treated as an isolated process. In passing to a more detailed account, however, of the actual physical structures peculiar to their kind, factors which were arbitrarily eliminated as non-essential for the purpose of the crucial investigation, must now enter into consideration. The broad classification, vertebrate, now comes to acquire a more qualified and limited connotation the more it is brought into conformity with the totality of the various species, concretely considered. The validity of the use of abstraction is then: does it assist in helping to discover the essential relationship connecting the phenomena under investigation? That is its ultimate justification.

The same scientific principle holds good in Marxism. Marx began his analysis of capitalism by treating it as an isolated process of simple commodity relationships between capitalist and worker in which complicating factors like differences in the organic composition of capital, foreign trade, export of capital, non-capitalist regions, were deliberately excluded. Volume I of Capital can then be said to be the first stage of abstraction. Of course in capitalist society, considered from its concrete totality, commodities do not sell at their value. That socially necessary labour —the basis of value—is not a constant but ever-changing quantity. That monopolistic practices and imperfect competition distort the pattern of exchange relations, and so on. All this might seem to imply that Marx was going away from the actual conditions prevailing in capitalism but as every scientific thinker knows, scientific analysis rigorously demands such a procedure if the set of events under analysis is to be provided with an efficient cause for their happening. When ignoramuses like Schumpeter and Alexander Gray, whose books on Marxism have been recently reviewed in these columns, scream with the rest of their academic brethren about the so-called contradictions between the various volumes of Marx, they fail to see that such apparent contradictions are an integral part of the scientific method. They imply no more than various stages of abstraction for the purpose of analysing more clearly the problems of the present social system and so arriving at a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the social forces underlying it. This is our interpretation of the guts of Sweezy’s opening chapter. There is nothing original in this explanation of Marx’s economic methodology but the author elucidates it clearly and lucidly.

Chapter 2 on Value is also instructive, the author dealing with the more abstract side of Marx’s value principle the qualitative aspect. Undoubtedly the opening chapter of Marx’s Capital volume I, has been the least understood by his critics. It was here that Marx sought to demonstrate that any theory of value to be scientifically valid must discover a homogeneous quantity which although itself no? value was nevertheless able to provide the terms by which the exchange value of commodities could be expressed. It was here that Marx’s abstract undifferentiated labour or the expenditure under socially determined conditions of production provided the clue. Thus although labour is not value itself, it constitutes nevertheless the substance of value and so enables the different kinds of concrete labour—use values—to be reduced to this element common to them all. By being made qualitatively equal they can thus be rendered quantitatively comparable as exchange values. It was Marx’s separation of labour-power and labour—his major contribution to political economy—that enabled him to elucidate his theory of value much more cogently and comprehensively than his classical predecessors, Smith and Ricardo. Marx showed that labour-power was a commodity whose value was determined like all other commodities by the amount of social labour necessary for its production and reproduction. Labour, on the other hand, was a definite expenditure of human productive activity and thus capable of objective quantitative measurement and so as a value principle is independent of mere price fluctuations. The fact that abstract materialised labour takes a commodity form is the outcome of historically conditioned social relationship of commodity owners (including, of course, buyers and sellers of labour-power). Value itself is then a social quality, quantitatively expressed in exchange value. It can be seen then, the decisive and revolutionary break Marx made from the classical economists, Adam Smith and Ricardo, who merely treated value from its quantitative side—Exchange Value.

Sweezy also discusses Marx’s Law of the tendency of the falling rate of profit. The rate of profit must not be confused with the rate of surplus value. Thus if the organic composition of capital is £9,000 constant and £1,000 variable and the rate of exploitation of the workers employed by the variable capital is 100 per cent, then the surplus value produced by the workers will be £1,000. The capitalist, however, computes his profit on the total outlay of his capital, thus the rate of profit is “surplus” divided by “constant” plus “variable” which is 10 per cent. With every increase in the ratio of constant to variable capital the rate of profit falls even if the rate of exploitation remains the same. The author does not, it seems, accept the tendency of the rate of profit to fall due to the rising organic composition of capital but seeks to show that accumulation of capital with its increasing demand for labour-power tends to raise wages, and by so reducing the amount of surplus value bring about a fall in the rate of profit. Only when the capitalists strive through the introduction of labour-saving machinery to maintain the rate of profit or to raise its former level does the rising organic composition of capital come into the picture (page 105). It is true that as accumulation expands the supply of available labour power in the market will approach exhaustion point and the price of labour power will tend to rise, at least in certain industries and among certain workers. Fresh capital, meeting less and less reserves of cheap labour power will also tend to go increasingly into constant capital (labour saving machinery, etc.), and the organic composition of capital will be raised. Nevertheless this change is dictated by the relative scarcity of labour power and it does not follow that alteration in the organic composition of capital is necessarily offset by a proportional increase in the rate of exploitation. In this case a rising organic composition of capital is associated with a fall in the rate of profit. Moreover, as Marx points out,

“Two labourers, each working 12 hours daily, cannot produce the same mass of surplus-value as 24 labourers working only 2 hours even if they could live on air and did not have to work for themselves at all. In this respect the compensation of the reduction in the number of labourers by means of an intensification of exploitation has certain impassable limits. It may, for this reason, check the fall of the rate of profit but cannot prevent it entirely.” (Capital, Vol. 3, page 290, Kerr edition)

It is true that cheapening of the elements of constant capital, increase of relative surplus value and relative overpopulation are counteracting tendencies against the decline in the rate of profit. It has been often said that Marx’s analysis gives no clear indication of which set of tendencies would prevail (although Marx himself appeared inclined to the view that a fall in the rate of profit would be associated with continued capitalist expansion and increased technical changes.) Marx, however, was the last person to deduce a falling rate of profit in a vacuum. That would have been foreign to his own scientific and historical approach. For him the dynamics of capitalist society and the interaction of the totality of class relations and interests was the dominant feature in shaping economic trends. And there the matter must rest.

