Socialism or Social Catholicism (1959)

Party News from the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Debate between SPGB and Roman Catholic Church

It is an extraordinary event for a representative of the Roman Catholic Church to debate in public with a Socialist. On Sunday, 10th May, however, Father Bernard Rickett, headmaster of the West Bridgeford Roman Catholic School, Notts, received the Bishop’s permission to do so. Representing the Catholic attitude he debated the subject, "Socialism or Social Catholicism?” with the Socialist Party’s speaker, R. Coster. The debate was attended by an audience of 78 on a sweltering afternoon at the Co-op. Educational Centre, Nottingham.

R. Coster

Opening the debate for the Socialist Party, R. Coster defined its scope in terms of a Catholic writer’s phrase “ human life and happiness,” and said at once it was impossible to consider the question unless one dealt with the great problems which stood in the way of life and happiness for the great majority of humanity. War and its terrible weapons; insecurity and fear, and the recurrence of economic crises; poverty and its consequences in bad housing, a great deal of disease, crime and unhappiness; the overwhelming lack of satisfaction of people in the present-day world that produced appalling figures for mental and nervous disorders: these were the impediments to human life and happiness, and these were what had to be dealt with.

The Socialist case was that all these problems were consequences of the Capitalist organization of society. Capitalism was founded on the ownership of the means of living by a class; it meant that all productive activity was carried on solely for the motive of sale at a profit, that this commercial motivation dominated all relationships in society. It meant also that the non-owning class, the great majority, must be exploited and always more or less poor; and that the interests of these two classes were therefore irreconcilably opposed.

But Capitalism meant as well the conflicts between rival capitalist groups which led inevitably to war. It meant that from time to time, unpredictably and uncontrollably, there were crises and all the suffering which depressions brought. Parties and governments, and philosophers and religious leaders too, had been powerless to prevent these things because Capitalism’s antagonistic relations arising from division of interests over property caused them. The Socialist case, therefore, was for the abolition of this system. What was wanted was a new basis for society— the ownership by everybody of all the means of living, so that poverty, conflict and all the other barriers to decent life and happiness could no longer exist.

Could Catholicism solve all, or any, of these problems? There was no point of contact between Catholicism and Socialism; the speaker pointed to Catholic reiterations that the two were antagonistic and that private property was a natural right. The Church stood not only for Capitalism, but for a Capitalism so authoritarian that its criticisms of the Russian dictatorship could largely be applied to itself. By its defence of Capitalism, the Church acquiesced in the system which was the source of the problems.

Catholics talked about improving workers’ conditions, but the living standards their Popes advocated were those of “frugal and well-behaved” workers; the rate of emigration from Ireland was no advertisement for Catholic society On the war question, Catholic authorities were as divided and helpless as any Capitalist politicians—some opposed to nuclear weapons, some ready to justify them. The remedies for crises and exploitation advocated were childish: classes could not harmonize even at Popes’ bidding, in a class-divided society, and the proposals to “lift barriers” on trade and production showed incomprehension of how Capitalism worked.

Social Catholicism had no case. The only case was for Socialism, which aimed at establishing conditions in which the problems could not arise and human life and happiness could flourish.

Father Rickett

Father Rickett, in his opening speech, said he was not an expert on economic and social matters; he must treat the questions raised as a theologian who had studied history. He expressed appreciation of the Socialist Party as the only organization professing Socialism which was logical in its arguments. The trouble with the Socialist case was that its logic, though impeccable, rested on a false premise. Its view of man's nature was incomplete and therefore incorrect. Man lived in society, but he had been created for a supernatural destiny, and the idea of Socialism was incompatible with this divine nature. Man did not live by bread alone—he had been created not for temporal but for eternal happiness, though that did not mean he had to be miserable in this world.

Man was a selfish brute, imperfect by nature, and no solution could be valid which ignored his original sin.

Catholic sociology started from the need for him to reform his own character, to curb his selfishness and be content with his station in life. Disease, work and suffering were the lot of the human race. Capitalism was largely beyond the control of the Church, which indeed was not concerned with temporal things except insofar as they related to man's salvation.

Nevertheless, Popes had strongly denounced the excesses of Capitalism and laid down for those living in it what were God's will and moral laws. Social living was the will of God. The reverse of the Class-struggle doctrine was true; capital and labour were complementary—each needed the other, and our higher standards of living today were due to large-scale enterprise and the brains and invested capital behind it. It was quite wrong to claim that the product should belong to the labourer. The Church tried to see that there was an equitable share, and laid down rules of justice for employers and employees. The employer had duties to his workmen, and the worker also must recognise moral laws in his behaviour towards the employer.

What must be sought was charity, in its sense of brotherly love and mutual support. The Catholic Church had advocated the formation of Guilds like those which existed in former times, and in these there would be not class conflict but class collaboration. Class hatred, and hatred of any kind, could never produce anything constructive.

R. Coster 

R. Coster, in reply, summarised Father Rickett's argument as that, first, man must consider his life in relation to a life hereafter, and second, that man was innately bad, and that these two conditions put the Socialist case out of court

He submitted that the argument was, in fact, complete irrelevant to the matter under discussion. We were talking about human life and happiness, and it was useless to make the supernatural a basis for argument to people who were not aware of it. The proposal that human society was divinely instituted was superfluous and meaningless; human society was a fact—man organized socially for survival, and had he not done so there would have been no man. '

Were all the things said of man's “brutal, selfish” nature true? Nothing of the kind was known historically of human nature. The only thing known was that human nature continually altered. So did valuations of it: what was brutal and selfish in one age was heroic in another, and the Catholic Church itself had undergone this kind of societal conditioning.

