Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Liverpool Education Committee have completed arrangements for establishing technical evening classes for the female employes of the Ogden Branch of the Imperial Tobacco Company. The classes have been arranged at the request of the Company, who are providing rooms, lighting, heating, and cleaning free of charge to the Education Committee.” Manchester Guardian, 24.11.08.

The public spirit of the Imperial Tobacco Company is, of course, quite disinterested.

* * *

A conference was recently held at Bradford with regard to the system of employing children half-time in mills. Mr. Jonathan Peate reported on the conference to the Council of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. In the course of his report are the following items. “Some firms employed a large number of half-timers, and if the abolition of this class of labour took place, or if the age limit was increased, it would be a great hardship to those firms.” Again: “In many cases, also, half-timers were earning an income which, if the system was abolished, would make a serious difference to, and cause great hardship to, the families to which they belonged.” And further : “These children were receiving training in the practical work of a mill which must be of the utmost value to them in later years, when they had to earn their own livelihood.”

* * *

Funny, isn’t it ? Thus are the interests of capital and labour identical. The half-timers are charitably employed because of the hardship to their families if deprived of their small wages ; the employer will also suffer hardship if he cannot employ them, and has to employ some adult (perhaps the half-timer’s father) to do the same work at higher wages.

* * *

And when the little beggars cease to eat in idleness the bread of charity, and are compelled to take life seriously and begin “to earn their own livelihood,” such training really might be of “the utmost value to them,” if they are not unemployed owing to a new generation of half-timers having supplanted them. In this case it would seem that their only hope lies in the direction of begetting baby breadwinners (did anyone say “Socialism” ?) as soon as possible.

* * *

The cry of the parents driven by economic pressure to send their children to work in order that subsistence level may be reached by the aid of their wages, is on a par with the cry of the “We cannot see them starve” sufferer from sentimental diarrhoea, who wants to do something for the unemployed under capitalism. He does something for them by blinding them to the only solution, in urging them to look for help to the class whose existence depends on a continuance of a reserve of unemployed labour.

* * *

A delegate to a deputation of teachers who visited Mr. McKenna on November 5th, 1907, showed how reforms may be made of no avail towards combatting the evils they are, ostensibly, directed against. Mr. Sykes (N.U.T.), speaking of half-timers, said that in 24 years experience he ”had never known a child rejected as physically unfit, although some of them were not robust enough to be allowed in the playground.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian (6.11.07), dealing with this matter, said in effect, the half-timer keeps down the wages of adults by the competition of his cheaper labour, and is in turn forced, by entering unskilled employment, to a lifetime of low wages, and is flung into the industrial system whilst he should be playing.

* * *

“There has never been a Socialist speech delivered in the House; no Conference (of the Labour Party) has ever accepted Socialism except as a pious opinion. In some form the House of Commons would accept a Socialist resolution, provided there were no committal, but even that step has never been ventured.”

Ben Tillett in Justice, 5.12.08.

* * *

This is hard on our S.D.P. M.P., Will Thorne; but so far as one can see, if Ben Tillett is elected for the Eccles Division he will be on the same basis as Thorne. He will be elected as the “labour” candidate for Eccles, and not as an avowed Social-Democrat, vide S.D.P. rule 41, and rule 42 cannot be enforced by the E.C. of the S.D.P. any more than in the case of Mr. Thorne. We are not likely to hear a Socialist speech from Mr. Tillett, however, because on July 20th, 1907, he “was adopted by the Eccles Division Labour Party as Labour candidate, with the distinct understanding from the Dockers’ Union that his title should be ‘Labour Candidate.'” So wrote the General Secretary of the Eccles Division Labour Party, on October 8th, 1908, to the Manchester Evening News, correcting a statement that Mr. Tillett was “the adopted Social-Democratic candidate for Eccles.” I have seen no repudiation of this statement so far. Mr. J. R. MacDonald, also, in a published letter to Mr. Tillett, tells him he is “one of our candidates.”

* * *

“Referring to the unemployed, Mr. Grayson said that Mr. Blatchford was at present organising a scheme for feeding the hungry. If they ran short of funds they would appeal to Rothschild, the Duke of Portland, and the like, to put down a bit of their surplus cash, and if that appeal failed, all they could then say to the unemployed was ‘use your own savage discretion.’ If they could not get work and could not get food, then, without inciting, they would gently indicate that it was their indefeasible right to have bread.”—Manchester Guardian, 9.11.08. Report of speech at Greenfield, 7.11.08.

* * *

Poverty is rife under capitalist society to-day, so we will beg of the capitalist class to relieve our needs, not by disbursing all their surplus wealth, but just a bit of it. If we were to ask too much “that appeal” might fail. And when it comes to standing the hungry up “all in a row” before the rifles of the military, you won’t catch us inciting. Oh, no ! That’s risky. They might not accept our humble apologies so readily as they did Bill Thorne’s. And the “stone jug !”—they say you have to be quiet there !

* * *

If the workers cannot afford enough to keep the unemployed fed, we will ask the Rothschilds and others to be charitable. We will leave it to their generosity—we want no semblance of compelling them to disgorge by the strength of our class-conscious organisation. Not at all ! We’ll ask them “to put down a bit of their surplus cash,” and only when that appeal fails will we tell the workers that theirs is the indefeasible right to have, not only bread, but all else they require.

* * *

Even as a vote-catching dodge, this is pitiable, for the other axe-grinders can out-bribe them every time. If the Blatchford brigade give soup, the Liberal party will offer soup and pudding, and the Tory party will come along with soup, pudding, blanket, a suit of clothes and an overcoat to wrap them up in, and will scoop the lot. The race is to the rich, votes to the highest bidder, until the workers are taught what Socialism is; then they will no longer be bought and sold for a mess of pottage or a drink at the bar, will no longer be exploited in “charity,” either for the benefit of Liberal or Tory politician, noisy mumper on the “labour” movement, or the circulation of the “smart” journal of a “smart” set—much too smart for anything deeper than flirtation with Socialism.

Blogger's Note:

This was an unsigned Jottings column, but during this period of the Standard the regular writer of the column was Jim Brough of Manchester Branch, and as the unsigned author quotes from the Manchester Evening News in relation to Ben Tillett being selected as the Labour Party candidate in Eccles, I can't help but think that Brough penned this month's Jottings column.

P.S. Tillett did contest Eccles as the Labour Representative Committee candidate at the 1906 General Election but, by the time that the January 1910 election came around, he'd been replaced by G. H. Stuart-Bunning as the Labour Party candidate.

Prosperity under “Protection”. (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unemployment in New York State

	Idle Continuously for 3 months, Jan., Feb. & March.		Idle last day of March.
	Number	Per cent.	Number	Per cent.
1906	24,746	6.5	37,239	9.9
1907	65,642	13.8	77,270	19.1

1908  101,466                      26.3                    138,131                     35.7

Fortnightly Review, Dec., ’08.