The author renders a good account of the general nature of capitalist crises although his own treatment on certain aspects of the matter must be read with circumspection. Sweezy enumerates two types of crises, one associated with the falling rate of profit and the other that he terms realisation crises, i.e., the inability of the capitalist to sell commodities at profitable prices. This last type of crisis emphasises what Sweezy calls the underconsumptionist tendencies inherent in capitalism. This “underconsumptionist ” approach seems, however, an unsatisfactory formulation of the treatment of crises. It is true that under the stimulus of capitalist accumulation the productive forces will expand and this will tend to higher wages. Nevertheless wage levels are always in the final analysis regulated by the desire of the capitalist class to maintain the customary rate of profit on their capital outlay. Moreover, as the result of the increased productivity of the worker arising out of the expansion of the productive forces, the ratio between the value of his labour power and the value of the wealth he produces is further increased, higher wages notwithstanding. His own share of the total product suffers then a relative decline. With a greater amount of surplus value in the hands of the capitalists there is a tendency for increasing investments in the means of production. Thus the expanding forces of production come into conflict with the limited consuming power based on the antagonistic character of class income distribution inherent in capitalism. To call this underconsumption is, however, to strain the meaning of the term in popular economic usage. Again this underconsumptionist aspect is merely an inevitable corollary of a more fundamental feature that is the basic conflict between the powers of production and the productive relations of capitalist society. As Marx points out,

“It is not a fact that too much wealth is produced. But it is true that there is periodical over-production of wealth in its capitalist and self-contradictory form. . . The capitalist mode of production, for this reason, meets with barriers at a certain scale of production which would be inadequate under different conditions. It comes to a standstill at a point determined by the production and realisation of profit not by the satisfaction of social needs.” (Capital, Vol. 3, page 303, Kerr edition).

Or, again, “the real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself.” (Page 293, same work).

Again Sweezy’s view that crises arise due to a shortage of labour-power which forces wages up and consequently causes the rate of profit to decline is hardly Marx’s view of the matter. In Vol. I of Capital on The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation Marx repeatedly stresses the fact that demand for labour-power does not keep step with the expansion of capital. In other words owing to the rising organic composition of capital the variable portion does not, as a means of the employment of wage-labour, keep pace with increases in the working population. Marx, of course, does not deny that the possibility of crises can arise from “labour shortage,” especially in early capitalism (page 700, Capital, Vol. I, Modern Library edition). Just as the present shortage of workers today carries distinct crisis implications. Nevertheless the appearance and growth of a surplus industrial army he held was the chief feature in the general law of capitalist accumulation. To sum up, Marx’s writings do not indicate two separate features of crises but rather that the possibilities of crises and crises themselves are indissolubly linked with the basic contradictions inherent in present day class society It is these contradictions which give to crisis under capitalism its familiar periodic character.

The chapter which criticises breakdown theories is excellent. The author shows that no such theory of final capitalist catastrophe can be logically deduced from Marx’s writings. Rosa Luxemburg, Otto Bauer and Grossman are all acutely criticised for their formulation of breakdown theories. Our own pamphlet, Why Capitalism Will Not Collapse (written during the last crisis) was a valuable contribution in showing why crises as such do not bring an end to capitalism, in answer to the spokesmen of various political parties, Communist Party included, who were noisily proclaiming the 1931 slump as the beginning of the end of the present economy.

For reasons of space we cannot adequately deal with Sweezy’s mathematical treatment of the transformation of value into prices of production for the purpose of maintaining equilibrium conditions between industries that produce means of production and those that produce means of consumption.

But surely the essence of the matter lies in the historical treatment of the development from simple commodity production to a developed capitalist economy. In simple commodity production constant capital plays little part and is, therefore, relatively unimportant. Here the law of value is directly controlling the exchange relationships. In modern capitalism different organic compositions of capitals bulk large. Seeing, however, that only the variable portion (the part employing wage labour) produces surplus value then different units of capital according to their organic composition will produce different quantities of surplus value and consequently different rates of profit. The capitalist, however, is indifferent to the ratio of means of production to variable capital and seeks the customary rate of profit on his total capital outlay. How this is brought about is due to the competition for spheres of investment in different industries, capital leaving those industries whose rate of profit is low and invading and expanding those industries where the rate of profit is high and where, as the result of this expansion, prices fall and with them the rate of profit. By this incessant competition for various spheres of profitable investment an equalisation of profit or an average rate of profit is brought about. Thus the price at which capitalists sell their goods oscillates not round their value but the price of production, i.e., the cost of production plus the average rate of profit. Nevertheless the sum of the prices of production at which commodities are produced equals their total values. Again this process does not alter the sum total of surplus value produced b the workers, the only point is its distribution according to the requirements of a profit motive economy which necessitates an equal share on a given expenditure of capital. Under developed capitalism the law of value is indirectly controlling exchange relationships, nevertheless, it must constitute the starting point of investigation for elucidating the phenomena of production prices peculiar to capitalism. This modification of value into production prices is then the result of a long drawn-out historical process and a mathematical treatment of it from the unhistorical point of view of equilibrium conditions has little significance, as Sweezy admits (page 128), “the law of value can he discovered and analysed in principle by the use of either value calculation or price calculation.”

His last chapter, “The Decline of World Capitalism” is unadulterated rubbish. He mistakenly holds the view that the world is split into two separate social systems, i.e., Socialism in Russia and Capitalism elsewhere whose fount is the U.S.A. He further holds that the social system of Russia coupled with its growth elsewhere will exercise a disintegrating effect on capitalism. Great Britain and Western Europe — presumably on the Soviet model—might go socialist at the end of the war (this book being first published in America in 1942). Bit by bit Socialism would undermine the stability and structure of Capitalism in perhaps a peaceful fashion. Thus the Fabian principle of peaceful permeation is elevated to international status. Apart from the theoretical falsification of the real issue Sweezy’s idea of “a peaceful era” following the war has been hopelessly falsified by the inter-imperialist rivalries of the great capitalist powers, U.S.A., Britain, France and Russia.

Nevertheless sections of the book provide a useful source for the better understanding of the theoretical foundations of Marxism and its application to the social problems of our time.

Ted Wilmott

Poverty or misery: a correction (1957)

From the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the article “Poverty or Misery” in the January issue (page 5, middle of column 2) reference was made to Mr. Strachey’s unjustifiable use of a translation which gave the word “poverty” in place of the German word meaning “misery” in a passage from Marx’s Capital. This point stands, but error was made with regard to the various editions of Capital. The editions in English of Volume I. of Capital are:—

(1) The Swan Sonnenschein edition (1886) translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, is based on the 3rd German. This was the only English edition edited by Engels.

