Economic laws in operation. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Economic laws are as exacting as any other laws, and if violated they enforced penalties.”

So said Mr. Meredith Whittaker at the conference between masters and men during the printers’ strike, over which he presided last January.

The forty-eight hour week proposal was, of course, tha main subject discussed. The men’s argument was that a reduction of hours must of necessity lessen unemployment, but Mr. Whittaker took quite another view. By the process of, as he termed it, “dipping into” official figures on the subject, he appeared to give incontrovertible proof that the reduction of printers’ hours in the past had hardly effected such a highly desirable result.

“We contest the assertion,” Mr. Whittaker said, “that the shortening of hours reduces the number of unemployed. You secured in 1901 a reduction of 1½ hours per week, nearly 3 percent. the average ; and you sought this largely—you pressed for it—because you said you would solve the unemployment question within your own area or your own society. You got a reduction of hours equivalent to 3 per cent. If the same amount of work had been done it would have necessitated the employment of 3 per cent. more of your members. What was the effect ? The average unemployment in the London Society of Compositors for the five years before 1901 was 2.8 per cent. You were going to wipe that out and have no unemployment in view. You got a reduction in hours, but the panacea did not cure the complaint. It was the wrong medicine. The average for unemployment for the five years after 1901 was 4.4 per cent. When you were working 54 hours your unemployment was 2.58 per cent. The hours were reduced to 52½ and your unemployment percentage leaped up to 4.4.”

The above is an extract from “The Organiser,” issued in May last. The opening statement should be borne in mind by the working class when they are extorted by their leaders to chase airy nothings in the shape of eight hours bills and other capitalist reforms as a remedy for unemployment.

Whenever a reduction of hours takes place either by or against the will of the masters, economic laws sooner or later assert themselves, and the workers are no better off than before. The shortened working time is amply compensated for by the introduction of more efficient machinery and a general all-round “hustle.” Mr. Whittaker said that unemployment is a national question. We go further and say it is international, for wherever the modern industrial system holds sway unemployment exists, and the average condition of the workers of all nations is the same, i.e., they work hard and are poor.

So we have it in plain language from a representative of the master class, that “palliatives” do not tend to abolish unemployment in the least—naturally he did not attempt to show that there could be a remedy.

We Socialists point out the fact that unemployment is inherent in capitalist society, and can only be abolished by abolishing the system of society which gives rise to it. To this end, in spite of the seeming tallness of the order, the working class must organise themselves into a political party conscious of their interest at all times. Then, and then only, will any progress be made. The nucleus of this great party, we say, is the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and if you are class-conscious, join it now.

A. J. G.

Leaves from the diary of a philanthropist. (1911)

A Short Story from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oct. 16, 1908.—This day is the thirtieth anniversary of my marriage and the fortieth of my business career. I remember well even now, how I calculated that my ten-year-old business warranted the step. I always opined that £1,000 per year was the minimum sum upon which a cultivated man could take the step of holy matrimony. My wife’s dowry, of course, helped. As I look calmly back over the forty years I can estimate the relative values of various incidents and personal qualities which have contributed to my successful career. Minor factors in that success have been the building of a railroad near my native town, the growth of population in the district creating a market for my products ; a plentiful supply of cheap labour ; my good fortune in obtaining capable foremen at reasonable wages ; and, last of all, the use of my recognised mental qualities, famed business foresight, and a determination to find regular employment for my beloved workpeople. My native town has indeed prospered : its population must have quadrupled during the last fifty years.

Jan. 9, 1909.—The granting of a commission on sales (usually called profit-sharing) to my shop managers has been a remarkable success, resulting in a large increase in trade. At a dinner which I gave to my staff a few days ago, several of the men spoke in eulogy of the commission scheme. They said, speaking with much feeling, that it had been a continual stimulus to increased exertion, and that without it their efforts to increase trade could not have been so determined. Some of the managers of my retail shops who proved incapable of response to this reasonable stimulus I have been compelled to dismiss.

I received to-day an acknowledgment of the cheque sent to the Guild of Help. It is with deep humility that I thank the Giver of All Blessings for such opportunities to succour the fallen. I notice that the receipt was signed by the chairman of the I.L.P., who is, I hear, chairman of the Guild.

July 9, 1909.—Following the example of my competitors, I twelve months ago placed a suggestion box in each department of my works. This was my scheme. If an idea occurred to any employee which he or she thought would conduce to the more economical working of the department, it was to be written down and placed in this box. For any adopted suggestion I promised a reward of 10s. The scheme has been fruitful—it is one more example of the value of that Mutual Aid which philanthropists see existing throughout all time.

Dec. 3. 1909.—I have been invited to woo the constituency in which I reside, in the Liberal interest. The city is an industrial one and important enough to warrant any expenditure. Have given my political agent £10,000 for charitable purposes, but I am on the horns of a dilemma as regards its distribution. If I give to both Liberal and Tory I shall be accused of trying to change Tory votes to Liberal ; if I give to Liberal alone I shall also be suspected of corruption. It is not my aim to debauch a constituency, but merely to help poor people with whom I hope to stand in intimate relationship.

The Trades Union Congress is being held here this year. I have invited the delegates to a dinner at my place, and also to visit my model factory and see how well-ventilated rooms make the girls work merrily and briskly. The local Liberal paper is sending a reporter to write up the delegates’ speeches. Have arranged for a series of whole page adverts in this paper—the proprietor is an earnest and useful man.

Feb. 6, 1910.—I learnt the value of sobriety and thrift at a Wesleyan Methodist Band of Hope. These cardinal virtues, having stood with me all possible tests, deserve wider recognition and acceptance, so, with this object in view, I purpose building a Wesleyan chapel. A suitable site, about half a mile from my factory, has been secured. It is in the centre of the city, between the Corporation Gas Works and Messrs. Tanquick’s large tanyard.

Hearing that about a dozen capable youths in this town, connected with the various religious bodies, were becoming infected with Socialism, and that in the ordinary way they may, perchance, become eloquent expositors of the Word, I have made arrangements to subsidise them and so allow them to attend a theological seminary. I often wonder why those Enemies of the Red Flag and similar organisations insist upon brazenly purchasing working-class talent : the bargain is too apparent. Clever working lads can be diverted from red ruin in far less ostentatious ways.

May 28, 1911.—I have to-day been pondering over the position I am placed in by recent legislation—I mean of the type of Workmen’s Compensation and State Insurance. Certainly I cannot oppose such legislation, although the new insurance scheme will cost me £500 per year. I readily allow that an employer of labour ought to stand in a moral relationship to his “hands.” He ought not to think always of buying cheap and selling dear, and overlook human duties.

Well-meaning persons say that an increase in the price of my commodities must be the result of this legislation, but they speak rashly. The price I receive for my goods is not just what I desire, not any price I please to ask, but it is defined by well-known economic laws. If I am to save the £500 I must act on different lines. For instance, I buy labour-power, and as a check upon it I intend to purchase an Automatic Time Register. I check other commodities which I purchase, and there is no legitimate reason why I should not rigidly check labour-power. I also intend to economise in the office, first by purchasing an Addressing Machine and a Calculating Machine. I can now obtain an addressing Machine which will address 3,000 customers an hour. This is the track I must follow—economise so that I may ultimately be a helpful citizen. I have given instructions to the head of each department to keep a watchful eye on the machinery market, and to be in touch with all new mechanical improvements. If Lloyd George does not lessen my income he has certainly succeeded in quickening my faculties. But let us not forget the apostolic instruction : “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” If we strive to carry out this great teaching we shall help forward that greater and nobler day when it shall be said of us:

Then in no were for the Party ;

   Then all were for the State ;

Then the great man helped the poor,

    And the poor man loved the great.

John A. Dawson

Answers to Correspondents. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

S. J. Cresswick (Kennington).—The policy of the Socialist Party is to convince the working class of the need for Socialism, and to organise them for its realisation. The Socialist finds all the forces of capitalism arrayed against him, and the tactics to be pursued in combating them depend at all times upon the stage of the economic and political development that capitalism has reached. One thing is certain, however—we can never ally ourselves with the enemy, but must wage unceasing war against him. We have no qualms about using any measure the capitalists provide, such as Suffrage, for instance, to prosecute that war to a successful conclusion. As to the support of a particular measure, that would be decided at the time according to its merits.

L. S. (Nottingham).—Just as on any other specific question, the Socialist Party would decide the action to be taken.

Surplus value. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Commodities are sold at their real values.” Karl Marx

“Good, then,” says our opponent, “since commodities are so exchanged, wherein lies the robbery of which you complain ? The capitalist, in exchange for the commodity labour-power, gives an equivalent value in the shape of money, which the worker can again exchange for any commodity he requires.”

To the casual observer it would appear that there is a contradiction in the Socialist teaching. If the above quoted statements are correct it would seem that the worker does not receive sufficient to satisfy his natural requirements because his labour is not of sufficient value. The question will naturally arise, whence comes the wealth upon which the capitalist lives ? Is it that his labour is of more use to the community, and that consequently he receives more in exchange ? Scarcely, for, as can be readily seen, those who receive the greatest share of the world’s wealth, whatever their ability may be, do not use that ability in production.

The millionaires do nothing in the creation of their bank balances. The capital from which they draw their vast incomes is often invested in concerns they know little about. Maybe the industry in which they are “interested” is in a country they have never visited. The process by which the wealth is obtained is foreign to them, and all that they are concerned with is that the shares purchased by them (or their agents) are of a certain value and are “a good speculation.”

It is possible that the wealthy individual has been instrumental in floating the company in which his money is invested, or he may be familiar with the purchase and sale of “stocks and shares.” He may have amassed his millions in a successful gamble on the Stock Exchange, or in the purchase of a patent or a mine.

But starting a company produces nothing, and a lifetime spent in buying and selling shares, however many thousands it may bring into the pocket of the fortunate speculator, will not raise one atom of metal or a morsel of coal; will not produce an ear of corn or weave a single thread of linen cloth.

In what way, then, does the capitalist obtain vast stores of wealth without producing a fraction of it, while those who seemingly produce all are often without the bare necessaries of existence ?

Before unravelling this tangle, and having shown how the capitalist can obtain wealth without doing anything useful, let us see what the worker does and how he is rewarded.

The proletarian, whether artizan or labourer, seeks a job, the reason being, not that he is particularly fond of the atmosphere of a capitalist factory, mine, or workshop, but that, having nothing to exist upon, he is compelled to get food, clothing, and shelter from those who possess these things.

The worker obtains a situation in a factory, and proceeds to operate some tool or machine, to take part in the production of some commodity. He works for a certain number of hours, and at the expiration of that time is given a sum of money which is called his wage.

He has exchanged his commodity, labour-power, for another commodity, gold. The value of the gold he receives is equivalent to the value of the labour-power expended.

How are these values determined and in what way are these different articles related ?

The value of the gold is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time required to produce it, and the value of labour-power is determined in exactly the same way.

If, for instance, the time taken to produce an ounce of gold be found equal to the average number of hours required to produce those things necessary for the maintenance of an artizan for the period of one month, then an ounce of gold will be (on the average) the price of one month’s labour-power. In other words his wage will be one ounce of gold (£3 17s.10½d.) per month.

During the period of labour the artizan has expended an amount of energy that can be replaced by the expenditure of £3 17s.10½d. Has he lost anything ? Does not the transaction leave him where he was before ? Let us see.

Were we considering a machine or other inanimate object, we should say : “That which was used has been replaced and there has been a fair exchange.” But the worker is human, and as such does not exist merely to labour. He has occupied the whole of a month either in working or in recuperating. This experience has not been an enjoyable one, and had he consulted his own desires he would have ignored the “hooter” and gone about some other and more enjoyable business. He has lost a week of his life, and in return he has nothing to show. To the ordinary worker one week is as the next, and his whole life, with very few and short periods excepted, is spent in the same way. He has been robbed of all the pleasure and happiness that otherwise he might have enjoyed.

How has the employer fared ? He has taken the worker’s labour-power and given in return just sufficient to replace it. Employer and employed enter into a bargain. The employed does the work and gets nothing ; the employer does nothing and gets—what ?

I have previously stated that the proletarian had to enter the factory in order to obtain the means of life from those who possess those things. The capitalist has capital, and enters into the bargain with that. Where did he get it ? He may have got it as a legacy ; he may have “worked hard and saved it by thrift” ; possibly, very possibly, he “pinched” it, but that does not matter for the moment. He advances sufficient for the labourer to live upon for a certain period, and during that period the latter must work and add value to some article or raw material, the property of the employer.

Now while the capitalist pays the full value for labour-power, that is, its cost of production, he does not give the labourer the value of his labour, namely, what he produces.

Given the present mode of production—scientific method, organised labour, power-driven machinery, etc., the worker can produce in 6 hours sufficient to provide himself and his family with necessaries for a much longer period—for at least 48 hours. If, then, the employer works that individual for 24 hours and gives him in return sufficient to maintain him for 48, he can show a profit amounting to the product of 18 hours labour—three-quarters of the fruits of the labourer’s toil.

That is what we call surplus value—value produced by the workers for which they receive nothing in exchange.

The difference between the labour-power of the worker and all other commodities is that in its consumption it creates a greater value than itself.

Prior to the capitalist system there was surplus labour. The labourer at one time produced for himself and also for his feudal lord. His week was divided into days during which he worked on his own land and days in which he was compelled to work for another, but the division was more clear and he could see that a great portion of his life was spent in work from which he obtained no benefit. Under capitalism, however, it is made to appear that the toiler receives full value for his labour by clouding its real meaning, and giving to the term “labour” the significance that should be applied to the expression “labour power.”

“Those who labour in reality feed both the pensioners (called the rich) and themselves.” Yes, and the “pensioners ” are fed well for doing nothing, while those who labour exist upon the offal and the shoddy.

To abolish the commodity nature of human labour-power is the object of the Socialist, for while the labourer is compelled to sell his commodity in the open market its price will approximate to its cost of production and the working class will be compelled to accept a subsistence while robbed of the comforts of life that they themselves produce.

Twel.

The use of religion. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“In societies such us ours, in which the inequality of fortune presents a striking contrast besides our political equality, the religious sentiment is the best means of reconciling and uniting together the rich and the poor….. It teaches the poor man to be patient and honest amid all temptations, to be confident of a brighter future here below, and to look beyond the world to the hope of a good reward in another and a higher sphere of existence.”—M. Chevalier

Mrs. Partington again. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

A. Kay

Blogger's Note:

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

“Daily Express” policy. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Commenting on the article “King Capital’s Coronation” in our June issue, the Daily Express of June 8 waxes righteously pharisaic.

It compares Socialism, which “means degradation and ruin,” with Daily Expressism, which “supports all measures designed to lift humanity to higher levels, to improve the conditions of life for all classes, to add to the sum of human happiness, and to promote the welfare of the whole community.”

Also—but this quite incidentally—”to make the workers more efficient” and “to give the British manufacturer fair play.”

