Why The Light of Truth Should Be Extinguished. (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

There recently appeared a new weekly devoted to matters of interest to those who patronise the Cinema. Its title is "Film Flashes," and one of the plashes that illuminated its first number is reproduced below. It is worth noting as a manifestation of the class war: as one of the methods employed by the master class to suppress anything that would tend to enlighten the workers. The cutting follows.

We should regret to see exhibitors give much prominence to the new Metro picture, "The Bigger Man," recently exhibited at a trade show at the Shaftesbury Pavilion. "The Bigger Man" introduces the highly controversial subject of Capital and Labour, and shows a fight in progress between Strikers and Strike-breakers, which culminates in the appearance of a large body of troops under orders to fire on the mob. It is obvious at a time like this it would be very unwise, if not dangerous, to awaken thoughts of the old and bitter strife of past years, and we sincerely hope that Ruffells will reconsider their attitude in regard to the release of this picture. Many of the scenes, which are intended to contrast the great gulf existing between the master and man, are overdrawn and although these things may portray American labour life correctly enough, they are happily not true in regard to this country. (Italics mine.) 

Choice, isn't it?

In these days it is "very unwise, if not dangerous," to comment too freely upon the doings of our masters. (I believe it is considered treason even to whisper to your next-door neighbour that you always preferred Kiel butter to British waggon fat.) Else the writer would dearly like to quote from a few other sources, material is never wanting with which to confute the case for capitalism. Further that this the writer makes no comment, preferring to leave it to thinking readers to provide their own.

May Field

Edinburgh: Working Class Housing (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

How many boxes of shortbread have caught the customer's eye with a gaudy picture of Edinburgh Castle? And very nice, too: they would not sell much shortbread by showing Edinburgh's slums, although there are enough of them.

Yes, Edinburgh has a slum problem, just like any other great city. Panorama went there a few months back, showing up the damp and rotting houses around Arthur Street, where the workers pay rent to live with the rats and broken sewer pipes.

And like a lot of other places, Edinburgh also has dwellings which are not classified as slums, but which are not much better; it has its prefabs. These, as the Edinburgh Evening Dispatch said recently, are " . . . the relics of the immediate post-war housing crisis . . . " which are " . . . still with us, although when they were built they were intended to be only temporary makeshifts."

Are the prefabs likely to come down soon? The Edinburgh City Council Housing Committee has said that, because the process of removing them is long, and because alternative housing has to be promised for the tenants before the sites can be cleared and new dwellings erected, the prefabs will be with us for some time yet.

Let nobody be deceived that as the slums come down new housing is bound to take their place. Sometimes the land on which they were built has what is called a high site value. In narrow Kirkgate and the surrounding streets a lot of tenements, some of which have been standing for a century or more, have been demolished. No new houses have gone up on the site; instead, a whiskey bond store is being built there and Woolworths are putting up another of their red and gold shops.

What is to the point in all this is that the working class, although they build the beautiful mansions and palaces, can only afford to live in the slum, or the prefab, or the council house, or the little semi-detached. And why is this? Simply because the workers have only one method of getting their living by selling their energies and skills to the capitalist class. These workers own little more than their ability to work. The great cities of Scotland are not theirs, nor are the Lochs and Highlands which they sing about. Sad Irish lads may dream of the Lakes of Killarney, but they are owned by an American capitalist, just as the song said they never could be. Proud Cockneys own nothing of London Town. The working class of the world, in fact, own no country, no city, no land—most of them do not even own the place where they live.

No use to approach that problem with just another slum clearance scheme. It needs a world in which society's first concern is for the security and happiness of the human race. 

The prefabs were supposed to be temporary, but they have been temporary too long. In a way, that applies to capitalism as well.

David Lamond.

Overlords and underlings (1999)

From the November 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

What an extraordinary notion it is that so many members of the human race should be forced to remain on that small section of the earth's surface in which they happened to be born. Who gave the world's rulers the right to tell us which bit of land we should live on?

When journalists write on "the great issues of the day" for the capitalist newspapers, they often seem to have turned their brains off. A lot of noise has been made recently about "foreigners" arriving in Britain, for example on the Kent coast. They aren't really genuine refugees, the cry goes up, only "bogus ones", who have the nerve to try to cross the capitalist-ordained boundaries to make themselves a little better off. The press, radio, and television are full of the protests. Yet all those making such a noise are living here in Britain, the country where industrial capitalism first came to prominence, and which therefore grabbed a vast Empire in all parts of the world—amounting at its height to a quarter of the entire surface of the globe, and to a quarter of the globe's population.

In every continent the British were found, running this enormous Empire for the benefit of the British ruling class-in Asia, in Africa, in America, in Australasia, and even here in Europe. Yet without turning a hair, British politicians and journalists are now trumpeting the idea that everyone should stay at home. Isn't it a bit late in the day for the champions of British capitalism to attack what they have been supporting for the last three hundred years?

It's worth mentioning, too, that when British capitalism sent its soldiers and settlers abroad, they went as conquerors, subduing and ruling over the native populations which had the misfortune to be living in the countries which Britain subjugated. Sometimes, indeed, they not only subdued the original inhabitants, they literally exterminated them. For example, the people who lived in Tasmania when the British arrived to settle there were all wiped out, the last ones in the middle of the nineteenth century.

In contrast, the immigrants who now try to settle in Britain come at the bottom of the social scale, taking the worst houses, accepting the worst conditions. Yet many publicists cannot contain their indignation that they should try to come here at all. It is strange that these propagandists can accept the British ruling class sending its emissaries to annex and govern dozens of foreign countries, yet cannot accept these deferential incomers, coming here merely in the hope of securing the worst-paid jobs.

Conflicts within the ruling class

Like all the other great political questions of which the papers and the airwaves are full, this one is being debated within the ruling class. For no ruling class is ever completely unanimous. It is painfully obvious that the ruling class of each particular state has interests which conflict with those of every other state's ruling class, and that every so often these conflicts ripen into open warfare, in which the rest of us are kindly allowed—indeed forced if we are reluctant—to rush forward loyally and kill the workers (and their families) who support some other state's ruling class. But capitalism also creates conflicts within each ruling class; no two capitalists have interests which are exactly the same.