Did the Church want a better world? The speaker read from a Papal Encyclical which said the world could not be better, that claims to the contrary were “lying promises.” But what were the effects of the Church's laying down laws of social justice? One Encyclical had stated the duties of employers towards their employees, and Catholic employers had conspired to prevent their workpeople learning what was said in it. And this in fact underlined what Socialists said—that a class must obey, not its religious ideals, but its interests as a class.

Socialists agreed that men did not live by bread alone. The quality of living was what made happiness. But first, man's material needs must be satisfied. The conditions must be created in which man could know the enjoyment of living; that was the aim of Socialism.

Father Rickett

Father Rickett, replying, spoke of the tyranny which Socialism would impose. It meant that we should lose our freedom. No one could understand human nature unless he contemplated the Crucifixion; it was an aberration of mind to put it aside. Society without God was an unrealizable Utopia. There could be and there was happiness in our world: nothing was more lovely to behold than a little Catholic home with its many children.

It was not mere egalitarian distribution that mattered. The Church wanted to see men make the best of the existing order, and within that order better distribution had been obtained. The Church had encouraged workers to organize in trade unions and stand up to Capital. On the question of the great problems, obviously insecurity and injustice were parts of the natural order. War was hateful and the Church would never support it—but it must be realized that some things were worse than war.

What had been said about Catholic employers was true, but they would suffer in eternity for it; their action was an instance of original sin. The Church's mission was to see that life as it was organized here below was not incompatible with the destiny of man. Nowhere had working people a better friend than the Catholic Church.

Father Rickett 

After a short period in which questions were asked and contributions to discussion made by members of the audience. Father Rickett made his summing-up speech. He said that the Catholic Church was much misunderstood by people; one either loved it or hated it. The idea of the classless society was unreal. It had never been depicted, and could only be achieved if we were all angels. Marx's arguments left much unexplained : heaven help us, the speaker said, if the right of property were not safeguarded. This right was precious to all of us in our daily lives, in our homes and in preserving our possessions. It protected the small man trying to advance his business or his career. Capitalism would pass away and some other social order replace it, but the Church would remain.

R. Coster 

R. Coster, concluding for the Socialist Party, said that Father Rickett had completely evaded the issue of the debate.

The questions put had not been answered. It was claimed that the Catholic Church stood aside from politics; in fact, the Church’s record showed a great deal of political activity not advantageous to working people. To say that Socialism would take away freedom was untrue and, for the Church, unfortunate; the Concordat between Spain and the Church, for example, had stripped the Spanish worker of every kind of freedom. As for happiness, the “lovely” Catholic home was frequently a squalid, overcrowded place. As for war being hateful, in this century Catholic authorities had repeatedly advocated the suppression of heresies by violence.

The whole conception of property as a right was mistaken. The capitalist class had known no right but might: by force and every other means they had secured their ownership, and established the legal and moral titles—the “ right ”—to it afterwards. At no point had Father Rickett shown why Socialism was “unrealizable.” All that was needed for its realization was understanding, and this was the enemy of Catholicism. Cardinal Manning had once said: “ I do not have to think for myself. The Pope does my thinking for me." But Socialism had everything to offer of human life and happiness, and to think for oneself was to hold the key to it.

Freddie James

Blogger's Note:

As mentioned previously on the blog, 'R. Coster' was the pen-name/party-name of Robert Barltrop during his first period of membership of the SPGB. When Barltrop rejoined the SPGB in the 1970s, he opted to use his own name when writing and speaking for the Party.

Barltrop, in fact, briefly mentions this debate in The Monument — his unofficial history of the SPGB — when he states that Father Bernard Rickett was ". . .  the best of all the speakers I met in debate . . ."

Letter: How do Men Make History ? (1959)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

How do Men Make History ?

In his article entitled “An Essay on Historical Materialism” (May S.S.) E.W. tells us that genetically speaking man makes history. Now, if this be so, man must be held responsible for the history he makes, for we cannot logically compare man living in a society with a tree existing in a wood, meaning by that of course that the tree is not responsible for itself as a tree, whereas man is responsible for himself and his actions as a man. And although man did not consciously will himself into society and history, it is still nevertheless true that society and history could not operate independent of the will of man.

However, according to Karl Marx, this is not so, for he claimed that history is governed by laws which operate independent of the will of man. And this view of his contradicts the view of men being able to make their own history. For if history is governed by inexorable laws, man cannot will these laws out of existence and create new ones, seeing that these laws operate independent of will. But if we accepted this view we would need to believe that history willed man, instead of history being willed by man. It is true, of course, that the individual born into capitalist society did not will capitalism, but nevertheless capitalism does not operate independent of men's wills. Marx's theory of history is therefore wrong, and, in fact, a contradiction in terms, seeing that all human history is the outcome of what men willed, and not of any mysterious laws operating independent of will.

Capitalistic exploitation of the working class does not operate independent of the wills of the capitalists, but rather, on the contrary, because they consciously will to exploit the working class.

Marx thought that he discovered the key to history, but had he lived long enough he would have found out that there is no key to history at all. And in regard to the will of individuals which he did not take into consideration, he would have found out that they have not only the power to create history, but have even the power to destroy the world.

R. Smith, 

Dundee.

Reply

The writer asserts, without evidence, that Marx believed history to be an impersonal force, operating independent of men's wills. Actually, Marx said, all historical change is brought about by men’s ideas. They are not, however, just the outcome of purely mental processes but responses to a concrete social situation arising from urgent class needs and the task of actualising them. All major changes he shows are periods of intense theoretical and intellectual activity. The battle of material interests is also the battle of ideas. “History,” says Marx, “ is not something apart from men, it is the activity of man in pursuit of his ends." This makes nonsense of the writer's remarks.