That is what we workers are too stupid to see. If instead of studying Socialism we read the Daily Express, what an improvement would be wrought in us. Made thereby wiser and more efficient we should no longer dream of wronging the poor downtrodden manufacturer. We should learn to love “laws which are immutable” and to bear patiently “distresses which must continue as long as the world shall last.”

But a horrid thought obtrudes.

If economic laws are immutable and social distress unending, why does the Daily Express waste its time in supporting measures designed “to uplift humanity to higher levels,” etc ?

Can it be that Mr. Pearson, who is really responsible for this balderdash, doesn’t care a hang about the world’s impossible uplifting, but looks only to certain social and financial benefits which such twaddle obtains from the capitalists and their Government ? Perish the suggestion !

None the less, there is something the workers can learn from the Daily Express.

It is not to throw money away buying it.

A. Hoskyns

Letter: The Socialist Party and Reforms. (1911)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party and Reforms.

[To The Editor.]

Forest Gate, Essex.

Sir,—Recognising your Party’s hostility toward reforms, and being, for the most part, in sympathy with your standpoint in this respect, I still remain without any knowledge as to how such reforms as the following can be considered as being detrimental to working-class interest, and some comment on the matter may, therefore, elucidate your unswerving attitude in regard to any reform whatsoever:

(1) Educational reform (already conceded).

(2) Male suffrage (ditto)

(3) The feeding of school children, from the point of view that it is impossible for children to be effectively educated unless well fed. If they are well fed, therefore, it would follow that as a result of their education they would better understand their position in life than they would if they were ill-fed and mal-educated. Therefore why oppose this reform ?

(4) Secular education— the advantages of which need no comment.—Yours, etc.,

L. A. Bostock

 

Reply:

The S.P.G.B., as distinguished from every other organisation in this country, is the party with Socialism, and nothing but Socialism, as its object. It is, consequently, not to be side-tracked into raising mere hostility to reform or the reverse—into equal importance with its object. Its guiding principle is not hostility to reforms but hostility to capitalism ; and since its aim is Socialism its whole policy in regard to reforms is dictated solely by the exigencies of the class struggle for Socialism, and must continue to he so dictated, whatever changes in the conditions of the fight may intervene.

Wherever needful for its object the Party must, therefore, make use of, ignore, or resist, any reform as determined by the particular circumstances. Consequently it cannot seek support for or advocate any policy of reform or anti-reform, for such must always be sacrificed upon occasion for its object, while such policies might—as seen in other organisations—attract those who do not accept the object of the Party, thus weakening its definite aim. All such matters are considered by it as worthy of attention only in so far as they bear distinctly on the question of working-class emancipation.

This subordination of all means to one end, and of all issues to the supreme one of the conquest of the State for Socialism, is the only logical policy for the Socialist Party. Without it, indeed, the party could not be Socialist.

Mr. Bostock is, therefore, completely in error in assuming that in showing the unsatisfactory nature of reforms in themselves, and their utter futility as solutions of what is called the “Social Problem,” the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably “detrimental to working-class interest.”

Even were the capitalists omniscient and of one opinion on. every point, it would still remain a fact that they are compelled by economic development to weaken their stronghold. Our enemies are forced, as it were, to dig their own graves, and it is by no means our policy to prevent them doing so. We should, indeed, be traitors to our cause did we not endeavour to make it profit by every mistake and every point of weakness of the enemy. There is danger only in allowing any consideration whatever to influence the policy of the party other than its object and the conditions of the struggle necessary to its attainment. Socialists, in short, must beware of being scared or cajoled either to the right or the left of the scientific way to Socialism.

With regard to the reforms enumerated by our correspondent, our attitude results inevitably from the position outlined above. All of them have been dealt with in these columns. Let us, however, briefly notice them here.

(1) The Education Acts were not motived (despite declarations to the contrary) by any wish on the part of the ruling class as a whole to benefit the workers, but to benefit themselves and to obtain cheap and efficient wage workers. It should be noted that the paltry measures of working-class “education” now in force stop short even of this despicable ideal. Therefore the Socialist has certainly no feeling whatever of gratitude toward his exploiters when he takes the fullest advantage of this reform for the furtherance of the workers’ cause.

(2) Male suffrage does not exist. We take the greatest useful advantage of the present property suffrage, and would not consider Adult Suffrage “detrimental to working-class interest.” Socialism is the interest of the many, not of the few ; its method, therefore, is that of democracy. But since Socialism is greater than all means, we would not bargain with our enemies, or bate one jot or tittle of our object or principles for any extension of the franchise, much less for a more promise. We have, moreover, seen the dismal folly of supporting an individual or a party that is utterly opposed to us on every vital point because of some minor point of utility. The grain of good is overwhelmed by a flood of harm.

(3) We do not oppose, and never have opposed, the feeding of school children. We have adversely criticised certain proposals for State maintenance, which would mean the taking of children from their parents to be reared in barracks by the State, pithed with anti-working-class ideas, and given the mentality of the flunkey. We have further pointed out the economic effects of such a measure on the labour market, where feeding here, is often counterbalanced by more misery there, and where, owing to the worsening trend of economic pressure, every attempt short of Socialism to stem the tide of increasing working-class poverty must fail. And we have pointed the inevitable Socialist moral.

It is, further, a fallacy to assume that the class-consciousness of the worker has any definite relation to the amount of food he gets. The flunkeys are probably the best fed and the least class-conscious. The slum-proletariat is the worst fed, and is hardly more class-conscious than the wage-slaves of flunkeydom. We rely neither on feeding nor on starving, but upon ripening economic conditions, together with sound Socialist propaganda.

(4) As to Secular Education under Capitalism, it may well prove a mare’s nest. Its advantages may possibly be non-existent. Only when religion has lost its efficacy as a working-class drug will it be abandoned by the ruling class in the schools. But what will take its place ? A scientific curriculum ! Or superstition in even worse forms, such as cunningly devised capitalist ethics, or a deadlier patriotism ? Hence the peculiar wisdom of the classic phrase “Wait and see! ”

Reforms usually take away with the left hand what they offer with the right, and the last state of the reformed is often worse than, his first. There is a vast difference between the vague proposal and the final measure. The latter may in its own. cunning clauses more than neutralise the grain of good originally proposed. Let the capitalist class, therefore, take entire responsibility for its handiwork. Our lack of enthusiasm and severely critical attitude toward all reforms of whatever colour is, inconsequence, fully justified. Not only do we regard them as mere minor and relatively insignificant incidents in the class war, but we know them to be, in the main, fraudulent in themselves.

SOCIALISM can no more come by an accumulation of reforms than a new and up-to-date boiler can result from an accumulation of patches on an ancient one. It presupposes the conquest of. political power by the Socialist working class —the SOCIAL REVOLUTION.

A program of reforms is not only superfluous, Its existence proves that the party possessing it has taken reform for its object instead of Socialism. It is, moreover, a fraud upon the toilers, for until they are supreme their party can pass no reforms —these are grants by the capitalist class, to be considered only in so far as they can be made use of for the cause—and when the working class is triumphant reforms will be entirely redundant, for Socialism will be here.

W.

Suffragette mangled. (1911)

Party News from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another serious blow has been dealt the “time wasters” and “confusion mongers.” This time the deed was done in the ancient borough of Gravesend, which is far-famed for its shrimps and its cesspools. The recipients of this latest trouncing were the Women’s Social and Political Union, and their champion was “Organiser” Miss Laura Ainsworth.