The question of immigration, for example, causes disputes within the British ruling class. Some property owners want to establish the principle that when a particular industry or trade is short of workers, its owners have the right to bring in workers from any other country, and thus help to counteract the danger of having to raise wages and salaries. Other capitalists apparently feel that the native British working class should not be diluted. After all, our rulers pay for an education system, and a vast media industry, both of which work their socks off to produce a population fiercely loyal to the British ruling class, and which will therefore support its masters to the hilt whether in peace or war. So some members of the capitalist class feel it would be a mistake to let in too many workers from other countries, who have not been conditioned for years by British patriotic propaganda, and which therefore—perish the thought—might not be one hundred percent devoted to the British ruling class.

As a result journalists and publicists charge into the fray to support whatever view is held by the capitalists who pay them—some to attack immigration, some to defend it. Like all other issues, this one will be decided by whichever opinion finally wins the greatest support among the members of the ruling class.

This is not to say that the way these big "issues of the day" are resolved will have no effect on any member of the working class. Capitalism inevitably involves continuous tinkering with the system, as this or that group of capitalists force through changes which they think will benefit them. And some of these changes do affect the position of the working class, or of some sections of it. If a more liberal view is taken of immigration, it could be that some of the immigrants will be prepared to work for lower wages, and thus exert a depressing influence on wage levels. In the nineteenth century, capitalists in Britain welcomed many thousands of Irish immigrants, in the belief that they would keep wages down.

So some English or Scottish workers may have felt that their pay was less than it might have been, without the competition from these Irish newcomers. From this point of view, then, immigration might be a minus for British workers. On the other hand, the arrival of people from other countries, who have not been brainwashed from birth with notions that the British are clearly superior to all other peoples, may make it harder for chauvinists to whip up anti-foreign feeling in wartime. So from this point of view, immigration might count as a plus for the British working class.

Nationalist feeling

Some members of the capitalist class take advantage of any "foreign" immigration to whip up nationalist feeling, which is always valuable to the ruling class in its struggles (in peace or war) with the ruling class of other countries. Without the constant propaganda against "foreigners", where would "nationalist" feeling come from? Such feelings are not inborn. Small children are not hostile to other children with different-coloured skin, any more than they are to those with different-coloured hair, or different-coloured shoes. Why should they be? No two human beings are identical. If each individual member of the human race could not get on with other people despite their differences, then there would be no human society at all. Nationalist feelings arise because of the incessant propaganda of the ruling class in each country to persuade the working majority that they are in some way essentially different from and superior to everyone from other countries. Without this propaganda, each country's government would find it very difficult to get its people to join up and fight in its unavoidable wars with foreign states.

What an extraordinary notion it is that so many members of the human race should be forced to remain on that small section of the earth's surface in which they happened to be born. Who gave the world's rulers the right to tell us which bit of land we should live on? These restrictions apply chiefly, of course, to members of the working class. Members of the capitalist class don't stay put. They travel freely round the world, from London to Paris, from grouse moor to ski slope, from Caribbean island to Mediterranean cruise, from the chateau in Switzerland to the ranch in Arizona. And no-one dreams of telling them that they can't. Like many laws enacted by the ruling class, restrictions on the crossing of borders really only hit at members of the working class. The apologists for capitalism who try to foment ill-feeling towards "foreigners" landing here, whether they come to escape persecution, or to obtain slightly higher wages, never attack those many members of the upper class, including many newspaper proprietors, who swan about the world as if there were no such thing as state boundaries. But then, in a capitalist society, you can't really expect the rulers and the ruled to be judged by the same yardstick, can you?

Alwyn Edgar

Frederick Engels in Manchester: His Relations with Marx (1933)

Letter to the Editor from the March 14, 1933, issue of The Manchester Guardian

To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian.

Sir, - The note on "Links with Engels" in your issue of March 11 concludes with the observation that "Oddly enough, neither the directories of the time nor the accessible biographies tell us where Engels lived  . . . Here is a problem for some local historian." May I inform your readers that Engels lived at two addresses during his stay in Manchester; first in Tennant Street, then at 86, Mornington Street, Stockport Road?

What the local historian is needed for is something more important. An effort ought to be made to trace the activities of Frederick Engels during his stay in Manchester.

He came here in 1842 from Barmen, where he had been engaged in his father's mill. His transference to the Manchester business, which was under the name of Ermen and Engels (later Ermen and Roby), brought him in touch with the appalling factory conditions and roused him to write his famous book on the question. He contributed to Bronterre O'Brien's "The Northern Star" and Robert Owen's "New Moral World." This before he had seen, met, or corresponded with Karl Marx. Socially he was a bit of a lion, riding to hounds, shooting (he was an expert shot) and participating in the "high" social life of the district.

He returned to Germany for a few years, and, after a series of political adventures in association with Marx, retuned to Manchester in 1850, residing here until 1870. He was a member of the Royal Exchange—that ought to help the "local" historian—and was a frequent contributor to the "Manchester Guardian." On foreign affairs, military matters, and later the volunteer movement, Engels was considered the most authoritative person in the North of England. His contributions to the "Pall Mall Gazette" were on occasion reprinted in the "Times." He was accepted as an expert on the rifle and artillery.

He was a welcome—and constant—visitor to Owens College, being very intimate with most members of the faculty, but particularly with Professor Schorlemmer, who in the late sixties acted as intermediary for the correspondence of Marx and Engels. Despite these activities little or nothing has been gleaned in Manchester about the life of Engels. He was responsible with Marx for the founding of the modern Labour movement. Surely these facts are sufficient to induce some student—or graduate—of Manchester University to undertake the research to disclose the immensity of Engels intellectual attainment.