“Unity” as a Habit in England. (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

St. Vincent, Minn., Oct. 11, 1908.

Editor “Trades Unionist” :

Keir Hardie, following the fashion set by sundry British labor politicians, globe-trotting at the expense of capitalist newspapers, has again delivered himself of an athanema against the Canadian Socialist movement.

It is in the control, he says, of “the impossibilist element which

HAS TO BE ‘DOWNED’ EVERYWHERE.”

If there is any place on earth where the impossibilism so deprecated by Hardie is “downed” it is in the “‘Appy land of Hengland,” in the labor movement of which nation Hardie is one of the foremost leaders, and inasmuch as “a tree is known by its fruits,” we would reasonably expect to see a forward, harmonious movement as a result of this “downing” ; that is, if we were fools enough to be misled by the labor, even trade union, Christian, even free trade, even any old thing but impossibilist type of Socialist like Hardie and his ilk.

I am weekly in receipt of two old country Socialist papers, “Forward,” and the London “Clarion,” and there is never an issue but what is half full of “scraps” between these harmonious “compromisers” who are, unlike the Canadian Socialists, completely free from “this dogmatic and blighting creed of withering materialism.” In the last issue of the London “Clarion,” keeping faith with capitalist Liberals there is the Labor party executive in refusing to endorse Edward Hartley in Newcastle, who, mark you, is as immune from the suspicion of being an “impossibilist” as Hardie himself. The reason for which action, as alleged by the “Clarion” writer, is that in double constituencies the Liberals and Socialist, even Labor, etc., candidates have

ARRANGED TO SAW OFF

Hartley, by running at the request of the local I.L.P., S.D.F., Clarion Scouts and the numerous other organisations that go to make up the highly harmonious labor movement that Hardie thinks Canada needs so bad, has seriously imperilled this holy alliance of alleged Socialist leaders and Liberal capitalists ; hence Hartley must be “downed” too. And this is the working out of “modern Socialism,” which, Hardie says, Canadians know nothing of ! Here’s hoping they may long remain in ignorance of this Newcastle brand at any rate.

What is this term “impossibilism,” anyway, that falls so glibly from the lips of Hardie and his type ?

Will any of those “active Socialists ” Hardie refers to, who are repelled by this dreadful thing, kindly explain ? As one who has had this epithet fired at him times without number, and without—as is customary—any illuminating definition, I am naturally curious to know. Reasoning it out by comparing a known “irnpossibilist” with a gentleman known not to be such, I have reached this conclusion. An “impossibilist” is a Socialist who, knowing that in Socialism alone lies

THE ONLY HOPE

of the workers, refuses to preach anything else, and refuses to stultify himself by saying so in one speech and saying something very different in another, and as a consequence is disliked by “practical” labor men.

A non-impossibilist can do both of these things and becomes very popular, a great labor leader, etc., etc.

An impossibilist, knowing that reforms where they do tempt one section of the workers, invariably do so at the expense of the others, says so; and as a consequence gets further castigation from the “practical” politician, whose stock-in-trade is reform.

The impossibilist is, however, reminded that there are reforms which, if enforced, would make matters more tolerable for the workers, but knowing the nature of the class in control, he

WON’T WORK FOR THESE REFORMS

nor recommend them, because if they were put upon the statute book there would be nothing to them ; but the non-impossibilist, being of a practical turn of mind, spends a quarter of a century and untold energy in getting an old-age pension at an age when most working people are dead, and an Unemployed Bill on the statute book that might as well be off for all the unemployed would know about it.

The “impossibilist,” being a very unpractical fellow, foolishly reasons thus: As the workers get their eyes open to the working of the present system and the source of the strength of the capitalist—the political power they proceed to arouse their fellows to wrest the control of public power out of their masters’ hands. The more revolutionary the attitude of the workers the more sops are thrown to them, just, for instance, as a man in a desert, pursued by wolves, often delays pursuit by throwing his clothes to save his skin. If the wolves are wise they don’t waste time chewing indigestible rubbers—they

PRESS ON FOR THE GOOD MEAT.

The non-possibilist dallies by the wayside.

But the non-impossibilist says, “these arguments are all right, but you fellows don’t get elected, and by the goddess of place-hunting you spoil oar chances too !” Aye, there’s the rub ! Get elected ! Make Socialists if you can, but get elected ! Never mind if you prolong the period ; the fool workers must stew and sweat and suffer, chasing up the blind alleys of reform into which you lead them. Never mind if thereby you play into the hands of the astute capitalists. You will reach the dizzy eminence of a great labor leader ; the masses will demonstrate about you and enthuse over you even if they go straight from your meeting after listening to your speech on reforms to vote the master class the right to rule and rob for another season. Also if you can write interesting “copy” wherein you denounce the “impossibilist” Socialist who is foolish enough to be a Socialist and nothing else, the “Daily Lyre” may also finance a trip around the world for you, so you can help to make as big a mess of the labor movement abroad as you have succeeded in doing at home, to the great delight of its middle-class readers. Of course, this sizing up of the “impossibilist” and the wiseacre who is not so is, no doubt, one of the “cruditites that

MARX AND ENGELS SO SOUNDLY TROUNCED.”

‘Tis passing strange that Hardie should refer to Marx and Engels as authorities at all, seeing he he has repudiated on more than one occasion their main propositions in which are embodied the doctrine of the class struggle and the materialist interpretation of history ; but in a sense the reason is not far to seek. This class struggle, when it reaches a certain stage, plays the very devil with the political ambitions of reformers, because it unites those wage workers whose position in human society is such that no reform in capitalism can benefit them and who have intelligence enough to see that the object for which these workers unite is not to dicker about the price for which they will sell themselves for given periods when their masters need them to work. They know that this price is fixed by conditions outside of themselves and circumstances over which they have no control. If the C.P.R. machinists had listened more to the Socialist “impossibilist” and less to the “get something now trade union reformer,” they would not have made such asses of themselves during the last nine weeks. They would have spent some of the money they lost in wages to dispute with the masters this fall, their title of ownership to that railway property that the working class created and alone give value to. Methinks if they had done that and spent the same energy they squanderd in bucking an overstocked labour market, in matching an empty stomach against a bank vault, they would have caused such a flutter amongst the dove-cotes of capitalism that the capitalists themselves would have set about

REFORMING THEIR SYSTEM

to the very limit, and that whether they elected their man or not. Incidentally they would have inspired other workers to follow suit, and, by the way, it is not yet too late. Never mine your compromising, place-hunting trade union leaders. If you knew as much as an owl you would refuse to vote for a man who was only a Socialist when not seeking office, and was afraid to label himself so when he was up for election. Wherever you see a Socialist candidate this fall who is “impossibilist” enough to make his campaign on this issue alone, viz., the

DISPOSSESSION OF THE CAPITALIST

owners of our national industries and the vesting of the title of ownership in the community, with the elected representatives of the workers who operate those industries in control, vote and work for his election. Leave the compromisers at home. If he will compromise to get elected, he will sell you out to stay elected.

