Society and Morals. Part IV. Chattel Slavery and Civilisation. (1917)

From the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part III.

It was the growth of family and personal property which was the direct cause of the first great revolution in human society. In the “Old World” this was the result of the acquisition of herds of cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and the like. This probably arose through animals caught in hunting being preserved alive after the hunger of the tribe had been appeased. If this is so we can easily understand why, in pastoral countries, the domestic animals are usually found in the charge of the adult males. The men were the hunters, and although the proceeds which were required for food would be divided in common, where a residue occurred the captor was allowed to retain his “pet” (as the first tamed animals probably were). The animals bred and multiplied, and in time, as their utility in providing milk, wool, hair, and draught-labour was realised, they became a very valuable form of wealth.

Patriarchal Society.

This property in stock led to the abandoning of the old method of inheritance in the female line in which a man’s property (in the preceding stage only consisting of weapons, ornaments, and so on) at death could never go to his own children, who belonged to the wife’s gens, but only to his blood relations on his mother’s side. That a man’s children should inherit their father’s property male kinship was instituted, i.e., the children belonged to the gens of the father and could inherit his wealth without violating the old law decreeing that property should not pass out of the gens. Hitherto the marriage tie had been loose and easily dissolvable, now, however, to make certain of the fatherhood, it was strengthened and made permanent. From this point dates the “subjection of women,” but only as a gradual process, for the traditional reverence for the “mothers of the tribe” could not be wiped out at a blow.

The herds frequently grew very great in numbers, and where this occurred much labour was required to tend them. The household work of preparing food and turning the wool and hair into cloth was mainly performed by women, and while in the case of a poor man his one wife and perhaps daughter would suffice, to a successful and wealthy cattle owner more help was very desirable. This was acquired through polygamy. Wives were either seized by capture or, having now an exchange-value, were purchased, the price going to the father of the girl, who at the same time lost the value of her services.

“Besides the domestic labour performed by women,” says Jenks in his “History of Politics,” (p. 26) the herd owner “requires the outdoor labour of men, to prevent the cattle from straying or being stolen, to drive them to pasture in the morning and bring them back at night.” This labour was in many cases performed by slaves, and slavery first received an impetus at this period which was destined to have far-reaching effects.

Along these lines was evolved the “patriarchal family” which has been found to be so wide-spread in Asia, Africa, and Europe. It was, however, quite unlike the modern family, consisting as it did, not only of the patriarch or arch father and his wives, and children, but often of his sons’ wives and their children as well, together with a number of slaves, both male and female. The whole group was under the leadership and authority of the patriarch, which authority in many cases developed into a complete despotism, determining the life and death of those subject to it.

As agriculture came to be practised and gradually rose to supreme importance in the economy of Society, stock-keeping became a mere supplementary occupation, and the tribes settled down in villages as cultivators of the soil. Although at first the land was tilled in common, the practice developed of dividing the cultivatable land every year among the different households. After a time, with the growing recognition by the households that one years’ possession was insufficient to reap the benefits of the manures and labour incorporated in the lands that had been allotted to them” (Lafargue) the land was re-divided at progressively longer periods until at length each family came to have permanent though limited rights over a certain plot of land. Pasture and meadow lands, however, for a long time continued to be collectively owned and used by the village. Absolute private property in land was a much later development.

Meanwhile handicraft gradually separated itself from agriculture, the artisans (blacksmiths, wheelrights, etc.) who worked for the community being provided for in common by the village.

The morality of patriarchal society was that of the preceeding “savage” stage modified by paternal descent and authority on the one hand and family and private property on the other. In addition to the lessened respect which it engendered for females, the former stimulated to an even greater degree than hitherto a reverent regard for ancestry which led to a still more deliberate and conscious adherence to tradition and custom, and to a more definitely organised system of that ancestor-worship which the previous part outlined, as well as a disciplined subordination to the living patriarchs—the living representatives of the gods. Both in the strict artificial rules by which the labour in the village was regulated and in the hereditary trade castes (like those in India), with their secrecy and exclusivenese, were these principles manifested.

The growth of property resulted in theft becoming a crime in some cases considered even worse than murder. Especially condemnable was the violation of another’s plot of land and interferance with its boundaries. “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark,” said the Jews (Deut. XIX., 14.) and this sentiment echoes throughout nearly all barbarian law codes. The house—looked upon as the temple of the family gods—was particularly sacred and involiable. On the other hand the desire for property led to a change in the character of war, which was now carried on purely for plunder. Robbery (outside the tribe) was an honourable trade, as it is, for example, among the Afghans. Bordering on the sea this took the form of piracy, as among the early Greeks and the Norse Vikings.

As a defence against the frequent raids fortifications and walls were set up around a central citadel (“burg” or “acropolis”) and thither the craftsmen gathered and took shelter—thus towns arose. Loose federations of tribes passed into completely unified nations with a central administration at a point of vantage—and we reach the threshold of civilisation.

The Dawn of Civilisation.

All known forms of civilised society had their roots in patriarchal barbarism such as we have roughly described above. But they developed along divergent lines in accordance with their different geographical and historical circumstances ; and here we shall not make any detailed analysis, but merely deal in brief with the features more or less common to those civilised communities in which chattel-slavery was the dominating characteristic, especially with the best known—the Greek and Roman communities—but with sidelights from the older societies.

It is in the history of Greece and Rome that we can trace most clearly the final break-up of the primitive basis of Society—the supremacy of blood kinship. Long after the Greeks and Romans entered the “pages of history” they retained remnants of the ancient clan or gentile system. But as owing to trade, conquests, and other circumstances, a large population had grown up outside of the gentes, the gens, once a bulwark of democracy, had now become an aristocratic organisation the members of which (the so-Called Patricians) administered the affairs of the much more numerous “Plebians,” and used their privileges to safeguard and advance their property interests. Part of their power was derived from the fact that they alone understood the law, which, it will be remembered, is in patriarchal society ancient custom, handed down from generation to generation and kept strictly secret.

In both Greece and Rome, however, the Plebs, under the leadership of that section which had become wealthy through trade and other means, after a prolonged struggle abolished the privileges of the descendants of the clansmen by having the laws published and by substituting for birth or kinship, as the basis of organisation, residence in a certain area and the possession of property, thus making the community definitely political. The class divisions from now on were—rich freemen, poor “freemen,” and slaves.

The Prime of Chattel Slavery.

War continued to be the supply source of slaves, but with the growing demand consequent upon the increase in wealth and luxury, slavery instead of being the effect of war, now became the cause. “Both Nineveh and Bablyon undertook wars for the express purpose of obtaining slaves,” says Paterson, * and “the military activity of men like Tiglathpileser and Nebuchadnezzar had only one result—the overcrowding of the slave market.” At Athens slave merchants “were allowed to follow the armies, and were afforded special facilities for purchasing prisoners and for importing and exporting them” (ibid), and the same in essence applies to Rome.

In the sale of slaves in the public market many detailed regulations existed, not, of course, for the benefit of the slaves, but to protect the purchasers. From the famous “Hummurabi code” of Babylonian law we know that a disease peculiar to slaves was so widespread that dealers had to guarantee their slaves free therefrom, and the price could be reclaimed by the purchaser if the slaves he bought had contracted it. In Rome “slaves were submitted naked for inspection, unwary buyers were often deceived by tricks of the trade, and sometimes they sought the advice of veterinary surgeons, who pronounced upon the physical fitness of the individuals selected—the law required a public declaration of the slave’s character, and often a record of his conduct written on a scroll was hung round his neck” (Paterson, p. 271). For their better identification slaves were usually marked in some way. At Babylon “the name of the owner was often stamped upon the hand, and there is reason to believe that the brander of cattle was also the brander of slaves, or, like dogs, slaves were compelled to wear, probably unwary buyers) were often deceived by tricks of the trade, and sometimes they sought the advice of veterinary surgeons, who pronounced upon the physical fitness of the individuals selected—the law required a public declaration of the slave’s character, and often a record of his conduct written on a scroll was hung round his neck” (Paterson, p. 271). For their better identification slaves were usually marked in some way. At Babylon “the name of the owner was often stamped upon the hand, and there is reason to believe that the brander of cattle was also the brander of slaves, or, like dogs, slaves were compelled to wear, probably around their necks, clay tablets with the name and address of the owner engraved upon them” (ibid, p. 108).