(2) The Charles Kerr edition (1906) is the same translation as the Sonnenschein, except for incorporation of additions and revisions to text made by Engels to the 4th German edition. These amendments to text were translated by Ernest Untermann. 

(3) The Allen & Unwin edition (1938) is a facsimile reprint of the Sonnenschein. The amendments made by Engels to the 4th German edition, are printed as an appendix. It is only these amendments which Dona Torr translated. 

(4) The Allen & Unwin edition (1928) in one volume was newly translated by Eden and Cedar Paul from the 4th German edition. (It was reviewed in the Socialist Standard in March, 1929). 

Later on this edition was taken over by Dents and published as two volumes in the Everyman series.

Ed. Com.

SPGB Meetings (1957)

  Party News from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

A feeble criticism of Marx (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Modern criticism of Marx tends to crystalise itself into the concession that Marx discovered but unfortunately over-emphasised certain important truths about the nature of social development. Thus do his capitalist critics damn him with a faint praise. Mr. Christopher Hollis, broadcasting “On the Merits and Defects of Karl Marx” (Listener, 4/9/47) offered a slight variation of the theme by at least appearing to praise him with rather more than faint damns. Apart from that his treatment of Marx has no further claim to originality.

Marx himself, sensitive to the fact that his analysis of existing social forms demanded some insight, into his historical method, presupposed in the preface, to “Capital,” people who were willing to learn something new and therefore think for themselves. Viewing his motley crowd of critics by and large, might suggest that this presupposition erred on the side of over-optimism. Indeed many of Marx’s critics have resolutely refused to take him neat. Instead they have preferred to swallow him heavily diluted with secondhand versions and hear-say of others. The sharpness and flexibility of Marx’s method must, however, be judged by the way Marx himself used it. The fact that certain people have criticised Marx without troubling to discover what can be learned from Marx himself has not prevented them from offering their own versions “of what Marx really meant” or should have meant. It did not, of course, prevent Mr. Hollis.

Calling Marx’s Historical Materialism crude economic determinism he nevertheless conceded that economic circumstances have a great influence on men’s views and conduct. “It is a naive and adolescent crudity that they are the sole influence,” he added. It is more naively adolescent for Mr. Hollis to attempt to foist on Marx a view he never held and the fallacy of which he himself exposed. Education, philosophy, religion, law, and political struggles, as Marx revealed, in their action and reaction on each other, played an important part by in turn modifying and influencing the main trend of economic development. What Marx did say was that the key to the whole social picture was to be found in the economic relations under which men live, for it is this which constitutes the most important influence over men’s lives and through their lives their ideas, institutions, and general cultural activities.

For Marx all social development is historically conditioned. That men make history is central then to his doctrine. Not out of any old circumstances it is true but out of the material conditions they find to hand ; again for Marx the vital difference between a colony of bees, or an organisation of ants lies in the fact that men’s historically determined social behaviour is consciously formulated for given purposes and directed towards given ends. Mr. Hollis could even learn that Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism is not only a way of understanding history but through that understanding a way of helping to make it.

According to Mr. Hollis Marx’s economic determinism merely formulated the fact that human nature had been predominantly ruled by greed throughout history. To expect human nature to change, except by the most gradual evolution, was from the standpoint of Marx’s own logic and materialistic thesis, utterly irrational. Socialism being ruled by a spirit of love and service was therefore impossible. Capitalism may pass, said Mr. Hollis, indeed it is reasonable to think so, but on the day of its overthrow the new Socialists and Communists speaking the language of the classless society will establish themselves as a new governing class.

Marx’s belief in the coming of Socialism, was, according to Mr. Hollis, the rewriting of his ancient Jewish ancestral creed, Marx being the son of a Jew who became baptised in the Christian faith, Marx himself the inheritor of generations of Jewish faith translated the coming of the Lord in terms of the coming Communist revolution. Other “psychologists” have also explained Marx’s theories in terms of personal motivation. With that delightful lack of agreement and refreshing inconsistency which characterises “the finding” of these mind experts they have arrived at different conclusions to those of Mr. Hollis. Thus Marx’s theories of social revolution have been rationalised, as a desire to be revenged on his father for turning a Christian; the result of an ineradicable inferiority complex ; and even as a bye-product of an unhealthy liver. Doubtless a perverse ingenuity could think up a, dozen more reasons equally good—or bad. We for our part confess our utter inability to attempt an objective assessment of a many ideas in terms of subjective personal motivation. Generally speaking, such is the vast range of human motives that they are mostly too complex and obscure for people themselves to be really clear about them. For us the only satisfactory criterion of a man’s ideas is whether it is a more, or less objective representation of the processes he seeks to explain. Mr. Hollis’ attempts to deal with Marx’s theories from this aspect were, however, singularly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Hollis even described Marxism among other things as a psychology. Although he added “there is no psychologist today who would accept Marxian Psychology.” He thought that in the realm of psychological motivation there was infinitely more truth in Adler’s lust of power theory than in Marx’s crude economic determinism. Not only Marx himself but also his theories are shifted by Mr. Hollis into the realm of “psychological motivation.” The results of Mr. Hollis’ efforts in so doing are sensational. For if we are to believe Mr. Hollis it is not Marx’s view that it is the historical development of social productive forces which put men’s social needs and economic interests in a definite social cast but rather it is certain fixed and inflexible psychological attributes which bring about the social superstructure necessary for their expression. Mr. Hollis, with a wave of his psychological wand, is thus able to turn Marx the materialist into Marx the idealist. For Marx, if we are to believe Mr. Hollis, merely regarded historic social changes as but the derivative and outcome of a state of mind, albeit a greedy state of mind. Social productive relations are not then the prior and indispensible conditions for men’s existence but some ghostly process tacked on as it were to their immutable economic behaviour. All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Marxism is but the affirmation of the subjectivist claim that nothing exists but thinking makes it so. Mr. Hollis is probably unaware of the fact that it was Marx who with objective criticism and scientific acumen scourged those idealistic thinkers, such as Stirner, Bentham, etc., who held such notions! Incidentally, although innocently, Marx also scourged the idealistic Mr. Hollis.