In conclusion, I would ask those who read Hardie’s anathema to re-read it and note where his sympathies really lie. Note the severity and contempt with which he handles his brother Socialists, who, at the worst, are merely using unwise methods of propaganda. And in contrast note his references to the “delightful experience” he had interviewing “the wealthy man who had worked his way up from poverty to affluence,” and who was so “sincere,” although the “unconscious humor” of his “poetic” declarations made Hardie smile, etc., etc. Go to, Hardie. Get back to ancient St. Stephens and have a cup of tea with King Ed and the rest of the “me, too” Socialists. Canadian Socialism is much too modern for you or any other British labor leader to catch up with.

—John T. Mortimer, in The British Columbian Trade Unionist, Vancouver, Nov. ’08.

Blogger's Note:

The editorial from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard covers Hartley and the 1908 Newcastle-upon-Tyne by-election.

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued) (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

[Continued from the October issue]

Specially translated for the Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

8.— Increasing number of large concerns, combines.

If the extension of a concern forces its owner, the capitalist, to engage officials in order to lighten his task, the increase in the surplus-value due to the extension recompenses him for that expenditure. The larger the surplus-value, the more of his functions is the capitalist able to transfer to officials, until he has at last rid himself entirely of his managersLap, so that he has left only the “anxiety” of advantageously investing that part of his profit which he does not consume.

The number of concerns that have arrived at such a condition increases from year to year. That is proved most clearly by the growing number of Joint Stock Companies, where, as even the most superficial observer must recognise, the person of the capitalist has already ceased to be of any importance, only his capital being significant. In England 57 Joint Stock Companies were formed in 1845, 344 in 1861, 2,550 in 1888, and 4,735 in 1896. There were 11,000 companies, with a share capital of over £600,000,000 actively engaged in 1888, and 21,223 companies with a share capital of £1,150,000,000 in 1896.

It was considered that by the introduction of the system of share capital, a means had been found to make the advantages of larger concerns accessible to the small capitalists. But, like the system of credit, the system of share capital, which is only a particular form of credit, is, on the contrary, a means of placing the capital of the “smaller fry” at the disposal of the large capitalists.

Since the person of the capitalist can be dispensed with as far as his undertaking is concerned, anybody possessing the necessary capital can embark in industry, whether he understands anything about the particular trade or not. Hence it is possible for a capitalist to own and control concerns of the most varied kind, having perhaps no connection one with the other. It is very easy for the large capitalist to obtain control over Joint Stock Companies. He only needs to own a large proportion of their shares—which can easily he purchased—in order to make the undertakings dependent upon him and subservient to his interests.

Finally, it must be stated that generally, large capital increases more rapidly than small capital, because the larger the capital the greater (under otherwise equal conditions) the total amount of profit, and hence also tli,o income (revenue) which it yields ; again, the smaller the proportion of the profit consumed by the capitalist for his own use, the larger is the portion he is able to add as new capital to that already accumulated. A capitalist whose undertaking yields him £500 a year, will, according to capitalist ideas, be able to live only modestly on such income;. He will be fortunate if he succeeds in putting by £100—one-fifth of his profit—a year. The capitalist whose capital is large enough to yield him an income of £5,000 is in a position, even if he consumes for himself and his family five times as much as the first mentioned capitalist, to turn at least three-fifths of his profit into capital. And if the capital of a capitalist happens to be so considerable that it yields him £50,000 a year, it will be difficult for him, if he is a normal being, to use for his living one-tenth of his income, so that, though indulging in luxuries, he will easily be able to save nine-tenths of his profits. While the small capitalists have to struggle ever harder for their existence, the larger fortunes increase by leaps and bounds, and in a short time reach enormous proportions.

Let us summarise all this : the increase in the size of the undertakings : the rapid growth of the larger fortunes ; the diminution in the number of undertakings ; the concentration of a number of undertakings into one hand, and it then becomes clear that it is the tendency of the capitalist mode of production to concentrate the means of production, which have become the monopoly of the capitalist class, into ever fewer hands. This development is ultimately tending towards a state of things where all the means of production of a nation, nay, even of the civilised world, are becoming the private property of a single company, which is able to dispose of it at its discretion; a state of things where the entire economic structure is welded into one gigantic concern, in which all have to serve one single master and everything belongs to one single owner. Private property in the means of production in capitalist society leads to a condition where all are propertyless with the exception of one single person. It leads, indeed, to its own abolition, to the dispossession of all, to the enslavement of all. But the development of capitalist commodity-production leads also to the abolition of its own basis. Capitalist exploitation becomes contradictory, if the exploiter can find no other purchasers of his commodities than those exploited by him. If the wage-workers are the only consumers, then the products embodying the sxirplus-value become unsaleable—valueless. Such a condition would be as terrible as it would be impossible. It can never come to that, because the mere approach to such a condition must so intensify the sufferings, antagonisms and contradictions in society that they become unbearable, that society collapses if the development has not previously been steered into a different channel. Bui if this condition will never be reached, we are rapidly drifting that way, indeed, more rapidly than most imagine. For while on the one hand the concentration of the separate capitalist concerns into fewer hands is proceeding, on the other hand with the development in the division of labour the mutual dependence of the seemingly independent undertakings is growing, as we have already seen. This mutual dependence, however, becomes more a one-sided dependence of the small capitalists upon the larger ones. Just as most of the seemingly independent workers carrying on home industries in reaity are only wage-workera of the capitalist, so there are already many capitalists having the appearance of independence, yet subservient to others, and many capitalist concerns that appear to be independent are in reality merely branches of one huge capitalist undertaking. And this dependence of the smaller capitalists upon the larger increases perhaps more rapidly than the concentration of the various concerns in the hands of the few. The economic fabrics of capitalist nations are already to-day, in the last resort, dominated and exploited by a few giant capitalists, and the concentration in the hands of a lew firms is little else than a mere change of form.

While the economic dependence of the great mass of the population upon the capitalist class is growing, within the capitalist class itself the dependence of the majority upon a minority (decreasing in number but ever increasing in power and wealth) becomes always greater. But this greater dependence brings no more security to the capitalists than to the proletarians, handicraftsmen, petty traders, and peasants. On the contrary, with them as with all the others, the insecurity of their position keeps pace with their growing dependence. Of course, the smaller capitalists suffer most in that respect, but the largest capital, nowadays, does not enjoy complete security.