The writer vaguely refers to history being willed by individuals. Historically men have willed all sorts of things but what men have striven for and what has actually transpired has so often shown great discrepancies. In social development there are no ends not willed by men but these ends are not realised merely because men willed them. Even in the contemporary situation men have sought perpetual prosperity, eternal peace, harmony between all men, etc. It is not the will that has been lacking but the conditions essential for their fulfilment.

It is true that capitalists have the power to exploit workers or, to use the writer's curious phrase, consciously will exploitation. But class ownership backed by the State power are its indispensable pre-requisites. Only when these conditions are fulfilled can the will to exploit become effective. Again the absence of certain conditions made Socialism impossible 500 years ago. Today the consequences of capitalist production not only explain why the need for Socialism arises but why the presence of certain objective conditions make it possible to will its effective realisation. What is willed must then be compatible with a discovered situation which is not willed but accepted. When it is willed must be dependent on the objective possibilities in the situation. Only in this light does the action of men become intelligible, and why the ideas of some men and groups of men have failed and others succeeded.

The writer says history has no key. In that case he himself cannot talk meanfully about it. Where facts and events are not known, where nothing is known, then we have blind determinism, where there is no knowledge of facts and processes there is no freedom. Genuine freedom like will is not something arbitrary or uncontrolled, but based on an appraisal of the objective possibilities in a given situation. Only when what is necessary is known can effective action be taken. When men do not grasp the necessities of a situation, effective action loses its freedom. It was no other than Marx and Engels who tirelessly expounded this to the working class. This is the key to Marx’s conception of social purpose. 

Ted Wilmott

The Opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway (1959)

From the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

On April 25th last, the Canadian Government icebreaker D'Iberville moved into the locks opposite Montreal. Behind her were scores of other craft, decorated with bunting; helicopters were buzzing overhead and on the shores were hundreds of people who had got up early to watch the start of her voyage. For this was not only the end of the ice-bound winter season for Montreal; it was also the first journey into the recently completed St. Lawrence Seaway.

Opposition

At the formal opening ceremony last month, nobody wanted to mention the embarassing fact that, but for the opposition of the railroad interests in the U.S.A., the Seaway would have been built long before now. These interests, with the Canadian East Coast Ports of St. John and Halifax, feared the competition which the Seaway would offer, with its cheap transport from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes. Since the 1920’s, various Canadian Governments have wanted to go ahead with the project, but could not persuade the United States to co-operate. Finally, in 1951, the Canadians declared their intention of building the Seaway on their own. This forced the hand of the United States railway lobby, who did not want the Seaway—if it had to be built—to be completely beyond the influence of Washington. Even so, they insisted that tolls should be imposed on all craft using it; something the Canadian Government, which is traditionally opposed to canal tolls, found hard to swallow. Work started in 1954.

The Seaway is designed eventually to overcome the 602 feet difference in water level between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes. Most of this is concentrated between Lake Erie and Montreal; here we have some famous rapids and falls, the most spectacular of them at Niagara. These rapids have been an obstacle since the earliest days of exploration. In 1536, Jacques Cartier (who is credited with the discovery of the St.Lawrence River) was checked by the Lachine Rapids and in 1603 Samuel De Champlain was also held up near the same point. In the 18th century a one-foot canal was dug which allowed the small trading canoes to by-pass the rapids. Over the years this was deepened until in 1821 there was five feet of water available. Towards the end of the 19th century locks were built and the canals further deepened so that vessels lying 14 feet into the water could pass.

This system stayed until work was started on the Seaway, which is a series of 27 feet deep locks and canals from Lachine to Kingston, at the eastern end of Lake Ontario. Most of the merchant ships afloat can use it, being lifted more than 200 feet above sea level in the process. In addition, the Seaway Authority's powers extend to the Welland Ship Canal, which connects Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and by-passes the Niagara Falls. Since 1932, the Welland Canal has been at least 25 feet deep; now it has been dredged to 27 feet. As a result, ships of up to 8,000 tons can sail from the Atlantic to Lake Erie—and, when canals connecting the other Lakes have also been dredged to 27 feet, to the farthest end of Lake Superior. A number of power dams have also been built, which will supply millions of kilowatts of hydroelectric power. The total cost was about £405 million, split between the Canadian and United States Governments.

Steel and Wheat

The territory around the Great Lakes contains about 40 per cent, of the population of the United States and Canada and some of the best agricultural land and richest industry in the whole of North America. The optimists reckon on about 40 million tons of cargo a year coming from these areas through the Seaway to the Atlantic. There is evidence that the Seaway was primarily intended as an economic stimulant and not as an aid to shipping, for only one third of the total cost was spent on navigational aids, the remainder going on the hydro-electric schemes. Indeed, the Seaway should do a lot to revive the Steel industry of the Middle West, whose resources of iron ore from the nearby Mesabi Range were almost exhausted during the war. Plans were being laid to move the steel mills to the east coast, within easy reach of ore from Venezuela and the recently opened fields in Labrador. Now the ore will travel conveniently and cheaply from Labrador through the Seaway—and the Steel works should stay put. According to The Economist of 25th April, it was the steel men’s support of the Seaway which made the U.S.A. Congress realise that they would also have to agree to it.