A careful study of the works of both Marx and Engels convinces me that Engels was the greater genius. Marx time after time admitted this mental superiority. Engels could analyse a situation and come to a scientific conclusion with greater facility than Marx, who never came to a political decision without first consulting his friend. Marx's reference to Engels is appropriate. He said Engels "was a real walking encyclopædia, capable of work at any hour of the day or night, drunk or sober, swift with his pen, and alert as the devil." Though Engels could have been a success at press or literary work, he decided in the spring of 1854 to remain here in Manchester, in this "damned business," instead of undertaking other work in London. As we know, that decision was final.

A survey of Engels' work in Manchester will disclose that he was mainly responsible for brilliant articles written by Marx on foreign affairs and military matters. The shrewd speculations on diplomacy and politics, part of Marx's published works, germinated in the head of Engels. His encyclopædic knowledge was ever at the disposal of Marx. To study any subject Engels would not rely upon a translation. He would learn the language first. He was proficient in twenty languages, these including Russian, Arabic, Persian, Ancient Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Erse. His linguistic proficiency was much praised by some of the great Owens College professors.

When he became partner in his father's firm, he allowed Marx 350 per year, besides handing over much extra money for other purposes. After Marx's death he enlarged, revised, and prepared the third edition of "Das Kapital" for the issue, supervised the English translation undertaken by Aveling and Moore, and arranged the whole of the material for the second and third volumes. A careful study of these volumes proves that the work was that of Engels, not Marx. Before his death in 1895, Engels was revising the whole of the literary efforts of Marx. Unfortunately his illness in Eastbourne became serious and he returned to London to die. Having no issue he left the bulk of his fortune to Marx's children. It may seem curious to take so much credit from Marx, but these are undeniable facts.

Manchester has something to her credit of which she ought to be proud. If civic consciousness counts for anything, some Mancunian ought to begin research into the life of one of the finest men who ever honoured the city with their presence.

Yours,

Moses Baritz.

2, Alford Road,

Heaton Chapel,

Stockport,

March 10.

Engels — his 20 years in Manchester (1934)

From the October 10th, 1934 issue of The Manchester Guardian

Frederick Engels, the friend and adviser of Karl Marx, lived in Manchester for more then twenty years. But historians, in this country at any rate, have paid little attention to the details of his stay, and some facts which have recently come to light may be worth publishing.

Engels first came to Manchester in 1842. He then held the radical views which later developed into the Socialist theoretical position. He had direct association with the working-class movement and was familiar with the Chartist leaders. He was friendly with Fergus O'Connor and George Julian Harney.

Engels's first known article was "The Progress of Social Reform," which occupied the front page of the "New Moral World." On December 27, 1842, an able analysis of the Corn Laws appeared in the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung." This was followed by his first work on economics, "Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalekonomie" (The Outlines of a Criticism of National Economy) printed in the "Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher," 1844. More important was the "Condition of the Working Class in England." These works, all written in Manchester, expressed the proletarian ideology, at that time time unknown to Marx.

Nevertheless, Engles gravitated to the bourgeois circles appropriate to his social status. He joined the Albert Club, them situated in Clifford Street, Chorlton-on-Medlock, and became a friend of the brothers Ernst and Julius Delius, the latter father of the famous musician.

Engels left Manchester in 1844 for his home at Barmen, visiting Marx in Paris on the way. The next year he and Marx visited Manchester expressly to observe social conditions and stayed several weeks.

Returning to Manchester in 1850, Engels lived at first in Strangeways, at 70, Great Ducie Street; in May, 1852, the number was altered to 44, and in October to 40. About this time both he Marx were held suspect by the authorities, and had to evade the inquisitiveness of the police by correspondence through intermediaries—Marx asked Engels (October 28, 1852) to write to him "c/o A. Johnson. Esq., Bullion Office, Bank of England." Engels, a fortnight earlier, had asked Marx to address him "c/o Dr. J. W. Hudson, secretary of the Manchester Athenæum." Another intermediary was Karl Schorlemmer, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Owens College, to whom the calico printing and dyeing industries are greatly indebted. Engels in one of his letters describes how Schorlemmer openly upheld Marxism in the dining-room of the Faculty—the first eminent scientist to endorse the Marxian position.

MARY BURNS

Engels had during his first visit made the acquaintance of an Irish working girl, Mary Burns, who by her knowledge and experience of factory life gave impetus to his revolutionary fervour and induced him to investigate the history of the Irish people. Depressed at the social conditions of the workers in Manchester, he became sympathetic with the miserable situation of the Irish people.

Mary Burns impressed Engels, and the pair became attached to each other. When Engels settled down in Manchester in 1850 he provided for her, and later they lived as man and wife until her death in the first week of January, 1863.

Engels's sympathy for the Irish became active, and he gave some support to the Fenians in 1867, until Marx made him realise the foolishness of such conduct. Engels admitted it and, after the execution of the Manchester Martyrs, abandoned his previous attitude.

Engels left Strangeways with Mary in April, 1858, and lived at 6. Thorncliffe Grove, Oxford Road. Next, he, Mary, and her sister Lizzie took rooms at 252, Hyde Road, Gorton, next door but one to the gaol. After a return to Thorncliffe Grove they moved to Tennant Street. On September 2, 1864, he took up his final residence at 86, Mornington Street, Stockport Road.

Engels established a reputation as an authority on military strategy by the military articles contributed to the "New American Cyclopædia." He wrote a series of articles on the Volunteer movement for the "Lancashire and Cheshire Volunteer Journal," published by W. H. Smith and Son, and printed by the "Guardian" Steam Press. One of these created a stir in the United States, and was printed—in another form—in the New York "Tribune." The greatest impression was made by the publication of a pamphlet in February, 1860, with the title of "Where shall England rally her Volunteers?" Engels signed it "A General Officer."

ENGELS AND THE "MANCHESTER GUARDIAN"

The "Manchester Guardian" published several military articles by Engels. On February 16, 1864, there was a letter dealing with the disposition of the troops in Schleswig-Holstein. Later, during the Austro-Prussian conflict, a series of five articles was inserted in the "Manchester Guardian." They were headed "Notes on the War." They appeared on June 20,25,38, July 3 and 6. It is amusing to read the rehashing of these articles by the London periodicals.

Engels mentions that the "Manchester Guardian" paid him better than the "Pall Mall Gazette," for which also he wrote on military topics.

This was work done by Engels to provide Marx with funds and time to complete his "Capital." Engels denied himself many things in order to help Marx. During the years 1850-1883 Engels provided Marx with about £4,000, mostly after 1864.

A very interesting episode in the life of Engels in Manchester was his association with the Schiller-Anstalt. In November, 1859, Germans throughout the world celebrated the centenary of Schiller. In Manchester the festival was held at the Free Trade Hall on November 11. Though an artistic success the deficit was £150. This did not deter the German community, and it was resolved to form a Schiller-Anstalt. The organiser was Karl Siebel, a nephew of Engels, an admirable fellow and poet. Engels refused to participate, but attended the rehearsals of the theatrical troupe. The institution was started, the old Mechanics' Institute in Cooper Street being rented at £225 per annum, with a lease ending in June, 1867. Karl Siebel was the first president, a position he retained until 1864. Engels remained aloof because he objected to the rules and statutes but when these were altered joined the club.

On September 20, 1861, V. Stoessel, the librarian of the Schiller-Anstalt, addressed a note to Engels demanding the immediate return of a book to the library, and imposing a fine of £1 1s. 7d., with a proviso that if the book were not returned within 24 hours the fine would be increased to £2 1s. 6d. This enraged Engels, who wrote to the committee complaining of the tone of the librarian, observing that it was reminiscent of Prussian police tyranny, and that such a disgusting act would not be tolerated in the other club (the Albert), of which he was a member. An apology was demanded, but whether this was forthcoming is not known. To pacify Engels he was invited to address the members, an offer he indignantly declined.

PRESIDENT OF THE SCHILLER-ANSTALT
However, on July 7, 1864, he was installed president, retaining the office for four years. During this period the institute prospered, and Engels saw to it that the library was improved. By the end of his tenure of office there were 4,000 volumes (some of which were in no other library except the British Museum), fifty-five german periodicals, and the principal English dailies. New premises being desirable, Engels addressed an appeal to the German citizens of Manchester asking for subscriptions for the erection of a new building at a cost of £11,500. In a few days £1,200 was subscribed, but little progress was recorded after that. The old lease expiring, new premises were decided upon in the All Saints' area. In the meantime the landlord of the premises in Cooper Street permitted an extension of the lease for one year at £450. A removal was made to Rylands House in Oxford Street, and finally the premises in Nelson Street were taken over on December 18, 1885, where the society remained until the dissolution in 1911. In 1866 there was a membership of 300, but this was doubled later on by affiliation of the Turnverein and the Liedertafel.

Until his departure from Manchester at the end of September, 1870, Engels remained on the committee and attended all its meetings. He severed his connection when he went to London, but retained his membership in the Albert Club. He was a member of the Committee of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Foreigners, and, what is more surprising, when the German community started a fund for the alleviation of distress created by the Franco-Prussian War Engels headed the list with the first subscription of £50.

He did not return again to Manchester. He forced a good price for the dissolution of his partnership in Ermen and Engels, enough for him to guarantee Marx 350 a year and to live independently himself for the remaining years of his life. He died on August 5, 1895, was cremated, and his ashes scattered at sea three miles from Eastbourne.

Moses Baritz

The Ineffectuals: Old and New (1951)

From the February 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Monday, the 15th January, the B.B.C. produced another of their programmes on the present half-century. It covered the twenties and was written by Rebecca West. The whole of it was an example of the ignorance, inexperience and fatuousness of the "Bright young things" who emerged into the practical world from the "upper class." We were told about the "treasure hunts" lasting most of the night, and of various futile capers, which Rebecca West defended on the ground that behind it all they were searching for a solution of the problem of war and of poverty; that the feminine section were let loose on the world to enter the professions and the like for the first time and that their freedom temporarily went to their heads. She herself belonged to that generation and she told us how their hopes were built on the expectation of abolishing war—and then these hopes were shattered; of their hopes to abolish poverty by supporting "Labour," and how thrilled they were when the first real Labour Government was voted to power in 1929—and again how their hopes were shattered. In fact the whole programme was a record of the fatuous illusions and the inevitable disillusionment of the self-styled "Intellectuals." The facts of social life and the essentials of its economic basis seemed to be outside of their knowledge and experience and they lost themselves in airy futilities. From the programme one gleaned nothing of the fact that working-class girls had been working and wrestling with the problems of life for long years before the women of Rebecca West's circle had emerged from the cocoon of pampered privilege and became writers, artists, and so forth.

But the "Intellectuals" never learn. Convinced that the sun shines out of them, they go on blowing their coloured bubbles, changing the colours as each bubble bursts without any conception of the reason the bubbles burst.

A recent example of their bubble-blowing was the "Congress of Cultural Freedom" held from June 25th to the 30th, 1950. From the Report of this Congress, published under the title "Freedom Takes the Offensive," the reader can satisfy himself on the type of people who took part in the Congress.

The Introduction informs us that the "Manifesto on Cultural Freedom" was "draw up . . . by leading intellectuals from 24 nations." Let us glance at some of the statements made by these "men of brains."

Pages 1 to 3 of the Report contain messages from nine people, all of whom see intellectual freedom in the West and intellectual chains in the East. No reference is made to the economic bondage that exists in both East and West and hampers working-class aspirations in both spheres. But as we shall see the "intellectuals" are not concerned about any but their own little circle of wind-bags.

The first contribution is by Arthur Koestler. He makes a series of muddled statements, without any clear definitions, that leave the reader in the air. His second paragraph runs as follows:—

"In fact, the thesis which I wish to put before you is that the antinomies "Socialism and Capitalism," "Left and Right," have to-day become virtually empty of meaning, and that so long as Europe remains bogged down in these false alternatives which obstruct clear thinking, it cannot hope to find a constructive solution for its problems."