The debate took place at the “Clock Tower” on Saturday, June 3. Even before the debate commenced the lady flew the white flag by desiring that the wording of the proposition should be altered, to which ye gallant knight, Anderson., with his usual courtesy, agreed. Then the lady, who should have opened by affirming “That Women’s Suffrage is essential for the betterment of the Working Class,” with that true understanding of “Women’s Rights” which might be expected of her, refused to speak first, thus putting Anderson in the curious position of having to confirm a negative. However, our comrade’s first speech made it evident to the large audience that the lady’s case was hopeless. Miss Ainsworth’s first effort made it still more so; and the second speech of Anderson so reduced the supporter of votes for wealthy women that the debate became almost a farce.

The poor girl tried again, but could not last out her appointed time, and left us about 9.20 in a hurry to catch one of those convenient trains.

Anderson then spent the rest of the time up till 10 p.m. answering questions and putting the Socialist position, and so effectively did he do this that the members of the I.L.P. who were present had dismay writ large on their faces.

It was a splendid meeting. Good propaganda was done and some of the humbug of the pseudo-Socialists ably exposed. Everyone present was supplied with leaflets, and the Independent Labour Party were once more publicly challenged to support in debate their claim to the title of Socialists.

W. G. Wragg

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For July. (London District.) (1911)

 Party News from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

My usual moan when posting the lecture lists from the Pre-WW1 period: Not enough label space on the blog for all the speakers listed, so it becomes an SPGB Sophie's Choice at my end. (Poor taste? Just a tad.) Anyway, here's some brief info about some of the speakers who missed the cut:

• H. Joy: A member of Tooting Branch. Joined the Party in October 1907.
• C. Parker: A member of West Ham Branch. Joined the SPGB in May 1906, and was lapsed from membership in October 1929.
• F. Stearn: A member of Tottenham Branch. Lapsed during the war.
• H. Cooper: A member of Earlsfield Branch. Was a member of the SPGB from 1908 until 1915.
• F. J. Rourke: A member of Tottenham Branch. Was a member of the SPGB from 1909 until 1914.
• C. Ginger: Another member of Tottenham Branch. Charles Ginger was one of those SPGB members who joined the Party more than once. There's a suggestion that C. Ginger could also be Frank Grainger, who had originally left the SPGB to join the Herald League. (See Ken Weller's book). Frank Grainger eventually rejoined the SPGB in the 1930s, and was actually selected as the Party's parliamentary candidate for the East Ham North constituency, which the Party was planning to contest at the probable 1940 General Election. (WW2 intervened.) According to Ken Weller, after he resigned from the SPGB, later worked for the Economic League.
• J. Nightman: Here's a wee mystery. J. Nightman is listed 6 times in the July 1911 lecture list but there's no record of a 'J. Nightman' in the membership records. As I've mentioned previously on the blog, the membership records are incomplete and it's possible 'J. Nightman' is one of those missing members. Alternatively, it could have been a nom de guerre that a socialist had had to adopt whilst fighting the class war. We'll never know.

King Capital’s Coronation and its real meaning to the working class. (1911)

From the June 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Much Ado About the.

A King is to be crowned.

In the presence of our Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Premiers of the five dominions of “our” mighty Empire, arid the assembled monarchs of many lands, and the Lord God of Israel and the Stock Exchange himself.

The Crown, and the Sceptre, and the Sword of State, and the Cap of Maintenance, and the Rod with the Dove, and the Monkey on the Stick, and all the other symbolical insignia and regalia which have come down to us from barbarism, along with ye Ancient Order of Foresters and ye game of skittles, are to be brought from their dungeon in the Tower (where they have rivalled a pawnbroker’s window) and taken to the House of God at Westminster, there to be used in the great ceremony.

And there, before a vast concourse of gentlemen who have won the same distinction in the divorce court that their forefathers gained in piratical, slave-hunting, and other plundering forays of the past, and of high born dames whose “Sir Joshua Reynolds” peach-bloom cheeks are veritable triumphs of the house-decorator’s art, and other high-born dames whose ancient lineage goes back to the mighty Pork Kings of Chicago, one George Wettin, a most cosmopolitan British gentleman, will swear great oaths to be faithful to certain hoary superstitions, and to uphold certain important and worthy institutions, and to lay hold of eternal life, and to do it all for the dirt-cheap, upset-competition price of a million a year or nearest offer.

Shampooing of George Wettin.

And then another gentleman, who makes a point of doing the job in his nightshirt, scabs on and scandalises every tiddle-wig in the Kingdom by giving the said G. Wettin a dry shampoo with consecrated hair oil, in the full blaze of the public eye, and to the evident perturbation of the Unicorn, who claims affinity with the barbers by virtue of the pole sticking out of his forehead.

What does it all mean; the Crown, and the Orb, and the Sceptre and the Sword of State, and the Cap of Maintenance, and the rest of the jewelled symbols?

What does it mean: the swelling Anthem, the mumbled prayer, the intoned exhortation, the anointing with oil, the Crowning and Enthronisation?

What does it mean: the barbaric pomp and splendour, the lavish display of wealth, the clank of arms and armour and the jingle of spurs, the foregathering from the ends of the earth of the Empire’s rulers?

What does it mean: the flaunting flags, the streets lined with police and military, the hoarse acclamation of pallid millions whose rags flutter a significant reply to the bunting overhead, the bestowing of a meal upon thousands of little children whom hunger makes glad to accept even such a trifle from hands so heavy-laden with wealth that they cannot feel the weight of the charitable grains they scatter?

We are told that these gaudy jewels, this “impressive service”, are full of symbolism and historic significance. They are indeed. To the worker who will think it is very obvious that the Crown and the Sceptre and the rest are the symbols of ruling power. But who it is that rules, and who it is that are ruled, are matters less generally understood.

It is commonly believed that “royal” power is the attribute of the monarch of a constitutional country, but nothing could be farther from the truth. That question our capitalist masters in this country fought out many years ago. They have left the King his name and his robes, his Crown and his palaces, but they have stripped him of every vestige of power. The “Crown” is not the King, in any capacity, but the capitalist State. The King’s Speech to Parliament is written by his Ministers, even the prerogative of mercy is not the King’s, but belongs to the capitalist Cabinet.

How are the Mighty Fallen!

The subservience of the royalty of capitalist countries to their capitalist paymasters is shown in such acts as that of the present King’s father (then Prince of Wales) in publicly associating himself, at the time of the “trial” of the Jameson raiders, with Cecil Rhodes, the arch-fiend in that disgusting business, who was even then busy engineering the war which was to give the cosmopolitan mine-owners £4,000,000 a year in extra profits, at the cost of so many thousands of workingmen’s lives.

Even the swearing to uphold the institutions of capitalism is all bunkum and make-believe, There is today, in this country at all events, no institution of capitalism that the capitalists themselves are not fully able to maintain, or that they trust to other hands than their own. Why, this man whom they swear to uphold the very walls of capitalism, they do not trust even with the command of one of the fleets of his own (!) navy, for fear he might be in a position to dictate terms to them, or act detrimentally to their interests.

The King as such is a nonentity, a dummy, a convenient cloak behind which the capitalist class carry on their operations of robbing the workers of the fruits of their toil. As a private individual, the landlord of vast estates, George Wettin may make himself feared, but no one trembles at his royal word, or quakes at the thunder of his anointed brow. If the great ones of the capitalist world bow and scrape before him, it is only because he is the incarnation of capitalism, the symbol of the domination of a class of parasites and thieves, the image of themselves triumphant. They know that while the workers will flock in millions to cheer this straw man of theirs, dragged through the streets like a fifth of November guy, they and their plunder are safe. Hence they set the example of deification, knowing well they will be followed by their sheep.

Playing the Game.