We have already referred to a few causes of the growing insecurity of capitalist undertakings, for instance, that the sensitiveness of the entire fabric as far as it is affected by external disturbances, increases ; but as the capitalist method of production intensifies the antagonisms between the different classes and nations, and causes the masses facing each other to swell and their means of combat to become ever more formidable, it creates more opportunities for disturbance, which give rise to greater devastations. The growing productivity of labour not only increases the surplus-value usurped by the capitalist, but it also increases the amount of commodities which are placed on the market, and which the capitalist is compelled to dispose of. With the growing exploitation competition becomes more intensified, as does also the bitter struggle of investor against investor. And hand in hand with this development there proceeds a continual technical evolution ; new inventions and discoveries are unceasingly going forward, and in so doing destroy the value of existing things, thus making not only individual workers and single machines, but entire plants of machinery and even whole industries superfluous.

No capitalist can rely upon the future ; none knows with certainty whether he will be in a position to retain what he has acquired and leave it to his children.

The capitalist class increasingly splits up into two sections: one section, growing in number, has become quite superfluous economically, and has nothing to do but squander and waste the increasing mass of usurped surplus-value that is not used as fresh capital. If one calls to mind what we have mentioned in the previous chapter regarding the position of the educated in present society, one will not be astonished to find that by far the greater number of the rich idlers are throwing their money away on mere coarse pleasures. The other section of the capitalists, those who have not yet become superfluous in their own undertakings, is decreasing in number, but their anxieties and responsibilities increase. While one section of the capitalists is decaying more and more owing to idle profligacy, the other section is perishing by never-ceasing competition. But the insecurity of existence of both sections grows. Thus the present method of production does not permit even the exploiters, even those who monopolise and usurp all the tremendous advantages, a complete enjoyment of them.

The great modern crises, which now rule the world market, arise from over-production, and are the consequence of the anarchy necessarily connected with the production of commodities.

Over-production in the sense that more is produced than is required can take place under any system of production. But, of course, it can do no harm if the producers produce for their own use. If, for instance, a primitive peasant-family harvest more corn than they require, they store up the surplus for times of bad harvest, or in the case of their barns being full, they feed their cattle with it, or at the worst leave it on the field.

It is different in the case of the production of commodities. This production (in its developed form) presupposes that nobody produces for himself.

[To be continued]

Fraud or Fool? An Open Letter to the Bishop of London. (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

My Lord Bishop,—The Press reports you as saying recently, at a meeting convened by the State Children’s Association, that “Any boy now being taught in their Poor Law Institutions might sit on the throne of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if he had the brains and power.”

The most charitable construction that can be put upon this startling announcement is that you lack information, and since you are in a position which could readily enable you to obtain such information, you are a fool. As you should have learnt from one of your own textbooks, “A fool despises instruction.”

The inability to definitely posit you as fraud or fool by no means demonstrates that you are neither. In the hazy atmosphere compounded of episcopal mendacity and aristocratic thickheadedness which represents your mental equipment, your public utterances loom up tinged with varying proportions of the murky ingredients which gave them being.

The moral kink treads hard upon the intellectual twist. Folly and Falsehood were ever twin monsters of one brood.

I will not press you to give your definition of the word “power.” The habit you have fallen into of using sounding phrases which may haply disguise insincerity of heart, and clearness of mind, precludes you from giving precision to terms which cry aloud for such treatment at your mouth—”blind mouth,” Milton would have said. Your formal adherence to creeds and doctrines which you dare not examine, your futile juggling with the metaphysical niceties of an outworn creed, your £10,000 a year, are a bar, an ever increasing barrier, between yourself and intellectual candour.

What of your Ordination Oath, when one of your own clergy brazenly proclaims the prostitution of his office and of his intellect ”in his own pulpit at St. Margaret’s Church,” by declaring he mouths “formularies to which, as an individual, he cannot ex animo subscribe” ?

“Power”! Your statement with regard to the word in question simply means that “Any boy now being taught in their Poor Law Institutions might sit on the throne of the Archbishop of Canterbury if he could manage to do the trick.” “Any boy can punch his neighbour in the eye if he can.” “What will happen will happen.” 0=0. Startling conclusion ! Cerebation extraordinary—which brings me to the question of

BRAINS.

I understand from your utterance that you hold intellect to be one of the main necessities for success in life. That is a fair inference from your statement. You give adhesion to the taradiddle which declares to the French youth that every private carries in his knapsack the baton of a marshall ; you hold that the humblest clerk in the Admiralty, by strict attention to duty, may one day “become a ruler of the King’s navee”—inferentially that your exalted position is owing partly to an extra dose of grey matter.

A bitter fool !

I wonder what the assembled company in Park Lane thought. Did none wince at that nonsensical nullity of yours concerning “power”? I know naught of Lady Buxton, eke of Lady Courtney, but Mrs. Barnett ? The good lady who so severely takes the servant girl to task for her lack of coherent thinking, who has deplored the lack of “light” among the class which she vainly endeavours to sugar ! And the “secondary and elementary school teachers” present ! Peradventure, the secondaries and elementaries were at Park Lane on strict business bent. “Les affaires sont les affaires, n’est’ce pas.” If the question is not personal, did the presence of those same purveyors of specially doctored capitalist lore afflict you with a sort of sympathetic itching ? On the grounds of a common humanity, sharply and inevitably opposed as you and I must be, my Lord Bishop, on the political field, I sympathise with you for any discomfort you may have felt in the direction indicated. The creepiness of the “secondary” and “elementary” is of so loathsome a nature that a bishop should be spared that infliction.

Perhaps a quotation from Ruskin may help you to grasp my view-point on the question of Success and Brains. The Socialist Party of Great Britain does not swear by Ruskin. It occasionally, perforce, swears at him. But, at any rate, he did see certain isolated facts clearly, if he failed to correlate them, and made a kaleidoscopic colour smudge of what was intended to be an ordered harmony. “In a community regulated only by laws of supply and demand” successful persons are “industrious, resolute, proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, unimaginative, and ignorant.” Not much room for brains here. Per contra, “the persons who remain poor are the entirely foolish, the entirely wise, the entirely merciful, just and godly person.” Eh ! Ruskin wasn’t orthodox ? You repudiate him as witness ? My Lord of London, Right Reverend Father in God, bland participator in the profits distilled from the life’s blood of the workingman, reeking with the shame of the unsexed working woman, bloody with the agony-drops of children,—will ye accept the ruling of the phantom figure which you and yours have exploited in your own interest for so long, and whom you have solemnly declared to represent the highest attainable wisdom ? You are never tired of telling us the “His Life” was the highest teaching, irrespective of precept. So. And yet your Incarnation of Highest Truth, your Very-God-of-Very-God-Man made a sorry hash of his life, reproaching the Unbegotten-Very-God-of-Very-God in his dying agony. I beg pardon. You say, ha ! He attained the highest success. M’yes, but that was not the kind of success you contemplated when beaming on the Park Lane assembly. The archbishop’s throne, the bishop’s chair, have not, of recent years, been associated with martyrdom. What you indicated was, that the poor little worker’s kiddy stood an excellent chance of collaring the £15,000 a year attached to the “throne” of Augustine’s successor.