As the slaves grew more numerous so also did the occupations in which they engaged. In the country they were employed by the Romans in thousands, often working together (frequently in chains) on great farms under the management of head slaves. At night they were herded in great semi-underground barracks. In the towns slaves were increasingly used in manufacture. Great numbers were employed in the houses of the rich. Prof. S. Wilkins in his “Roman Antiquities” says that in Rome “it was the custom for the porter to be chained to the door like a dog. In the great houses there was a slave whose duty it was to keep strict silence among his fellow slaves, and the slightest sound, even a cough or a sneeze, was punished with blows” (p. 69). Slaves could be hired from proprietors who kept large numbers of all kinds for this purpose.

The teeming multitudes of slaves assisted in, and really made possible, those monumental structures which even in our day are considered so wonderful: titanic walls, gorgeous temples, the “hanging gardens” of Babylon, the tombs and pyramids of Egypt, and the splendid roads of the Roman Empire, were all fashioned by the tired hands and brains of countless broken bondmen. Seen in this light much of the “glory and grandeur” of the “ancient world” so lauded by the orthodox historians has grim foundations.

At Athens slaves were habitually tortured to obtain evidence in law suits. “In case of either side being suspected of concealing any facts,” says Prof. Mahaffy in his “Greek Antiquities” (p. 73), “it was usual for the suspected party to offer his slaves for torture, and to refuse this when challenged was a weak point in his case.” As Paterson points out, a slave’s “voluntary evidence was rejected. He was not supposed to be capable of speaking the truth.” (p. 20).

As may be imagined, the punishments meted in Rome were typical. They are thus summarised by Prof. Wilkins : “For slight offences out to slaves were very severe. Those in use slaves were beaten with a rod, . . . severer punishment was inflicted by a whip or thong like the American cow-hide ; and the worst of all was the scourge made of knotted cords, with pieces of bone or even hooks inserted to tear the flesh. We cannot wonder that slaves sometimes died under the blows of this horrible instrument. That they might not be able to wince or struggle they were often hung up with weights fastened to their feet. . . . Death was but rarely inflicted because of the value of the slave as a piece of property ; the usual method was by crucifixion, one of the most painful forms that can be imagined” (p. 20). The feet of fugitive slaves were frequently amputated.

Social and Moral Effects.

The above outline indicates the views held regarding slaves by the so-called freemen. They were not considered members of Society ; they had no “rights,” and no duties toward them were recognised. Both in theory and in practice they were property—human cattle, so to speak. Varro, indeed, an eminent Roman agrarian writer, thus classifies agricultural implements : 1. The speechless, such as the waggon and the plough ; 2. The semi-speaking, cattle, etc.; 3. Those with speech, i.e., slaves. The theory came to be elaborated that not only was slavery indispensable to all cultural progress, but that slaves were designed to be such by nature. The classic statement of this view is thus given by Aristotle, the greatest of Greek thinkers: “There are in the human race individuals as inferior to others as the body is to the soul, or as the beast is to man ; these are beings suitable for the labours of the body alone, and incapable of doing anything more perfect. These individuals are destined by nature for slavery because there is nothing better for them to do than to obey . . . Nature creates some for liberty, others for slavery.” (Politics, I. 5.)

As slave labour gradually extended so as to embrace all branches of industry, productive labour, other than in art, came to be regarded as a rightful occupation for slaves only, and to be in itself servile and degrading. Especially was this the case in some of the Grecian States, where, as Prof. Mahaffy says (Ibid, 63), “any free man who was compelled by poverty to perform this manual labour was held little better than a slave.” War, politics, and, in Athens particularly, intellectual and artistic pursuits were considered the only “proper” occupations for a freeman, and were glorified accordingly.

We can readily realise the moral importance given to military service, for it was not only the means of acquiring the slaves so increasingly necessary, but was, and this was even more important, the essential safeguard against an uprising of the servile population which rapidly became far more numerous than the free. (Athens at its prime, for instance, had eighteen slaves to every adult citizen.)

As Society evolved in Greece and Rome, therefore, the citizens to an ever-increasing extent were divorced from productive labour, especially in the towns, in harmony with the contempt in which they had come to hold industrial pursuits. This was, however, doubtless a case of making a virtue of necessity, seeing that free labour was less and less able to compete with slave labour, for, owing to their enormous increase, slaves became commoner and cheaper than domestic animals.

The able-bodied freemen were, of course, required for the army, but so much was soldiering in line with their economic interests that, Greek soldiers not being in such constant and full use as were the Roman, they frequently enrolled for their keep and the possibility of plunder, with private military leaders, alien and even enemy governments, as mercenary troops.

But all “freemen” could not be soldiers, and we find that to a certain extent in Greece, and very largely in Rome, arrangements had to be made by the State to both maintain and entertain, in the cities especially, a horde of property-less citizens. Thus in Rome this proletariat received, as it was classically put, “bread and circuses.” The delight which the Roman citizens had in these latter “bloody shows” (free to all citizens) is an interesting study in psychology. In the arena slaves fought to the death for the amusement of the onlookers. Wild beasts from every corner of the Empire were pitted against each other and against slaves. The number of slaves thus slaughtered must have been prodigious, and was only made possible by their exceeding abundance and cheapness. Pliny justified these shows on the ground that they cultivated in the Roman a “manly” warlike spirit, and this was the general belief.

This, then, was the inevitable nemesis of the greatest development of ancient slavery—that which occurred in Rome : its canker rotted the Roman Society to the core. The wealthy, enveloped with every luxury, sank into a paralysing debauchery, and the poor “free” citizens of the “capital city of the world” largely became a mere clamouring, unprincipled mob, the dupes of every demagogue.

Regarding the ideas of the slaves themselves our information is very scanty. Every effort was made to prevent their discussion and organisation. As Paterson says (p. 187), “many slaveowners acted on the cruel advice of writers like Plato and Aristotle, who pointed out that, to avoid conspiracy, slaves speaking the same language should not be allowed to work together.” On the other hand, continued subjection, the conviction of the futility of resistance and the consequent hopelessness of their position, would lead in many cases to a despondent submissiveness and a spiritless resignation to the inevitable. Especially would this apply to slaves who had never known freedom, who had been born into slavery. But despite all this, there is undoubted evidence that many of the slaves bitterly nurtured their grievances, and occasionally their class-feeling rose to culmination in those revolts of which the best known is that associated with Sparticus the Gladiator. But these revolts always failed to break the disciplined armies of their oppressors, and the bleached bones and grinning skulls along the highways were a vivid record of the cruel price the slaves paid for the sake of liberty.

* * *

Morality and the Class Division.

With the development of classes the original character of Society as an organisation to secure the mutual welfare of its members is destroyed. Instead of the interests of every individual coinciding with those of the group, we have certain sections whose welfare is enhanced through the oppression, robbery, and degradation of other sections. The interests of these classes being opposed, the one to maintain and to extend its supremacy, the other to lighten its burden and to achieve its freedom, that spontaneous pulling together and social cohesion natural to primitive societies can no longer exist. The moral law which was a means of preserving the necessary order and stability in the earlier stage cannot any longer preserve this function (except where members of a class are deluded as to their real interests—a circumstance we shall consider later). Physical coercion must be applied or threatened if an oppressed and exploited class is not to be a disturbing and disrupting element in the social organisation. The slaves must be compelled to work and to render up their surplus labour-power, any attempt at revolt being promptly suppressed. This is most obvious where chattel slavery, as outlined above, is the system in vogue, but it is an essential feature of every class society.

Morality is, of course, not abolished, for social relations still exist ; but it changes in form and function. Just as morality was a bond, in the pre-war stage, between those having general interests in common, so it continues to be after the coming of classes. But this group with a community of interests is no longer the whole community, but a class within it. The ruling class has a morality which fits in with its interest, and, generally speaking, it uses the force which it controls in accordance with the dictates of its ethics, the main principles of which are expressed in its State-made law.

Likewise with the subject class, where its members think over and realise their interests as a class. It accepts, and as far as is possible acts up to, a morality which promotes these interests—interests the full realisation of which means social revolution.