Marx, however, denied that men’s economic interests and needs were to be found by an abstract psychological study of men’s minds; any more than they can be found in a physiological study of their bodies. Such interests are not psychologically derived but socially conditioned. More specifically, men’s social interests and economic exigencies have their origin not in the consciousness or unconsciousness of individuals but in the role these individuals play as members of a social group or class, in the organisation of production. Whether a man is born into that social group which makes him slave owner or slave, feudal lord or serf, employer or wage earner, depends not on his good or bad intent but on a set of productive relations indispensable to his existence and independent of his will. A mode of production based then on private property relationships, expresses the way different classes stand to each other in the division of wealth and the manner and extent in which the total social product is divided between them. In a society such as Capitalism the continued social well-being of the class who own the means of wealth production is dependent on the exploited class who are non-owners. It is true that hero and there an individual succeeds in changing his independent status, but for the overwhelming majority of the dependent class their social and economic conditions are given. Consequently their position of social servitude cannot be changed without revolutionising the productive relationships which make this servitude indispensable for the exploiters The interests of an individual are then but the expression of the common interests of his class. Whatever incidental differences may arise between members of the same social group they are subordinated and subservient to those common benefits that serve their class needs.

In the same way the conflict of class interests is never a conflict which originates and centres around abstractions like “human greed” and “lust for power.” These class conflicts themselves have their objective source in the antagonistic character of social relations based on class ownership of the means of living. The solution for the resolving of these class conflicts likewise is not the outcome of arbitrary choice or ethical preference. On the contrary it is the conscious realisation of concrete class needs made possible by the objective opportunities provided by the development of the social forces within present day society. For it is only when social production is freed from the restraint of private ownership which gives power over the lives of the many and hampers their- free development can a state of affairs—common ownership of the means of living—provide the social basis on which “the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all.” Which shows how much or how little Mr. Hollis understood of the subject he so kindly undertook to explain.

Nevertheless, Mr. Hollis assured his listeners that Capitalism was passing away. While Mr. Hollis was reticent about the shape of things to come he was at least emphatic that the shape would not be Socialism. Sombrely his political horoscope pointed instead to the emergence of a new ruling class. From his statement that the new Society was in its birth pangs we may deduce the fact that the exploited section will continue to be the working class. The economic function of the working class is, of course, to produce surplus value, i.e. the difference in value over and above the cost of their own subsistence and the value of the total product they produce. The appropriators will then be Mr. Hollis’ “new ruling class” who will monopolise the means of living. But it is this method of exploitation based upon the conversion of the dispossessed labourers’ working energies into a commodity and a section who appropriate their unpaid labour which is the starting point and distinctive feature of Capitalism as an historic mode of production. Nothing in essentials will be changed in Mr. Hollis’ “new society.” For a new ruling class to come into existence it must presuppose an entirely new set of economic conditions having entirely different social aims and economic objectives. To call managers, functionaries, bureaucrats, etc., operating and monopolising the means of production under the aegis of the State, a new ruling class is a misnomer. As appropriators of surplus value they would merely be fulfilling the same economic function as the entrepreneur and private corporations they had replaced. The method of exploitation would still exist in the form of capital and wealth accumulation ; or more strictly capital accumulation by the process of seeking, as far as possible, the expansion of surplus value, would be the dominant economic aim and objective. What distinguishes a ruling class is not a particular set of personalities who make up its ranks but the particular way a ruling class, by ownership of wealth resources, appropriates the labour of others. Mr. Hollis’ new ruling class would then be merely different individuals of the old ruling class. In the same way as the former Nazi leaders by forced purchases, appropriation and penetration into large scale industry did not, as some have fondly imagined, form the, nucleus of a new ruling class, but as recipients of surplus value, became part of the German Capitalist class.

It is also an illusion held by Burnham and other supporters of the so-called “managerial revolution” that State intervention weakens and finally destroys the basis of Capitalism. What, in actual fact, does happen is that with the monopolistic growth of modern Capitalism the political functions of the State become more and more integrated into the economic functions of capital. The purpose of political controls is then to ensure as far as possible the smooth running of the various branches of Capitalist production ; the easing of the friction between various sections of the Capitalist class; and the regularising and spreading over of some part of the capital resources of the ruling class in the main field of Capitalist production. State intervention, so far from weakening Capitalism, attempts to strengthen and preserve it in the interests of the Capitalist class as a whole. Even where a considerable measure of State control of industry has been carried out it merely means that the appropriation of surplus value is carried out by the State on behalf of collectivised capital. That is why Mr. Burnham, in his desperate attempt to find a new economic basis for his Managerial Society, merely discovered the novelty of another name for a form of highly developed State Capitalism.

Mr. Hollis also tried to foist on Marx an economic breakdown theory. He said Marx held that only by loans to undeveloped countries was Capitalism able to stave off the breakdown due to its inability to generate sufficient purchasing power ; finally, however, collapse would come. Nowhere did Marx put forward such a doctrine.

Mr. Hollis also thought that the increase of the wealth of the poor was a denial of Marx’s forecast about the development of Capitalism. To talk of the increase of the wealth of the poor is a comical phrase, like talking about the increased health of the permanently diseased. He argued that the worker’s standard of living has increased incomparably more than in all previous recorded history. Yet, strangely enough, never, perhaps, has history recorded such vast inequalities of income on the scale obtaining in Capitalism. What is true is that in spite of the incomparable increase in producing wealth in ever vaster quantities the poverty of the great majority in Capitalism is not merely a logical deduction from Marx’s theories but a physical and social fact.

Mr. Hollis complained that the taxation of the rich was becoming increasingly heavier. One can only say that a system of society, such as the present, where the State is compelled to spend vast resources on the upkeep of such things as armies, navies and armaments in general, can hardly constitute a satisfactory defence of capitalism. If anything it is another excellent reason why Capitalism should go.

That Mr. Hollis should read into what he calls the logic of Marx his own crudely naive and adolescent fatalism of a world in the grip of iron laws based on human greed is lamentable. What is perhaps more lamentable is that it should obtain licence to be performed publicly. Doubtless, however, the traditional “B.B.C. impartiality” is best preserved by letting its listeners hear Marx explained by non-Marxists or even anti-Marxists.

In conclusion we may add that from Mr. Hollis’ discourse on Marx we failed to discern either “the merits or defects of Karl Marx.” We did, however, in this respect discover the defects of Mr. Hollis.

Ted Wilmott

A Fabian and his Fabianism (1947)

From the December 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

If Fabianism came to be the political Bible of the Labour Movement then Sidney Webb (the late Lord Passfield) was its Prophet. Of him, Lord Listowel in the House of Lords said: “That the Labour Party came to regard him much as the Children of Israel must have regarded Moses . . . who pointed a way through the ‘Wilderness to the Promised Land’.” (Hansard, 20/10/47.) Undoubtedly, Webb, more than any other Fabian, foretold of the New Jerusalem which was emerging, painlessly, inevitably, almost imperceptibly from the present Social Order. The Labour Government’s historic mission is, it seems, to demonstrate that this Fabian New Jerusalem is merely Capitalist “Old Babylon,” writ large.

The Liberal Lord Samuel also spoke of Webb as a political pioneer and one of the principal founders of a Great Party. The Conservative Lord Salisbury called him the founder of the Fabian Society and intellectual father of the Labour Party. The Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned the close connection between Webb and the Church on the question of Social Reform. “He also desired to associate himself with the Tributes paid.” (Hansard, same issue.) Speaking for ourselves, “We come to bury Caesar not to praise him.”

The Fabian Society was founded in 1881. A group of “educated people,” so their historian, Mr. Pease, assures us, not without a little unction it seems : “We were aware of Marx,” he says, “but I do not think at the time the Society was founded we had read or assimilated his ideas.” (“History of Fabian Society,” p.24.) A statement probably as true now of the Fabian Society as it was then.

Non-acquaintance with Marx’s ideas has not prevented successive generations of Fabians from solemnly pronouncing him “A great thinker.” It was apparently only what he thought about that for them is of so little consequence. Mr. Pease even thought “That every passing year brought added conviction that the broad principles of Marxism will guide the evolution of Society during the present century.” (“History of Fabian Society,” p.236.) The sentence before, however, had noted that the first achievement of Fabianism was to break the spell of Marxism in England

As against Marxism the Fabians began by denying that Socialism could only be the outcome of historic development. Webb on behalf of the Fabians assured us “that no special claim is made that Socialism has a basis in history.” (“Fabian Essays,” p.36.) Instead we are presented with a plurality of Socialisms each dependant on their particular environment and, it appears, geographical location. “Thus Fabianism,” Mr. Pease told us, “was English Socialism,” The political and industrial conditions being somewhat different in degree in Scotland, he added. While in Ireland an application of socialist principles had not been seriously attempted. Nor, we presume, Wales or the Channel Islands.

Marxism, we must add. is a unified world conception based on an analysis of the sum totality of existing social productive relationships—Capitalism. If is thus able to demonstrate that the very development of capitalism provides the economic and social conditions for its replacement by an entirely different social arrangement based on common ownership and production for use. The present system being universal in character the Socialist Society which supersedes it must have the same universal character. There can then be no different kinds of Socialism, i.e., a Scotch Socialism in contrast to an English Socialism. Socialism being world-wide in extent the same social system must operate and be universally valid throughout the entire Socialist world.

Such is the stuff of which Fabian “Socialism” was made. Indeed Fabianism cut this “stuff” into even smaller parts, and presented us with such microscopic “socialist” portions as “Socialist London,” “Socialist Birmingham,” even “Socialist Poplar” and “Socialist Bermondsey.” Shaw’s admission in the Fabian Tract 41 that “he and the early Fabians had no true knowledge of Socialism” is hardly a confession. For Shaw still holds most of Mr. Pease’s “Socialist illusions.” The venerable Shavian beard would seem to illustrate in this respect that wisdom is not necessarily denoted by whiskers—not even when they are Fabian whiskers.

What then are the fundamentals of Fabianism? Even the Fabians themselves seem wholely ignorant of them. “There never has been a Fabian orthodoxy,” said Mr. Pease, “because no one was in a position to assert what the true faith was.” (“History of Fabian Society,” p.237.) Nevertheless continued Mr. Pease, “We obtained freedom of thought,” An attribute which Pease seemed to think highly desirable.

No doubt for a “Socialist” organisation which included all shades of political opinion advised voting against what it termed Socialist candidates if it meant splitting the vote and keeping the more popular “progressive” candidate out, and which supported Imperialism and war, such “freedom of opinion,” was not merely desirable but essential.

Apparently for the Fabians Socialism, like the poor, has always been with us. According to Webb “Socialist philosophy is but the recognition of the principles of social organisation in great part unconsciously accepted. The history of the 19th century was an almost continuous record of progress in Socialism.” The Socialist cat is thus out of the Fabian bag. Fabian Socialism is merely the acceptance and extension of all State activity. In pursuance of this theme Webb in a grotesque passage records what for him seemed the progress of Socialism. He enumerates such things as State control of the Armed Forces, Gas-works, Parks, Cemeteries, Slaughter Houses, Pawn-broking Establishments and Leper Islands. (“Fabian “Essays,” pp.18-51.) Even State registration of hawkers, dogs, cats, cabs, and inspection of baby farms and Scotch red herrings are all evidence of Socialist legislation ! For Webb a pedlar’s licence was proof that we were enjoying a semi-socialist existence. While such institutions, as the War Office and Scotland Yard were important milestones on the high road to the full Socialist Commonwealth.

The Socialism of Webb, in spite of protests from some Fabian quarters, became the accepted and authorised version. It merely turns out to be but the bureaucratic organisation essential for the maintenance and upkeep of Capitalism. Social reforms can likewise be included under this category. The 19th century Factory Acts constituted State intervention against the unrestrained character of prevailing capitalist exploitation. Such exploitation would finally have led to a catastrophic decline in workers’ productivity and thus profits. Sanitation laws constituted a safeguard for the wealthy against epidemics. Education Acts are designed to give workers’ children the training necessary for the wage-labour status they will one day assume. Unemployment Acts. Health Insurance, Old Age Pensions, merely denote the need to regulate the wide-spread poverty and destitution caused by the economic effects of capitalism on the working class. While certain reforms may give the worker slight but often merely transient amelioration they leave untouched the poverty resulting from his class-position in present society. The undertaking by the State of such activities are on the grounds of cheaper and more efficient administration. At the same time they spread the burden of taxation evenly over the entire capitalist class.

As for Nationalisation of Key Industries, advocated by Fabians for many years, it has come to pass. Nevertheless, the Tories or Liberals do not propose to denationalise them if returned to Power, while the theme of a “planned Capitalism” is as much their theme as that of the Labour Party.