The Wheat trade will also be affected. Up to now, grain from Fort William and Port Arthur—(at the western end of Lake Superior)—has been shipped as far east as possible by vessels called “Lakers"—which, although they could sail freely over the lakes, were prevented by the shallow canals from moving past Lake Ontario. The grain was then loaded into smaller vessels to be taken to ports nearer the Atlantic and transferred to the oceangoing steamers. Now, the ’’Lakers” may sail direct to the Labrador port of Seven Islands to unload their grain, replacing it with iron ore for the return journey. Another possibility is that the grain may be shipped direct from Port Arthur and Fort William to Europe, sailing past Buffalo, Montreal and other ports which have prospered on the traffic. The Canadian Wheat Board expects that this will reduce the cost of freight by about 5 cents a bushel; in an effort to keep the grain trade, the ports have started a programme of capital investment. Montreal alone is to spend nearly £10 million on its grain elevator system, £6 million on wharves and £1¾ million on transit sheds.

Railways and Steamships

The Canadian railway system was in part developed on the assumption that ocean going ships would never get any farther up the St. Lawrence than Montreal. As a result, an intricate railway network now links the St. Lawrence and east coast ports with the interior. Rail freight charges are high and, to capture some of the traffic, the Fjell-Oranje Line in 1932 opened a regular service of small steamers direct from Europe to such ports as Toronto and Cleveland. This line has no interest in any inland freight system in Canada, and so could concentrate on a cheap steamship service. But organisations like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which has large investments in both steamships and railways, could hardly be expected to promote the cheaper steamship service to the Lakes at the expense of its railroads. Development of the direct Great Lakes service was therefore neglected, whilst the railways and the east coast ports also strenuously opposed the even greater threat of the Seaway.

After the second world war however, more shipping companies began services from Europe to the Great Lakes and in 1956 the two great transatlantic companies— Cunard and Canadian Pacific—had to open their own service, with boats on charter from a German company. Now nearly 30 lines offer a regular service and without enough cargo to fill their holds, they are in fierce competition. The Seaway has sharpened the struggle; new steamers are being specially built and a freight war has broken out between the combine (they call it a “Conference”)—which includes companies like Cunard, Canadian Pacific and Furness Withy—and the rest. The Canadian and .United States railway companies have joined this war and have forecast all round reductions in freight rates. The governments may also step in with some subsidies.

Uncertain Outlook

The future, as usual, is uncertain. There is considerable congestion at some points of the Seaway, particularly the Welland Canal, which now takes nearly twice as long to navigate as it did 20 years ago. Again, the St. Lawrence River is closed by ice for about 5 months of the year — ice which can form so quickly that sometimes ocean-going ships are trapped upstream. The Seaway means that the shipping companies must maintain an organisation at the Atlantic ports for the winter and one at the Great Lakes for the Summer. Many of them fear that this will cost more than anything they might save by using the Seaway. For several years they may have to absorb considerable losses and possibly reduce their services.

If there is a general cargo boom and if the railroad and steamship companies can sort out their differences and agree on an attractive combined rate, the Seaway will certainly prosper. These are big “ifs”; the whole thing was conceived, obstructed and finally built in a tug-of-war between interests wanting to realise a profit on their investments. In this crazy world, that is the measure by which the St. Lawrence Seaway will be judged.

Human Needs (1959)

From the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The question is often asked, “What would life be like under Socialism?'' If we can't say precisely what it will be be like, we can at least say what it will not be like. We can say it will be production for use, which means there will be no buying and selling and consequently no high pressure advertising, no costly and frenzied attempts to get people to buy this or that. It won’t be a veneer society covering the sham and the shoddy. Only the best will be good enough in Socialist production.

Before people can pursue any cultural activities their basic needs, food, clothing and shelter, must be met. Different societies have different needs depending on the level they have reached. Thus, Feudalism, based upon agriculture and individual handicraft, meant that cars television, jet planes, etc., were not only impossible, but unthinkable. These things presuppose all the scientific and technical development necessary to their production. The development of Capitalism brings with it new techniques and new methods of production that generate new needs. Mass production demands mass sales. Large-scale industry, for example, needs large-scale transport for its distribution and finds its logical extension in jet planes. Mass entertainment, from the music hall to the cinema and radio, finds its extension in television.

This may appear as though techniques were made to measure or as if some ready-made, overall, technology were just waiting to be taken off the scientific clothes' peg. It is not quite as mechanical as this. What we can say is that there is a never-ending cycle of discovery and investigation. New discoveries give rise to new fields of investigation that require specialisation and new techniques. And, like oil in the earth, they are just waiting to be tapped.

The historical conditions that gave rise to commodity production, the production of things for sale and profit, produced also the necessary new techniques. Large-scale, power-motivated industry grew up, based on mass production and from this flowed the mass advertising and the constant pressure to buy, buy, hammered into us with unchanging regularity. One could say that in capitalist society, nothing is bought, everything is sold.

Needs

Our needs are largely conditioned by the kind of society into which we are born. We satisfy our needs by buying things or services. To get the money, the majority of us, as wage workers, have to sell our energy and skill to someone prepared to make use of them. Wages approximate to what is required to keep the worker to a standard of working efficiency. Since profit is the motive of the Capitalist, he pays the worker less than the value of his product. Profit is unpaid labour, the difference between what the worker receives in his wage packet and the value of what he has produced. The Capitalist must turn into money this unpaid labour or profit on the market, hence the enormous growth of advertising and selling agencies. In America, the country of capitalism par excellence, advertising has reached a turnover involving 9,000 million dollars and we are told by statisticians that if this trend continues, by 1965 the figure will reach 15,000 million, barring a slump.

The waste that production for sale and profit engenders is immeasurable. Socialism, that is production for use, means that only the best will prevail. The gradations of quality to suit your pocket will go and along with the cheap-jack will go the sham, the shoddy, the thief and the spiv. Restrictive practices, so prevalent today, will disappear and resources will be used to the full.