R. W. Housley

(*) “The Nemesis of Nations,” W. R. Paterson, M.A. A work to be read for its full account of ancient slavery.

(To be Continued.)

Society and Morals. Part III. The Pre-Class Stage. (1917)

From the October 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part II.

In our “first part” it was stated that man starts out with a society akin to those of the less advanced animals in being an organisation to secure mutual welfare. Now, as we enter into the evidence for this, into the details of savage and barbarian society and morals, it will be useful to quote from authoritative sources. But before doing so let us briefly examine the manner in which the peculiar character of the human animal affects the manifestation, in him, of the social instincts.

Reason and the Social Impulse.

Among the simpler forms of animals impulse and action seem to be more or less identified: The gathering together of single cells is probably due to a form of chemical affinity or attraction. Even in the highly complex and social insects elaborate inherited instincts seem to determine even the details of individual action. But in the higher vertebrates, consciousness and intelligence make for the reasoning out, more or less clearly, of the precise actions to be taken to satisfy the social impulses, which, however, remain inherent. This makes possible a far readier adaption of conduct to varying circumstances. To an overwhelming degree is this the case in man with the relatively rapid changes and variety in his needs, due to technical evolution and division of labour.

But reason leads to results which cannot occur with unconscious reflex action which, with a given stimulus, always takes a certain inevitable line. Efficiency in a man’s actions, however, must be based upon a correct estimate of the essential circumstances he is in contact with. This itself depends upon the extent of his experience and the ability he has of analysing and comparing the various perceptions he receives. Consequently errors of opinion and therefore mistakes in action can easily occur through insufficient experience and defective reasoning.

Man is the victim of all manner of wrong conceptions and superstitious beliefs. This fact is apparent in the study of morality. In practice man’s activities are not determined by their actual interests, individual or collective, but by what they believe their interests to be. This belief, often correct enough in immediately practical affairs, is frequently very wide of the mark when concerned with complex matters which are known and felt only indirectly.

Speech and writing, which enable tho acquisition of the experiences and thoughts of other people, thus greatly extending the field of knowledge, also make possible the spread of wrong opinions, both unintentionally and as frequently happens, through a deliberate desire to bring about a certain mode of action.

These facts must be remembered when considering the problem of morals, for they explain the often useless and fantastic practices in religious ritual as well as the concern of a modern proletarian for his master’s interests and capitalist exploitation.

The feeling of duty, that “mysterious” conscience, despite all the weird talk about it, arises from a social impulse which, as we have seen, is animal, not “divine,” in origin. The social instincts, however, like all the other bodily and mental traits of animals, vary, being of different strength in distinct individuals, some men being potential martyrs, others moral cowards. In cases where conscience is too weak to enforce moral action, it frequently happens that respect for public opinion (itself generated by the social impulse) as manifested, for instance, in the love of praise and dislike of blame, ensures adherence to the code. But where, as in class-divided societies, there are widespread interests permanently opposed by the generally accepted code, the violation of which is therefore liable to be frequent, the force of the State is added to that of public opinion.

Primitive Society.

Although savages and barbarians have long been outrageously misrepresented by ignorant and antagonistic invaders, thieving traders and prejudiced missionaries, the patient and sympathetic methods of real investigators have made possible an approximately true idea of primitive societies and morals. Of this we can hear, of course, only sketch an outline.

Like the animal societies in which the offspring remain in the same herd as their parents, the earliest human societies were groups, usually small, of kinspeople, related in blood. Primitive man’s life was bound up with that of his community, without which he could not exist. Separation from the tribe or horde was the equivalent of suicide, for, alone, he was at the mercy of mysterious and terrible natural powers and the ferocity of alien men.

In primitive societies, both in practice and in theory, the welfare of the group is recognised as the supreme good, this, however, as we have seen, in the killing of the aged and infirm, necessitates the sacrifice of individuals in certain circumstances.

Social and Economic Equality.

The small yield of production made inevitable, in the beginning, equal division of the common produce, and the strength of social ties developed this into a cardinal principle. Even presents received are divided equally, as Darwin saw the Feugians do. Every able person is expected to aid in production. Hospitality and generosity are practised as a duty. Catlin, who lived for many years among the American Indians, says, “Every man, woman, or child in Indian communities is allowed to enter anyone’s lodge, and even that of the chief of the nation, and eat when they are hungry.”

Only the objects in permanent personal use, such as weapons and clothing, are regarded as private property, and often at that only very vaguely. “An Eskimo,” says Larfargue (“Evolution of Property”), “cannot possess more than two canoes; the third is at the disposal of the clan.” Natural resources may be freely utilised by any member or members of the group, providing only that it has the power to prevent other groups from acquiring them. Thus, although no private property in land exists, or is even conceived as possible, the tribe very zealously guards from trespassers its hunting grounds, and, later, pasturage territories or preserves.

So objectionable is inequality that when, owing to various circumstances, differences in wealth arise, periodical redistributions are made. This persisted until quite late in the history of the Jews.

The affairs of the community were managed democratically, all adult males and females taking part in the election of chiefs and speaking in the public assemblies. The chief wielded no despotic power, but only administered the will of the people. He could be deposed if occasion required. In the councils not even the majority decided: “Among the Iroquois the final resolution had to be passed unanimously,” says Engels in his “Origin of the Family.” (P. 112).

In dealing with internal disputes the sentiment of equality again manifests itself. A life for a life was the rule; tooth for tooth, eye for eye, wound for wound. To neglect to avenge an injury, or obtain satisfaction, is considered shameful. Usually, and especially in later times, mediation is first attempted by the public council, but, even after fines and other penalties are permissible the right to blood revenge could not be denied as a last resort. But to shed the blood of a kinsman was so opposed to the communal spirit, was considered so unutterably criminal, an injury to a tribesman being an injury to the tribe and treated by them as such, that it was a very rare occurrence. Speaking of the Aleoutes Kropotkin says in his “Mutual Aid” that in 1840 “one murder only had been committed since the last century in a population of 60,000 people.”

Fridjof Nansen says: “For the Esquimo it has especial value that he should be able to rely on his fellows and neighbours. In order, however, that his mutual confidence, without which common action in the battle for life is impossible, should continue, it is necessary that he should act honourably to others as well,” and he remarks about their truthfulness, which is a necessary factor in this. Veniaminoff, the Russian missionary, wrote, that the Aleoute is with difficulty moved to make a promise, but once he has made it he will keep it, whatever happens. Primitive man’s equalitarian habits harmonise so well with his inborn social instincts that he has no need to force his children to conform to a code of artificial restraints. A Sioux chief expressed surprise to Catlin at seeing “along the frontier white men whip their children: a thing that is very cruel.” “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is evidently not accepted as a motto.

Sex Relations.

The evidence available tends to show that man emerged from the ape condition with indiscriminate intercourse between the sexes. As primeval mankind developed in intelligence and experience the injurious elfects of close inter-breeding were evidently recognised, for we find at a very early stage moral restrictions placed upon sex intercourse, first between parents and children, and then between brothers and sisters born of the same mother. The covering of the sex organs probably became virtuous to minimise unrestricted sexual desire, for absolute nakedness was, in warm climates, habitual up to the period of puberty.

The mutual or communal marriage of entire groups of each sex has left traces of its former prevalence in the customs of almost every people, and the system exists to-day among the savages of Australia, as the recent investigations of Prof. Spencer and Mr. Gillen have finally and abundantly proven. As Jenks says in his “History of Politics,” “all the men of the Snake totem are husbands of all the women of the Emu totem in the same generation.” (P. 10.) Even after the marriage of a woman or several woman to one man became habitual, although at first in loose and easily dissolved unions, unlimited intercourse was allowed at certain festivals. Prof, Westmarck, in his “History of Human Marriage,” says Engels, gives “a whole series of examples of such periodical saturnalia restoring for a short time the ancient sexual freedom . . . among the Hos, the Santals, the Punjas and Kotars of India, among some African nations, etc.”

Out of the attempts to prevent close interbreeding arose that social organisation known as the “gens” or “clan,” The gens was a subdivision of the tribe whose members were morally bound not to intermarry. In its original and purest form all the children remained in the gens of the mother, no matter from which gens came the father, so that (except in the rare cases of adoption) all the members of a gens had a common ancestress. This was the only possible way of recognising kinship, for there being, as yet, no permanent marriage of women with one man, the father of the child was not known with certainty, and descent was therefore only traceable through the mother—in the female line. The material gens gave to women that respected and important social standing which she has in all savage and early barbarian communities.

With the division of the group into gentes the “horde” stage was passed and the gens became the unit of organisation until at a later date it gave way to the patriarchal family. The gens had its own chiefs and public meetings. “All the members of an Iroquois gens,” says Lewis Morgan, who lived, by adoption, in one for many years, “were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachems (peace chiefs) and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by ties of kin.” In a modified form the gens persisted well into the era of civilisation.

So-called secret societies within the tribe are also a widespread feature. There are male “societies” and female “societies” into which the young people on “coming of age” are initiated and taught under the presidency of the aged and experienced the duties of their sex (hunting and fighting methods, the development of endurance, etc., for males; domestic work and the management of children for females) together with the “mysterien of sex.” As, however, everything is accounted for by spirit action or magic, the activities of the societies are frequently largely made up of intricate ceremonies, propitiation of spirits, sacrifices and other rites, all of which must be kept in the strictes secrecy.

External relations and war

The primitive motive for war was food—either the preservation or acquisition of hunting territory, or, at a very early stage, human meat, which, as we have seen, is necessary and therefore moral. While, within the tribe, each for all and all for each was the rule, making habitual sympathy and trustworthiness, to those outside the tribe, as a rule, the same did not apply. So in savage warfare extreme cruelties and what appear to us as horrible atrocities are perpetrated. The outsider, the alien, is not of “the kin.” has nothing in common with it. He is a spy upon the tribal secrets, a thief and a trespasser upon the tribal territories.

Practically all people outside the tribe or its related groups are regarded as enemies. Engels says : “Theoretically, each tribe was at war with every other tribe with which it had not formed a treaty of peace.” (“Origin of the Family,” p. 112.) To slay an enemy was beneficial, was good. Thus the scalps collected by a redskin “brave” are like the medals of many a doughty general—claims to the admiration of his follows. The Dyaks of Borneo collect the heads and adorn their huts with the skulls of those neighbouring peoples who fall into their hands. Yet these same men condemn murder within the tribe. As Kropotkin says (Ibid p. 15), in “head-hunting” the Dyak “is not actuated at all by personal passion. He acts under what he considers a moral obligation towards his tribe.” The Australian aboriginee “is a murderer when his tribe requires a murder to be done,” says Dr. Keane (“The World’s Peoples,” p. 49). “This state of things is not really contradictory,” says Tylor in his “Anthropology.” “The tribe makes the law, not on an abstract principle that manslaughter is right or wrong, but for its own preservation.” When tribes live in a condition of almost perpetual war, as do the Dyaks, “they put a social premium upon the warrior’s proof of valour in fight against the enemy.” (Tylor, p. 413.) Hence the record kept in skulls or scalps.

Courage and endurance are two of the highest of primitive virtues, and to acquire them deliberate self-privation and self-torture are practiced. The young men, incipient hunters and warriors, are tested as to their endurance of pain, and to wince or utter a sound under torture is considered weak and therefore shameful.

Tribal customs and religion. 

Primitive man with his meagre experience and knowledge changes his means of production very slowly. The early evolution of man’s tools was a painfully protracted process, little improvement being made throughout immense periods. The same continuous or constantly recurring needs are felt over a correspondingly extended time, and their satisfaction causes the continual repetition of practices which are ages old. That which is old, is tried and tested, is safe; new methods have unforeseen results, are mysterious and dangerous.

Moreover the savage and barbarian has other reasons for habitually following the traditional ways of his people. He believes in ghosts as firmly as he believes in the existence of bodily men. Not being capable of understanding sleep, dreams or death, he “explains” them as the wanderings from the body of a phantom or ghostly second-self. The spirits of the dead, of his ancestors, persist after their bodies have long since decayed. His kinsmen, whom he looks to and respects, are not only the living men but the dead also.

Those invisible inhabitants of the “land of the dead” are wiser and more powerful than the living men. They it is, thinks the savage, who move the wind and the stream, who howl in the storm and rustle in the woods. They must be honoured and conciliated, care being taken not to make them angry. The customs which the venerated ancestors practised in life must be faithfully adhered to by their living descendents who look to them for aid in times of dire distress. (*)

Innovation is an insult to the gods—it is criminal for outraged ancestors will visit their wrath upon the tribe. In primitive society, no matter how a practice originates, it tends to harden into a habit rigidly and religiously adhered to. Morality is identified with custom—that which is customary is right, if it is uncustomary it is wrong. This veneration for practices ages old makes very difficult, sometimes impossible, the understanding of many a moral custom where the real needs which brought it into existence have long passed away.

The “closeness” of primitive man’s societies—the importance given to blood kinship and the intolerance and hatred of strangers is reflected in his religious views. As Edward Jenks says in his excellent little “History of Politics,” “The view that their ancestors belonged to them alone, naturally made the tribesmen very jealous of strangers acquiring any knowledge of their forms of worship.” (P. 38.) Therefore the ritual was kept strictly secret, and it was the blackest treachery to reveal its mysteries to strangers, who would only mock and blaspheme.

The belief in spirits is the cause of eome of the most peculiar practices and moral ideas of primitive man. Attention to the requirements of the dead is a profound duty. Tools, weapons, and animals are buried or burned with the corpse for the use of the spirit. Food and drink must be provided in the shape of offerings made at the grave. Human and animal sacrifices are made. Charms are worn to ward off evil spirits-—the ghosts of aliens. Human spirits are believed to enter the bodies of certain animals and trees which then become “taboo”—objects of respect and fear which it is awful sacrilege to destroy or injure. But the effects of savage superstition are almost endless in their number and variety so that the above sketchy indications must suffice.

* * *

The social organisation, therefore, of man in savagery and lower barbarism, together with the morality which therefrom flowed was based as the above testifies upon the principle of mutual aid and communal support in its every aspect. No class interests marred its unity despite its many (to most moderns) anomalous and absurd characters. Moral theory and practice were identical, modern conventional morality and corresponding hypocrisy was unknown—the “age of cant” was not yet. This was only acquired during his “rise to civilisation” which will be our next consideration.

R. W. Housley

(*) The widespread view, to which we have made previous reference, that a people’s ethical code is ordained by God arises in the above way, for gods are as a rule, only exalted ancestral spirits.

To be Continued.

Society and Morals. Part II. Economics and Social Organisation. (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part I.

One of the most important differences between human societies and the organisations of the “lower” animals is the greater development within the former of the principle of division of labour or specialisation in function. Not that this is unknown in non-human societies. On the contrary it is often well developed. But in them it almost invariably rests upon the specialisation of physical structure. In the beehive for example, the queens, workers and drones ; among the ants the “soldiers” and the “slaves,” are in each case provided with a bodily structure specially constructed and adapted to the work they have to perform in the community. Moreover, each separate class has its own special instincts. It must perform its own function and it can perform no others.

But in human society, as everyone knows, all manner of functions, different kinds of work, can be undertaken by individuals who are in all essential respects identically equipped—physically and mentally. Of course the two sexes are by nature fitted for and usually perform different kinds of work, but this is of small significance as it leaves unexplained that great variety of functions usually performed by one sex alone—the male. For example, we have some people engaged in the raising of agricultural products for food and clothing, etc.; others building habitations, others transporting goods to wherever required ; some are making machinery and tools to be used, by others, and many delve into the bowels of the earth to procure the metals for the use of the machine makers ; and so on indefinitely.

Man is able to perform a special function without a special instinct for it because his higher reasoning powers enable him to mentally visualise the work to be done, and by utilising the memorised previous experiences (either his own or those of other men), think out the method of accomplishing it. He requires no special modification of structure by reason of the artificial implements (such as tools) and processes which he creates and uses like so many limbs, powers and senses supplementing his natural ones. These have not been acquired “all at once.” Commencing at zero—with nothing—a slow evolution occupying thousands of centuries has resulted in modern man’s colossal artificial equipment and control over mature.

With every change in these self-made auxiliaries to his physical powers a corresponding modification takes place in man’s method and condition of living. One of the earliest discoveries ; one which makes an impassable breach between man and all other animals is that of making fire. The first weapon is the wooden club—a shaped tree-branch. Stone, horn, bone and shell, when sharpened, serve as scrapers, knives and fish hooks, tip another primitive weapon, the spear, and turn the club into a tomahawk or hatchet. A tree trunk, hollowed with fire and axe forms a canoe—the-far-back ancestor of the liner and ironclad. The wolf is tamed into the dog and, with the invention of the bow and arrow, completes an equipment which gradually transformed man from a tree-dweller subsisting on raw roots and fruits, indects and grubs, into a fisherman and a hunter.

As a direct outcome of hunting comes the taming and breeding of sheep, goats, oxen and horses. Their milk and meat serve for food ; their hides, wool and hair for clothing and dwellings ; their strength for transport. Following his flocks and herds from pasture to pasture man exists as a nomad on the grassy plains. The cultivation of plants, which now arises and progresses, is greatly aided by the acquisition of metal implements—axes, ploughs, spades and sickles, first as a rule of copper and bronze, but later of iron. This makes necessary a more settled mode of life. Village settlements spring up and these, in many cases (as the spinning and weaving of textiles and the working of metals) become specialised industries and trade arises, forming the germs of that later pheno­menon—town life.

The Productivity of Labour.

The most important result of the development we have just outlined, that result which above everything else has had a profound influence upon the form of social organisation, is the increase which it brings in the productivness of human labour. The total supply of products yielded by a given expenditure of labouring energy becomes larger as the technical implements by which they are acquired evolve.

The life of the primitive hunting savage, such as the Australian natives or the African bushmen, is an almost continuous and severe struggle to obtain even the barest necessities of life. With the rude methods at his command his success in the chase is so uncertain that often many days pass before the pangs of hunger can be appeased. To this may be traced many practices of his, looked upon by us with horror, which to him were perfectly moral and “natural.” Cannibalism is, at this stage, a normal means of supplementing the irregular and scanty food supply. To keep down the number of useless consumers the slaying of newly born infants forms an effective and legitimate means ; as also does the killing of the aged and enfeebled who, indeed, often voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the community. Such customs are usually abandoned or greatly minimised when, with the domestication of animals, a more plentiful and regular source of food ia available.

With a rapidity which varies greatly according to the particular circumstances obtaining, the fertility of labour continues to advance, securing to man, for a time at any rate, increasing comfort and leisure, with ever sounder protection against famine, drought and the vicissitudes of climate. The men living at each stage, not experiencing the hard, bitter struggles of their forerunners, regard their own comparatively favourable condition as normal and “natural.” Each stage is the building ground for a fresh ascent ; the luxuries of one age are the “necessities” and commonplaces of the next. So man evolves.

Side by side with, and flowing from, this process is to be observed a change in the social division of labour and organisation of society, which is somewhat different from the already-mentioned distribution and sub-division of industry. In the earliest savage stages when subsistence was rarely anything but the fruit of continuous and intensely active (though not necessarily laborious) expenditure of time and energy, every fit person would have to engage in the process. But, as productivity is developed, it becomes possible for certain individuals, ever greater in numbers, to be relieved from directly productive employment, their necessities being provided by the rest of the community.

At a very early period we find this to be the case with the tribal or clan chiefs and the “medicine men” or priests. The village commune, which has been and still is the typical social organism of primitive agricultural peoples the world over (in its prime the most perfect organisation man ever evolved from the point of view of the material prosperity and social unity of its entire membership), had numerous officials which performed unproductive functions for the common good. These early cases of exemption from production, however, in no way violate that equality and freedom pervading primitive society which is the outcome of a common economic status among the members and their primordial bond of blood kinship. Thus the original character of the social group, as an organism existing (although unconsciously developed) to secure the welfare of all those living within it is maintained.

The Basis of Slavery.

A stage is eventually reached, however, when increasing productivity has results which ultimately bring about a complete revolution in the organisation of society.

Let us look at the increasing yield of labour from a somewhat different point of view. Given, a certain average standard of subsistence, it means that this will be secured by a diminishing expenditure of labour-power and therefore also implies the existence of an increasing reserve of time and energy to be otherwise than productively employed. This surplus energy and leisure time is utilised in those fete-days and ritual practices which are so common among fairly advanced barbarians.

But soon, a far different use is found for this overflowing energy, this one-time “play” time of man. A man who has a considerable reserve of energy after providing for his own needs is obviously a valuable person to have control over. He can then be compelled to yield up his energy in the form of labour to provide for the needs of those having this control over him, thus increasing their comfort and lightening or eliminating their toil. That this power over others was developed and utilised for purposes of exploitation, there is the clearest historical evidence.

The appropriation of the surplus time, and therefore surplus labour and its products, of one group of men forming a working class by another group composing an exploiting and ruling clas may be accomplished in various ways. The character of the force used, its distribution and the precise method of its application are varying factors.

Forms of Slavery.

In savage days captives taken in war were sacrificed either to appease the desires of the stomachs of their captors or the lusts of their gods. These were the most profitable ways of disposing of them, though, when of nearly-related tribes, they were sometimes adopted into the community. But when pastoral habits are adopted and the reserve of labour-power after self maintenance grows, it becomes practicable and desirable to retain the captives alive to labour for their captors. Still more does this apply in the agricultural stage. The captives become “chattel slaves”—are owned by their masters in the same way as cattle and are treated as such. As exchange develops they become articles of merchandise and slave raids and the slave trade, established institutions.

Found feebly developed in barbarian societies, chattel slavery may, under favourable circumstances, develop into the extensive and complex systems exhibited in the Greek and Roman civilisations, where the slaves vastly outnumbered the free population.

There is another method of subjecting the producer, wherein he is not violently wrenched away from his own land, society, his accustomed habits and occupations, being brought to work as a stranger and a chattel slave for an alien people ; on the contrary, under this second system the producers retain, fairly intact, for a time, their traditional institutions and customs, remaining in their “home-land” and at their customary employment. Here, the workers gradually change from free into exploited and oppressed producers through a military caste utilising the force they possess to exhort a tribute either in labour-time, goods or money from the mass of the community and to gradually centralise the control of society into its own hands.

This military caste may be one developed from the community itself by a normal process of division of labour or may be a band of warriors who have installed themselves as conquerors over a social group ; or again, more rarely, as in ancient Mexico and Sparta, an entire warlike community have achieved domination through conquest.

This system was a basic institution of the ancient Oriental States—Hindustan, Persia, Egypt and China. In a somewhat specialised form (wherein the rulers declared themselves owners of the land and levied a forced “rent” in labour and kind but later in money) it was dominant and known as “feudalism” during the “Middle Ages” of Europe. Although it has often existed side by side with chattel-slavery in the same community one or the other has usually predominated according to which of them circumstances were most favourable.

As these forms of slavery evolved, often placing the products of vast supplies of labour-power in the hands of a few individuals, inequalities of wealth became increasingly manifest in the ranks of the free class itself. In addition to ”freemen” and “slaves” there soon developed categories of “rich” and “poor.” Through the exchange of commodities luxuries of every kind were made accessible to the wealthy, awakening desires, which were a further stimulant to commerce. Money—the means of exchange—became a new social power, possession of which gave control over every product of man. In some cases usury and the mortgage widened the breach between the rich and the poor, for the impoverished debtors were often deprived of their last remaining possessions which were seized by the money-lenders. This occurred in Greece and Rome where the debtors were even sold into slavery.

But, above all, it was the merchants, those who lived solely by trade—skinning both producer and purchaser, who possessed this new power—gold, that glittering talisman of commodities. As they became more and more indispensable to the successful carrying on of the expanding trade, they gained an ever more complete control over industry, which thus tended increasingly to become the production of goods for sale alone, as distinct from the older method of producing for direct consumption. But production for the market involves a production varying in intensity, in the quantity of its products, according to the changes in the market, to the fluctuations in the demand for commodities.

Chattel-slavery, however, is not well adapted to the production of commodities. An owner of slaves will usually see that his slaves receive their maintenance whether they work “full time” or no time at all, for they are his property, they are wealth. We therefore find that, after a brilliant period of commercial progress up to a point, those ancient societies which depended on chattel-slavery at length reached the limits of their mode of production and industrial stagnation and decay set in. In the Southern United States we had a modern example of the same phenomenon.

With mediaeval feudalism, however, it was different. The growth of commerce and the use of money tended to relieve the serf of all dues in direct labour by the substitution of a money rent. From the oppressed serfs of a feudal baron they became free peasants exploited by a land-lord. But for most of them this was only a temporary respite, for, under one pretence and another, the peasants were ejected from their holdings by the land owners and thus deprived of their means of livelihood.

This was exactly what the merchant manufacturers, just then springing up, required to gain the advantage over the old, guild-bound, handicraft system. They were able to employ these propertyless workers as wage workers when “business was brisk,” discharging them when the demands of the market slackened, and, in this way, the production of commodities for sale in the rapidly expanding world-wide markets was made profitable.

Along these lines developed modern industrial capitalism with the labour system of wage slavery which thus constitutes the third great, historical method of exploitation.

As under chattel slavery and serfdom, the wage workers of to-day are compelled to render the fruits of their surplus energy to an idle class. The pressure used is less direct, but is, for that very reason, as we shall see, all the more effective. The system presupposes the monopoly of the wealth needed for production (land, raw material, machinery, etc.) by a small section of society. Those who have no means upon which to live must either starve or produce wealth for the property owners by using their means of production. This they do by selling their labour-power to the capitalists ; and the price or wage they receive is determined by competition, rising and falling according to the supply of and demand for labour-power, but always hovering around the cost needed for self-maintenance and perpetuation. All they produce above this goes to the capitalist class who thus correspond to the slave-holders and oppressors of the older systems.

In this brief survey we have seen how society in its primordial form becomes broken into classes, exploited and oppressed, exploiters and oppressors. Our next section will attempt to show the effect of this upon the character of moral ideas.

R. W. Housley

(To be Continued.)

Short Story: The Bread of Life (1986)

From the Winter 1986-7 issue of the World Socialist

Mr. Geldhaber sailed slowly. The superbly appointed private yacht coasted easily in the wind. He surveyed the smoothness of his bronzed skin with a fair amount of indolent pride. A fly settled on his stomach and rested utterly motionless in the sleepy heat. Time seemed to stand still for one beautiful moment as the sun reached its zenith and the sea seemed even darker than it had, enclosing vast depths of mystery.

This vacation had certainly been well earned, he mused. For months Heinrich had sat at his desk, nearly buried in a mound of papers, and had researched the activities of various prices and indices, deciding where to "stick his oar in" and where to pull it out. As a result of all this sticking in and pulling out he had amassed the funds necessary for the purchase and maintenance of this vessel of pleasure, whilst finding himself also the consumer of only the best. Reflecting on this, his eyes closed and his hearing faded. The calls of the swooping birds overhead became distorted into the bells that rang in his dream.

He dreamed of a station master somewhere near his home town, who let fall a heavy tear as each train entered the station. When Heinrich was just about to be told why, he awoke to find himself lying in about five centimetres of water. Was this the same substance as that which showed such depths, so darkly all around his boat? It was a good deal more transparent, but just as cold and wet. He tried to holler, but managed to produce only a whimper. His beautiful yacht was sinking, together with its owner, and nothing in sight but water. He ran about the leaky vessel in desperation, picking up the items which might save him, should he find land on which to await aid. Some he dropped on realising the encumbrance they would pose to his progress in the water; others he grabbed for their sentimental value, and then reluctantly threw them to the deck in their turn. His head swam, and a mad rage of frustration and panic swamped his faculties, both mental and physical.

Mr. Geldhaber's shoulders were aching and he could hardly feel his legs at all. As he swam (and it seemed to him now that this was the only thing he had done since he left the womb) he felt his waist to ensure that the leather bag attached firmly to his body had not been lost He did this many times. He was actually quite surprised at his own powers of endurance: still he had seen no land, no life, no boat or ship; and still he swam. From time to time he would tread water, float on his back, or plunge beneath the surface in order to provide variety and to retain his sanity. He even derived some perverse pleasure from pretending, a few times, that he had come to the end of his tether and was about to drown. At these moments he would sink feebly below the surface which was such a merciless dividing line between his life and his death, only to rise triumphantly to hear ripples of applause from his bewildered and indifferent audience: the rolling waves.

He thought he saw land or help so many times that when he was finally presented with the chance of survival in the form of a few large rocks, he had to approach and sit on them before he could believe that they really existed. He sat with his mouth open, like a great fish, panting for breath and stunned with shock and relief. He laid his leather bag carefully beside him on the rock, and urinated from the summit The rock was only an island of about ten metres in diameter and about four metres above sea-level at its highest point. But to Heinrich it was a mountain. Certainly, it was the largest of the several boulders which at that point broke through the sea's defiant uniformity. Laying out beside him the shirt and trunks which, other than the bag, were all he had brought with him, he stretched out his limbs like an enormous starfish, and closed his eyes. He assumed this posture both in order that his skin might dry thoroughly and so that any potential rescuers would be more likely to notice him. The overwhelming heat pounded down, breathing fire into his heartbeat, uncontrollably rapid now as he breathed deeply after his exertion. Panic floated slowly up into his throat like a big cold stone to choke him.

From fifty metres above, where the birds flew, his body seemed to have been carved out of the rock itself. After a couple of hours his pulse was almost back to normal and he was completely dry. All he could do now was to wait in the hope that he might be seen. On a few occasions he spotted boats which were simply too far away to be able to see him, although he stood and shouted into the air. He saw some aeroplanes and helicopters too, and this kept his spirits up and fed his hopes. He decided to wait as long as possible before resorting to the use of the provisions which had been so hurriedly stashed away in his leather bag.

"Jeremy, come away from that edge, we're going to have something to eat now!"

The speaker of these words was young and healthy, of slender frame and frivolous thoughts. His wife, a stocky woman who was even younger than her husband, ran towards their three-year old son and picked him up to place him before an inordinately oversized feed for a creature of his appetite. Meanwhile, the winds carried their holiday yacht nearer and nearer to the man whom the priests would say they were "destined" to save. Jeremy ate like a young bird, squealing between mouthfuls, and John and Sandra smiled gormlessly at each other across the deck As he was eating, their son looked up at the horizon. Seeing nothing, he returned his thoughtful gaze to the mounds of food before him. Nauseous at this sight he again lifted his eyes, this time spotting a grey smudge in the distance. As he stared at this intently, his parents turned their eyes towards it too, and all three remained silent as it grew larger and larger. The form of the rock, at first neither clear nor remarkable, gradually became more clearly defined. As the yacht moved quite quickly towards the island, the grey surface was observed to have a distinctly defined shape protruding from it As this form became that of a prostrate human body, Sandra gasped and the Saviours sped towards the fleshy star upon the boulder.

When they had approached to within a metre or so, John jumped, with considerable agility from his boat to the rock. He lent over Heinrich whilst Sandra helped Jeremy ashore. The sea and air were quite motionless, the misty heat heavy as lead. John looked over his shoulder at his family and, blinking his almost transparent eyelids into the sun, cooly proclaimed:

"He's dead".

Jeremy ran to see a corpse for the first time in his life. His mother sat down clumsily on the edge of the rock, overcome with shock. The circumstances were particularly mysterious, for the yacht of Mr. Geldhaber had of course disappeared without trace, and the coast was miles away.

"Perhaps he swam out from the shore without realising how far he was going," suggested John. "Must have been too tired to find his way back."

His son was approaching the leather pouch which lay nearby, apparently stuffed with supplies. It looked as if the dead man had begun to open it for the flap which formed the front of the bag had been partially lifted. Sandra's interest was roused.

"God, surely he didn't die of hunger, then?" John and Sandra both stared in horrified wonder as their son gleefully exposed the contents of Herr Heinrich's leather supply bag: several large bundles of banknotes, bound with elastic bands and chewed at the corners.

Clifford Slapper (Britain)

Energy supply: a world issue (1986)

From the Winter 1986-7 issue of the World Socialist

In any consideration of existing social problems the question of energy supply is of prime importance. It is self-evident that the task of providing decent conditions of life for the whole human population must include providing an adequate supply of energy. To solve the world's housing problem, including provision for heating, cooking and lighting, to expand world transport services, to increase world food production, to provide a sufficient supply of durable goods .for all people, plus the expansion of the means of production which these would require, will arguably involve a greatly increased supply of world energy.

But the problem is not simply one of supplying energy using any means available in an indiscriminate manner. The production of energy makes a great impact on the environment so it is important that the methods used should take this factor into account. What is required is an integrated world strategy of productive development which is aimed directly at the satisfaction of human needs and which can be socially controlled so as to avoid any destructive effects on the environment How does world capitalism deal with this problem? The short and obvious answer is that it does not deal with it nor can it do so.

From a practical point of view society has available a wide range of technical options and there are large reserves of skill, labour and materials yet at the same time we suffer from a chronic inability to take these up in a free and consciously regulated manner. It is not simply that under world capitalism there are economic barriers to producing enough energy for needs, but what does become available on the energy markets is produced by methods which in themselves generate further social problems. The present structure of world energy supply involves an unnecessary waste of useful resources; it is destructive of the environment; it produces severe secondary problems and it is fraught with dangers. This is the position that we are in now and world capitalism provides no foreseeable means for getting out of it. What has been the background to the problems associated with energy supply, which at the present time are worsening?

The existing structure of energy supply and the particular production methods which are currently in use has come into being within a definite framework of economic forces and a military development which has resulted from them. It is simply impossible to freely deploy the technical options which now exist in response to human needs within this existing economic and military framework.

So constraining have been these economic forces that in the more industrialised countries the most used energy source is still coal, the source on which the industrial revolution was based over two hundred years ago (see table). The relatively primitive method of burning non-renewable fossil fuels remains the cheapest energy source available to capitalist production. Despite the wide range of technical possibilities which now exist, it is still the case that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world either gather or buy firewood as their main energy source. Hydro-electric power is generated and since the end of World War II there has been the development of nuclear power but this was never selected as a desirable energy source in its own right. Nuclear power arose on the basis of arms development. It is still a marginal energy source (3 percent of world primary energy production in 1983) though its use is increasing. The use of solar-based techniques is even more marginal.

Nuclear Power: The Military Option

Yet over fifty years ago, in the 1930's, two simultaneous developments occurred which involved wide potentialities for the future of energy supply. One was the theoretical work on the splitting of the atom and the other was the discovery of the photo-voltaic mechanism which enabled sunlight to be converted into electricity. From a purely technical point of view, research and development could have gone in the direction either of nuclear power or solar cells. Notwithstanding the merits, technical or otherwise, of either option the reasons why solar technology was pushed into a backwater of research and development were both economic and military.

It was the implications for arms development which gave impetus to the nuclear programme. It was the Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb. This crash military project which in a perverse way indicates how quickly society can move when it becomes committed, involved tens of thousands of workers including the cream of scientific talent in the field of applied physics. By 1945 it had cost 2 billion dollars. The enormity of this effort can be understood in the context that in 1944 in America the value of the Gross National Product was 98 billion dollars.

After World War II this military application of nuclear technology did not diminish so that between 1945 and 1956 the Atomic Energy Weapons Programme had cost 15 billion dollars. This included the development of the Hydrogen Bomb and resulted in a huge scientific and industrial establishment committed to the nuclear arms programme. At this time companies such as Westinghouse and General Electric were manufacturing nuclear reactors mainly for the US Navy.

These developments in America were paralleled in other countries for the same military reasons so that in Russia, Britain and later France the same scientific/technical/industrial basis came into existence. It was on this basis that President Eisenhower introduced his so-called Atoms for Peace campaign in the 1950s. Essentially, the nuclear energy programme resulted from an attempt to capitalise on the immense cash resources which had been poured into the military use of nuclear technology.

Threat to vested interests

But this was not the only reason why research and development into the practical application of the photo-voltaic mechanism was not taken up. Solar technology was subject to attack by the powerful utilities in America whose industries were based on the use of fossil fuels. It is little known that in some places of climatic advantage, simple solar installations had been in use for some time. For example by 1897, of all the homes in Southern California 30 percent had solar water heaters. By 1940 in Southern Florida 80 percent of all new homes utilised solar water heaters. Once these installations, which were simply metal boilers under glass, were fixed in place, all they required was a cheap water supply plus the abundant southern sunshine over which no capitalist enterprise could hold a monopoly. These installations gave householders a degree of independence from the large capitalist utilities which were in the business of selling gas and also electricity generated from the burning of coal and oil.

The use of solar boilers for heating water was one thing but the possible practical application of the photo-voltaic cell for converting sunlight into electricity was a far more serious threat to the capitalist interests which were vested in the control and marketing of fossil fuels. Centralised power stations generating electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear sources enable capitalist enterprises or governments to maintain complete control of the energy source and the marketing of the products. With solar devices, once installed, the energy source is freely available. This is why particularly in America the public utilities launched an organised attack on research and development of solar energy, ranging from political lobbying to massive advertising campaigns.

In the face of the development of the nuclear arms programme and its spill-over into nuclear power and the pressure exerted by the heavily capitalised coal, oil and gas interests, the development of the highly adaptable and environmentally safe solar sources has been largely neglected. For example in the late 1970's, when the British government was spending upwards of £230 million per year on nuclear energy research it was spending only £11 million per year on renewable, solar-based technologies. During the seventies the Carter administration in America did express interest in solar techniques following a sharp increase in the price of oil and problems which nuclear power stations had encountered. This was set aside by the Reagan administration and funding for this kind of research was again reduced.

It is true that some research is being done by oil companies and other capitalist enterprises but this is inevitably suspect The bias arising from their profit-based interest in the subject will at best direct this research into channels determined by their economic interest

This interest is explicit in the following text from an advertisement:

The Arizona sun shines 296 days a year. APS solar engineers are working at the Sky Harbor Photo-Voltaic Solar Project to capture that remarkable energy source. We are proud to be the leaders in the development of solar energy.

22,000 solar cells in 80 arrays provides enough electricity for about 40 average sized homes. But Arizona has more than a million homes - plus factories - offices - plus farms - that need electricity.

Solar may supply a reasonable amount of electricity some time in the next century but it is simply not practical nor economical to meet Arizona's electrical needs to-day. This is why we are using coal and nuclear for large scale use now to meet Arizona's electrical needs.

Nuclear and coal now to meet Arizona's electrical needs.

Problems of present energy system

The factors which have determined the existing structure of the world's energy system have been the economic factors of the profit system in association with the military strategies adopted by the world's most powerful industrialised capitalist nations including state capitalist Russia.

There is now widespread concern about the problems arising from this system. Inevitably, the continued increase in the number of nuclear power stations results in a steady build-up of radioactivity in the environment, with an ever greater problem of how to deal with high level radioactive waste. Accidents like Chernobyl with their horrendous results are part of the existing nuclear energy programme.

Sections of the scientific community and environmentalists are also extremely concerned over the effects of the continuous release of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal. Accurate records of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that concentrations have increased from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 340 parts per million in 1982. Burning fossil fuels also releases into the atmosphere sulphur which is associated now with the destructive effects of acid rain including the destruction of forests in the northern hemisphere, the killing off of life in lakes and rivers, and general soil deterioration.

Together with this, a report issued by the National Science Foundation, Washington, produced calculations which show that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would lead to a heating of the surface of the oceans and the land by an average of about 4 watts per square metre, which in practice would mean a change from about 1.6 degrees to 4.5 degrees on different parts of the planet's surface. It is argued that the climatic consequences would be catastrophic, with fertile arid zones becoming arid deserts. This refers to what is now described as "the greenhouse effect". Even allowing that there is disagreement over the possible consequences of this greenhouse effect it would be foolish to ignore even the most pessimistic forecasts which are being issued by some sections of the scientific community.

Merits of renewable energy sources

Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, California, as well as others have argued strongly that the buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of fossil fuels should be urgently averted. They have emphasised the need to replace the use of fossil fuels with the use of renewable sources of energy such as wind power, wave power and photo-voltaic devices. The need for global consensus as a basis for carrying this through is also stressed by these scientists, though they are pessimistic about achieving this.