The aim of the master class is to keep the workers ignorant, for an ignorant subject class, not knowing how to act in their own interests, can be more easily and inexpensively kept in subjection than an educated one. In fostering this ignorance the first thing to be done is to preserve the inertia of the mind – the tendency of the mind to run in an unchanging direction.

The capitalists know, as well as we do, that it is changing environment that causes the alteration in the mental outlook of the people. Their great endeavour, therefore, is to oppose to that ceaseless evolution in the world about them, over which they have no control, counteracting conditions and influences. Hence they cling with the tenacity of desperation, to the empty husks and decaying forms of the past.

This can be seen in every dominant interest, since every interest, when it has become dominant, becomes conservative and reactionary. It explains why the Catholic Church clings so frantically to its out-of-date forms, why the Anglican and other Churches set their faces so relentlessly against innovation, and why capitalist countries would rather convert their monarchies to their own ends than abolish them.

The Use of Kings.

A king, in the popular mind, rules by divine sanction and in accordance with grey and hoary custom – as the Archbishop will remind the world at the great shampooing in the words: “Be thou anointed with holy oil, as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed. And as Solomon was appointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet, so be you anointed, blessed and consecrated king over this people, whom the Lord thy God has given you to govern.”

The capitalists, on the other hand, have no ancient usage behind them, no special appointment from heaven. Unless they can disguise the fact of their dominance, they are clearly seen to rule by might alone – a perpetual challenge to might. A ruling class which has to confess that it rules because it possesses the means of life, already has one foot in the grave, for it holds a lamp to the line of class cleavage that all men may see.

This is the real use of monarchs in capitalist States. Behind the person of the King the capitalists can hide the fact that it is they in reality who rule. By parading their kings before the workers at every possible opportunity, and with every circumstance of pomp and display that their ingenuity can invent, by investing them with divine right and something of divinity itself, the capitalists awaken and stimulate and nurture that spirit of reverence which is so deadly an enemy to the growth of revolutionary ideas, and so detract attention from themselves.

As it is to the interest of the capitalist class to represent that they, together with the working class, are subservient to a greater power, and to set the example of loyalty to their king, it becomes the imperative duty of Socialists to strip the sham of all its disguising tinsel, and to expose the grim, sordid, unromantic, iron form of tyrant Capital beneath it all. No kingly power exists today in Western Europe. Everywhere the owners of the means of production have either bent the monarchy to their will or broken it. Power lies alone with the class of property-owners. They rule who “buzz” us to the check-board at dawn, who tell us we are “sacked” at dusk; they rule who grind our faces on the factory mill-stones; and rob us at the pay-box; they rule who lock us out of the workshops and quarries and mines, in order to convince us by starvation that their view of the value of our labour is correct; they rule who make mockery of their own laws, and bury our poor fellows alive in blazing coal seams in the bowels of the earth. They rule who own.

Clear your minds, fellow workers, of any idea that these Prime Ministers of the Dominions of the Empire have gathered together to render homage to the house of Hanover. They come to celebrate the dominion of their class and to take steps in conference assembled, to ensure the continued crucifixion of Labour. The whole of this inglorious show, indeed, is subordinate to this object. It is not an effort to solidify and make more stable the monarchy, but to blind the workers to their true position, and make capitalist domination more secure.

It is for this reason that the impudent thieves mock your poverty by flaunting in your faces the wealth they have stolen from you. They wish you to believe that you are sharers in the stupendous opulence all their efforts could not hide from your vision. The late Lord Salisbury, wise in his generation, once cynically said that what the working class wanted was not education but a circus. They are giving us a circus, in order to make our minds less receptive of education.

Fellow workers, there is but one meaning attaching to class rule, and that is class plunder. No man wishes to rule over another except to plunder him. Consider whence comes all this wealth and luxury which is to riot before your weary eyes? Is there one jot or tittle of it that you have not made? You, the workers of the world are the true Atlas. You carry the world upon your shoulders. Your strong arms sow, and reap, and gather the harvest of the field, your stout hearts face the terrors of the mine and battle with the dangers of the deep; your virile brains conquer natural forces, and turn the tyrants of the Cosmic System into agents of wealth production. And what is your portion of it all?

This question is answered by the ranks of armed men who press your serried masses into the gutters, by the gaudy regimental banners whose last glorious inscriptions are “Belfast” and “Tonypandy”, by the proposal to compel you to pay to ensure that you shall have 6s. a week to keep wife and family on when you are unemployed.

As long as you are ruled starvation will be your lot, for those who rule over you can always plunder you and always will. You are ruled, not by kings, but by those who possess the land, mines, factories, machinery, railways, and other means of production and distribution, and just because they possess those things. Since you are denied access to those things all the doors of life are shut against you except that of the labour market. You must become wage slaves – must sell your energies to those who own the productive forces. This means that goods are produced for profit, and that profit, that wealth you produce but which is taken away from you, goes to glut the market and to throw you out of work, so that you and your children starve when the warehouses are fullest.

The remedy for all this is to take these means of production and distribution away from their present owners and make them the property of the whole community. Bread will then be produced to feed people, not for profit, and clothes to clothe them, and houses to shelter them. All able-bodied adults will take part in the necessary social labour, and all will partake freely of the wealth produced.

To do this the workers must first study Socialism and organise to capture political power, in order that the political machinery may be used to end for ever the class domination which political power alone upholds.

A. E. Jacomb

Portrait of a Monopoly: The British Match Industry (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The arrangements we have described above form a complete and integrated monopoly . . . and the system as a whole operates, and is likely to operate, against the public interest as respects the supply both of matches and of match-making machinery.”

In these forthright terms the Monopolies Commission sums up its report on the British match industry, the sixth and latest of its investigations into restrictive practices in the United Kingdom.

The information now made public by the Commission throws revealing light on the way monopolies develop and operate, and on how they are maintained. It shows also what profitable ventures they can be for those capitalists able to form them and keep them going successfully. Drawing on the Commission's report, and using it to illustrate the practices common to all monopolies, let us examine the monopoly that has grown up inside the British match industry.

The Foundations of Monopoly

The first objective of any company seeking to carve out a monopoly must be to obtain control over the production and distribution of the particular commodity it is interested in. It must make itself, for all practical purposes, the only firm in the industry. In the British match industry, one company has succeeded in doing this.

This company is the British Match Corporation, otherwise known as B.M.C. Formed in 1927 as a holding company from the amalgamation of Bryant and May (and its subsidiaries) with Masters. Ltd., it is today responsible for almost the whole of the British home output of matches—about two-thirds of total consumption.

Linked with B.M.C. is another monopoly—the Swedish Match Company. Older readers may remember it in connection with the activities of Ivar Kreuger, the Swedish millionaire—speculator. It is this combine, with ramifications throughout the world, that provides the. remainder of the matches required in the U.K. These imports, it should be noted, are in turn controlled and distributed in this country by B.M.C. Taking home production and imports together, it is therefore obvious that B.M.C. is in almost complete control of the British market; for the mathematically-minded, the exact proportion is 92 per cent. These figures show clearly that the essential foundation of a monopoly—a stranglehold on output and distribution—has been most successfully obtained by B.M.C.

Also to be noted is the fact that Swedish Match, with 30 per cent. of the Ordinary shares in is actually its largest single shareholder. With this voting power behind it, it can of course wield considerable influence should the need ever arise.

Preserving a Monopoly

It is difficult enough to succeed in establishing a monopoly: it is even more difficult to maintain it and keep it thriving.

First and foremost, there must always be a careful watch for possible rivals. These must be rooted out quickly and dealt with ruthlessly. The record shows B.M.C. and Swedish Match to have been adept at this and it is most interesting to see how both partners have played their part in dealing with the threats of competition that have arisen from time to time.