After this one would expect some definition of Socialism, but it is not given, and, although there is some criticism of nationalisation, one is left with the idea that Mr. Koestler identifies nationalisation with Socialism. For instance on page 8 he says, "Equally problematic is the question: just how much nationalisation makes a country Socialist or Capitalist?" The concluding paragraph of his contribution is a pearl. It is an excellent example of the impotence of his tribe:

"Sometimes I have a feeling in my bones that the terrible pressure which this conflict [between Capitalism and Socialism] exerts on all humanity might perhaps represent a challenge, a biological stimulus as it were, which will release the new mutation of human consciousness; and that its content might be a new spiritual awareness, born of anguish and suffering, of the full meaning of freedom. And I don't mean by that freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the rest. Since the dawn of civilization people have fought under the slogan of freedom; but it was always freedom from some particularly irksome oppression, freedom in a restricted sense. I mean freedom in a much deeper and fuller sense than any we can conceive to-day or see realized anywhere in organic nature. If that is the case, then we are indeed living in an interesting time, and the answer we shall give to destiny's challenge is not without import for the future of our species."

What a pity he did not reveal that which is inconceivable to-day.

Sidney Hook poses a number of questions but does not give the answers, and James T. Farrell makes a fervent plea for "artists, thinkers and scientists," and gives an imaginary picture of freedom in the West, ending with a plea for the "moral impulse." Here are some extracts from his contribution: —

"Our task is to make as clear and as explicit as we can the meaning of freedom of culture, and, having done this, to show . . . what differentiates us from totalitarianism. To show how we live under different conditions of cultural life than do artists, thinkers and scientists in the stricken lands behind the Iron Curtain . . .
"We are free to admire what we value, and to reject what we do not value. We can criticize and we can oppose. We can participate in or ignore politics, as we think best. We can act as free artists, thinkers and scientists. And it is these rights which we should defend, use and expand. In these rights, we find the essence of cultural freedom . . .
"The freedom we possess should impose an obligation and a sense of duty upon us. In one of his great speeches, Abraham Lincoln used the phrase: 'With malice towards none, with charity for all . . . ' I hope that, without any sacrifice of firmness of purpose, we all permeate our thinking with the spirit implied in these words of Lincoln. Especially when we look towards Soviet-dominated countries where artists and thinkers and scientists are forced to wear the uniform of totalitarianism, and where the dignity of men and women has been ground into dust. To these suffering people, to the terrorised artists and thinkers behind the Iron Curtain, we cannot and should not bear malice."

Lack of space deprives us of the opportunity of tearing to pieces the above and the rest of the nonsense Mr. Farrell has contributed about the "traditions of civilisation." If Mr. Farrell could tear his attention away from the "artists, thinkers, and scientists" for a few moments he might notice the existence of conscripts, of wage-freezing, of heresy hunting, of form-filling that puts our life-histories at the disposal of the State, the lack of housing accommodation, the armaments drive, and the numerous other joys of our jolly old Western democracy.

Another contributor, Richard Lowenthal, finishes his little piece with what reads like a plea for war: —

"The defence of freedom, then, is nothing else but the defence of this vital Western capacity for growth, and it resolves itself into a dual task: the task of going on to find creative solutions to the West's internal problems, and the task of defending the Western society's territory against the pressure of Soviet totalitarianism from outside."

Like the rest of the contributors, Mr. Lowenthal offers no solution "to the West's internal problems." However, if his remarks read like a plea for war, James Burnham is quite open about it, as the following remarks of his show: —

"Moreover, I must add, in order to be fully honest, that I am not, under any and all circumstances, against atomic bombs. I am against those bombs, now stored or to be stored later in Siberia or the Caucasus, which are designed for the destruction of Paris, London, Rome, Brussels, Stockholm, New York, Chicago . . . Berlin, and of Western Civilisation generally. But I am—yesterday and to-day at any rate—for those bombs made in Los Alamos, Hanford, and Oak Ridge, and guarded I know not where in the Rockies  or American deserts."

A nice discriminating and humane lover of peace and freedom is Mr. Burnham! This final example of the wisdom of the intellectuals is perhaps a fitting point at which to finish.

Gilmac.

How Can a Real Revolution Be Achieved (1987)

Debate between Dick Donnelly, SPGB, and Albert Meltzer, 'Black Flag' (anarchist) Duke of York, Islington, London, 12-02-1987.

Obituary: Charley Clarke (1962)

Obituary from the December 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was with deep regret that Nottingham members heard of the death of our comrade Charley Clarke, of Burton-on-Trent, in his 87th year. Charley was the eldest of the three Clarke brothers, well known no doubt to many of the older party members, their membership of The Party having extended over many years, and anyone who came in contact with them must have been impressed by their utter and sincere dedication to the cause of Socialism.

As Socialists, their way of life did not run along orthodox lines and they were regarded as rather queer fish by the people in Burton. All three for instance were bachelors, vegetarians, and among other interests were students of natural history, astronomy, and other aspects of science. Joe the younger brother aged 70 years, has had his daily swim in the river Trent, winter and summer, for many years. Living as close to "nature" as conditions would permit, it is not surprising that the locals did believe that they were not quite "with it".

There was always great consternation when this trio attended political meetings, where they carried out devastating attacks on all non-socialists, and proceeded to mutilate the policies of the Labour and Communist Parties, much to the confusion of some speakers and audiences alike. This of course did not help their popularity among the local politicians.

Because of their opposition to the first World War, they were recipients of the honour of "The White Feather", at the hands of the local "patriots", and all three went to prison as conscientious objectors, much to the delight of the jingoists. Although their life must have been very hard, they never gave up the struggle, and indeed, by their sincerity made many friends among those who understood what they were striving for.

In their work for Socialism they have travelled many miles to political meetings, to sell literature, and ask questions. This work will be carried on by Fred and Joe. A last gesture from Charley, while he lay on his death bed, attended by his brother Joe, was to urge Joe to leave him to attend a meeting at Nottingham to carry on the work for Socialism. The most noble work that mankind can perform. That is what Charley used to say.

J. Cuthbertson

The Stagnant Society (1961)

Book Review from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Stagnant Society, by Michael Shanks, by Michael Shanks. Penguin Books, 3s. 6d.

In case you should think from the title that this is a radical attack on the very basis of modern society, let us disillusion you right away. This is a sort of "Wake up Britain" book.