Even the Fabian “Gas and Water Socialism” was but a Radical legacy bequeathed by Joseph Chamberlain. Municipalism, its other name, merely seeks to prevent the whole capitalist class from being used as a milch-cow by the private ownership, often of a monopolistic character, of such things as heat, light, power, etc. As for parks, libraries, museums, etc., being bits of Socialism, Chamberlain, with brutal frankness, regarded them as merely “the ransom paid for the privilege of holding property.” Fabianism is then a thing of shreds and patches. Shoddy remnants, second-hand from the Tory and Liberal political shops, sewn into a Fabian patchwork. Finally, on the subject of Municipal Socialism, we have Pease’s admission that it needed for its adoption and extension no advocacy from the Fabians. (“History of Fabian Society,” p. 81.)

The maturing of Capitalism into monopolistic forms and the integration of the State into its economic functions and activities, have been idealised by the Fabians into a programme of State Capitalism. The very developmental trends of Capitalism and its associated bureaucratic growth has then been presented as its opposite—Socialism.

It was this very evolution of Capitalism towards monopolistic forms that gave to Fabianism its automatic and ineluctable character. If the Mills of Capitalism were grinding small they were nevertheless grinding out “Socialism” every day. Such was the cumulative effect of all this that one day Capitalist Society would become a Socialist Society and no one would notice it. The economic revolution is going on every day, said Mr. Clarke, practically independent of our desires or prejudices. (“Fabian Essays,” p.62.) The Tories and Liberals, declared Webb many times, were committed to “Socialism” as much as the “Socialists.” He added, even people who believe Socialism a foolish dream were its unconscious instruments. According to the Fabians the coming of Socialism was as inexorable as an act of Nature. While the Fabians assigned themselves the role of midwives in the period of social gestation, the existence and growth of the “Socialist” seed inside the womb of Capitalist Society was apparently innocent of human agency. No greater miracle has been claimed since the birth of Jesus. This is a denial of the Marxist dictum, that given the material conditions to hand, men make history. Dressed up in its Sunday clothes this piece of Fabian fatalism is called “the inevitability of Gradualism.”

This was also a denial of the class-struggle and of the need of the working class to capture political power for the overthrow of Capitalism. For effective Socialist action and understanding they substituted political auto-suggestion. Because society was evolving gradually in the “Socialist” direction, they said, things were going to get better and better for the workers. Given the Fabians in control the results were, guaranteed. Such was the pernicious Fabian doctrine which sought to insulate the working class from a true perspective of their class position in Capitalist Society.

With this automatic process went a peculiar Fabian opportunism. With typical Fabian discreetness they called it “Permeation.” While telling the workers they should have an independent party of their own, they felt that they, the Fabians, should be free to work in and with every group or party for the favourable growth and influence of their ideas. Telling the Tories and Liberals “we” were already half way to Socialism, from which there was no turning back, the other half may as well be travelled in unison nnd together.

The Fabians also helped form the Labour Party by their active association with that party’s parent body—The Labour Representation Committee. So well did the Fabians, permeate the Labour Party that it could at length have uttered with some truth, “We are all Fabians now.” This Fabianisation of the Labour Party made, however, the Fabians superfluous. After a time they became an integral part of the Labour Party and as an independent political organisation for all practical purposes the Society permeated itself out of existence. Such is the inevitability of gradualness. However, Sidney Webb could claim that the Labour Party was. not a class party but one representing National interests who were ready to take over the Government of the country. Appropriately enough the Labour Party’s 1918 programme. “Labour and the New Social Order” was drafted by Webb.

Little wonder that “Fabian Socialism” representing its establishment as “the co-operative outcome of all sections of the community” was regarded as a welcome substitute by those in the saddle for the Marxist ” Class Struggle ” and “Social Revolution.” A “Socialism”—State Capitalism—that left their real class position undisturbed they could regard with equanimity, even interest. They might even agree with Shaw. ” That it was as easy and matter of course for the average respectable Englishman to become a Socialist as a Liberal or Tory.” (“Fabian Essays” 1908 preface.) The Fabians not merely made their Socialism respectable, they made it fashionable. Thus the announcement by an heir of wealthy interests that be had become a Fabian convert to his family might have merely occasioned a remark from his Mamma that his father had become one at an even earlier age.

The adoration of the State and its administrative functions by the Fabians has interesting implication’s. Thus Webb said “We must take more care to improve the social organism than our individual development. It. is not the individual’s development which is the highest cultivation of his personality but the filling in in the best possible way of his humble function in the great social machine.” Shaw, going perhaps even further, implies in Appendix I of the “History of the Fabian Society” that Parliamentary democracy as understood is a mere calling of fools into a ring. He said “Society could never be reconstructed by the type of men produced by popular elections.” Without qualified rulers a Socialist State is impossible, be declares. In a preface to the “Fabian Essays.,” he also states “the very existence of society is dependent on the skilled work of administrators and experts.” Further in the appendix Shaw hoped that “Democracy would demand that only suitable men should be presented to its choice.” Fabians, of course. This is, of course, a. favourite device of dictatorships which, also scorning the notion that people are intelligent enough to run Society in their own interests collectively, demand that only people favoured by nature and circumstances are qualified to take charge. That Shaw himself at length came riding home politically on the shoulders of Mussolini seems not an illogical deduction from his own premises. Fabian State efficiency rather than Fabian democracy would seem their cardinal doctrine. From this it would also seem that Webb and the Fabians anticipated certain features of Fascism.

When Sidney Webb and his wife, Beatrice, were old people, they went to Russia. Previously they had considered Bolshevism no better than Czarism. “Under Bolshevism the prisons were as full and the rifles as active as under Tsardom.” (“Decay of Capitalist Civilisation,” p.101.) What they now saw on their visit was a vast administrative machine run by a privileged bureaucracy. And what the Webbs saw, they liked. The Stalinists hailed the Webbs’ approval of their bureaucratic machine as evidence “of the establishment of Socialism in one Country.” For the Webbs it was the establishment of that State Capitalism par excellence which they had advocated for years. And the Webbs were right. As their fellow Fabian, Bernard Shaw, announced on returning from a visit to Russia, “The Bolsheviks have merely realised the Fabian Ideal.”