On the home front, B.M.C. has made use of two methods, both very simple and both very effective. The first has been to undersell its competitors by offering cheaper brands of imported matches at reduced prices in selected areas whilst keeping the general level of its prices unchanged. In this way it has succeeded in keeping down competition at very little cost to itself. The second and perhaps even better method has been to charge its competitors high prices for essential raw materials, of which it again happens to be the sole controller. On this particular point the Commission found that B.M.C. was charging its competitors 77 per cent. more for certain chemicals than its own subsidiaries.

The part played by Swedish Match has been just as effective, by virtue of the fact that in its turn it has a monopoly over the machinery used in match-making. This has been more than enough to keep potential large-scale competition in check, as the following will show.

In its report the Commission mentions that two attempts have been made by other firms to start manufacturing matches on a large scale. The first of these was the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which in 1932 thought of setting up its own factory. In the subsequent negotiations in which Bryant and May became involved, the Society was actually offered some shares and Debenture stock in B.M.C. This offer was not taken up, and in 1936 the Society came to a definite decision to begin the manufacture of matches on its own account. Its efforts in this direction were completely unsuccessful as it found itself unable to obtain the necessary machinery. In 1938 it approached Bryant and May for permission to use certain machinery the rights in which, it understood, were held by that firm. The reply, which can hardly have been unexpected, was: “we hardly think you can expect us to assist you to obtain machinery which is destined to replace some, at least, of the goods we have hitherto supplied to the Societies.” Instead they proposed a deal between the Society and one of their subsidiaries, whereby profits would be divided between the two. This proposal was rejected by the Society, and it made a further attempt to get the necessary machinery. It was again unsuccessful.

Yet another concern tried for five years prior to 1934 to start manufacture on a commercial scale, again without success. In this year a most remarkable letter was sent to B.M.C. from the President of the Diamond Match Company of America (he was also a director of B.M.C. and of Bryant and May) reporting that he had arranged for some “friends” to employ an American technical expert who happened to be already under contract to this concern. The agreement reached with this expert included an understanding that he would “tactfully and earnestly work to discourage” the concern. His “consideration” for this agreement was $600 per month, to which Diamond had agreed to contribute one third, and the letter asked B.M.C. to make a contribution. This letter is so revealing of what goes on behind the scenes where monopolies are concerned that it is worth reproducing in full:—

"I have arranged to have friends employ Mr. . . . . on some experimental work that has nothing: whatever to do with the British Match Industry and will not affect to the slightest degree any of the operations abroad in which you are interested. My friends have had to reach a definite understanding and make a confidential agreement with [Mr. . . .]. which under no condition must be given publicity either here or in Britain. They have obligated themselves to pay him S600.00 per month. It is understood that [Mr.  . . .] may be called from the United States to work for . . . Ltd. [an English company]), and if he is called to go to England to do work for these people with whom he has a prior contract, he will not be paid by my friends. It has also been agreed, however, that he will tactfully and earnestly work to discourage . . . Ltd., that he will do nothing to get out of his contract with [. . . Ltd.] which would encourage them to hire some other expert or have machines made for them elsewhere. If he succeeds in discouraging [. . . Ltd.] and in getting out of his obligation to these people, then he will work exclusively for my friends for a period of three years and during this period of time will not do any outside work for any other interest whatsoever. [Mr.  . . .] has told my friends that he personally is tired of the English company, who have been continuously deceiving him, putting him off, and have been unable to date to get responsible people on your side to go forward with matters as promised and outlined. [Mr.  . . .] thinks that in the near future that he will be able to drop all connections with [. . . Ltd.] and that [ . . . Ltd.] will cease to exist as a living match producing possibility.

“In confidence, permit me to say that of this S600.00 my Company will contribute one-third of this monthly amount just so long as [Mr. . . . ] does no work whatsoever for [ . . . Ltd.] or any company interested in match making in Britain or Canada. Do you care to make any contribution in this matter?"—Report, page 120.

The result of this appeal was that B.M.C. also agreed to make a contribution of one-third. It continued making regular monthly payments until May, 1943, by which time, presumably, no further trouble was to be expected from the concern in question.

The Rewards of Monopoly

Finally we come to consider the rewards of monopoly. They are indeed substantial and worth all the effort put in to obtain them. On the manufacturing side, for example, Bryant and May's profit before the war averaged 35 per cent. annually, and that of its main subsidiary (Moreland) 45 per cent. The average profit of Masters was about 26 per cent. In 1950, according to the Commission's calculations, Bryant and May's profit was 16 per cent., Moreland's 34 per cent., and Masters' 30 per cent., the lower figures reflecting the operation of Government price control. On the import side, where distribution only is involved, pre-war profits averaged 10 per cent. dropping to 4½ per cent, in 1950.

The Commission’s strictures on B.M.C's costs and profits were most severe:

"The profit on sales of all three B.M.C. manufactures whose costs were examined was very high before the introduction of statutory price control, and the profit of the two lower cost manufacturers was still very high, having regard to the relative slight trading risk. B.M.C. has told us that it is its policy to make as much profit as it can, and that in its view competition insures that the prices charged are fair. Since it is clear that B.M.C. has taken all possible steps to eliminate competition, with marked success, and there is, in our opinion, virtually no competition in this trade, this safeguard is illusory, and it is not surprising that profits have been high.

“We conclude that there is scope for the reduction of both costs and profits of B.M.C. and that it is unlikely that either would have remained as high as they have if there had been any effective competition.”

The Commission’s Remedy

The remedy put forward by the Commission is, not unexpectedly, a dose of State intervention. Some of its members, however, disagree on the strength of the dose to be administered. Three of them, who state their views in a minority report, are all for a more “drastic” remedy than that prescribed by the other members of the Commission. This, they suggest, should take the form of a Government buying agency, armed with exclusive powers to buy all matches, whether home-produced or imported. In effect, they seek to oppose a monopoly seller with a monopoly buyer.

The majority of the Commission, however, are not impressed by this “drastic remedy.” In their opinion, it would lead to still greater rigidity in the trade and might not result in cheaper matches anyway. This latter Observation is certainly borne out by the results of State interference so far, and should be particularly noted by Labourites who so airily assume that State-control reduces prices. The majority’s preference is for a more thorough system of price-control on the part of the Government. This, they themselves admit, is only a partial remedy, and they agree that it would leave the present market-sharing arrangements between B.M.C. and Swedish match untouched.

Nobody can be very impressed with either of these remedies, not even the most ardent supporter of capitalism judging all issues by the direct and immediate effect they have on his pocket.

The Real Remedy

The Commission’s report is now with the Government, and it will be interesting to see what the Tory defenders of private enterprise and free competition finally decide to do with it. As for the Labour Party, hard up for policy and feeling rather out of things, they will probably do their best to blow it up to be something of much greater importance than it actually is.

For our part, we would make just one point. Monopoly is nothing new to capitalism; indeed it is inseparable from it. It is the logical outcome of the drive for profit, and experience has shown all over the capitalist world that as fast as one monopoly has been suppressed, another springs up elsewhere. The history of “trust-busting” in the United States is a perfect example of this. The remedy of bringing in the State does not put an end to monopoly; all it does is to replace private monopoly by the monopoly of the State. Whatever the advantages a State monopoly may have for the capitalist class, it is nothing for the working-class to get excited about. They should have had enough experience of the workings of State control by now to realise this.

Monopolies will disappear only when capitalism disappears. It is not monopoly, but capitalism, that is the issue. Socialism, the real remedy, will do away with both. When, as seems likely before long, the Labour and Conservative Parties create yet another storm in a teacup over what is to be done with the British match industry, workers should remember this.