A word in conclusion. Your cant and rant have no longer much weight with the class that has worked religion for all it is worth, in the only way that it could be worked, viz., for the befooling and undoing of the worker. But you need not therefore despair. If your class has its philosophic doubters, its ethical philanders, its Cheynes and its Hensons, there are still the

PIOUS LABOUR LEADERS;

there are still the “Socialist” bleaters who find such solace in a quiet hour on their knees that they become permanently afflicted with housemaid’s knee on the brain, meek firebrands, valiant worms, revolutionary P.S.A’ers, to whom you may still address your pagan patter and mushy moralising. A tip, my Lord. Next time you address a gathering on a similar subject, why not invite a few of the meek-eyed crowd herein indicated ? That you may bore each other to mutual damnation is the final wish of

Yours,

SNOGGY

Correspondence. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor

Dear Comrade,

May I claim the indulgence of a short space in your valuable paper, in order that there may be no error in conception, or wilful misrepresentation, of my conversion to the principles of the Socialist Party cf Great Britain. First of all I recognise that the existence of a Socialist Party, as a revolutionary party, must be consistent with a rigid adoption of its principles, any deviation from that course rendering the party nugatory, and its name a misnomer, as some of our opponents are realising in the humiliating circumstances in which they find themselves when under the cross-fire of criticism that the stalwarts of the S.P.G.B. know so well how to administer. These are circumstances of which, many of your readers and the public will know, I am well able to give from personal experience, as a more trenchant onslaught than I received at the hands of some of the S.P.G.B. members seldom falls to the lot of mankind. No eel in the well sanded fist of a cook, upon the eve of being skinned, ever twisted and writhed as I did, when compelled by the grip of Reason to admit the fatuity of my position. In the political field of this purposely complex system of capitalism, there has been vast scope for the formation of various political parties, societies, and so-called Socialistic bodies,—possessing lugubrious titles, and promoted by political job-hunting rascals,—with a nefarious Press, to circulate their pernicious verbiage—sucking the blood of the country year in and year out, that they may give to their descendants the sop of political power. If the great mass of the workers, environed as they are on every side with poverty, plunder, and oppression, have sufficient strength to repel these political bloodsuckers, to what can it be attributed but to a consciousness of the true inwardness of capitalism ? Given that consciousness and its correct representation by a truly Socialist party, we prove our abhorrence of capitalism by uniting against it all the disciples of a Socialist Commonwealth in Britain.

Yours fraternally,

Quelch

Carnegisms. (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have had to differ from the Daily Express on other occasions, so it will come as no surprise that its remarks on the articles by Messrs. Carnegie and Rockefeller in the Christmas number of The World’s Work should also meet with our disapproval. Its introductory sentence is ominous. “The fallacy of the State ownership of capital, one of the leading Socialist doctrines, is vigorously exposed by the world’s greatest millionaires.” The “leading Socialist doctrine” is, to quote the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party, “the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.” That conversion involves, not the “State ownership of capital,” but the abolition of capital. Capital being the means of production used as the agent of exploitation, its conversion into the common property of society will remove its exploiting character, and stop its functioning as the means of robbing the workers of their produce, so that it ceases to be capital at all, and becomes simply the means of production.

Mr. Carnegie is quoted as saying “the State as sole owner of wealth, would use it just as the owners now use all but a fraction of it; that is, invest it in some of the multiform ways leading to the reward of labour.” Certainly, even under Socialism, a proportion of the wealth produced will need be used reproductively, i.e., as means of production, but the resulting wealth being the property of the owners of the means of producing it, the “reward of labour” will not then be wages, the smallest proportion the workers can be driven by competition and the fear of unemployment to accept, but the whole product of wealth-creating activity, which will go to the workers in its entirety.

“Imagine,” says Mr. Carnegie, “every man, woman and child in Britain receiving £70, which is one’s proportion of the national wealth if equally divided.” While it is perfectly in order to imagine any such distribution of wealth, it is absurd to suggest that it would embody “the leading Socialist doctrine.” The fallacy of the equal distribution of wealth is too hoary-headed for us to specifically deal with now, beyond again pointing out that, given the ownership and control by the wealth producers of the means of production, the enjoyment and consumption of that wealth rests in their own hands because the wealth is collectively theirs. Social ownership is something different from individual ownership, although, apparently, neither Mr. Carnegie nor the Daily Express can realise that difference. Social ownership does not mean £70 for each person, but it means that the material resources of society are open to each person, and, as Mr. Carnegie has pointed out that “all that the millionaires can get out of life is superior food, raiment and shelter,” so we may reply that the best of these primary necessaries will be at the disposal of those who produce them when the means of their production are owned by those who use them.

It is interesting, too, to learn that Mr. Carnegie’s view of co-partnership is that “it tends to bring a realising sense of the truth to both labour and capital that their interests, broadly considered,are mutual.” Also that “Mr. Rockefeller’s views coincide with Mr. Carnegie’s.” This should be sufficient to damn Sir Christopher Furness’ scheme.

“Up to the present time no scheme has yet presented itself which seems to afford a better method of handling capital than that of individual ownership.” This is Mr. Rockefeller’s. He seems to be gloriously oblivious of the economic evolution that has made the ownership of capital to be spread over the whole capitalist class by the formation and perfection of such factors as Joint Stock Cos., Syndicates, and Combines, which, while they help to draw the line between the capitalist class and the working class, are, nevertheless, a breaking down of individual ownership of capital and the building up of a collectivist form of capitalism, by consolidating the capitalists as a class, spreading the ownership over the whole class while centering the control in the hands of those magnates who manipulate the corporations.

The one refreshing point which strikes us is the recognition of the fact by Mr. Rockefeller, that State Capitalism is something different from Socialism, because we are told that in neither the one nor the other “do we find any promise . . . that wealth would be administered for the general good more effectively than under the present methods.”

[Quotes] (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Oaths of allegiance and other official oaths are still taken throughout Europe, but experience shows that in time of revolution they are violated with little scruple, and in the case of the United Kingdom it is doubtful whether they have any more practical value than, if so much as, simple declarations.”

—Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 17, p. 702, 9th Edition.

______________ 

"If you can read, you ought to understand ; if you can write, you ought to know something ; if you can believe, you ought to comprehend ; if you desire a thing you will have take it; if you claim it you will not get it; and if you are experienced you ought to be useful to others."

Goethe

SPGB Meetings. (1909)

Party News from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

World Socialist Radio - What the Fascist Needs (2026)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

What The Fascist Needs by The Socialist Party of Great Britain

This episode argues that fascism and fascists are symptoms of deeper social and economic decay under capitalism — not just isolated groups of extremists or caricatures of “jackbooted thugs.” It dismisses simplistic responses like beating up racists on the streets, noting that violence alone won’t change the underlying conditions that breed fascist sentiment. Instead, it emphasises that many people drawn to fascist politics are alienated, fearful, and frustrated by their position in society under a profit-driven system, and that their attraction to nationalism and hatred stems from this sense of powerlessness rather than coherent political ideas.

The real answer to fascism isn’t merely opposing its street-level activism but challenging and transforming the social conditions that give rise to it — particularly the inequalities and crises inherent in capitalism. Working-class education, solidarity, and unity against nationalism and division are needed to undercut fascist appeal. Only broad social change, rather than repression of individuals, can address the root causes of fascist movements.

Taken from the February 1993 edition of The Socialist Standard.

World Socialist Radio is the official podcast of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. We have one single aim: the establishment of a society in which all productive resources – land, water, factories, transport, etc. – are taken into common ownership, and in which the sole motive for production is the fulfilment of human needs and wants.

RSS Feed for What the Fascist Needs

To read more news, views, and analysis please visit: worldsocialism.org/spgb

What is Socialism? (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is Socialism? Socialism is a new form of society; a form in which the whole of the people of the world will own in common the means to produce wealth and will distribute it according to the needs of each.

All that people want is the satisfaction of their needs, but private ownership has given its own particular slant to what some people need today. To be wealthy today not only means to live in comfort and security, it also means to be the subject of social approbation. Hence the wealthy ostentatiously display their wealth, live in huge mansions, attend lavish balls bespattered with jewels, own numerous motor cars and so forth in order to inspire the admiration of their fellows. Millionaires without a trace of artistic culture accumulate quantities of pictures and other works of art, as well as patronising artistic movements, for the same purpose. When the possession of jewels, motor cars, and pictures is open to anyone who wishes to weigh themselves down with these things the desire to accumulate them will vanish because society will only look upon the accumulator as a lunatic. Water is one of the most precious things in the world to the human race yet no one attempts to hoard up and display huge tanks of fresh water, nor do they carry air balloons to balls and Command Performances. Water and air, except under extreme circumstances, have not been denied to all but those that can purchase them. Under Socialism the products of human ingenuity will be as free to all as water and air are now, and the badges of vanity and superiority will vanish.

One of the fundamental needs of humanity is occupation for the mental and physical faculties. As work at present is a badge of inferiority most of those who belong to the privileged section of society try to find other means of employing their energies; of these sports, dancing, dinners and philandering appear to be the most popular. But a surfeit of aimless pleasures becomes wearying and there is an endless search for new thrills. Under Socialism this wasted energy would he directed towards objects that would bring permanent enjoyment to the individual and to his fellows.

Socialism would not be a dull, dreary, state-regulated system as so many of its opponents suppose. As the whole of the people in free association would control the conditions of existence the aim would be to make that existence as satisfying as human ingenuity could contrive. Productive operations would be carried out under the best conditions that could be devised and harmful occupations would be abolished; people would be prepared to do without those few. things that could only he obtained at the cost of evil consequences to the producers. Humanity is essentially reasonable and where free to act reasonably does so. Educational facilities would be of the best, open to all, and not clouded by the necessity of learning in order to find the right road to employment and social security.

There are workers who, while agreeing that Socialism is desirable, despair of its accomplishment because they believe it would not work owing to the evil propensities which they think Capitalism has bred into the mass of the people. The basis of this view is “I am alright, but the other fellow is hopeless”; it is unconscious vanity. The evils about which complaints are made are the direct product of Capitalist conditions and will disappear with the latter. For example it does not require much imagination to appreciate that when money is no longer needed no one will sell his self respect for it; when bread and other things are as free to all as air is now no one can become a thief; when each participates equally in arranging social affairs no one can become a despot; when all the avenues of happiness are open to everybody no one can gain by bribery or corruption. And so one could go through the whole of the evils that have a corrupting influence today and lead to social misery.

Today the workers of the world produce the wealth of the world but they do so under oppressive conditions on behalf of a privileged class—the Capitalist class. In return for their labours the workers only receive, at best, on an average what it costs them to live meagrely ; but even this condition is doubtful, and the workers follow their occupations with shadow of unemployment darkening their lives and threatening to cast them into the depths of poverty. When the workers desire to cast off their backs the idle and privileged class that lives in comfortable security upon the results of the workers’ labours they will be able to so organise society that essentials of life will be produced with ease and all will he able to live in comfort and security. Then mankind will be on the road to universal happiness, but not before.

Gilmac.

A feeble criticism of Marx (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Wilmott

Juvenile Delinquency (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is well-known that over a very large number of years the figures for Juvenile Delinquency have been constantly rising until, in recent years, they have reached such proportions as to constitute a formidable problem to the Capitalist State.

During the war years complete statistics were not available although what evidence there was showed a sharp increase. More figures, however, are now becoming available.

The “Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1946” emphasises the seriousness with which the problem is regarded.

The Report (p.38) states “Statistics in age groups of the population within the Metropolitan Police District are not available to facilitate deductions as to the growth of crime among children but comparisons of the number of children arrested in 1946 with the figures for those of similar ages arrested in 1945 and 1938 make it only too clear that juvenile crime is increasing among the very young,” and later, “Nobody can fail to be impressed by the figures showing the large numbers of children up to 16 years old who are engaged in crime: the graphs of ages of persons arrested show very large peaks for these ages.”

The figures for juvenile crime approach very closely the figures for adult crime and the Report says of this (p.39) “Nearly half the arrests for burglary and housebreaking were of persons under 21 years of age and 25 per cent. were persons of not more than 16 years old. As regards shopbreaking, the position was even more deplorable. Two-thirds of the persons arrested were under 21 and 30 per cent, were schoolchildren.” The Daily Telegraph, commenting on this Report, says (11/7/47) “The distressing evidence of a fresh growth of juvenile criminality indicates that crime has no difficulty in enlisting thousands of new recruits each year.”

The figures given refer to the Metropolitan Police District only and it is interesting to note that in the Home Office Circular 807624 (1941), the proportion for the total indictable offences, in 1938, is given as: “committed by adults 21 years and over” 49 per cent., “committed by juveniles under 21 years ” 51 per cent. (36 per cent. of the whole total by those under 17 years of age). Many reports have been made on the subject and a large number of books written on it with, it would seem, every author advocating a different solution to the problem, ranging from the sadistic to the Utopian. More punishment, less punishment, corporal punishment, kindliness, State control of children, removal from environment, treatment by psychologists, punishment of parents, education of parents, more hostels, the abolition of slums—all these and more are the remedies of the reformist and humanitarian authors.

The overwhelming mass of delinquency is “crime” against property and, as the Capitalist system of society is based on the class ownership of the means and instruments of production and distribution, the ownership of private property and the inviolability of that ownership is, of necessity, the prime concern of the Capitalist class and of the State, which functions in the interests of that class. The full resources of law and jurisprudence are directed to the protection of the rights of property ownership and the monstrous machinery for the enforcement of those laws intrudes into, restricts and controls the life of every human being in contact with them.

So well is the conception of the inviolability of private property ownership absorbed into the ideas of society that it has become accepted as an absolute rule and its validity is rarely questioned. Therefore, the violation of these laws, even by children, results in the drastic and summary punishment of the offender.

Should private property ownership rights be violated it becomes of paramount importance to the property owning class to apprehend the violator and, having done so, to use the methods they consider best suited to prevent subsequent violation by that person and as a deterrent to potential violators. In past days society regarded juvenile law breaking as a symptom of inherited wickedness and children were imprisoned, transported or hanged, for their offences and until quite recently the most effective deterrent was considered to be severe punishment including imprisonment and birching. The ruling class have never been particular about the means used to gain their ends, but in the case of juvenile delinquency the results were disappointing to them.

In spite of the severity of punishment the delinquency always increased. Savage sentences neither reformed the delinquent nor served as a deterrent to others, and so the methods of dealing with the delir-qnent juvenile have gradually changed. Imprisonment and corporal punishment have largely given way to the approved or reformatory school where the young delinquents are “taught” rather than whipped.

Much is heard lately of the newest editions of these approved schools, known as rehabilitation centres. These modern institutions rely on a more scientific and psychological treatment of the young, dealing with them more from the angle of children who, because of various unfortunate circumstances, have strayed from the path of rectitude and can be reclaimed. Part of this psychological treatment is in kindlier and more tolerant usage and more freedom.

Reformists will claim that the changing law, the new institutions and the less harsh methods of dealing with the inmates are the results of long years of effort on the part of individuals and institutions interested in the reform of juvenile law and corrective establishments. Whilst it may be true that a large amount of data has been collected by such individuals and institutions on the behaviour and reaction of children to certain forms of treatment, and whilst some of this information may be utilized in these new establishments, it is much more true to say that the State has been forced into using new and somewhat experimental methods because of the failure of the old, and, if these have followed lines advocated by the reformists, it is not from any humanitarian motives but because such methods may offer a better chance of turning the potential criminals into what the State, on behalf of the ruling class want—docile and honest wage-slaves.

One point with regard to the modern corrective institution is invariably stressed—and it is a key to the insolubility of the,problem—that detention in it must be a deterrent to further delinquency and as such, must not be made too comfortable lest the children should prefer to be in it rather than go back to their homes and “live in conditions worse than those which would be tolerated in any place of detention and so find compensation in being punished.” (“Juvenile Delinquency and the Law,” p. 168, A. E. Jones.)

It is a moot point, however, whether the new methods reclaim or deter any greater number of juveniles from criminality than the old. What is certain is that both criminality and juvenile delinquency are increasing in spite of a more mobile and efficient police force using the most up-to-date methods and equipment.

Either method, old or new, of dealing with delinquency, must inevitably fail for the simple reason that neither are dealing with causes but both with effects—the effects of Capitalism and, like other effects of Capitalism, such as poverty, insecurity, ill-health, unemployment and war—the very social conditions that give rise to delinquency—there is no solution within the Capitalist system of society. Juvenile delinquency is the inevitable outcome of a system of society that is based on the class ownership of the means of living and which, as a consequence, determines that the vast majority of society shall be divorced from ownership and shall live in poverty and insecurity all their lives, exploited by a minority in order that they, the Capitalist class, shall have wealth, power and luxury. Juvenile delinquents are, almost entirely, working class children. Therefore poverty, whether absolute or relative, is the common denomination of delinquent juveniles, for from that poverty arise the immediate motives of the delinquency—insecurity, frustration, overcrowding, ill-health, ill-treatment, inhibitions and resentments arising from lack of opportunity for self-expression, feelings of inferiority engendered by their class position and “the perplexities, anxieties, frustrations and fatigue associated with employment, the bleakness of unemployment.” (“Child Welfare Outside the School,” p.201, Michael Kaye).

Whilst it is probable that all investigators into the problem of juvenile delinquency agree broadly upon the fact that the social conditions are the root cause of delinquency, they have no solution to the problem. A few reforms in the treatment of delinquents, a few modifications to the laws dealing with juveniles, a pious hope to mitigate poverty or abolish slums, a call for more opportunities and amenities for youth—these have no reality nor any relationship to the real problem.

Subjected to a Socialist analysis the problem is seen to be a manifestation of the social conditions of the time which, in themselves, constitute and produce crime.

The Socialist sees that the existing social conditions are the result of the class ownership of the means of life, that Capitalist relationships are property relationships, that goods are produced, not primarily for use, but for the purpose of making a profit. That the worker is robbed of the values he creates and gets back only sufficient to enable him to exist from week to week in poverty. That in a world of potential plenty the working class go in need always.

Whilst this system of society remains there will be juvenile, as well as adult, delinquency and crime, and no reforms will alter this. Rather, in spite of reforms, will delinquency increase ever further as the working-class position continues to deteriorate and the social conflicts and class antagonisms of Capitalism become yet more fierce as Capitalism becomes increasingly anti-social and decreasingly able to satisfy the needs of society.

Only the Socialist can offer the solution to this problem, which lies in the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism, for when the means of life are commonly owned, there will be no more exploitation of man by man and consequently no poverty, no slums and no overcrowding. No need to steal or lie, to cheat or go hungry, no need to prostitute either body or mind or be overburdened with the cares of the economic struggle for existence because there, will be ample of the means of life for all and each will have free access to them. That is the world that is possible for children if their parents want it, but if the parents fail them then the children become the next generation of wage slaves.

J. R. Hall

Notes by the Way: “No Reparations, No Indemnities” (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“No Reparations, No Indemnities”

At the time the Communists seized power in Russia their favourite slogan for winning the support of the war-weary workers of Europe was “No Reparations : No Indemnities.” They bitterly attacked the Allied victors for trying to collect vast reparations from the defeated Central Powers, opposed the Versailles Treaty and encouraged the rebuilding of Germany as a great power. As Foreign Commissar Molotov was still saying after the outbreak of war in 1939, but before Russia was attacked, “We have always held that a strong Germany is an indispensable condition for a durable peace in Europe.” (Speech to Supreme Soviet, 31/10/39.) In 1929 the British Communists put forward the same plea at the General Election. They demanded “repudiation of all imperialist treaties and pacts—the Versailles Treaty, the Locarno Pact, the Kellog Pact” and “annulment of the Dawes Plan ” (a plan for the collection of reparations from Germany).

Now the tune is altered. Russia’s demand is for the payment by Germany of 10,000 million dollars as reparations. (Manchester Guardian, 15/12-’47.) Curiously the Daily Worker during the meetings of the four Foreign Ministers in London in December, while this was being discussed, was very coy about reporting it and managed on more than one occasion to report the debates without mentioning the figure. Perhaps they have a fear that readers may remember what they used to say about the futility and iniquity of reparations.

* * *

Why Workers Read the “Daily Worker”

The following is a notice issued by the Daily Worker and published by them as an advertisement in the News and ‘Book Trade Review and Stationers’ Gazette (6/12/47). It needs no comment.

“IT GETS AROUND. 

News has a habit of spreading. People soon get to know what’s happening. For instance, there’s a lot of talk in the sporting world about the consistent success of Cayton, the Daily Worker’s racing tipster. After all, 752 winners in the flat racing season is worth talking about! So you will understand why more people are asking for the Daily Worker. If you have difficulty in getting copies get in touch with us, we might be able to help.”

* * *

Some “Austerity” Fortunes

Among the fortunes reported in the Press recently on the death of the holders are the following:

Mr. H. Mountain, £1,122,616;

Sir W. McLintoch, £410,203;

Mr. Hermann Marx, £1,262,492;

Marquess of Lansdowne, £1,023,792;

Mr. Frank Hodges, one-time Secretary of the Miners’ Federation, £132,959.

Mr. Frank Hodges after leaving the trade, union movement went into the more lucrative occupation of company director.

All of the amounts given above are before payment of death duties

Another interesting news item recently was a comment by the City Editor of the Evening Standard (9/12/47) on the Ellerman fortune. After stating that Lord Ellerman holds £519,000 Deferred Stock of the Ellerman Shipping Lines, his holding being estimated to have a present value of over £2,500,000, and also holdings in a group of investment and brewery companies worth another £1,050,000 the Editor goes on as follows about the total present value of all investments :

“No firm estimate can be made of the Ellerman fortune today, but many people in the City believe that he would not lose in the comparison with his father. The first Sir John left £40 million.” (Evening Standard, 9/12/47.)

* * *

Grain Shortage?

”BUENOS AIRES, Wednesday. — The Argentine has been forced to burn £125,000,000 worth of crops, chiefly maize, says a Government statement tonight.

“It blames an economic blockade which keeps out machinery, cars, and rolling stock.

“Ports and railway terminals are jammed with grain which cannot he loaded in ships.” (Daily Express, 30/10/47.)

* * *

Growing Imperial Importance of Equatorial Africa

The following is an extract from an article on Equatorial Africa in the Times (14/11/47).

“As the British Empire in its old significance tends to shrink, with the gradual advance of its peoples to self-government and with the transfer to United Nations trusteeship of responsibility for certain territories at present administered by Britain, attention must he increasingly directed to the remaining British Colonies. That several of these are to be found in Africa is a fortunate fact in view of the withdrawal of British power from Egypt, the uncertain future of Palestine, and the consequent insecurity of the Mediterranean and Suez Canal route to those parts of the Commonwealth and Empire lying in the East.

“The search for alternative routes more secure from attack and for areas more conveniently situated for the disposition of imperial military resources must focus attention on West and East Africa, where there are great territories which, on examination, may be found to provide in great measure alternatives capable of making up for losses elsewhere. It might on the face of it seem that from a general move southwards into Africa only military advantages would accrue, such as safer lines of communication, areas suitable for British troops, and even alternative resources of man-power to succeed those lost by the changing conditions in India.”

* * *

Echo from Bikini

“King Juda of Bikini and his 165 subjects are to be uprooted afresh and shipped to a new island. Eighteen months ago their ancient atoll home was sacrificed to the atom bomb tests. Now, in the words of an official American Navy report, they are ‘a destitute, defeated, frustrated, poverty-stricken and hungry people.’

“Before the bombs exploded they were persuaded to make their ‘contribution to the advancement of science.’ Lock, stock and barrel they were moved to Rongerik Island, 120 miles away.

“There they found: 416 acres, instead of the 1,500 they were used to ; fire, which devastated their coconut trees ; and a lagoon with poisoned fish.

“They were driven to cutting palms and eating the leaves.” (News-Chronicle, 4/10/47.)

* * *

“The Greatest Social Reform Parliament in History.”

The Labour Party likes to make the claim that it is a Socialist party committed to the introduction of a Socialist system of society, but whenever its leaders set out to defend themselves against the Tory Opposition their line is always the very different one that they are a better social reform party than any of their predecessors. In a speech at Bermondsey Mr. Herbert Morrison is reported by the Daily Mirror (16/12/47) as making the claim thai “the present Parliament is destined to be the greatest social reform Parliament in history.”

He may prove to he right but the workers will discover that after all the Labour Party reforms have been put into operation Capitalism will still be with us.

* * *

I.L.P. History

In the Socialist Leader (6/12/47) Mr. F. A. Ridley writes an article on the theme “Had Rosa Luxemburg lived, Stalin might never have come to power in Russia, nor Hitler in Germany.” He writes:

“For had that amazing woman survived, she, at the head of German Communism, might have been able to establish a ‘Balance of Power’ in the new International which would have offset the Russian domination that subsequently monopolised it, in other words the ‘Third International’ might have become really international.”

Without going into elaborate arguments to answer this too-easy re-writing of history it should surely be obvious that as Socialism was impossible in 1918 because there were too few Socialists inside and outside of Russia, the Russian Government, if it had failed to control its instrument, the Third International, would have scrapped it and created other instruments for carrying out its foreign policy. We might just as well say that if Ramsay MacDonald had not been born or had succeeded in his first ambition, that of becoming a Liberal M.P., the Labour Party might have been Socialist.

Or perhaps now that Mr. Ridley has shown Stalin where he is wrong Stalin will mend his ways and do what Ridley thinks Luxemburg would have done.

* * *

A.R.P. Again

The following is from an Editorial, “Atom Age A.R.P.,” in the Daily Mail (12/12/47).

“To most people the revival of the A.R.P. service on a national scale is like a blow between the eyes. 

” ‘It is little more than two years since the end of the last war,’ they say, ‘ and now we seem to be getting ready for the next one. Has the world gone mad?’

“No, it has not gone mad, because it always was in that condition. But there are degrees of lunacy, and the wild state of this age is shown by the extent of the new Civil Defence plans.

“The aim in future is that everyone shall be trained in these warlike duties. The professional element will be provided by a full-time force of A.R.P. ‘commandos’ ready to move anywhere at a moment’s notice. An ‘incident’ in a future war may be the blotting-out of an entire town.”

In the meantime the war-time allies have finally ended the London meeting of the four Foreign Ministers quite unable to agree about the future of Germany. More or less open hostility now replaces the protestations of everlasting friendship. And the remedy is not more A.R.P. but the abolition of Capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle