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

From the September 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Foan

Economics at Central Labour College. (1919)

From the May 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Foan

The Vanoculation of "Vanoc II" (1935)

From the December 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the last few years I have regularly met “Vanoc II” in the columns of the Sunday Referee, and alternately have I experienced sensations, both pleasurable and painful, at his writings. My interest is aroused because “Vanoc” claims to be a Marxian and one who lays emphasis upon the principle of Marxian thought known as dialectical materialism. But meeting a fellow behind the screen of cold print is, generally speaking, totally different from meeting the same chap fully materialised in person. And so it came to pass that we met at a meeting convened by the Economic Recovery Association. “Vanoc II” and Mr. W. W. Craik, who at one time was a principal of the National Council of Labour Colleges, were the chief speakers at this meeting. The means of economic recovery was the subject upon which Craik was to speak, whilst that of the present Abyssinian war was to be taken by Vanoc. In the speeches which followed, some affinity was alleged between the two questions, hence were we treated to a fully-rounded “dialectical” process of political and economic phenomena.

In outlining the case for economic recovery, Mr. Craik briefly reviewed the world’s present economic situation and generally exposed many of the economic illusions of capital’s agents. Little objection could be taken to the speaker’s remarks up to this point, but in stating what he conceived to be the chief source of present-day troubles he successfully added to the world’s catalogue of economic illusions. The interest paid to the finance capitalist, the man or groups of people who get their living by loaning money to their fellow capitalists, says Mr. Craik, forms an overwhelming burden on economic and social life, and the heaviest blow in consequence falls upon the working class. Money loaned at gigantic rates of interest has to be borne by the workers whenever they purchase goods of any kind. Further unemployment is induced by the owners of money allowing their money to lie idle because of their not getting a rate of interest demanded by them. The chief task before us, therefore, is to obliterate the finance capitalist by imposing a demurrage charge upon all not directly used for productive purposes, and eliminate the people who merely live by interest alone. Therefore did Mr. W. W. Craik foul all that he had previously stood for in Marxian economic thought.

“Vanoc II” opened his speech by a declaration of his revolutionary “faith,” about which he said he wanted no misunderstanding, but pointed out that he, to some extent, agreed with Craik’s views on economic recovery in view of the fact that “half a loaf is better than none,” which, of course, is a remarkable position for a revolutionary to contemplate. Surely ”Vanoc” must have heard this self-same plea put. in by every social quack and reformer in the world. Nobody this side of a lunatic asylum would dispute that a half-loaf is better than none any more than they would that a quarter was better than none, or even a slice or the proverbial crust. The statement is confusionist and entirely irrelevant from the point of view of Socialist policy. The position is that we need Socialism, and the only means of our getting it is to educate and organise the working class to establish it.

Socialism cannot be brought into being by piecemeal methods any more than capitalism can be reformed out of its existence. If it were otherwise, what sense would there be in declaring oneself a revolutionary? The answer is none whatever, and ”Vanoc” has indicated as much in many of his writings. Until Socialism is accomplished, all the half-loaves are capitalist bread, given by capitalists for capitalist purposes, to permit their dominance to persist. To the workers, the supreme task of their liberation from capitalist control will exist despite all the half-loaves of the social reformers.

“Vanoc” holds that the rise of the finance capitalist lies at the roots of Fascism, and marked Mussolini’s rise to power. Fascism must be smashed, and for this purpose we are urged to join forces with the Conservatives or any political party. Of course, the whole business is bunkum and positively dangerous to the interests of the workers and Socialism. This was made perfectly plain to ”Vanoc” in the discussion which followed. I denied first, that the abolition of the finance capitalist would in any way improve the position of the workers and secondly that the present Italo-Abyssinian war is any concern of the world’s working class.

In the case of the finance capitalist ”Vanoc” and Craik were reminded of the working-class situation in the early part of the 19th century. ”Vanoc” has more than once made reference to that, and has made use of Engels’s work on ”The Condition of the Working Class in 1844.” The horrible conditions portrayed by Engels in this work will convey the devastating effects of capital on the workers at a time when the finance capitalist did not assume the same social significance as he now does.

It seemed strange to have to remind two men who claim to be adherents of Marx, and, unquestionably, both have given a considerable amount of attention to Marx’s writings, that the elementary teachings of Marx were contradictory of their position.

It is an old story, told and re-told by Socialists, that rent, interest, and profit are but different names given to express the various modes of capital’s operations. To the working class it is mainly a matter of academic interest only as to what becomes of the spoils of their exploitation; the important thing is the fact of exploitation.

Marx has made this fact as clear as crystal, and for the benefit of those who have neither the time nor the inclination to refer to his larger and more technical analysis in “Capital," we shall draw their attention to his small work entitled “Value, Price and Profit.” Here we find the following statements set out to indicate to the workers that the holy trinity of capital may divide and sub-divide the swag stolen from the workers as they will, but the position is their business, not ours.

Says Marx: 

  “Rent, Interest and Industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity. . . .
   “For the labourer himself it is a matter of subordinate importance whether that surplus value, the result of his surplus labour, or unpaid labour, is altogether pocketed by the employing capitalist or whether the latter is obliged to pay portions of it under the name of rent and interest to third parties. Suppose the employing capitalist to use only his own capital and to be his own landlord, then the whole surplus value would go into his pocket."

So much, therefore, about our finance capitalists. Socialists want to remove these as part of the entire capitalist system, and nothing is to be gained by our merely concentrating oftr attention on one aspect of capitalism alone.

And now about Mussolini and Fascism. "Vanoc” would have us engage in another bloodbath in the hopeless task of smashing Fascism. Why? Because, says "Vanoc," Socialism is a thousand times more difficult of attainment where Fascism rules. Yet, significantly enough, he holds that Hitler’s Germany is a far greater menace than Fascist Italy. Then what is to be done? First smash Fascism, then Hitler Germany, and we must suppose that the decks will then be clear for action towards Socialism, that is if nothing crops up meanwhile to again urgently require attention.

The scheme is all so simple and would be delightfully good if it weren’t so bad. It always seems to be taken for granted by people who argue in this way that the thing to do is to clear away one or more of the greater anomalies of capitalism and the rest of the task towards Socialism is easy. But all the facts are against the assumption. “Vanoc” was reminded of the position in 1914, which he said he remembered very well, and the cry of the labour leaders of this country on that occasion. Then, the Kaiser was the villain of the piece, he was to be beaten because he and his clique were a standing menace to every democratic idea in the world, and Socialism would be impossible if they had gained a victory. So the Kaiser went, and the workers came back to face their real enemies at home.

Then Hitler came in Germany as Mussolini had arrived in Italy. All over the world the struggle of the workers went on as before the war of 1914.

The defeat of the Kaiser had meant nothing to those who have nothing but their labour power to sell for a living. The same thing will happen again if Mussolini and Hitler are dislodged from power unless in the meantime the workers will awaken to their class interests.

When this was pointed out to Craik and “Vanoc” the inevitable followed—the usual stock-in-trade attacks on the S.P.G.B. We were labelled “idealists" and were called mechanists and, let us breathe it softly, we are anti-dialectical. To such strange uses is the dialectical principle in Marxian philosophy often put that the phrase dialectical should read diabolical. It was not surprising to hear “Vanoc” declare "logic to be a poor guide,” which, of course, is perfectly true if one will insist upon reaching conclusions based upon premises like “the flowers that bloom in the spring,” that ”have nothing to do with the case.”

To prove that we were mechanists who refused to differentiate, Mr. Craik, supported by “ Vanoc," fired a question to us in the middle of his reply, namely, would we not rather live in this country than in Germany?—surely a real teaser. We' replied that we preferred to work for £4 a week in Hackney rather than £3 in Tooting, so what could they make of that. The argument on the difference between capitalist countries is sheer moonshine. Not that we deny the differences, these certainly exist all right, but they do not affect the main task of the workers, which is to remove the capitalist class from control of the means of life. And we are not under the impression that this can be accomplished in one fell swoop, as Craik suggested. The preparatory work of education and organisation is all too necessary for us to labour under so great a delusion.

If being anti-dialectical means that we refuse to square the circle of political compromise and anti- Socialist activity, we must plead guilty to the soft impeachment.

The Marxian dialectic is an exceedingly useful tool of thought when in the possession of those who desire and know the correct road to Socialism, but to those who can’t or won’t see, there is nothing but the dialectical “unity of opposites” to lead them into the opposite camp of sound Socialist thought and action. If “Vanoc II” continues in his dialectical whirligigs and fails to grasp our case he certainly will fulfil the “law of contradiction” and find himself classified by rising working class Socialist intelligence as “Vanoc II,” who also ran.

Robert Reynolds