Stan Hampson

The Passing Show: Indo-China (1953)

The Passing Show Column from the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Indo-China

Last month this column examined recent events in Indo-China from the standpoint of the relations between France and her three Indo-Chinese colonies, which are now called “Associated States.” This month it may be of interest to investigate the manoeuvres between France and the United States which arose from the same events—the advance of the Viet-Minh into Laos and their subsequent partial retreat. As against the native ruling class in Indo-China, the French Government was able to play the part of spider: but in relation to the United States, the French rulers were forced to fill the humbler role of fly.

* * *

Keep Out: Private Property

Even before the Viet-Minh moved into Laos, the American stand was clear. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, who although he was defeated in the Presidential election spoke for the entire American ruling class in this matter, said in Saigon that the United States would continue its “indispensable aid to the Associated States so that they should be able to take their place among the independent nations of the free world" and he added that “the United States was following with attention the first steps of the Viet Nam Government towards democracy” (The Times, 8-4-53; the references that follow unless otherwise indicated, are also to The Times). In other words, Mr. Stevenson wanted the Associated States to free themselves from the suzerainty of the French—with the result that the extension of American economic and political influence in that part of South-East Asia would become much easier.

The French ruling class understands quite well the American intention; and when Laos was invaded by the Viet-Minh, and the Laos Government issued a strong appeal for help “to the United Nations, to the allied countries, and to the free peoples,” The French Government followed this up with a much more moderate statement, addressed only “to the free peoples” (16-4-53). It seemed that the Laos Government would not have objected to the landing of American armed forces; but the French statement was carefully framed to exclude the possibility of the Americans turning Indo-China into another Korea, since that would lead inevitably to the transfer of Indo- China from the French to the American sphere of influence. As The Times delicately put it, “ it would almost certainly loosen the ties binding France to the Associated States of the French Union ” (29-4-53).

* * *

I took a harp to a party

The United States was not at all reticent about offering its “help.” Mr. Dulles, the American Secretary of State, went to Paris and urged the French Ministers to bring the “aggression” in Laos before the United Nations (29-4-53). Back in Washington, he announced publicly—and, no doubt he hoped, temptingly—that the Administration was considering channelling new military assistance to the French-led forces in Laos (30-4-53). A few days later Mr. Dulles sent along two or three dozen American transport planes in Indo-China, as an earnest of the “assistance” the French would get if they only agreed to internationalise the war in Indo-China (4-5-53).

* * *

But nobody asked me to play

The days went past, and the French made no move to call in the United Nations (which, in the present state of world power, means the United States). The only overt reply to these repeated American offers and gestures was a speech in Saigon by M. Letourneau, the French Minister for the Associated States, who said that “France was determined not to abandon any of the states associated with her” (6-5-53). While these words were obviously intended first for the consideration of any of the Associated States which might feel tempted to get out of step, their significance was presumably not lost in Washington. This speech, in fact, may have shown the American Government that this particular tack was hopeless. Laos itself could not appeal to the United Nations because it was not a member; France clearly was not going to; but there was always the chance that the Americans might get a foothold yet in Indo-China by means of Siam.

Now Siam is as much within America’s sphere of influence as is Korea. It is ruled by a military junta, which has the active support of the Americans (notwithstanding their propaganda about “democracy” and “freedom”). As The Times said recently, “the obvious effect of American aid has been to strengthen the military oligarchy. It gains extra support with the arrival of every American carbine . . . The foundations of political power are the military and police barracks of Bangkok and not the village polling booths ” (30-4-53). 

* * *

So I took the darned thing away

“Faced with French hesitations” said The Times in a leading article, the United States Administration seems to hope that Siam—next door to Laos—may call attention to a slate of affairs likely to endanger the peace outside Indo-China” (11-5-53). But the same article went on to warn against such a step. “There are many member States which would make this an excuse for all the old attacks on the colonial system rather than an opportunity for dispassionate investigation And it is true that there is nothing more tiresome than bringing up your enemies’ faults for discussion, only to find that those present prefer to concentrate on your own shortcomings. However, the Americans went ahead. Ten days later the Siamese Ambassador in Washington announced that his Government intended formally to complain to the United Nations Security Council about the invasion of Laos (21-5-53).

Nevertheless, it seems that for once the American Government has missed the boat. With the delay caused by the intransigence of the French, the Viet Minh have had time to withdraw most of their forces from Laos, and it seems improbable now that the Americans will be given the opportunity to come to the “assistance” of the French in Indo-China even if the Siamese complaint is favourably received.

* * *

May Day, past and present

For years, in this country and abroad, the Social Democrats used May Day as an opportunity to advocate their remedy for the ills of society—state ownership of industry. May Day was often followed by a month of exceptional working class activity, including strikes, in which Social Democrats were prominent. Now, in a number of industries in France, the Social Democrats have had their way, and nationalisation has come. But what change has there been? The labourites in France still use May Day to proclaim the virtues of state-industry; and then, as trade union leaders, they bring the workers out on strike in those very industries which are now run on the system they advocate. In France this year there were five big strikes in May: in the merchant navy, on the railways, and in the gas, electricity and Paris transport undertakings (21-5-53). And all five of these industries are under what is called “ public ownership ” !

Since nationalised industry, with all the prestige and power of the state behind it, is stronger in disputes with the workers than private industry, all the Social Democrats have done is to change the boss’s name and give him a bigger stick.

* * *

Ninepence for Ninepence

Now that half a century of legislation has established the so-called “Welfare State,” none of the big parties would think of attacking it in word or deed. Family Allowances, for example, mean that the workers with large families, who formerly would have been the first to feel the pinch of low wages, and to agitate for strike action, are now to a certain extent pacified with a few extra shillings a week; and the money to pay these allowances (and the other benefits like free doctoring and the dole) comes from the workers themselves by way of national insurance contributions. Before this system was well established, however, there were some Tories who did not clearly understand it, and who were afraid that somehow the workers were going to get something for nothing. They believed Lloyd George’s tendencious slogan about “Ninepence for Fourpence’’ and Labour Party propaganda on the same lines. But getting something for nothing has always been the prerogative of the class which exacts surplus value; and the fear that the working class was going to usurp this age-old privilege drove the right wing of the Tory Party into panicky hostility to anything which smacked of benefits or allowances to the workers. A small section failed to recover its balance even after the Welfare State had demonstrated in practice that it certainly did not give the workers anything for nothing. The Conservative Party as a whole, while it saw how valuable the various National Insurance schemes were to the capitalist class, and while it even flooded the country with posters claiming to have thought of the whole idea first, still did not break entirely with the extremists; and the diehards could always depend on a sympathetic hearing in the Conservative papers.

* * *

Waugh on the Tories

But Mr. Evelyn Waugh’s latest book, a long short-story about “welfare-weary citizens” called "Love Among the Ruins,” and the review which it has drawn forth from the Sunday Express (31-5-53), may mark the beginning of a new development. Mr. Waugh, hitherto the arch-priest of the diehard Tories, is annoyed that the official Conservative Party has become so enamoured of the Welfare State that it is now claiming paternity; and in his novel, a forecast of the immediate future, he has Mr. Eden entering a coalition with Mr. Bevan, and he describes the “Euthanasia Department,” the scheme for which was "a Tory measure designed to attract votes from the aged and mortally sick.” From one Tory to another, this is a nasty crack. The irritation which a property-owner naturally feels when a worker, weary of his lot, absents himself from his task for a single day, is nothing compared to the fury aroused when the worker, still more weary, dares to absent himself from this world permanently by committing suicide. Anything which makes voluntary death easier, like euthanasia, is therefore anathema to a supporter of the capitalist system (though compulsory death is a different matter, as the history of the first two world wars shows us); and Mr. Waugh takes a serious step when he hints that the Tory Party would be prepared to support such a scheme in order to get votes. The Sunday Express has therefore joined the anti-Waugh camp. It accuses Mr. Waugh of being a bore, of being grotesque and tasteless, and puts his latest effort down to premature senility.