The advantages of these renewable sources have been summed up in a Ford Foundation Report as follows:-

Direct Solar Energy. Unlike all other forms of energy available to humans in large quantities, solar radiation is pure energy which is not associated with any material. As a result some types of solar energy systems, once constructed,can maintain a constant inventory of facilities and materials, releasing nothing but useful and waste energy at the same rate as the absorbed solar radiation. For example, operating solar electric cells convert some of the incident solar radiation directly into electrical energy and reradiate, reflect or discharge the rest. The process produces no waste materials that must be accumulated or released to the environment... In contrast use of fossil fuels or any type of nuclear energy requires the addition of mass (fuel) to an energy supply system and either the accumulation of increasing stockpiles of waste products (such as ashes, sulphur, carbon dioxide, or radioactive isotopes) within the system or their release to the environment.

The merits of solar-based technologies and the need for world cooperation in dealing with the problems of energy supply have also been stressed by Janet Ramage in her book Energy—A Guide Book. In her view, the challenge of solar techniques is one of utilising the energy which the sun delivers to the earth at a rate equal to nearly 20,000 times its primary energy consumption and that this challenge presents itself as a technique for collection and conversion. Postulating such a technical solution as a result of co-operation on a world scale she states:

How about a world-wide electric grid? It could use underground and ocean floor super conducting cables, and the power would come from solar farms in the world's major deserts, Ocean Thermal Electric Conversion plants in tropical waters, and wave power stations and wind turbine arrays in remote regions. No atmospheric pollution, no radioactive wastes, no use of valuable agricultural land or precious water. There are probably no insuperable technical problems. There is just one question. How do we get there from here?

Urgent need for world co-operation

This vital question is essentially about the reasons why the existing world capitalist system cannot take up the technical possibilities which now exist for the setting up of a safe and adequate world energy system. This question also takes us out of the sphere of applied science and technology and inevitably into the sphere of world economics and politics. The urgent need for world co-operation in dealing with the problems of world energy supply cannot be realised within the social productive relations and the existing economic and military framework through which these operate. Continued world capitalist society means inevitably that the world will remain staked out as an armed camp and the divisions will remain those of competing national economic interests. The organisation of world society will remain subject to the national economic and military strategies which express the prevailing national capitalist class interests. In the field of energy supply, as in every other field, such resources, skills and production methods which are taken up will be determined by the economic imperatives of the market system or consistent with the existing national economic or military strategies. It is completely impossible under capitalism for humanity to use the earth's resources for the benefit of all people, and it is equally impossible for it to deploy the accumulated knowledge, the skills and the techniques of production which now exist in a direct relationship with human needs on a basis of worldwide co-operation.

Yet there is in fact no barrier presented by any alleged inability of people to co-operate in their mutual interests. On the contrary, this ability to cooperate is universal. What is required is for this inherent ability to co-operate to be mobilised politically as a world movement acting independently of the existing economic, political and military power structures.

This movement already exists as the movement for world socialism, and it is vital that those who see the need for world co-operation in dealing with problems in the interests of all humanity should join its ranks to swell its voice of sanity and contribute to the work of preparing practical programmes of action which could be implemented once its political objective is achieved. This political objective is one of gaining political control with a view to taking the means of production and the earth's resources out of the hands of the world's capitalist class and placing them at the free disposal of the whole world's community.

Establishing a safe world energy system

How could world socialism set about the work of establishing a world energy system which would be adequate for the material needs of the world community but which could also work within the natural systems of the environment in a non-destructive way? Two factors have to be accepted. First, the overall amount of energy supply required in socialism as part of its general strategy of productive development would be immense, arguably greater than the amount which capitalism currently produces.

There would of course be great savings and a more efficient use of available energy supplies compared with what happens today under capitalism. Socialism would have no difficulty in adopting the various techniques of conservation which are well known. Moreover, under capitalism, a vast amount of energy fuels the world's military machines and its armaments production, and these amounts would become available for human needs. The anarchic pattern of capitalist trade involves more waste of energy whereas socialism would be to rationalise world distribution on a world, regional and local basis. At the present time there are millions of employments which may be necessary for the market system but which would be unnecessary in a society organised solely for human needs. These employments are serviced partly by the energy industry so this represents further amounts of energy which could become available for useful consumption. But notwithstanding these savings, it can still be argued that the strategy of productive development which would be necessary in socialism to establish a structure of production adequate for needs would initially require a vastly increased energy supply as for example with the need to solve the world's housing problem, even if a stable level would eventually be reached.

Secondly, world socialism would have to begin with the structure of energy supply which it had taken over. It could not scrap this overnight and this means that some production methods which may be considered undesirable would have to be used for a time. We can envisage that world socialism would have to begin the' work of adapting the existing system, phasing out its undesirable features whilst at the same time expanding the structure using methods which have been democratically agreed.

In this work socialism would be able to use the planet as a single resource held in common by all people. This means that socialism would be able to use the various geographical advantages which may exist in any location as part of an integrated world energy system.

Without anticipating any final decisions which would be made as to the particular technologies or combination of technologies which would be adapted and developed in socialism it is worth noting that the various solar-based technologies which at present impress themselves on some sections of the scientific community as being desirable would be well suited to socialism.

Removal of economic barriers

One point to emphasise is that with regard to any technique which might be developed, socialism would not be bound by the economics of market competition to use methods which embodied the least amounts of labour in their production. Nor could arms development play any possible part in determining the technology which is taken up. Though the solar-based technologies do not at the present time present themselves as the most labour efficient methods of energy production in relation to energy output, this would not be a barrier to their development in socialism in the circumstances where they were deemed to be the most socially desirable methods. Also, given the resources which socialism would be able to freely apply to the research and development of the solar-based technologies they do hold the promise of being suitable techniques for one important reason which can be added to the fact that they are environmentally safe. It is self-evident that in its various forms such as wind and wave power and direct sunlight, solar energy is available to the planet in vast quantities as part of a self-perpetuating natural system which requires no material fuel. The problem of solar technologies is one of effective collection and conversion into usable forms of energy such as electricity. What this could mean in practice is that once the social effort necessary for setting up the network of installations required for an integrated solar-based world energy system had been undertaken, this system would be available for permanent collection and conversion requiring only routine maintenance. This looks forward in a very practical way to a position of society whereby the problem of energy supply could be solved on a permanent basis. It could operate with a durable system of world-wide installations requiring no added materials except for those necessary for routine maintenance.

Moreover, the solar-based technologies can be highly adaptable in the scale of their use. They can include what Janet Ramage has envisaged as a single world-wide grid supplied with electricity generated by large and permanent power stations in different world locations. But solar techniques can also be used on a small scale with locally placed devices dedicated to specialised local functions. This can be single installations providing heat or electricity for single homes, factories or workshops.

It should be stressed further that the technical possibilities are wider than those which have been mentioned. There are the immense possibilities presented by geo-thermal techniques. In looking outwards at the solar sources we can forget that beneath our feet there exists a core of molten heat which could be tapped as it already has been in Iceland and other places. In the long run, humanity's greatest productive resource lies in the innovative genius of our species. The essential problem is one of how to establish a society in which this genius can find its fullest expression directly for human needs, and to answer the question of why this genius remains so constrained within the existing national economic, military and political structures.

World Socialism: the necessary precondition

What emerges from the existing structure of world energy supply— the fact that it is totally inadapted to meet the needs of humanity, plus the fact that it is so destructive of the world environment — is that these problems do not present themselves primarily as practical or technical problems. These are essentially economic and political problems which raise from the class relationships of production in present world capitalist society. The existing methods of energy production are not simply practical means of making energy available, they operate as deployed capital with the object of accumulating more capital. The primary object of the existing energy system is not one of generating useful energy but one of generating profits for a privileged minority. Therefore the practical work of setting up an adequate world energy system which would serve all human needs directly must be preceded by the practical work of establishing the only society which would be capable of doing it

Properly defined, the problem of energy supply is the problem of world capitalist society therefore the solution must be defined as the establishment of world socialism.

Pieter Lawrence (Britain)