When the Webb’s came home they wrote a book of 1,200 pages;: “Soviet Communism a New Civilisation?” In subsequent editions the question mark was removed. Apparently this indicated their full approval and sanction of the state of affairs in Russia. In such a truly Fabian fashion did “Socialism” in Russia come into existence.

This, of course, led to a New Communist line on the Webbs. True Lenin had referred to them as bourgeois humbugs . . , social chauvanists . . . guilty of the worst kind of treachery, etc. (“Lenin on Britain,” p.152.) Likewise the Communist International had denounced Webb and the Fabians as apologists for State Capitalism under the guise of Socialism. (“Handbook of Marxism,” p. 1,026.) Now the Webbs became “Social Scientists,” “objective thinkers,” etc. In such a fashion did a Communist Party scribe called Allen Hutt, eulogise Webb in the Daily Worker (15/10/47.) Incidentally in a book called the “Final Crisis” (p.96) the writer had approvingly quoted Engels as to the Fabians being a band of place hunters. He also considered the influence of the Fabians to have been disastrous on what he called the Socialist Movement.

The Fabian belief in the silent and peaceful evolution of Capitalism with its bedtime stories to the workers of constantly improving conditions has been shattered by the history of Capitalist developments. No such progress has taken place. Economists like Chiozza Money, Bowley, Campion and others have shown how decade after decade road little change in the share of unpaid labour appropriated by the capitalists. Webb, himself, confessed, over 30 years after the founding of the Fabian Society, that one-half of the social product was taken by one-ninth of the community.” (“The Decay of Capitalist Civilisation,” p.17.) While Pease admitted that “little progress has been made towards Socialism. Private ownership flourishes almost as vigorously as it did thirty years ago.” (“History of the Fabian Society,” p.243.) Indeed the Webbs’ “Decay of Capitalism” was a tearful admission that mass unemployment, slumps, and wars were catastrophes not provided for in the peaceful Inevitability of Gradualism, On p.174 these curious Socialists admitted they had never during thirty years in the Socialist Movement, framed an indictment of Capitalism. True that in doing so they seemed to have discovered that there is something inherent in Capitalism which prevents it from functioning in the interests of the vast majority. (Same book, p.18.) What they never saw was that the “Decay of Capitalism was also the decay of Fabianism.” For that reason they did not disappoint us by failing to reach a truly Fabian conclusion. “In order for the workers and capitalists to understand their problems and each other a little better” they said in the last paragraph, “we offer, perhaps in vain, this little book.” The Webbs in setting out to find out what was wrong in Capitalist Society ended up by offering “a little book” as the solution for its social problems. As usual Class Co-operation was their panacea. Thus the long-chanted formula of these disciples of John Stuart Mill’s humanitarianism, “if only sections of society would be reasonable and sympathetic to each other’s claims.” If, of course, the lion was a vegetarian he might be persuaded to lie down with the lamb.

Such was Sidney Webb and his fellow Fabians. “Educated people” and tireless, seekers after statistical facts, yet never once in their researches did they discover the simple and fundamental truths which underlie present class society; simple truths known to the humblest student of Socialism. While these truths remain simple the confusion caused by people like Webb makes the work of expounding them infinitely much harder. By his advocacy of a Capitalism reformed in working-class interests he helped to blunt the sharp edge of the clear-cut Socialist solution. By accident or design he and the Fabians became formidable political fifth columnists in the ranks of the International working class. As an investigator of social facts and part author of a work like “The History of British Trade Unions,” he may be remembered. As a sociologist and a scientific interpreter of his times he is already in the process of being forgotten.

Ted Wilmott

Tories in search of a policy (1947)

From the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Annual Conferences of the major political parties are convenient and useful affairs. Delegates make speechlets on the ”Platform’s” proposals without really affecting them in any way. Other delegates politely listen. On occasions they even clap or cheer these speechlets. Such a social gathering helps to generate a feeling of amity and good-fellowship suggestive of the atmosphere of the Annual Outing or “Beano.” For the party leaders it is an admirable sounding-board by which to magnify their personal influence over their followers. It also enables them to indulge in those spell-binding speeches which do so much to rekindle the fires of their supporters’ political enthusiasm. Fires, which often tend between one Conference and another to burn dangerously low.

This, of course, really covers the water front of the Brighton Conservative Conference. Nevertheless, incidentals arising from it might paint a moral or adorn a tale.

Bernard Shaw’s “A Black Girl in search of God” has nothing on a Tory Party in search of a Policy. In the past such mundane things as detailed policies have rarely troubled them. Maintenance of Law and Order ; Preservation, of Our Glorious Empire; and an occasional red-herring like Tariff Reform have been considered ample for securing votes. With these and other nebulous promises they successfully moved the Electorate. Neither can they claim that the Electorate have been unduly fickle or faithless. Apart from two short and not highly significant breaks of the 1924 and 1929 Labour Governments the Tories enjoyed political power for eighteen years. Forty-odd years of Labour Party “Nationalisation” propaganda, among other things, provided some useful spade-work for digging a hole round the Conservative castle. It was through this hole that the Tory majority finally disappeared. The working class at length decided to give “Labour” a chance at running things.

The need of finding a rival policy to attract votes from the Labour Party has caused consternation in the Conservative ranks. Last year, at Blackpool, they began their search for one. This year’s Conference has shown it is not to be found in Brighton. To be restored as the “rightful claimants” of political power by the Tories time-honoured expedient of holding a successful General Election Inquest on the Labour Government's failures, appears the only hope.

Unfortunately for the Tories their failure to find some concrete alternative to the Labour Party programme lies deeper than any apparent inability to formulate one. The need of British Monopoly Capitalism compels the State to become more and more an active partner in its affairs, and so unify the diverse elements in accordance with the requirements of capitalism as an economic unit. This leads to that rigorous uniformity of political measures which is so marked a feature of modern capitalist administration. The main task of alternative Government is in essentials to supplement and extend what the last Government began.

Thus it can be said of any real alternative policies for running Capitalism what a geological text book once said of “Snakes in Iceland”—”there are none.” That is why, to use an Irishism, the more the Tories are different from the Labour Party the more do they seem the same thing—only even more so.

The Tories claimed that their Charter was “a bold advance in political and social affairs.” The merest cursory glance shows it to be a retreat into the Cloud-Cuckoo Land of vapid platitudes and cloudy generalisations. Mr. Eden once again took on the role of drummer-boy for the Tory, Brave New World. Although sounding the tocsin valiantly he could produce nothing more than The Need of Real Leadership : a Properly Balanced Budget; More Production, and Streamlined Controls. All of which led the Manchester Guardian (3/10/47) to say: “The seven points of the Charter would have been subscribed with equal fervour by most members of the Labour Party.”

Even the Tory Daily Telegraph could only lamely underscore Mr. Eden’s speech by saying that “in the first essentials of Government the Conservatives could provide better men.” It also significantly commented : “an alternative Government can be found which will either do other and better things—or the same things better.” This suggests that the Conservative Campaign will boil down in essentials to the exhortation: “Play the game you Labour cads. It’s our turn to bat.”

Because political parties exist for the requirements of Capitalism as a whole the Tories could not afford to indulge in sterile controversy about the alleged principles of Nationalisation. The Telegraph simply stated :—”Nationalisation had gone far. enough.” The mines will not, then, be denationalised in the event of a Tory Government. Likewise no indication was given that Railways, Electricity or Gas would be returned to Private Enterprise or, more correctly, Private Monopoly. Neither have they suggested that shareholders in the Bank of England or stockholders in Cables and Wireless should yield up good Government scrip signed by a Treasury official for something signed by a company director. As for the suggestion of denationalising the Steel Industry time will come for that when the Labour Government has finally made up its own mind on the matter of nationalising it.

Such a decision to preserve the already accomplished projects of the’ Labour Party implies, no reversal of the economic traditions of the British Capitalist Class. Whether it bo the Post Office, the B.B.C., Municipal Gas or Electricity, Governments in the past have never hesitated to take them from private control where it has been thought necessary for the interests of the Capitalist Class as a whole. If further evidence was needed there is Mr. MacMillan’s book, “The Next Five Years,” suggesting that Armaments, Transport, some forms of Insurance, and Electricity, were suitable for State Control. Mr. Churchill in the 1918 Election also urged a measure of State Control over all monopolies, especially Transport and Power, a fact which the adroit Mr. Morrison reminded them of in the House of Commons Debate on The Address. (Times, 21/11/46.)

Even the Tory cry of “Give Private Enterprise a chance” merely echoes the Labour Party’s oft repeated claim of leaving, after Nationalisation schemes had been carried through, eighty per cent. of Industry in Private Control. Mr. Morrison informed his own electors at Lewisham that Nationalisation must be carried through where necessary in the interests of efficiency, but most of Industry should remain private and prosperously enterprising. (The Economist, 10/5/47.)

The Tories also propose to retain Controls even, to the point of “streamlining them.” Mr. Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, has also announced : “Controls will be streamlined.” (Evening News, 7/10/47.)

Even that last stronghold of Toryism—Imperial Preferences—has fallen. It has been taken in the rear by that doughty “Empire Free Trade” Crusader, Mr. Bevin. Perhaps the bitterest quarrel that may yet ensue between “Labour” and Tory may be over who are “the true breed” of our great Imperial Traditions. Mr. Eden taunted the Labour Party with the fact that they are mere recruits who have only recently begun to think imperially. (Daily Telegraph, 3/10/47.) The Daily Herald (3/10/17) stung to the quick of its Imperial pride, retorted that “unlike the Tories who have only thought Imperially, the Labour Party acted Imperially.”

The leading article of the same issue told its readers that the Tories had put forward no practical measures beyond those already put in force by the Labour Government. Indeed its general tenor was to the effect that the Conservative proposal really supported what the Labour Government were doing. It is surely a strange logic by which to justify its own policy. How often in the past have Labour Party spokesmen condemned the Tory Party as the Party of Wealth and Privilege?

It now finds that acceptance by the “wealthy” and “privileged” of their main planks is a source of comfort and even congratulation. For the honest and humble “Labour” stalwart the fact that his party shares so much common political ground with ”The Traditional Enemies” of the working-class should be a source of embarrassment and shame.

There is, of course, the vexed problem of rival bidding for working class votes. While the Tories may not want to offer more inducements than their Labour Party rivals they cannot make it seem that they are offering less. In a class system of exploitation based on private property ownership of the means of living they propound the tragic jest of a nation-wide community of property owners. Mr. Eden in his opening speech (Daily Telegraph, 3/10/47) could offer no more than some future vague ownership of largely mythical houses for the working class, and the dangerous expedient of Co-partnership and Profit Sharing.

Ownership by workers of their habitation does not mean ownership of the means of living. It is only ownership of mills, factories, railways, raw materials, etc., which constitute that. These things are the monopoly of a privileged class and provide the sole means which enable them to live on the unpaid labour of the workers. This class privilege will remain as long as Capitalism endures.

Co-partnership is equally a tasteless joke. There can be no partnership between owners of the instruments of wealth production and non-owners. Evidently the Conservatives view it as a means to stimulate greater productive activity from the workers. But, as The Economist (12/10/46) in dealing with the Tory pamphlet on the subject said, “There is nothing to show that such schemes would be more successful in the future or as a means to incentive for greater production.” The Economist even agreed that Co-partnership as it stands “is an empty mockery.” It will, of course, remain an empty mockery under whatever form it appears. They commented that the Tories had much to learn about Industrial Psychology. They even suggested “Sir Stafford Cripps knew a lot more about how to get increased output from the workers.” Recent events might -suggest how right they were.

As befits a great leader, Mr. Churchill repeated his Blackpool performance by absenting himself from the three days’ Conference proceedings. The old gentleman nevertheless turned up as usual on the Saturday afternoon. The delegates then enjoyed a rare display of oratorical fireworks. So a good time was had by all.

Mr. Churchill, as an accomplished political quack of long standing, had no difficulty in showing to the satisfaction of those present, that the famous “Tory blue powders” were superior in every way to the Labour Party’s “pink pills.”

According to an American authority on the subject the rate of output of suckers is one per minute. Undoubtedly if increased production could be applied here it would greatly assist the Tory “Confidence men” to pull off their political “Three Card Trick” once again.

It has been suggested in what may be well informed quarters that an early Conservative election victory might in the long run prove disastrous for them. The return of either a Tory or Labour Government will certainly prove disastrous for the real interests of the working-class; both in the long run—or short run.

Ted Wilmott