If one may take this episode as a straw in the wind, it appears that the Conservatives, and the handful of extremists who think like Mr. Waugh, have finally parted company. The Labour Party may take comfort from the fact that they and the Tories are now at one in their support of the Welfare State.

* * *

The great attack

President Eisenhower recently gave a warning of the power that is in the hands of the American ruling class if war comes. He said:

“To-day three aircraft with modern weapons can practically duplicate the destructive power of all the 2,700 planes we unleashed in the great break-out attack from the Normandy beach-head” (21-5-53).

This statement comes with special force to those who saw after the Second World War the wreck and rubble which alone marked the sites of what had been a score of flourishing Norman towns. It seems that Socialism is no longer merely to be described in the terms of our Declaration of Principles—a society we must bring about “that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom”; with the development of the atomic bomb, the progress of society has become a race between the advent of Socialism and the advent of social suicide.

* * *

Drawing one’s own conclusion

If the sun had shone on the day of the Coronation, we should not have lacked newspaper pundits and parsons to assure us that here was evidence that Heaven itself was smiling on the crowning of our glorious, slim, lovely, radiant (—plus other adjectives to taste) young Queen. As it happened, the day was cold and rainy. But so far we have neither seen nor heard any account which, from these facts, has drawn the opposite conclusion.

Alwyn Edgar

The Future of Leisure (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The phrase “working for a living” suggests a distinction between working and living which most people accept. But if “working occupies five or six days a week and fifty weeks a year, how much “living” is left?

That was the challenging question put to readers of the “Radio Times” some little while ago, in describing a programme on “What is Work?” The question is of particular interest to socialists, who advocate a form of society in which such a distinction between working and living (or the division of living into work and leisure) will no longer be recognised.

The present division which exists for most people between their work and their leisure is the product of historical conditions. Probably the concept of leisure as something apart from and opposed to work was unknown in societies in which there was no privileged class. Some primitive people have no word for “work” —work is for them the expression of living. And even the class-divided Greek civilisation evolved no separate word for leisure—the word they used also meant “school.”

The handicraftsman and artisan received a certain satisfaction from the work they did. They made whole articles, and used their skill and inventiveness to overcome the difficulties which arose. They were really educated by their labour. But the manufacturing division of labour under Capitalism has changed all that. A large proportion of workers are relegated to monotonous machine-minding and office routine, and few are able to gain real satisfaction from their work.

Even those who do make things that are useful to people often do not gain the pleasure of a good job well done, because of the tyranny of clocking-in, speeding-up, and down-to-a-price quality of products. Capitalist and worker alike are dominated by the need to compete successfully with others, since failure means an end to their “living"—yet success is bought only at the price of orienting one's life to goals that are trivial and artificial instead of basic and real.

Leisure Class

The emergence of a class in society that is not compelled to participate in production coincided with the beginning of private ownership. A leisure class was the outgrowth of an early discrimination between employments, some being considered worthy (“exploit” by the males) and other unworthy (drudgery by the females).

“During the predatory culture labour comes to be associated in men’s habits of thought with weakness and subjection to a master. It is therefore a mark of inferiority and, therefore, comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his best estate. By virtue of this tradition labour is felt to be debasing, and this tradition has never died out. . . . In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence. . . . A life of leisure is the readiest and most conclusive evidence of pecuniary strength and, therefore, of superior force; provided always that the gentleman of leisure can live in manifest ease and comfort.”—(“The Theory of the Leisure Class” Veblen, p. 36-8.)

Yet the fact remains that work is the foundation of any society. Hence, the value of work to society should be its prime consideration. But because, within property society, the dominating ideas arise from people who need not toil, and because a substitute for satisfaction from work must be found for millions who know it only as an evil necessity, leisure becomes the supreme goal.

Employment is a necessity imposed upon all but a privileged few. Consequently there comes to be a divergence between the conditions of working “for a living” and the kind of life which is held out by supporters of the system as desirable. The message preached is that the end of life is idleness and enjoyment. But workers, having absorbed the message, must return to the factory or office to earn the money without which they cannot live.

Machinery of Amusement

The means of mass influence—press, cinema, radio and television—all focus attention on those aspects of our lives that have nothing to do with everyday tasks. People figure in the “news” who are notable only for having money and time to spend. The constant display of wealth and leisure as desirable ends influences the standards of those who seek an outlet to express themselves which the conditions of their work deny them.

Various factors have combined to oust the old family-gathering type of popular leisure—doing has given way to watching and listening. Probably the Victorian party-piece was not as happily endured as many would have us believe, nor is the advent of television the unmitigated evil that some suppose. Nevertheless, leisure has largely taken on the form of a commodity that is passively consumed rather than an experience that is actively enjoyed. As Henry Durant writes in “The Problem of Leisure":

“All forms of leisure have become commercialised, endless devices are offered to the idle person, each to be enjoyed only on condition that he has money to pay. Without money he is condemned, unable to share in the pleasure and pastimes which press on him from all sides. But commercialisation does not merely erect a gate through which only those with the necessary fee can pass. It has a profound effect also on the nature of the fare offered. The ’machinery of amusement’ is run by business men actuated by business motives. Their concern is not primarily with the character of the entertainment or amusement they provide, for it is merely the means to the end of making profits.”

The ways in which leisure is spent are unavoidably influenced by the prevailing conditions of employment. Take, for example, the workers on a belt system in a factory who, in the course of their work, use only a small part of their brain capacity and nervous system. To stave off monotony their off-duty hours are mostly spent in such feverish pleasures as speedway and the more hectic forms of dancing—and their nervous systems inevitably suffer.

When work lacks interest it is either forgotten altogether on “knocking off” or else it is the subject of grumbling. It is not complimentary to be told that you can never forget your work; and those who do take their socially useless work seriously often develop boring personalities and have few interests outside their daily occupations.

Self-expression

Here we can do no more than touch upon the various ways in which people search today for something different, something outside of their own drab existence. The cinema is an obvious example that springs to mind, but there are others that are not so often considered. All the preparations, the plans, the excitements and the ballyhoo that surrounded the recent Coronation surely demonstrate the emptiness of most people's everyday lives. And what of the weekly football pool coupon that excites study and comment out of all proportion to its importance? The punters are members of a Happy Circle, so they are told—and the atmosphere of mock geniality is shattered only when a court action is brought over winnings. Then it is admitted that the “Happy Circle" is just an advertising circular.

Some imagine that the socialist revolution either will or ought to bring a state of affairs where all will spend their leisure as the wealthy do now. Certainly the atmosphere in which they move is one to which the adjective “drab" hardly applies. Yet if you ask those who minister to the “needs" of the élite whether the latter really have the control over their environment that is the mark of free men, then the answer may surprise you. According to one writer, for instance, the rich take up gambling more or less because they are driven to it—they find they are “out of it" unless they join in roulette or whatever happens to be in vogue. And so they drift from one aimless diversion to another . . .

Whilst the first onset of mechanisation has taken all the joy from work, it may be predicted that its final result will be to return to human activities a freedom that is absent today. Man will then possess the machines and use them selectively, thus restoring dignity to all human occupations. Labour, in Marx's words, will be not merely a means to live, but itself the primary necessity of life.

Stan Parker