Production factors can greatly influence our needs today. A new commodity plus an intense advertising campaign creates new needs. It is hard to believe that before the war we managed quite well without nylon and other manmade fibres. Snob values and the “keeping lip with the Joneses" are exploited by the advertising experts whose job it is to manipulate and play on the weaknesses of potential consumers.

The most prevalent aspiration in this society is the acquisition of money, for money gives one a social power. Without it you are a failure; with it a success. Hence the striving to climb that slippery ladder, to reach the top, at all costs, to be able to surround oneself with all the things that will earn the approbation of one's fellow men. These are the kind of values that obtain today. Relationships between people revolve around this factor. The personality becomes identified by and through the accumulation of things and not through the exercise of one's human capacities. Full development is repressed and stultified by the property society we live in.

Soul-destroying

Let us look at some of its effects. Over 40 per cent, of lying-in patients in hospitals are mental cases. The soul-destroying repetitive processes that most workers do because it is cheaper to produce in that way, completely separate them from joy in their labour. The feeling that they can be sacked only adds to the frustration and insecurity of living. Workers do not have a job. They have the loan of a job which can be taken from them whenever their employer decides to do so. The threat of war and mass annihilation, due to the same basic cause, Capitalism, hangs over us like Damocles' sword. The irritations, mistrust, guardedness and jungle morality of this society all serve to alienate the sociability of people. We know that once the property basis of society is ended and production is for use, then people will act in a harmonious and sociable way.

Production, when it is for use and not for profit, will depend solely on the amount of people available and the natural resources to work on. All the wasted and useless labour that we have today will be usefully employed under Socialism. Men in the armed forces, policemen, people engaged in accounting, collecting and doling out money, insurance, banking and the hundred and one other useless tasks so necessary to capitalism will enter into production. Potentially we can produce an abundance. It simply becomes a matter of organisation. We know that under Socialism people will not seek to acquire things which today carry with them status and prestige value. Those compensating factors will no longer fill a need and the emphasis in people's lives will at last be on the quality of living rather than the quantity of possessions.

J.C. Gormley

Old Age Pensions (1959)

From the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are all familiar with music-hall melodies which conjure up visions of a best of all possible worlds, where the capricious weather is the only cause for complaint. Certainly, a nice sunny day under the palms of say, the Bahamas, sipping iced drinks and carelessly tossing filthy lucre around to fawning waiters, hoteliers and the like is guaranteed to make life tolerable; if at times a bore.

However, the gay lines of the song are themselves a reflection of their gloomy opposite—the smog-ridden back streets of Britain's industrial areas and the dull lives of the propertyless wage slaves who from cradle to grave, inhabit them. Who rise by their alarm clocks, spend their days producing surplus value and look forward, at the end, to scraping along on an old age pension. The question is—should we aim to abolish a social system that breeds such contrasts or should we tinker at reforming it?

Progress

Certainly, the reform-mongers have had a good innings—there has been no dearth of “improvers of the condition of the working class" since Marx tabulated them. Whether Tory, Liberal, Labour of Communist Parties, they have all had a go at “improving" the wages system, until those who work for wages may wonder why there is anything left to be improved.

Further, whilst the labour and inventive genius of the working class has showered luxury after luxury on their employers, their own lives are marked by monotonous insecurity, with the ultimate goal of a weekly pension of about 50s. Cold comfort for them to read boastful headlines of progress in aeronautics and so on, whilst life in their own orbit involves wintering, not on Palm Beach or the shores of the Mediterranean, but anchored to their obscure slum allies, shivering over oil stoves. Is this progress?

Pensioners are the forgotten men and women of capitalism, who are of no further use in the production of surplus value. Here is the real reason for pensions and pensioners, for the production of surplus value is the mainspring of capitalism, which enables those who by labour power to live in luxury and idleness.

Wistful Eyes

Certainly, our pensioners may view distant sunny lands in glorious technicolor—from a cinema seat whilst the damp, foggy air of the industrial areas awaits them at the end of the show. Only within the glossy pages of coloured cruise brochures may they wander with wistful eyes along gleaming promenade decks, dining saloons, lounges, ban and staterooms of the Queens of the Southern Seas. These enjoyments are for sale—at hundreds of pounds—and so are out of reach of Britain's sun-starved old age pensioners.

Such is the class nature of progress in a class divided society; always the greatest benefits of improvement in transport and so on accrue to the ruling class. Until the workers decide to end this monopoly of the good things of life, participation on their part will be limited to a mere shadow of the real thing.

During last winter, whilst old age pensioners and the like tried to combat the cold with stoves run on paraffin oil at 2s. per gallon instead of coal at 9s. per bag, Sir Winston Churchill flew to sunny Morocco in a 70-seater plane with only 17 passengers. Here was room for 50 of Britain's sun-starved pensioners. After all, are they not part of Britain's one big happy family which the politicians are fond of orating about? Or could it be that the wealthy shipping potentate Aristotle Onassis, whose guest Churchill was, preferred the empty seats to the pensioners' company?

No Pensions

The answer is that there can be no participation in this type of progress for the great mass of humanity, so long as they are shackled to the wages system. Wages, which generally are only just sufficient to maintain and reproduce the worker, are the chain which pegs him down to his native heath. The Socialist Standard of October 1956 pointed out that “only 8 per cent. of the population of Britain went abroad for holidays in 1955 and that 77 per cent, have never been outside Britain."

As long as the worker has abilities to sell and can produce surplus value he is an asset to the capitalist class, but once the golden juice of labour power dries up with his advancing years, his days of exploitation are numbered. Finally, he is retired and becomes a liability to those who, having exploited him during the best years of his life grant him a tiny pension to continue his existence, if he can.

Under Socialism, of course, there will be no pensions, even large ones, because once humanity is freed from the necessity of selling their energies and social ownership of the means of life is a reality, every human being, regardless of age, will have free and welcome access to the good things of life. When their hair is turning greyer—by weight of years alone—their place in society will be one of dignity and respect in a free and harmonious community.

G. R. Russell.

The Politics of Hate (1959)

From the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger' Note:

A bit of context for this cartoon . . . especially as the language employed in the final panel is so jarring. In the printed edition of the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard, this cartoon — which may have been drawn by Alwyn Edgar — immediately followed the front page article, Race & Violence, which was about the recent 'race riots' in Notting Hill.

From the Branches (1959)

Party News from the July 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lewisham

Two indoor meetings are being held at the Branch room at Davenport House during July. Details are given under the “ Meetings ” column.

Ealing

Owing to members’ holidays, Ealing Branch will not meet on July 17th and 24th. The meetings of July 31st, August 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th will be held at The Royal Oak public house, Ealing Broadway (opp. Bentalls)). Thereafter, meetings will be resumed at the usual venue, Memorial Hall, Windsor Road, Ealing, W.5.

Bloomsbury

Bloomsbury Branch will not meet during August as Conway Hall closes for that month. After the meeting on July 16th the next meeting will be on September 3rd.

“Socialist Standard"

The Production Committee are endeavouring to meet the wishes of members by, they hope, improving the appearance of the Standard. Apart from our wish to make the S.S. the best possible means of spreading the Socialist message, there is the ever-pressing need to sell as many copies as possible. An encouraging idea is that from now on our order to the printers should increase every month. This requires help from every member in the Party. Why not start by doubling your quota of Standards per month, and make that extra effort to sell all you take?

Phyllis Howard

Editorial: What the Labour Government has Done. (1930)

Editorial from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A word to those who voted Labour.

It is now a year since the Labour Party took governmental office. They came in to solve unemployment. They have failed, and have proved by their failure the emptiness of their professions. The unemployed problem is still growing greater. The peaceful professions of Labour leaders are offset by the bombings of Indian peoples, and increased attention given to preparedness for aerial warfare.

As far as can be seen, the principal achievement of the Labour Government is the provision of fat jobs for some of its supporters.

Many workers gave support to the Labour Party on the ground that it was doing “something now”! which would bring us nearer to the realisation of our aims and hopes. In fact, however, the Labour Government has shown itself as the legitimate heir to the place and policy of the dying Liberal Party. It was never Socialist, though some of its leading members toyed with the name.

There were some who hailed the triumph of Labour as the beginning of the end of Capitalism. They have suffered a delusion, and unfortunately, in many instances, with the awakening, has come a feeling of despondency and disgust with everything ; an attitude of mind that is summed up in the bitter remark, “What is the good of anything?”

The position is somewhat similar to the feeling aroused after the Russian Bolshevik movement changed its direction and commenced to build State capitalism in Russia, first reached Europe, there were many who saw in it the commencement of the imminent social revolution, shook hands with each other and joyfully hailed the dawn of the new era. But it was a false dawn, and as the darkness again gathered, their joy gave place to despair, and, in some cases, to a cynical attempt to make profit out of the situation that developed.

Among the supporters of the Labour Party are numbers of working men and women who have given all they had in energy and money to an honest and wholehearted support of that party. Misled by emotional appeals, and failing to grasp the fundamental facts of the workers’ position, they expected from the Labour Party what it could not accomplish—and what many of its leaders knew it could not accomplish. For twelve months they have been hoping against hope that something really important would be done to grapple with their oppressive conditions, but all they have been met with are photographs of Labour leaders in court dress smirking at them from the daily papers.

We ask these disillusioned supporters of the Labour Party not to give way to despair, and not to meet our attempts at explaining Socialism with hostility based on the false idea that our principles are like those of the Labour Party. We ask them instead to refrain from judgment until they have read our literature. When they have done so, they will find that we have been pointing out to the workers what to expect from Labour leaders for the last twenty-five years. And the result has proved the truth of our contentions. They will also learn why it is that we have opposed the Labour Party and, if they are prepared to give our case a little careful thought, its fundamental soundness will be borne in upon them.

Here is the basis of the case in a few words :

The worker sells to the capitalist his labour-power for a weekly or daily wage. After a few hours’ work the worker has reproduced the value of his day’s wages. But the capitalist has paid him for a day’s work, or a week’s work, as the case may be, and consequently the worker continues working until he completes the period. The value he produces during the further hours of work is “surplus value,” which does not cost the capitalist anything, yet goes into his pocket. It is this fact that splits society into two opposing” classes—a small number of wealthy on the one hand, owning the means of production; and the vast majority of society on the other hand, owning only their power to work. Until this class organisation of society is changed by a fundamental revolution abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, there cannot be a permanent improvement in the condition of the working-class. Attempts at amelioration by fiddling with secondary matters are like trying to abolish a tempest by pouring a few barrels of oil on the sea.

Notes. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wealth !

“How much shall we and our guests spend on the wonderful social programme which began in May, and will continue till September?”

“It can hardly be less than £50,000,000; it may be far more.”

. . . . . . .

“Wealthy Americans, accompanied by wives and children, spend £10 to £30 a day at London’s luxury hotels. Rents up to £200 a week are paid for the more elaborate furnished West End houses at the height of the season.”

(“Daily News,” 13/6/’30.)

* * *

Churchill discovers overproduction.