Mr. Shanks is very much concerned that Britain in the 1960s' is losing the productivity race with other countries and is failing to compete successfully in world markets. A large chunk of the book is taken up with criticising the trade unions and urging them to mend their ways. Why don't they co-operate with employers and government? Why don't they put an end to wildcat strikes? Why don't they tighten up on organisation, etc? Look at the following extract from page 102, for example:—

. . . I want to see it [the T.U. Movement] play a much more forceful and positive role in helping to make Britain more dynamic and more efficient . . . They [the Trade Unions] have got to find a new dynamic to replace the old fading appeal to working-class solidarity and negative opposition to the 'bosses'.

In 236 pages, the author sweeps across the post-war industrial field and skims blithely over one problem after another. Labour relations, financial policy, government planning, export drives, labour mobility—they are all here, and many more besides. And having waded through to the bitter end, what does it all amount to but a plan for the smoother operation of British Capitalism? "If we are in competition with manufacturers overseas," he says, "the solution is not to move out of their way but to make ourselves more efficient and competitive than they are . . . Planning should be aimed at promoting expansion and not avoiding competition."

Do not be misled either by the short publisher's note on the back cover, with its vague references to "class divisions." This book is not an attack on a class-divided society. It is really only an appeal for co-operation between the classes "in the national interest" which Mr. Shanks fondly labels as a "breaking down of class barriers." Capitalist ownership of the means of life — the barrier — he does not question. We have, of course, heard it all many times before.

Perhaps you should read The Stagnant Society. It will possibly give you an insight into current misconceptions about the Capitalist World—that's if you don't die of boredom halfway through it. We understand this is Michael Shanks' first book. We regret we cannot recommend it for an honoured place on a Socialist bookshelf. 

E. T. C.

The Cash Nexus (1960)

Theatre Review from the August 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

The people of a small German town foregather to welcome the return of Claire Zachanassian, a now fabulously wealthy women who had left her home as a girl of seventeen, many years before. The town is by no means well off, and has high hopes that she will offer them a not considerable part of her vast riches. This she does, but upon one condition: that Anton Schill, a leading member of the community—her former love who had disowned her, pregnant and poverty stricken, and had her driven from the town as a whore—forfeits his life.

Outraged, the people protest in the name of humanity and refuse her extreme terms. But since she had been so brutally treated, Claire Zachanassian has planned retribution on those responsible. After the refusal, she proposes to gather the people, slowly and unsuspectingly, into her power, by inducing them to incur an immense debt through extravagant living on credit which she knows they will never be able to meet. Which in turn forces them to abandon Anton Schill and condemn him to die. This briefly is the story of Friedrich Dürrenmatt's play "The Visit" produced at the new Royalty Theatre. The play's improbability is unimportant beside the sinister reality of its meaning: the power of money over the lives of men.

The progress of the play presents a remarkable study of a change in human behaviour. At the beginning, the people of the small town of Gullen, simple and easy-going folk although poor, have learned since the decline of their industry to be content with little and not to expect much more. The change in their way of life as a result of the intrigues of Claire Zachanassian, in whom they see the obvious virtuous of a rich woman, brings with it also a complete change in their attitudes and values.

Their lives now rest on a precarious system of credit, weighed down by a fake prosperity  that they naively regard as real wealth. But with this goes fear; for what they now they are afraid to lose. A fear that rots the fabric of their relationships with one another, for they now fear one another; afraid of treachery in the name of the humanity they one professed. Dire economic necessity can no longer sustain their one once outraged principles and in the new found values they now see every justification for the death of Anton Schill. For Schill, their once respected future Burgomaster, they have nothing but hatred; they brand him as an enemy of the people who stands between them and their dreams of wealth, and they demand his life. The people, and their once despised outcast, who ironically is the anonymous owner of their decaying industry, are united, but it is the uneasy union of slave and master. By playing on their greed, Claire Zachanassian has made them bring down her revenge on their own hands, and create their own bondage.

In one of his poems, D. H. Lawrence has written that the "Work-Cash-Want circle is the viciousest circle that ever turned men into fiends." The cynical disregard for humanity that capitalism inculcates makes us its playthings; its cat-paws, as Dürrenmatt's millionairess makes the people of Gullen. We destroy ourselves in the cash race. "This," wrote Lawrence in the same poem, "is called universal freedom."

Ian Jones 

Marx's economics (1989)

Book Review from the December 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx's Capital. By Ben Fine, Macmillan, Third Edition, 1988.

Harold Wilson's comment that he couldn't get past the footnote on the first page of Marx's Capital echoes a concern felt by some newcomers to Marx that they really do find this work daunting.

This is probably in part due to some of the genuinely difficult economic analysis involved, but no doubt also to the sheer bulk of the thousands of pages which comprise the three volumes. However, this problem should be seen in a proper perspective. If you think Marxian economics is difficult, you should see what orthodox economics is like. Replete with its own technical jargon and mathematical formulae, bewildering to all but the initiated, orthodox economics tries desperately to pass itself off as a science. But it isn't; it's an ideology in which economists ("hired prize-fighters" Marx called them) defend the claims of capital against the claims of Capital.

There are easier ways into Marx. For instance, his own Value, Price and Profit is fairly clear and concise. But for those who want to know what he is saying in Capital itself there is this book by Ben Fine. In a substantially revised and expanded edition of a work first published in 1973, Fine sets out to give an introductory account of Capital in a remarkably short space (102 pages).

Overall he succeeds in this attempt although the sheer brevity in itself causes some problems. With only a few pages devoted to each, there are chapters on Marx's method, commodity production, the labour theory of value, capital accumulation, exploitation, the transition to capitalism, crises, and more besides. For this new edition there are new chapters on controversial issues such as the transformation problem and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. These, in addition to the new and longer chapters on interest-bearing capital and rent theory, will, as Fine admits, require careful reading.

Marx's theory of inflation is not mentioned at all. There is also a passing reference (on page 4) to Marx holding that in a socialist society "classes would eventually disappear". Eventually? Surely socialism is the abolition of class society. Despite these, Fine's treatment of Marxian economics is true to Marx. It should help many to prepare for tackling the real thing.

Lew Higgins

Ecology and the abolition of the market (1988)

Book Review from the December 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ecology and Socialism by Martin Ryle, Radius, £5.95

This short book—it is only 100 pages—is written by a member of the "ecosocialist" wing of the Green Party. The Green Party's official position is that it is neither of the Right nor the Left but, like the SDP and Liberals, appeals to the so-called classless centre. This means that in practice it accepts capitalism and seeks to obtain reforms aimed at protecting or repairing the damage it does to the environment (what might be called "Green reforms", hence our description of them as Green reformists").

Ecosocialists, sats Martin Ryle, are Greens who recognise that capitalism, with its built-in mechanism of seeking profits to accumulate as more and more capital, is the cause of environmental problems and that therefore no solution can be found to these problems within it. Ryle criticises, in the same terms as us, the Green Party's much vaunted Basic Income Scheme as merely an attempt to redistribute income within capitalism: profits are to be taxed to provide cash handouts for everybody, but this assumes the continuation of a "profitable market sector" that "would remain the source of all money"; the continuation, in other words, of the economic mechanism that is capitalism. This scheme, says Ryle, is both "useless even as a transitional tactic" and "untenable as a long-term strategy". Such criticism is all the more devastating coming from someone who played a prominent part in drawing up the Green Party's manifesto for the 1987 elections in which this scheme was given pride of place.

So far, so good, but what does Ryle mean by "ecosocialism"? He speaks of a "non-market society" and of breaking with "the law of value". Even better, but unfortunately when he goes on to flesh out the sort of non-market economy he would like to see replace capitalism one of its features is to be . . . the market! Needs are met, either directly on a free basis (water, sewage, energy, transport) or indirectly through allocating everyone a monetary "social income" (a basic income?):

Beyond this, and again evolving out of what we have, a 'market-type' sector would produce a range of commodities and services between which people would choose according to preferences . . . here the feedback of market-type mechanisms is an effective means of allocating social labour to meet demand, and of encouraging the necessary expansion and contraction of the productive and retailing enterprises concerned. This is the rationale for the pseudo-market and the use of money. The monetary form, moreover, as opposed to some utopian visions in which the citizenry simply help themselves from a cornucopian socialist abundance, implies the possibility, which in ecological terms is a necessity, of exerting collective control over levels of overall individual consumption.

Such a society (were it viable) might not be capitalism, but it wouldn't be socialism either. Socialism is a non-market society in the strictly literal sense of the term: a society without markets, buying and selling and money. The reason for this is that buying and selling presupposes separate owners of the goods that are exchanged, while in socialism both the productive resources and the products are commonly owned and so directly available for people to take rather than buy.

The sort of society advocated by Ryle would not, as he believes, destroy "the law of value". On the contrary, it would still involve commodity-production and so the creation of wealth as exchange value. Indeed, the free basic services he envisages would have to be financed, just like the cash handouts in the Green Party's Basic Income Scheme, by syphoning off some of the exchange value created in the commodity-producing sector which would thus remain the key sector of the economy.

Production for sale without profit or capital accumulation, which is what Ryle (and many other Greens) seems to be advocating, is something similar to the "simple commodity-production" which Marx analysed as the logical starting point for the development of capitalism. Were it possible to establish such a society today (which it isn't), then it would inevitably tend to develop into capitalism a system of commodity-production where the aim of exchange on markets was not simply to obtain money to buy useful things but to obtain money as profits to be re-invested and accumulated as capital.

Ryle and the "ecosocialists" can perhaps be allowed to describe themselves as anti-capitalist but not as socialist. They want to go back to pre-capitalist market forms instead of forward to the abolition of the whole market on the basis of common ownership and democratic control and its replacement by production directly for use and free access to goods and services according to need.

Adam Buick 

Gels in pearls and all that (1987)

From the December 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

What have Jenny Greene, Marcus Binney, Michael Clayton, Deirdre McSharn and Sally O'Sullivan in common? You probably have never heard of any of them. They are rivals of the ten million pound advertising revenue on offer for the increasing number of "Country" magazines on sale. Interest in the countryside is booming and 500,000 copies are sold each month.

Of course, the type of country life featured is selective. Small farmers, working hard to feed their families as well as paying off their mortgages and various hire purchase commitments don't feature much on their pages. Although occasional genuflections are made in the direction of conservation, the main preoccupation of the well established Country Homes, Horse and Hound and Country Life, as well as the newcomers Country Living and Landscape is the homes and lifestyles of the affluent owners of country mansions. 

"You have to be be of a certain class to get in [the magazine]" says Jenny Greene of Country Life. "There's always been a joke that no-one who lives at a numbered house is ever featured." Of course, mistakes do happen. Once the magazine printed an engagement portrait of "the lovely Honora Lineham of Mendip House, Woodberry Down". It just so happened that the lady's name was Noreen, her mother did household cleaning and Mendip House is a council block of flats in North London. Still, Noreen was wearing pearls.

Who are the 500,000 purchasers of these magazines? They certainly are not members of the executive country set—there aren't half a million of them around! Then who are they, apart from patients reading back numbers in doctors' and dentists' waiting rooms? Again, Greene " . . . would think the magazine is a great badge for people in the suburbs. It's got the tremendous glamour of top people about it". Your "point to point" may be negotiating a trolley round the local supermarket but for £1.20 an issue you can impress your friends and let your imagination go into overdrive.

Of course, this type of vicarious living is not confined to visions of how others live "graciously" in the country. Women buy glossy magazines which may carry less romantic fiction than some years ago but instead talk of dresses costing hundreds of pounds, "beauty" improvements costing thousands and recipes calling for the use of game, fresh river trout and smoked salmon. Magazines for men peddle a dream world which is different in substance but not degree. The owner of a second-hand Vespa reads about motorbikes of thousands cc, costing the related thousands of pounds, while the often unhealthy under-exercised office worker reads about body-building contests. The sex situation is so frequently covered elsewhere that it does not need more than a mention.

Why are those purveyors of fantasies so successful? Soap operas like EastEnders and Coronation Street present a world in which "ordinary" people are supposed to be able to see a reflection of their own lives. These glossies want the same people to imagine they could inhabit the world of the wealthy minority.

Eva Goodman

The wasted years (2002)

From the October 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ten years ago at the Rio Earth Summit a 12-year old schoolgirl from Vancouver, Severn Cullis-Suzuki, made a speech to delegates that astonished them. It is worth repeating part of that address :

“I am only a child, yet I know that if all the money spent on war was spent on ending poverty and finding environmental answers, what a wonderful place this would be. In school you teach us not to fight with others, to work things out, to respect others, to clean up our mess, not to hurt other creatures, to share, not be greedy. Then why do you go out and do the things you tell us not to do? You grownups say you love us, but I challenge you, please, to make your actions reflect your words.”

That speech had such an impact that she became a frequent invitee to UN conferences. She is now 22, with a BSc in biology from Yale University and she attended the recent conference in Johannesburg as a member of Kofi Annan's World Summit advisory panel. So what does she make of the progress in the last 10 years?

“I spoke for six minutes and received a standing ovation. Some of the delegates even cried. I thought that maybe I had reached some of them, that my speech might actually spur action. Now, a decade from Rio, after I've sat through many more conferences, I'm not sure what has been accomplished. My confidence in the people in power and the power of an individual's voice to reach them has been deeply shaken” (Time, 2 September).

Cullis-Suzuki's pessimism is well founded when you compare some of the figures over the last 10 years:

• Then 17 million refugees, now 20 million refugees.
• Then 5,000 species threatened, now 11,000 species.
• Then rainforests being depleted at 17,000 sq.km a year,now speeding up to 1 percent depletion per year.
• Then carbon dioxide omissions 356 parts per million in the atmosphere, now 370 parts per million.

The list is long and horrifying, for instance the Antarctic ozone hole is now three times the size of the United States. Cullis-Suzuki has now retreated from her schoolgirl world view into organising locally to get people to cut down on household garbage, consuming less and using their car less frequently. What a dreadful commentary on this awful society of capitalism that it turns youthful zeal and enthusiasm into pathetic and petty reformism.

Socialists don't make the mistake of appealing to the governments of the world to stop polluting our world, because we know that is futile. Instead we call on our fellow workers to join us in the struggle to rid the world for ever of the cause of these problems, world capitalism. Only then will we be able to attain that 12 year old's beautiful vision . “What a wonderful place this would be”.

Richard Donnelly

Divide and rule (1986)

From the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Divide and rule is a classic political tactic of a ruling class fearful of a threat to its power from discontented workers. Give certain sections of the working class enough material comfort to feel that they are getting something out of the system — that they are "middle class" — and they will make sure that there is no working class revolution.

This is a strategy that the present government is pursuing vigorously. Make sure that workers who have skills that capitalism needs at present get reasonable wages and salaries. Give them mortgages and tax relief. so that they can "buy" their own homes. Let them take out private medical insurance and buy shares in British Telecom or TSB. In short convince them they are part of the "property and share owning democracy".

By contrast give the unemployed and others who are marginal to the needs of capital as hard a time as possible. Cut their benefits, subject them to intrusive investigations and means testing. Force them to love on what is left of the council housing estates — usually high rise slums that councils sell off because no one wants to buy them. Give them second-rate health care after waiting months for NHS treatment.

In addition make sure that those who are comfortably off have little sympathy with the plight of those less fortunate by spewing out a steady stream of propaganda that blames the obvious ills of capitalism on selected vulnerable groups. Unemployment is high because the unemployed don't want to work; greedy workers are pricing themselves and others out of jobs by asking for too much pay. Claimants aren't poor they're just "bad managers" and therefore deserve to have their electricity cut off when they can't afford to pay their bills. Young people are undisciplined, promiscuous and degenerate so no wonder AIDS is spreading and drug abuse is rising. Violent crime is on the increase in inner city areas because that's where blacks live. Blacks should therefore be sent home or not allowed into the country at all.

Throw in a few appeals to the "national interest", some references to the threat of international terrorism, "enemies within", or political subversives and then use all of this as a justification for increased expenditure on the police and security forces (at the same time claiming that there is no money for homes, health care, welfare benefits . . . ). Then give the police increased powers to harass people and prevent demonstrations or other expressions of political discontent or opposition. Finally curtail the legal rights of trade unions so that they find it more and more difficult to defend the pay and conditions of work of their members.

The government can get away with this kind of coercion of selected groups within the working class because such groups within the working class because such workers, since they are marginal to the needs of capital, have no political or industrial muscle. Without the support of other workers the feeble protests of those at the sharp end of government policy will continue to go unnoticed. What is so depressing is the fact that this divide and rule strategy has been so successful. Many workers who are relatively well off don't believe that any of these attacks on the working class and civil liberties have anything very much to do with them. They don't have to worry about homelessness because they've bought their own house. They don't have to worry about waiting lists for medical treatment because they can go private. They don't have to worry about increased police powers because they don't commit crimes or go on demonstrations or take strike action.

Those with "good" jobs and a decent standard of living can continue to delude themselves that they are  middle class and have a stake in the capitalist system and don't have to worry until it's their teenage children who can't get jobs; until they themselves are made redundant because their particular skill is no longer needed by the capitalist class and are forced to try to subsist on state handouts; until they get chronically ill and then discover that their health insurance doesn't cover them for serious, long-term illness; until they get harassed by the police because they stepped out of line.

All workers, white-collar and blue-collar, skilled or unskilled, manual or non-manual, wage earning or salary earning, lead insecure lives in capitalist society. Robbed not only of the fruits of our labour we also have little control over our own lives irrespective of whether we have a few shares in BT or live in a house that we've "bought". Poverty, insecurity and lack of control, as well as state coercion and harassment of the most vulnerable workers or those who refuse to accept the status quo, will continue so long as we allow ourselves to be divided politically by petty distinctions engineered by the ruling class for their own political ends.

Janie Percy-Smith