In his Romanes Lecture delivered at Oxford on Thursday, June 19th, Mr. Winston Churchill made some interesting admissions about the inadequacy of the capitalist system, and about the inability of the economists to understand capitalism. The “Daily Telegraph” (20th June) reports him as follows : —

“Mr. Churchill examined the classical doctrines of economics, with their insistence on private enterprise, individual effort, and non-interference by the State, and said that we could clearly see they did not correspond to what was going on now.

If, he proceeded, the doctrines of the old economists no longer serve for the purposes of our society, they must be replaced by a new body of doctrine equally well-related in itself, and equally well-fitting into a general theme.

The root problem of modern world economics was the strange discordance between the consuming and producing power. We were faced with the Curse of Plenty.”

* * *

Birth Control & Unemployment.

The Birth Control Movement have issued a leaflet explaining that France cured unemployment there by means of Birth Control.

Fewer babies— fewer out of work — prosperity — and plenty to eat at Nature’s table.

It’s very simple. Whilst curing unemployment, somehow they left most of the French workers in poverty.

Why are the numbers of out-of-works fewer in France ?

The explanation must be sought in the economic position of the French population, as well as in the post-war reparation work in France, as well as her military situation. An article on this matter will appear shortly.

Answers to Correspondents: Is Christianity “fizzing out”? (1930)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received from a reader the letter which is printed below :—

Clapton, E.5. 31/5/30.

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,

I am a regular reader of the Standard, and admire the good sense in most of the articles, but I should like to know if the writer of the article on religion in the April issue includes the Christian religion ; if he did, I should think he requires a dose of logic. If the circulation of a party’s organ is any criterion to go by, there is no evidence at present of a “fizzing out” of the Christian religion. Last year’s world sale of the Bible was 42,000,000. Compare this with 30 years ago and you will find a good increase. I am sure he must be at sea a little.

All modern movements for the uplifting of the worker received their impulse from the religion of Christ, and probably the writer of “fizzing out” would not have the ability to write if it was not for our religion.

In conclusion, I should advise you to improve your articles on religion if you wish to maintain your good reputation.

God Bless You.

Yours very sincerely,

H. F. Roberts.

P.S.—I should be glad if you would let me know if the religion of Jesus helped Amy Johnson.

Our Reply.

It is good to hear that Mr. Roberts is a regular reader of our paper. Long may he remain so. We are always glad to hear from our readers, either in criticism or in approval. Anything is better than a devastating silence. It is heartening to feel that the thoughts one hatches and commits to paper, find a response somewhere; that someone is moved to throwing either bouquets or bricks. The article to which Mr. Roberts takes exception was largely composed of the thoughts of others. First, an extract from the “Daily News” described the “unholy scramble for jobs” amongst the professional Christians. Then an extract from Robert Graves’ “Good-bye to All That,” in which he stated that under the test of war, the professional Christian was often a contemptible creature. Finally, there was a series of extracts from Haldane’s “Possible Worlds,” confirming Graves’ observations, and adding that the modern clergy are recruited from the dregs of the universities and that their income is diminishing and not likely to increase. Our restrained comment was, “Knowledge and correct action will kill capitalism ; religion will flicker out.”

Mr. Roberts disagrees. He thinks we require a “dose of logic” ; that we are at sea a little. As for logic—well, what are we to gather from the mention of 42,000,000 Bibles? Does Mr, Roberts believe there will be 42,000,000 more Christians than before? And will they differ materially from the Christians we meet every day? And will they behave any differently in the next war from that described by Graves and Haldane? 42,000,000 Bibles in one year is certainly a staggering figure, but what is quite as staggering is the futility of it all. What becomes of them? Where do they go? Crossword puzzlers must account for quite a lot, and in the tropics white ants must make a difference. The armies that have sprung up consequent upon the Christian treaties following the war would also affect the Bible market. You don’t see the connection?

Then you must have another quotation, this time from Brigadier-General Crozier’s “A Brass Hat in No Man’s Land.” He describes the use which the military authorities made of the Chaplains and their religious ceremonies and beliefs, in the following pointed phrase :—”The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have, and of them we made free use.”

However, we need not labour the point. The final enquiry of Mr. Roberts as to whether the religion of Jesus helped Amy Johnson, is one upon which, up to the time of writing, we have no exact knowledge. Our only source of information, the daily newspaper, has only mentioned petrol so far, and this appears to have been sufficient. We have never heard of the religion of Jesus being used in the way suggested, or undoubtedly Major Segrave would have availed himself of it in his similar desperate enterprise.

W. T. Hopley

* * *

There is rather an amusing commentary on the wide circulation of Bibles in that very religious country—the U.S.A.

The Gideon Bible Society—sometimes called the Giddy ones—collect funds from the rich to supply a Bible free to every room in every hotel, so that commercial travellers may have some spiritual consolation for lack of orders. It has often been noted that whilst articles of any value whatever are constantly stolen—the Bible is always left behind. And the only evidence of its nice, clean pages being disturbed, is the rude remarks scribbled in the margins.

Editorial Committee.

What Rationalisation Means to the Workers. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Times” for May 12th and the six following days published a series of articles on “Rationalisation.” The reason put forward for the articles was the failure of English industries to adapt themselves to post-war conditions by increased combination, cutting out the middleman and adopting massed production.

For ten years industries in this country have been faced with a depression that threatens to become permanent. The writers of “The Times” articles have no remedy to offer apart from capturing a larger share in the world market by becoming more efficient than foreign competitors. They instance Germany and America in particular, as countries that have forged ahead of England through adopting rationalisation The four to six million unemployed in America and the growing tide of unemployment in Germany is an immediate reply to them, and also a prophecy of what the future promises to the English worker.

“The Times” editorial defines rationalisation as follows :—

“Brought down to its simplest terms, Rationalisation is nothing more or less than the technique of reducing costs. The first stage of this process consists in the elimination of unnecessary and wasteful competition by the formation of cartels to regulate production and to equate supply with demand, and the combination of producing units in “horizontal” amalgamations. Once this has been successfully accomplished, the way is open for a very large number of economies. Among the more obvious of these sources of saving are the suppression of redundant staffs and middlemen, through centralised buying and selling, the reduction of unnecessary specifications through more adequate standardisation, the closing down of obsolete plant, and the concentration of production on the best-equipped units, which can be kept working continuously on a single type of product, thus avoiding a great deal of wasteful duplication. In the sphere of labour costs tho economies made possible by amalgamation are in some respects even more important. The credit resources of big combines render possible large and frequent renewals of fixed capital and consequently enable the most modern labour-saving devices to be adopted on a scale which is impracticable for smaller units.”

A careful examination of the above quotation will make the fact evident that the essence of rationalisation is the production and distribution of a given quantity of goods by the employment of less labour than is required at present. A proof of this is given in the fourth article, where the writers point out that in the United States, by mass production, the output per man employed is much higher than in this country.

The claim made on behalf of rationalisation is that it will bring back “prosperity” to this country. The hollowness of the claim is exposed by the following quotation, taken from the first article :—

“Taking the world in general, the increase in productive capacity of the basic industries since 1913 has been far greater than growth in the volume of international trade. The various nations of Europe and Asia, to say nothing of the United States, have striven hard to attain a far greater degree of economic self-sufficiency. India, China, and Japan, for instance, have vastly increased their production of cotton goods; Germany has gone far towards replacing the plant which she lost owing to the transfer of Alsace and Lorraine to France; Spain and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; Brazil and Argentina, not to mention India and Australia, have all been building up manufacturing industries of their own behind tariff barriers. The competition in the export of manufactured goods has consequently grown keener.”

The irony of the situation is that the real cause of the depression, which is now international and promises to be permanent, is the fact that international production has far outgrown the world’s demands. The growth of rationalisation tends to make matters worse. The obvious trend of industrial affairs to-day is towards international combinations and the splitting up of the world’s markets among a few immense combines, which would restrict and accelerate production to meet the demands of the market. This will bring in its train a huge body of permanently unemployed that will become more and more menacing to each capitalist nation, and it will tax the ingenuity of future statesmen pretty heavily to find means to keep this huge body quiet and amused.

That any one nation can secure a large part of the international market for any appreciable length of time against competing nations is now practically impossible. The vast strides made in the rapid gathering and diffusion of technical knowledge puts the leading nations on a level basis and prevents one nation from forging ahead of another. In the earlier days of modern industry, England, for various reasons, obtained a flying start and was for a while the manufacturing nation of the world. But the time has passed by when any nation could emulate England. In the heyday of England’s commercial prosperity, British manufacturers supplied foreign countries with the plant, machinery and technical education which are now being used by them to meet their own productive demands and secure a share of other markets.

The present trouble in India, which the Labour Government are handling in true accord with “the imperishable ideals of British statesmanship,” has its root in the fact that Indian industrialists have become conscious of the commercial importance of their steel, cotton and other industries and want a place in the sun-—or, in other words, a fair share of the plums !

At bottom, then, rationalisation is a move to bring the control of industry internationally into the hands of fewer and fewer people and thereby to tighten the bonds of slavery more closely upon the world’s workers. While on the one hand it aims at easing the present anarchy in production by adjusting supply to effective demand, and also tends to make production more efficient by technical and organisational improvement; on the other hand, it aims at making the worker produce more wealth for less wages and increasing the already huge unemployed army. The chasm between the working class and the capitalist class grows ever greater and greater, and can only be bridged by the abolition of the capitalist order of society—as Karl Marx so clearly pointed out many years ago.

There is an illuminating side to the wholesale movement for rationalisation. For decades the standing reproach flung at the Socialist was the charge that he proposed to abolish the small capitalist—that mythical being who is supposed to have raised himself from the ranks by personal effort and was alleged to be a steadily growing: fraction of the community. He has no place, however, in the rationalised scheme of things, he is to be crushed out—the rationalisers make no bones about it ! And he is to be crushed out because he is a hindrance in modern production. Ethical views do not count where economic interests are at stake. It remains now for the working class to point out to the capitalists that they also have become a hindrance to production, as they cannot organise their system to provide adequately for all members of society.

Gilmac.

A Look Round. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

Who's to have the best poison gas ! 

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

“The Community Spirit.”

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

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

* * *

The small shopkeeper finished !

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

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

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

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

C.

Answer to Correspondent. (1930)

From the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

A. Mole (Manchester). The statement that “the very development of capitalism makes socialism more inevitable” was not an error. The phrase will be explained in our next issue.

Notice to Correspondents.

All correspondents must enclose their name and address to ensure their letters receiving a reply in this journal. A nom-de-plume may be used for publication and all matter should be written on one side of the paper.

If the anonymous correspondent who has sent some questions on Marx, will send his name and address together with actual references to Marx's Capital, we will then be able to deal with his letter.

Hull Branch. (1930)

Party News from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attention of readers in the Hull district is drawn to the formation of a Branch. All who wish to co-operate in the activities of the new Branch are asked to communicate to the Secretary, Mr. V. Coupland, at 287, Beverley Rd., Hull.

S.P.G.B. Propaganda Meetings. (1930)

Party News from the July 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard