Socialism and the Mental Revolution. (1924)

From the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The human mind, like all things organic and otherwise, undergoes a process of change due to the continual change in its environment, that is to say, in the conditions determining its development. This simple fact is continually ignored by the opponents of Socialist education of all shades of thought, from the crusted Tory to the impatient Communist, who believes in ”revolution” by means of an “intelligent minority.”

If we glance over human history we discover that the growth of knowledge and mental activity has been by no means uniform or smoothly regular. There have been long periods in which certain ideas, expressing themselves in various social customs and institutions, have reigned supreme only to be swept aside in a comparatively short space of time by ideas, customs and institutions of an opposite character. As instances, we may cite the downfall of paganism and the triumph of Christianity within the Roman Empire, which marked the passing of the ancient patriarchal order of society and the rise of feudalism; likewise the break-up of Catholicism before the onslaught of Protestant and Rationalist criticism which coincided with the decay of feudalism, the seizure of estates of the Church, and the development of modern capitalist society.

Up till the last century the human mind was wrapped in the swaddling clothes of religion; therefore changes in the general mental outlook of mankind have appeared to be simply religious changes. As above indicated, however, these changes have been closely connected with social and political revolutions and the various factions in the religious world are found on examination to be practically identical with certain organised class interests. These interests have fought their battles with a ferocity which is by no means attributable simply to fanaticism on speculative or ethical questions. Conflicting “faiths” have merely sanctified in the eyes of their respective holders the greed which has been the real basis of their hostility.

In other words, the various classes which have in succession arisen and dominated society, while in a very large measure conscious of their material interests, have not understood the forces whose development has provided them with their position and the opportunity of satisfying their ambitions. Before these forces could be understood in a scientific manner they had first to develop to maturity. They had to shake off the fetters of “individualism” and become social in character.

This event commenced a century and a half ago and is known as the industrial revolution. The death of handicraft and the birth of machine industry set free productive powers latent in society which revealed for the first time the existence of economic law. Various thinkers from the ancients downwards had speculated and arrived at half-truths concerning the material basis of society; but to make a science of economics, and therefore of history, the economic forces themselves had to seize upon society, as it were, and beat their own lessons into the heads of men. “Control us or perish !” is the insistent demand these forces make to-day; but to control requires understanding. Hence the attempt to control the economic resources of society is identified with the shedding of all superstition concerning the nature of these resources.

Rebellious classes in the past attributed their success to the favour of gods or the superiority of their moral codes; but the revolutionary section, of the subject class of to-day, the wage-slave class, has no use for religion or ethics. Science, organised knowledge, is its only weapon, its only means of self-fortification in the struggle for emancipation. “Study and learn!” is therefore the keynote of Socialist propaganda.

“Ha !” says our opponent, “but the masses will never study, they will never learn!” and he points to the well-known lethargy which sometimes appears to be the principal mental characteristic of the modern slave. He seizes upon a half-truth and makes of it a lie !

In spite of all the apathy and apparent indifference the masses slowly, but none the less surely, are studying and learning. Indeed it would be nothing less than a miracle if they were not. Face to face with an environment which is changing more rapidly than at any previous period in history, each succeeding generation of workers sheds something of the superstition of its forbears. One by one the links in the mental chains are snapping and the workers’ minds strain towards the light.

Those who assert that the workers will never learn attempt to make the workers’ minds an exception to the general law of adaptation so apparent everywhere in the universe. They postulate a supernatural density on the part of the slave and treat his ignorance as though it was a basic cause instead of an effect of his poverty. When one considers the exhausting and, brutalising nature of the toil exacted from the modern slave the wonder, if any must be, that there is any. mental energy with which to think at all.

In addition to this physical factor there is the deliberately reactionary “education” with which the workers are crammed during childhood and the similar influence of the daily press. Yet in spite of every such effort on the part of the ruling class to preserve their mental grip upon their slaves, what do we find?

The Churches have long ago confessed their inability to hold their own against popular indifference and the effects of increasing technical knowledge. The numbers of the workers who willingly absorb the dope of religion steadily declines.

In the realm of politics, we find a similar process of disintegration on the part ol accepted beliefs and institutions. While the Socialist does not share the illusions current concerning the rise of the Labour Party, this much at least is evident, viz., that the parties openly standing for the existing social order are rapidly losing their grip of the workers’ minds. Social changes are desired, although their necessary character is far from being, correctly understood. Thus in both fields of traditional thought and popular activity, i.e., religion and politics, we find a growing scepticism concerning things as they are.

The industrial upheaval has resulted in a growth of positive knowledge difficult to estimate to its full extent, because of the inherent tendency of mental forms to survive for some considerable time the steady change in their inner content. The process can perhaps best be described as one of undermining. On the surface the present structure appears as it was, but the forces beneath are none the less preparing its collapse.

It is the function of the Socialist Party to organise the workers as rapidly as the change in their environment compels them to recognise the social character of the process of production, and consequently the necessity of its being controlled in the interests of society at large if exploitation and poverty for the workers are to be abolished.

Eric Boden

£1000 Fund. (1924)

Party News from the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Some questions on Socialist policy. (1924)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (F. L. Rimington, of Leicester) in sending us his views on current politics, asks some questions relative to Socialist policy. These matters have been dealt with in the Socialist Standard before, but as they may be of interest at the present time we are replying to the questions here.

(1) Does the S.P.G.B. take part in Municipal Politics?

The answer to this question is contained in our Declaration of Principles, which declares for the conquest of the powers of government, local and national.

The master class spend huge sums to control local bodies, as these are a sub-division of the government of capitalism. It is important for the masters to control these councils, etc., and therefore it is equally important to dislodge the capitalists from power wherever they control.

The waging of the class struggle involves the conquest by the workers of the institutions of control, and hence Socialists must fight for conquest of local and national machinery of government. We do not take part in municipal elections to administer capitalism, but to advance the, interests of Socialism. The Socialist Party municipal election address tells the workers how little could be gained in improvements while capitalism lasts, and therefore in local as well as national elections we ask for votes from those alone who realise that the abolition of the present system and replacement by Socialism is the only hope of the working class. Socialists if elected to municipal bodies would use them as vantage points in the class struggle and to sound the message of Socialism to the unconverted workers.

(2) What is our opposition to the S.L.P.? 

The answer is contained in our Party Manifesto, and in many articles in the Socialist Standard during the years when the S.L.P. was an active body. Our opposition to the S.L.P. may be summarised thus : (1) Their lack of understanding of the class struggle shown by their reliance on industrial action as the workers’ remedy. (2) Their muddle-headed and continually changing views on fundamental points of policy, such as war, soviets, unity stunts, etc. (3) Lacking sound views on Socialist policy, they have simply followed the ups and downs of the American S.L.P., and are not evidently able to take up a consistent and firmly grounded Socialist position.

(3) What about taking the oath of allegiance in the House of Commons?

The answer to that question is implied in the Socialist need for getting political control. If we are to refuse to take oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. The questioner does not fully realise the implications of the class struggle. Socialists are not simply waging war against detail grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to workers’ triumph, Socialists cannot stop at taking oaths imposed upon them by the ruling class. There is nothing revolutionary in fighting against oaths, and by concentrating the electorates’ attention on the oath, Socialism is left aside as the issue. Republicans and Atheists like Bradlaugh can refuse* to take oaths, although they are bitter anti-Socialists.

The taking of oaths imposed by ruling classes has never prevented them being ignored when interest dictated it. The English Revolution of the 17th century was carried through in Parliament by men who took oaths to Kings they beheaded or drove from the throne.

Constitutionalists in Russia took oaths to the Czar and his Government in several Dumas, but that did not prevent them from breaking their oaths when opportunity presented itself, and so abolishing the Czar’s rule. In times of revolution in every country oaths have been broken by those who have been compelled to swear allegiance to the ruling power of the time. If Socialists are to keep out of Parliament because of formal matters of procedure, then the ruling class can keep on imposing conditions which they think you will refuse.

Our correspondent’s idea is that the propaganda value of refusing to take the Oath would be great. Possibly he is correct in this. But it would not be propaganda for Socialism or for the working class. It would be propaganda against the oath, and would not rouse or involve a class issue.

It would appeal to reformers, anti-monarchists, anarchists, and atheists, etc., people generally who are busy fighting effects or dealing with one aspect of capitalism.

The Editorial Committee

* Bradlaugh refused to take the oath at first but was willing afterwards. Then, however, the Government refused to let him take the oath.

Editorial: Reparations or Revolution. (1924)

Editorial the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World Situation.

The scramble for the spoils of war has entered another stage. The Versailles Treaty arranged the division of the plunder but the Allies have been quarrelling about the “sharing out” process. So “experts” have been called in to advise methods for a quicker “delivery of the goods.”

The working class has no interest in reparations or indemnities. The fight among the capitalists over these questions is an effort to relieve themselves of the financial cost of the slaughter which they engineered in 1914. The workers do not own property and therefore cannot pay for wars, and so the capitalists must fight it out between themselves as to how the bill can be paid. Behind the reparations question there is the ever present struggle for markets on the part of the world’s capitalists, and this struggle is keener and more desperate than ever.

In spite of military victories and vastly increased territory the Allied Capitalists are faced with a world problem which they cannot solve. The productive power of labour and the use of improved machinery has greatly increased since the war, but the market has not expanded. Not only are the rival national capitalists unable to find fresh markets, but the manufactured goods which once they could sell to foreign buyers are not wanted in countries now manufacturing for their own home market. Instead of exporting shoes to countries like Chile they are exporting shoe machinery.

Capitalist Governments like that of Herriot, MacDonald, etc., support a reparations policy in the hope of defeating the competition of Germany and so restoring the trade and commerce of the Allied Capitalist world. But each one of the Allied Nations capitalists are out to smash the competition of the other, and even with Germany “scrapped” the same problem and the same murderous struggle for markets and territory would go on. And in the rivalries and conflicts of the exploiters the workers have no concern. The workers’ interest is to abolish the system under which they are robbed of the results of their labour.

The Fraud of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party on platforms and papers throughout the country declared that the Treaty of Versailles must go.

They said in their handbook for Labour Party speakers (Labour and the Peace Treaty):

  “The commitments of Labour to revision of the Treaty have steadily grown in definiteness and emphasis during the last four years. Not only is Labour committed to revision by the fact that the Treaties, both with Germany and Austria, are in plain violation of the principles it has so often expressed during the war, but it is committed also by repeated declarations, made since the terms of the Treaty and of the Covenant of the League of Nations (embodied in it) became known.”

In complete defiance of election promises and literature the Labour Party have endorsed the Dawes Treaty which MacDonald defended and signed. Thus not only have the Labour Party supported the war, but now they assist the ruling class to reap the spoils.

After all their denunciation of the Versailles Treaty when in opposition, the Labour Party in office ignored their specious promises and promptly repudiated Arthur Henderson’s election pledge at Burnley to revise the Versailles Treaty.

The Labour Government were praised by the Capitalist Press, specially eulogised by the King, and showered with laurels by leading enemies of the workers, for their work in arranging the Dawes Treaty.

The capitalist work of the Labour Party has been admitted by its own members. Mr. E. D. Morel, writing in the “New Leader,” says :—

  “That it should have been possible for the Conservative leaders last week to affirm dogmatically that a Labour Government had re-established the authority of the Versailles Treaty not again to be questioned by any British Government, without such affirmation being queried by so much as a negative interjection, is the kind of thing which is calculated to spread the dry-rot of suspicion and disillusion in our ranks. For everyone is aware that so long as an unamended Versailles Treaty continues to be the public law of Europe, Europe will not know Peace. We have been told so by our leaders for five years, and we knew it without their telling us. Principles proclaimed for years cannot be abandoned in a night by a Party to whom principles are realities.”

The Dawes Plan.

“The Dawes plan is a plan devoid of sentiment or political or nationalistic feeling ; it is a plan which considers simply and solely the best way of getting the greatest amount of money out of Germany.”

That is the description of the Scheme by the “Manchester Guardian Weekly” (July 18th).

The process, however, of “getting the money” is to place Germany in the hands of Pierpont Morgan and other bankers who are to have the first call on German assets should there be a default in the interest. The railways of Germany are to be converted into a private company, and a huge joint stock bank set up. The Dawes plan tells the German workers that “wage increases are out of the question,” and German capitalists already hint at longer hours and lower wages.

The “brainy” capitalists and their “experts” have evolved a scheme to finance industry in Germany so that out of a larger production goods may be sent to the Allied countries, as reparations.

That policy is simply a continuance of the “dumping” process which our masters have been complaining of for the past few years. But the Dawes plan intensifies it by arranging for more goods to be given free to the capitalists of Allied Nations. Not only so, but the speeding up and greater output which will ensue in Germany will intensify the competition in the world’s markets. This peace cure of the Labour Government will not improve the economic situation. The capitalists here who support this reparations swindle will hypocritically tell the workers “You must accept less and work longer owing to German competition and their low standard of living !”

Its Economic Effects.

The economic effects of getting the spoils of war has been pointed out by leaders of the Capitalist Parties.

Mr. Asquith said : “The indemnity ships have paralysed our shipping industry, while the German yards are busy.”—(Paisley, 2nd June, 1921.)

The financial agents of the Governments, Samuel Montague & Co., declared : “The diversion of German indemnity coal to France has spoiled our market in that country.”— (Parliamentary Debates, July 14th, 1924.)

The Conservative Leader, Mr. Baldwin, said, in the House of Commons :

  “What I want to know is, where are those exports going ? The most obvious place for them to go first is into the openest and freest market they can get, that is to say, ours. Unless there happened to follow a period of world expansion such as followed the introduction of Free Trade into this country—an expansion partly due to discovery in industry, and partly due to discoveries of gold—unless you could have some world expansion of that kind, you will have an immense amount of suffering in every industrial country in the world, that receives those exports, but principally in our country. Theoretically, it is perfectly true that over a period of years the position may right itself, but the process of absorption may take many years, and the dislocation that will be caused in the highly-developed industrial communities is a dislocation that will ruin them before the absorption takes place.”—(Parliamentary Debates, November 15th, 1923.)

Mr. Hardie, of the Labour Party, replied to a speech thus :

  “The right hon. gentleman has so little understanding of British industry and British products that he does not realise that we have 1,300 coke ovens standing idle in this country, and that the workers are on the dole. Yet we have a combination of our present Prime Minister and ex-Prime Ministers wanting to bring in coke from Germany, although our coke ovens are shut down and the men are on the dole.”—(Parliamentary Debates, July, 14th, 1924.)

The Miners’ Federation have also protested about the economic effects of Reparations, but as they belong to the Labour Party they are also responsible for them.

The Coming War.

That this Dawes plan contains the seeds of further war is the claim made by Mr. Morel:

   “This reparation policy does not make for a peaceful settlement; it makes for dislocation and war. Indeed, my own feeling in this matter is that, if the Dawes Report receives the support, as it does, of a certain number—shall I say a large number?—of financiers, business men and economists, it is because they entertain the view, although, perhaps, it is discreetly hidden, that it will show, after a year or two, that the whole idea of obtaining these vast sums of money from Germany is impracticable in practice, because the Transfer Committee will not be able to transfer to Germany’s creditors, either in German currency or in deliveries in kind, the vast sums which are laid down. That hope may mature, but one thing is perfectly clear, and it is the most dangerous aspect of the whole Report, namely, that the whole of this stage-managed Conference, based upon the still continued partial ignorance of the British people of the essence of the reparation policy, and the complete ignorance of the French people of the essence of the reparation policy, is based upon the expectation held out to the British and French peoples that these huge sums of money will, in fact be obtained. That is the most dangerous thing, because, after those expectations, the reaction of disappointment will come about when it is found that they cannot be realised. That will lead once more to a revival of feeling, and the whole thing will again be thrown into the melting pot.”—(Parliamentary Debates, July 14th, 1924.)

Mr. P. Snowden represented the British Government at the London Conference, but after the congratulations to the Labour Government was over, he admitted to the Manchester Guardian (August 22nd) that the occupation of the Ruhr was illegal, and that “the French industrials have designs upon the economic control of certain German industries which they make no effort to conceal.”

The Socialist Position.

The general effects of the present Treaty will not be to improve labour’s condition anywhere. German capitalists will make sure of their profits, and, with the assistance of the bondholders of allied countries, will squeeze the last ounce of work out of their slaves. The workers in allied countries will find unemployment increase due to payment of reparations in the form of goods. The workers will have to face world wide efforts to make them work harder and, with a large army of unemployed, wages will be cut down further.

There is no escape from the effects of private property in the means of life. The system is based upon trade for profit, and as competition for trade increases, more scientific methods of production are employed and fewer workers are required to do the work. An ever-increasing part of the wealth goes to the employing class, and thus class distinctions become more glaring. The world’s resources, whether in the Ruhr or elsewhere, are eagerly struggled for in the effort to get the world’s wealth into fewer hands.

No reparations policy can touch these facts, which are the result of the rule of capital. This intervention of the banking interests into the fight for the spoils of war shows how international that rule of capital is. The Labour Government’s unity with Pierpont Morgan & Co. may be explained by the Daily Herald’s editorial (March 29th, 1924), which said :

  “The policy of all capitalist countries is, in the last resort, controlled and determined not by the politicians but by the economic and financial powers whose creatures they are.”

The Present system is beyond repair. Only a revolution can abolish the “evils” of to-day. Hence our demand is not Reparations, but a Social Revolution !

A Lord discovers the real Marx. (1924)

From the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

One does not frequently discover in the books and articles written about Marx by his opponents any genuine attempt to impart to the reader an adequate idea of the contents of Marx’s works. “The Real Karl Marx” (an article by Lord Riddell in John O’ London’s Weekly, July 26, 1924) merits some consideration, however, for, as a travesty of Marx’s teachings, it is rather more absurd than the ordinary bourgeois production.

The purpose of this article is not to discuss Lord Riddell’s method of misrepresentation, but to point out a few slips made by him in his application of that method, in the first place it should be noted that where Lord Riddell falls in the cart (if one may use a proletarian expression in writing of a bourgeois) is in his choice of a victim. It is common knowledge among Socialists that Marx and Engels never did appear particularly well in the “rôle” of victims of misrepresentation of the type now under review. Both of them had a peculiar habit of replying to their critics’ misrepresentations—sometimes half a century or more before those misrepresentations were made.

A few examples will serve to show wherein “The Real Karl Marx” of Lord Riddell differs from Marx. Lord Riddell, discussing the history of Marx’s ideas, writes as follows :—

  “Adam Smith laid down that labour is the source of all wealth and the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities (“Wealth of Nations,” 1776). In 1817 Ricardo (1772-1823) published his “Political Economy,” in which he stated that the worker receives as wages only so much as is required to furnish him with the necessities of life estimated according to the custom of the time.

  Marx based his theories for the reconstruction of Society upon a narrow interpretation of these propositions.”

Marx, in his critical notes on the Gotha Programme, says :

  “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature, no less than labour, is the source of use-values (and of these material wealth essentially consists); and labour is itself no more than a manifestation of a natural force, human labour-power.”

Marx’s work, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” is itself a reply to the last sentence quoted from Lord Riddell’s article, but the following passage from Engels’ preface to that work may usefully be given here :

  “The above application of the theory of Ricardo, which shows to the workers that the totality of social production, which is their product, belongs to them because they are the only real producers, leads direct to Communism. But it is also, as Marx shows, false in force, economically speaking, because it is simply an application of morality to economy. According to the laws of bourgeois economy, the greater part of the product does not belong to the workers who have created it. If, then, we say, ‘That is unjust, it ought not to be,’ that has nothing whatever to do with economy ; we are only stating that this economic fact is in contradiction to our moral sentiment. That is why Marx never based upon this his Communist conclusions, but rather upon the necessary overthrow, which is developing itself under our eyes every day, of the capitalist system of production.”

A brief examination thus shows that Marx’s alleged “narrow interpretation” is merely the product of Lord Riddell’s imagination.

Elsewhere our critic refers to various matters which, he says, Marx’s theory disregarded. He says : “It also disregarded the necessity of leadership in industry.” Marx’s reply to this may once more be quoted :

  “All combined labour on a large scale requires, more or less, a directing authority, in order to secure the harmonious working of the individual activities, and to perform the general functions that have their origin in the action of the combined organism, as distinguished from the action of its separate organs. A single violin player is his own conductor ; an orchestra requires a separate one.”

Further:

  “Just as at first the capitalist is relieved from actual labour so soon as his capital, has reached that minimum amount with which capitalist production, as such, begins, so now, he hands over the work of direct and constant supervision of the individual workmen and groups of workmen, to a special kind of wage labourer. An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers), and sergeants (foremen, overlookers), who, in while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist. The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function.”—Capital, Vol. 1, chapter 13.)

Lord Riddell, in the course of a pretence at a representation of what he calls Marx’s theory, says : “The workers, however, become organised and develop class consciousness—viz., a recognition of their rights as opposed to those of other classes.” Marx certainly recognised the necessity for class-consciousness. But “rights” ! How little use Marx’s theory had for the recognition of rights is realised by anyone who has given any attention to his works. Especially in the already-mentioned Notes on the Gotha Programme does Marx deal with this matter. Discussing the expression “equal rights to the whole product of labour,” occurring in that Programme, he shows how “Like all right, therefore, it is substantially an unequal right.” Further on, too, he denounces the “endeavour to uproot the realistic conceptions which (after long labour) have been firmly implanted“ in the minds of our members, and to replace them by ideological fustian about rights and all the rest of it.”

It is possible here only to touch upon a very small proportion of Lord Riddell’s mistakes. The following, however, must be given as his best attempt at concentrated misrepresentation ;

  “The English edition of his chief work, Capital, was issued in 1886. In the preface his co-author, Frederick Engels, committed himself to the statement that British prosperity seemed to have run its course, that we were landed in ‘the slough of a permanent and chronic depression,’ and that the increase of population would shortly lead to a revolution.”

What Engels did write, in his preface, was :

  “The decennial cycle of stagnation, prosperity, over-production and crisis, ever recurrent from 1825 to 1867, seems indeed to have run its course; but only to land us in the slough of despond of a permanent and chronic depression.”—(Capital. Swan, Sonnenschein, Lowrey & Co., 1887.)

The real Engels is as quoted here, and the real riddle is : How did our critic manage to quote nearly a whole line of Engels’ preface nearly correctly? As regards the statement, attributed to Engels, that “the increase of population would shortly lead to a revolution,” it must be admitted that Lord Riddell here deals Engels a nasty blow, the only defence being that Engels did not make that statement.

Lord Riddell gives what purports to be, but most certainly is not, a description ot Marx’s materialist conception of history. What Lord Riddell does not know about this side of Marx’s teachings is evidently well worth knowing. For of Marx he writes : “In 1845 he was expelled from Paris. After this he went to Brussels, where, in conjunction with Frederick Engels, he planned a series of European revolutions to subvert the existing order.” This is the best joke penned by Lord Riddell in his article. Revolutions planned by Marx and Engels ! By those who had formulated the materialist conception of history, according to which the latter is a history of class struggles ! By those who had maintained that “the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself” ! If Lord Riddell’s version is not a crude joke, then how admirable must have been the modesty of the author of “The Struggle of the Classes in France (1848—1850).”

A clue to the source of Lord Riddell’s mistakes, to use a polite expression, may be found in another of his references to Capital. He remarks : “It is not exciting reading, but its teachings diluted and embellished have been spread in all civilised countries by devoted adherents.” Whether or not Capital is exciting reading depends, of course, upon the reader. But if ever Lord Riddell should desire to become acquainted with the subject of his criticism it would still be of advantage to him to read Marx’s works rather than his “teachings diluted and embellished” by devoted adherents of capitalism.

A. C. Anderton

Lloyd George on the Labour Party. (1924)

From the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “The Labour Party had been built up on nationalisation, the capital levy, and a tax on individual enterprise and private property, and now that it was in power this same Labour Party was acting as if all its life it had been the only champion of individual enterprise and private property, and the sworn enemy of nationalisation of every sort and kind.

  “The Labour Party was busy selling goods over the counter, and was doing a great trade, but it was not its own goods it was selling. A few were Tory goods; but most of them Liberal goods.”—(Report of Oxford speech, Daily Herald, August 7.)

Policy and Tactics of Socialism. (1924)

From the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Lesson No.1

Suggested Lessons for Study Classes in Socialism.

LESSON NO. 2

The Futility of Reform.

Social Reform Explained.

14. The basis of the present system is class ownership of the means of producing wealth. The class that rules has always maintained that basis, as no other foundation for their system is possible.

15. Various changes are made, however, in the manner of conducting the system and in the detail conditions under which the people live. These changes do not affect the basis of the system and are therefore called reforms as contrasted with revolutions. The policy of altering the social conditions within a system is called Social Reform. These reforms are mainly carried out by means of legislation.

Its Purpose and Results.

16. The growth or evolution of modern industry affects the conditions under which the masses work and live. Our masters therefore are continually using their political power to “reform” industrial, social and political conditions. They do this to patch up and perpetuate the social system which benefits them, as it is against their interests to allow it to decay.

17. The rapid development of industry makes a complete change of social system more and more possible and necessary. The growing competition for jobs with the increasing uncertainty of a living tends to make the workers oppose the present system. Hence the master class tries to content the workers by promising, and often establishing reforms in the hope that the victims of the system will turn away from revolutionary policies. The purpose of reform is to cover up some of the worst features of the system; to adjust conditions so as to obtain more profits from industry, and to secure and strengthen capitalist domination.

18. The result of reform is a more efficient working of capitalism. The employing class learns by experience what detail changes will benefit them and introduces the reforms upon the plea that they are improving the lot of the worker. The other result of reform follows from this, namely, that they secure the support of the workers and cloud the class issue in their minds. Arthur James Balfour, the Tory prime minister well said : “Social Reform is the antidote to Socialism.”

Historical Survey of Influence of Reform.

19. The factory system in its early years sank the workers into the most miserable conditions possible. It drove them from their cottage industries amid green fields and fresh air into the insanitary buildings of smoke-poisoned and over-crowded cities. The women and children of both sexes were also recruited for the busy machinery. They worked fourteen and sixteen hours per day and often by night. In factory, shop or mine, they worked under brutal conditions for starvation wages. Individualism was celebrating its victory and the manufacturers accumulated fortunes in a few years. There was no factory legislation restricting the conditions of labour, and attempts to form workmen’s combinations resulted in merciless repression.

20. The terrible conditions of life and labour had a disastrous effect on the health of the population and the workers died off rapidly. Some of the far-seeing employers demanded legislation to compel the manufacturers to improve the state of their victims. Workers in their misery destroyed machinery, but it was mainly due to the antagonism between landowners and manufacturers that factory legislation came to be passed.

21. These factory reforms undoubtedly improved conditions for a time. It was because the workers had sunk to such utter degradation and inefficiency that the masters eventually enacted laws to prevent the workers from being killed off. The reforms were necessary to the preservation of the system and only improved the workers’ conditions compared with the depths to which they had previously sunk.

22. Since that time nearly all reforms have left the condition of the workers untouched, except where they made them worse. Political reforms, factory laws, pensions for the aged and allowances to the unemployed and sick; such legislation has been enacted in most capitalist countries without making any permanent improvement in working-class conditions. Bismarck, in Germany, heaped up reforms to win the workers away from Socialism and make them good fighting material, but the general condition of the workers remained the same. British capitalists have been ingenious in their reform policy, for it has built up the strength of the masters and kept the workers interested in their masters’ affairs to the exclusion of the working-class issues.

In spite of a century of reform Lloyd George admitted in 1911 that there was greater slavery, more poverty and deeper hardship amongst the workers than ever before. In the United States, technical education and other reforms have been instituted to better compete with Germany and other countries, but the early exhaustion, insecurity, lack of property, and poverty of the workers has been testified to by the report of the Committee on Industrial Relations of the U.S.A. Senate.

The Economic Barrier to Beneficial Legislation.

23. The operation of reform legislation brings in its train counter effects due to the economic laws of capitalism. A shorter working day is a desirable thing, but anything which makes labour power more expensive drives the employers to adopt some method to cheapen the cost of production. The hours are made less, but the energy and output remain the same as during the longer working day. Greater division of labour, more efficient superintendence, the elimination of the unfit, more scientific methods, better machinery and the introduction of women into the factory are some of the after-effects inevitably resulting from an increase in the price of labour power. The unemployment and insecurity of the worker are thereby continued and grow with the economic development.

24. Henry Ford testified that the output was greater in eight hours than during ten hours, and profits increased enormously. The evidence of Lord Leverhulme, the advocate of a six-hour day, is, that in his great soap factory profits multiplied with the reduction of hours.

So-Called Revolutionary Reforms.

25. Many well-known reformers call themselves Socialists of the revisionist school. They claim to have revised the teachings of Marx and Engels and made the theory up-to-date. They say we must go a step at a time. They argue that their reforms are revolutionary.

These men simply act as agents of capitalism in teaching the workers to fight for reforms. The time thus spent is lost to the teaching of socialism. The difficult details of the million and one reforms would take as much time for the average worker to understand as the real teachings of socialism. If the reforms advocated were likely to aid the workers in their struggle, the capitalists in control would not yield them, and to go before the workers with a reform programme is therefore a fraud, for it can only be carried into legislating with the consent of the employing class in power. The reforms advocated by Kautsky in The Erfurter Programme would not improve the workers’ conditions, and even to get them we would have to engage in the anti-socialist tactics of the German party.

Arguments of Reformers.

26. All the leading capitalist reformers, from Lloyd George to the leaders of the Labour Party, argue that if the workers will give them the power they will help the workers. The whole history of capitalist legislation is against them. The reform policy of capitalism is carried out to deceive the workers, to make them more efficient wage-slaves and to bind the workers more securely to allegiance to capitalism.

27. We see how bitterly the employers fight the workers’ demands for higher wages and how brutally they subdue them. Can we expect these same employers to pass beneficial legislation? Their claim to have improved our conditions by reforms is flatly contradicted by every inquiry into industrial conditions. The unceasing unrest and strike fever in the ranks of labour show that all the reforms have failed to stop the decline in labour’s conditions. All the arguments of reformers fail to show how it is possible to reduce the economic insecurity of the workers or to strengthen the producers’ position against the employer by reforms.

Waste of Effort in Fighting for Reforms.

28. The time spent on preaching reforms is wasted because it does not enlighten the worker on the causes of his conditions and the remedy. It simply leads him to expect benefits from the ruling class and the present system. All the reform campaigns of the past have resulted in some kind of legislation which eventually worked out to our disadvantage. Reformers forget that the very growth and evolution of the industrial system is quicker than the passing of legislation, and the actual development of the system causes more evils than are temporarily reformed. As soon as one evil is reformed twenty more arise. If the workers devoted one tenth of the attention and energy to Socialism that they give to reform advocacy—Socialism would be here.

Confusion of Issue in Worker’s Mind.

29. The advocate of Socialism finds his work hampered at every step by the confusion created in the worker’s mind by reformists. The workers are taught to believe that they have a common cause with non-socialists in fighting for amelioration. Instead of explaining to the workers the class character of modern society with the resulting enslavement and poverty that will always be the workers’ portion, the reformers create false hopes in the worker’s mind. The great majority therefore follow the policy of exhausting every possible error before coming to the right conclusion. They usually grow apathetic and sickened of politics altogether before the right stage is reached. Socialist activity by the workers requires a clear recognition of the class conflict, and as the belief in Reforms obscures this, reform advocacy is injurious to the workers’ interests.

Some Reform Organisations of To-day.

30. The societies advocating reforms are countless. They range from nationalisation Societies to Currency Reform Leagues. Shopkeepers, professional men, manufacturers, bankers and brewers, all vie with each other in seeking some reform to benefit their particular interests. Business men wanting more credit advocate currency reforms, but they fail to show how any alteration of banking laws will alter the relative positions of employer and employees. Labour Parties and Communist bodies have reform programmes and enlist their membership by this means. Their reforms, however, are either of the same variety as we have had for decades from Liberal and Tory or they are reforms which are impossible under capitalism, such as the demand to “absorb the unemployed.” Capitalism needs an unemployed army to keep down wages, and this industrial reserve is continually reinforced by those thrown out of work by machinery and speeding up methods.

The Anti-Sweating League has been loud in its demands for Trade Boards to be established in “sweated trades.” They rejoiced when the Trade Boards Act was passed, and reformers are busy demanding its application to more trades. The fraud of reform is clearly shown by the admissions of labour leaders concerning these Trade Boards. Mr. J. Beard, President of the Workers’ Union, says (Daily Herald, Aug. 19): “Trade Boards stabilised low wages and servile conditions and weakened trade

unionism.”

Social Reform Leaves Causes Untouched.

31. An examination of modern society shows that the poverty and degradation of the workers is due to the capitalist system itself. The only remedy, therefore, is to remove the cause of the social condition—to abolish the present system and replace it by a social system in which the means of production are owned in common, and in which exploitation will not exist.

32. Socialists are scientific and therefore seek to remove the causes instead of tinkering with effects. Social reform is like charity—it perpetuates the misery and does not prevent its continual reappearance. The reformer fights tuberculosis, whilst the workers’ conditions cause the disease to flourish. “Criminals” are hounded while poverty and unemployment drive men and women to recruit the army of “criminals.”

Evolution and Revolution.

33. Reformers claim that they believe in evolution as opposed to revolution. They preach “going gradually,” or “a step at a time,” and they attempt to justify their ideas on scientific grounds. Revolution, however, is a fact common to natural and human history alike. Revolution is the more or less rapid change made necessary by the previous evolution of the organism. Each system of society evolves up to the point where a complete change is required, and that complete change is a Revolution. The present system evolves, but no amount of evolution of private property produces common ownership. The common ownership for which Socialists strive can only be established by the rise of the working class to political power and the use of that power to transform the economic basis of society. That is a social revolution. No accumulation of reforms or steps can alter the economic foundations of capitalism.

Evolution and Revolution are not opposed to each other. The evolution of capitalism with all its reforms produces those conditions making a revolution inevitable if society is to progress. Socialists hold that conditions are ripe for revolution. Conditions are beyond reform.

Rationalisation and Municipalisation.

34. Government ownership is not Socialism. The transfer of industries from private firms to State ownership is simply a policy dictated by capitalist needs and for capitalist advantage. The most open enemies of Socialism have nationalised railways and other businesses in various countries without in any way benefiting the working class. Under Government ownership “sweating” is quite common, as can be seen from complaints about conditions in the Post Office, Mint, etc. In France and Canada, strikes on the nationalised railways have been frequent and ruthlessly suppressed, and active workers victimised.

The saving of waste resulting from abolishing competition means a reduction in the number of workers needed. That is the effect of Government ownership. The control of an industry by one employer—the Capitalist State—means a stronger force against the workers if they strike against their conditions, and the victimised workers have no other employer in the industry to employ them when they are dismissed. It is like a Trust.

The profits made in Government services are used to benefit the property owners—the taxpayers.

All these arguments apply against municipal ownership.

Adolph Kohn

A Look Round. (1924)

From the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who are the loafers.

   “Deducting loafers and criminals one person in three was in a state of perpetual poverty . . . The merely idle should be taught with the lash if need be, the dignity of work.” (Rev. Basil Bourchier, St. Jude’s, Hampstead, Morning Post, August 11th, 1924.)

Without doubt the bogey men of Capitalism fear the danger of being left behind with their out-of-date contributions toward stifling working-class discontent. Statements upon social evils become increasingly common; but a tirade against poverty does not imply the knowledge or desire to remove the cause. Witness Lloyd George, who, with his fulsome pretence of sympathy for the workers’ suffering, still makes every effort to win their support for the system that makes that suffering inevitable. Our cleric is another, but lacking the experience of the astute politician, he lets pussy out of the bag easily. He said :

  “Poverty was dangerous, it created the revolutionary temper, and was a menace to the very existence of society.”—(Ibid.)

The Socialist knows, of course, that poverty alone does not make the revolutionary. It is the knowledge of their class position and knowledge of their potential strength as a united body that makes revolutionaries among the ranks of the working class. But when we read the suggestion of flogging loafers, well ! We fear there is a grave mistake somewhere. A real Lady, writing in the Express, August 11, 1924), says :—

  “The London season that has just closed has been the most brilliant and noteworthy in my memory. . . . Three months of perpetual amusement take their toll of everyone, and society is obliged to retire to the sea and the moors, or to seek the peace and tranquility of the countryside in order to recuperate. … I am inclined to think it would be better to reserve some charitable functions for the winter months, when there is little to do and time hangs heavily on our hands.” (Lady Alexander.)

* * *

A Message From Mars.

  “Attempts are to be made during the coming days by several scientists to communicate with the Planet Mars, which will be in closer proximity to the earth than it has been for years. Life of a very high order it is suggested lives upon the Planet.”

Man of Mars : Say ! you must be pretty comfortable over yonder with your science, machinery, fertile soil, etc.

Earthly Socialist: Well, not exactly, there is plenty of everything for all, but the producers haven’t got it.

M. of M. : Here, no leg-pulling ! Who the stars has got it if the producers have not?

E.S. : Truth to tell, the non-producers, our masters who we do the job for.

M. of M. : Good heavens ! Are you all mad?

E.S. : No, not exactly; we, the workers, keep the show going, but our masters keep us mighty poor. You see, they have pinched this old earth and everything on it. We’re trying to get our mates to see through the game. Better news next time.

* * *

The Reward of Ability.

It is not in the least surprising to the Socialist that in the rotten system of to-day those with any outstanding ability unless possessed of cunning and business acumen, lay up little for moth and rust to corrupt. Just as the labours of the inventors have mainly benefited those who could financially exploit their ideas, leaving them mostly in the direst poverty, so we find the story re-told in every walk, of life. For over 30 years the late T. E. Dunville, the music-hall comedian, continued to provoke laughter, holding his own, until quite recent time, with every popular star of his day. But fear of a declining popularity and a much reduced salary brought him to a watery grave in despair. (Daily Chronicle, March 24, 24.) As a laughter maker he must have brought fortunes to the music-hall magnates, yet he left behind the paltry sum of £236. (Daily Chronicle, August 11, 1924). How much of the great wealth of the few is coined in the tears and agony of men, women and children of the working class?

* * *

The Artful Dodgers.

Ask the average worker, Do the capitalists as a class work? and he will probably answer: “Well, with their brain.” Karl Marx, in his work, Capital, showed how the reaching of a certain stage of capitalist development relieves the capitalist of his one-time function of directing industry, bringing forward at the same time a special kind of wage labourer whose exclusive function now becomes the work of supervision, management, etc. Capitalists still endeavour to convince the workers that they are indispensable in order to justify their now entirely parasitic part in society. The enormous wealth extorted from the working class demands no service or ability from its receivers; they may be financially interested in dozens of concerns without any personal contact:

  “Colonel Arthur Barhum is director of 62 concerns, Mr. Seymour Berry, J.P., appears as director of 71, while five of the Cory family, partners in Orders & Hansfords, are directors of 136 different companies.” (Directory of Directors.)

Let our so-called business men speak and show how they buy the brains they require like they do raw material.

  “Mr. Eric Gamage, Director and General Manager of A. & W. Gamage, Ltd., says: ‘I never wasté time in doing work other people can do for me equally well.’ Sir Ernest Benn is Managing Director, Benn Brothers, Ltd. ‘These,’ he says, ‘are my rules. I never do a piece of work that can be avoided; I never do anything until I am perfectly sure that no one else is capable of doing it. It is the greatest folly to hug work.’ Sir Charles Wakefield, Director, C. C. Wakefield and Co., Ltd., ‘is emphatic upon the importance of the delegation of duties which it is not necessary he himself should perform. “I must not be interpreted wrongly when I say that I have found the golden rule to be ‘Do no work that you can put on other shoulders”.’ ”—Quoted from “How we get more into the business day,” System, July.).

 * * *

Catching them young.

Outlining the objects of the Boy Scout movement at St. Andrew’s Hall, Glasgow, Gen. Baden Powell said (Observer, June 22, 1924) what was at the root of our troubles to-day was :—

  “Selfishness of class against class, party against party, between employer and employed, and between the rich and the poor; there was continual fighting for self interest, and that was what they were out to combat.”

Which we call, without sentiment, the class struggle. That the object of the Scout movement should be to combat self-interest we never doubted—but in whom? Do the capitalists, who enjoy all the advantages arising from the workers’ efforts, require instruction as to which is the most desirable life, theirs or the workers’? Or will they rather use every effort to subdue self-interest in our class, upon whose docility and submission their privileges are based? The Chief Scout tells us other objects are the stimulation of character, handicraft, and physical health.

  “All three went together, and the fourth was to harness those three points of efficiency to the service of others of the community.”

There you have it. Our masters require patriotic, industrious, and healthy boys, so that when the time arrives they may be efficient in the SERVICE OF OTHERS—in war and peace. Fellow workers, to-day you are notoriously unselfish. When, like your masters, you fight for self-interest through understanding your class position there can only be victory for you and the establishment of Socialism.

W. E. MacHaffie

May Day and the Heritage of the Past (1953)

From the May 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the early years of this century there was a ferment of co-operative ideas in the International Labour Movement that two world wars since appear to have killed. 

In those years mass meetings attended by thousands of workers were held on the 1st of May. At a conference of the 2nd International in 1889 this day was set aside for international demonstrations in favour of the eight-hour day; subsequently they became demonstrations in favour of working class international solidarity and from numerous platforms, attended by crowds in holiday dress complete with the banners of different groups, a varied assortment of speakers delivered passionate orations condemning the actions against strikes, the subjection of nations and groups, and glorifying the martyrdom of individuals. Speakers representing all sorts of groups took part, including Indians, Chinese, Russians and Negroes.

Over the years changing national and internal lineups have so altered the aspect of affairs that the passion of May Day and its misguided hopes have departed. All, all are gone. The story of them must come as a tale from a strange world to the young generation of today. Even the passion that inspired the misguided ranter against wrongs has departed with them, converted into the acceptance of privilege. Impassioned radicals became bulwarks of governments based upon privilege; fiery denouncers of imperialist oppression took their places amongst the privilege supporting a new imperialism in the erstwhile subject nations; bitter spokesmen of subject groups came to the top and in their turn exercised as ruthless an oppression as their privileged forebears. Underneath it all, and cutting across all frontiers as of yore, there still remained the fundamental class cleavage between propertied and propertyless, between the relatively small section of the world's population which occupies the seat of privilege, reaping power, leisure and luxury, and the vast mass which remains the pedestal upon which power and privilege rest; labouring that others may enjoy.

The budding international solidarity of the past has been swallowed up by the armed and antagonistic camps of to-day, but our independent May Day message still remains as urgent and as alive as when it was first delivered, the message of Socialism, the only message of hope, of solidarity, of certainty in a world of hatred, strife and uncertainty.

This message has its roots far back in the past. The germs of communistic ideas go back centuries, but the germs of socialistic ideas, as we know them to-day, were synonymous with the growth of capitalism. Their vague beginnings are to be found amongst a group of French writers who were raising a ferment in the 18th century, when Capitalism was rising to its feet. Borrowing from Hobbes, Locke and their contemporaries, these writers put forward ideas some of which fit the present in spite of their somewhat confused context.

The earliest of these French writers appears to have been Jean Meslier, who, in “The Testament of Jean Meslier," at the beginning of the 18th century, used phrases that sound singularly modern. These are some of his ideas: He was opposed to property, believing in the common control of the wealth of society. He argued that among the evils which oppressed mankind and called for reform the worst was private property. Property meant inequality; Inequality led to injustice and oppression. The rich were respected and honoured, while the poor must toil in neglect. Property was a cause of idleness; the idle rich class found its complement in an idle poor class. This latter class was made up of the unemployed, who, because of the existing system, had nothing to do and were hence in poverty. Cupidity and its attendants, ambition and greed, are the evils in a society based upon property. Property does not unite people; but through jealousy tends to break up social harmony, and hence destroys social unity. Fraud, deception, theft and murder find their cause in property. Society might be happy were goods made common and equality secured. The basis of equality is equality of economic condition.

Later on another writer, Morelly, carried some of the ideas further. He had a definite plan for the future in which each would labour according to his ability and share according to need. He argued that it was not labour but the conditions of labour that people objected to. That there would be no exchange as goods would be stored and distributed according to needs. On property he made the following remarks

  “From the sceptre to the shepherd's crook, from the tiara to the meanest monk's frock, if one asks who governs men, the answer is simple; personal interest or the interest of others which vanity makes one adopt and which is always dependent on the first. But where do these monsters get power? From property.” P. 100-101 “Code de la Nature,” 1755.

He denied the existence of innate ideas as also did his contemporary (Helvétius), who said:

  “The ideas supposed to be innate are those that are familiar to and as it were incorporated with us; they are the effect of education, example, and habit.” P.15 “System of Nature.”

Barnave, another of Morelly’s contemporaries, saw a bit farther than the rest. He could see the rise of classes and considered the part which economic changes played in history.

Morelly laid down definite plans for a new social order based on natural rights, the heritage of everyone born into society. There was no room for historical development in the systems of those who thought like him; history and its results had no value. Society did not grow out of the past, the present had to be obliterated root and branch, to make way for the future. This form of thought, together with the revolutionary tradition, dominated radical movements until the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Morelly’s merit was that he looked for the cause of social evils in society as organised in his day; the environmental theory later pressed so vigorously by Robert Owen.

The Babuef “Conspiracy of the Equals" at the end of the French Revolution drew from these early French sources, justifying their rising, like the Trotzkyists, on the ground that the Revolution had got off the track. They advocated the conspiratorial seizure of power.

One of the members of the “Society of Equals" who escaped from France formed the Babouvist movement after the Fall of Napoleon. The object of the movement was to carry on where Babuef had left off. This movement became tied more and more closely to the workers' movement in France, finally becoming a definite working-class party under Blanqui and exercising a considerable influence upon the French risings of February and June, 1848.

In the beginning of the 19th Century the Revolutionary tradition was carried on, associated with the Utopian experiments of Owen, Fourier, Cabet and Weitling, but in a less turbulent fashion than formerly. Weitling studied in Western Germany, where working men’s clubs were being formed for reading and discussion. At these clubs radical literature was available to those who otherwise would not have had the means to obtain it. Weitling had considerable influence on those who founded the “League of the Just”—a secret society with communistic ideas that eventually merged into the Communist League, that published the Communist Manifesto.

In England machine production brought ruin to masses of hand workers and by simplifying productive operations, introduced women and children into factories and mines to work under conditions that were appalling. It was the hand workers who were the prime movers in the revolt against the new world of industry, and who sought a way out of their difficulties; first, by incendiarism and machine breaking, and later by vague visions of some sort of co-operative world based upon small proprietorships.

Some of the earliest reactions to the industrial revolution were political reform associations, the Utopian schemes of Robert Owen, and the land reform ideas of Thomas Spence and William Qgilvie. Owen argued that abundance was the cause of crises and misery. This turned the attention of some writers to an examination of economics. They came to the conclusion that as “labour was the source of all wealth” the labourer was entitled to the fruits of industry. Ricardo's book, “Principles of Political Economy,” published in 1817, established that labour was the source of value and, working on his conclusions, writers like Thompson, Hodgskin and Bray demanded that all products should belong to the labourer.

Under the inspiration of the American War of Independence, a corresponding society was formed in 1780 under the title of “ The Society for Constitutional Information.” Its formation was mainly through the instrumentality of Major Cartwright and Horne Tooke. It had a programme that included the Six Points that later formed the basis of the “People's Charter.” The French Revolution gave a fillip to the movement for reform and corresponding societies sprang up all over the country, engaging in bitter and thinly-veiled attacks on the government. In 1792 the first genuinely working-class movement commenced with the formation of the “London Corresponding Society'' by Thomas Hardy, Robert Boyd and George Walne, holding its first meeting in January of that year. The motto of the Society was “Unite, Persevere and Be Free.” It was formed for the purpose of corresponding with other societies that had the same ends in view. It only lasted a few years and repressive action compelled it to disperse, but agitation continued to simmer, finding expression in various ways, in lectures, Utopian writings, the publication of the “Gorgon,” the first trade union paper, in 1818, and eventually the formation of a new London Corresponding Society, “The London Working Men's Association, in 1836. Members of this Association, such as Lovett, Cleave, Hetherington, Watson, Vincent and Harney, were afterwards active in the Chartist Movement. The Association published an address to Workingmen’s Associations that concluded with the words, “Be assured that the good that is to be must be begun by ourselves.” It also started the practice of sending addresses to working men of different countries, beginning with Belgium in November, 1836. One of its members, Lovett, drafted the “ People’s Charter,” that started the Chartist Movement, and another, Harney, formed the “Fraternal Democrats,” which brought the English movement in contact with the Continental.

In 1848 the genuinely Socialist movement began with the publication of the “Communist Manifesto.” A brief history of the working-class movement from that time onwards will be found in the Introduction to our pamphlet, “The Communist Manifesto and the Last Hundred Years.” An examination of this history will reveal how wayward the movement has been, and how ready to chase after will-o’-the-wisps. But the movement goes on and understanding is growing, although the struggle has been long and die disappointments bitter.

So this May Day we again call attention to the only bright gleam in the heavy clouds that hover over us—our message of hope. The determination to establish a new form of society in which everything that is in and on the earth shall be the common heritage of all mankind; where security, comfort and harmony will be the lot of all. All that is necessary for the establishment of this society is understanding and the will to achieve it.

Gilmac.

Slings and Arrows: Time off for Apes! (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the May 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Time off for Apes!

So often is man's inhumanity commented upon by critics of the present social system, that it becomes a pleasure—if not a duty—to bring to our readers' attention an incident which will show that the milk of human kindness runs warm in the veins of one man and a great man at that!

We all know that during the late war the efforts of every politician and military leader were devoted to finding the quickest, most efficient and. of course, the cheapest method of killing the greatest number of people in the shortest space of time. The Germans developed flying bombs, rockets, and human incinerators. The Allies added atom bombs. During this destruction and loss of life appeared a light “no bigger than a man’s hand," but nevertheless, still offering hope to suffering humanity. Who was the man who thus illuminated the world, who, while making wonderful speeches and organising battle-fronts where thousands lost their lives, still found time to perform an act of mercy ? None other than Mr. Churchill

The story about to be unfolded will touch the hearts and minds of our readers and if there is a dry eye left when this has been read, there must be harder hearts than we thought possible. On the Rock of Gibraltar depends, to some extent, the safe keeping of sea routes and strategic points for the British Commonwealth. Legend has it that if a certain species inhabiting the Rock were to become extinct, British ownership of Gibraltar would come to an end. In 1943, while Mr. Churchill was convalescing in Morocco after a severe illness, news was brought to him of a startling fall in the population of Gibraltar. In spite of his convalescence, Mr. Churchill was not disposed to view the matter with equanimity. In wartime falls of population were to be expected. But our gallant leader was not to be daunted. He went into action immediately. One can only imagine, for history has not yet recorded, the rolling prose, the fine sounding sentences, with which Mr. Churchill addressed himself to the problem. Within a short time and due to his exertions the situation was rapidly transformed, and readers will be relieved to learn that this species is now flourishing again on the Rock of Gibraltar, and Mr. Churchill is personally informed of any "happy event" that occurs there.

It is good to know that our Mr. Churchill, bowed down, as he was, with cares of State, could take time off to save life—even if it was only that of monkeys! 

* * *

Time off for Mourning

When King George VI passed away, and again on the recent death of Queen Mary, journalists, politicians and the like assured us that it would be in line with the wishes of Their Majesties for us to go on working as usual. It is true, however, that in the case of King George we were expected and, indeed, allowed to take two minutes off to stand in silence on the day of the funeral. We cannot complain. No employer likes giving time off and even though Kings and great men pass away life must go on. But all this takes place in capitalist Britain, and that is all one should reasonably expect

In other lands, however, we are told that “Socialism" exists under a label marked “People’s Democracy." In these lands things are vastly different, as they should be, since Socialism is not Capitalism. When a great man passes “over” in Russia or Czechoslovakia, the obsequies and public mourning are on a much vaster scale. The body of the departed “Father," or, if in a smaller “People’s Democracy," “little father," is embalmed so that not only this, but succeeding generations may gaze upon and contemplate the glory that has departed. If in capitalist London the queue to see the lying-in-state stretches for two miles, in the “Land of Socialism” they stretch for ten. If in capitalist Britain the dead ruler is laid to rest and then almost forgotten, in Russia he is embalmed, canonised, and almost turned into a God . . . But this is not all. In the “land of Socialism" poets compose odes of love and praise to the qualities of the dead man, while in Britain Mr. Pollitt tells us that our eyes are “ dimmed with tears,” and Mr. Campbell in the Daily Worker, rebukes the British Press for not observing the decencies expected when the great ones pass into the Great Beyond.

But of all the distinctions that mark off life here from life in the People’s democracies, one stands out most prominent of all. True that when Stalin and later Gottwald died, we were told that they would have wished the workers to go on working. And so far, it would appear to be no different from capitalist Britain. But, and here is the great distinction, in Moscow and in all the villages and towns of Russia and the “people's democracies" from East Germany to China and Mongolia, every worker was allowed to take time off for mourning to the tune of five minutes. How different from those greedy capitalists of the Western world, who only allowed us two minutes. It's almost worth emigrating for.

* * *

Profound thought dept.

“Raise level of honesty and we can smash crime, says Fyfe” (headline, Evening Standard, 14/3/53). Who would ever have thought of it ? Such genius must obviously be preserved and applied in other spheres. For example, “Raise level of health and smash disease, says Health Minister"; "Raise level of bank balance and smash overdraft, says Bank Manager.” The permutations are inexhaustible and no prizes are offered for any submitted to us.

* * *

“Enough, no more!”

Since the accession to the throne of Queen Elizabeth not a newspaper has been published without some mention of the Queen, her husband, her children and the rest of the Royal Family. Journalists have tripped over each other in their efforts to boost circulation by publishing highly-coloured stories of Royal doings. The articles are written in such obsequiously nauseating terms that one can only turn from them in disgust. No effort is spared to convince everybody that the Queen is the repository of every human virtue, that she smiles, is sad, has dignity and poise, and yet is modern and even advanced. We are told that this will be a new and glorious Elizabethan Era for Great Britain. Playwrights will become Shakespeares, musicians Purcells, and adventurers Drakes or Raleighs.

It would appear, if these scribblers are to be believed, that the Queen has no faults whatsoever. We are not disposed to dispute that assertion. As we are not personally acquainted with Her Majesty we are unable to pass judgment. But now that this publicity is reaching its zenith with the approach of the Coronation, is it too much to ask that it should come to an end ?

So that these Fleet Street hacks may be assured that their message has reached us all we hereby declare that we believe every word they tell us about the Royal Family, that we accept every tale of the indomitable courage with which Her Majesty faces her duties, and that we believe that under the inspiration of the Queen this country will become Glorious again. Having issued that declaration, we hope that these inane drivellings will cease and that journalists will now devote themselves to other and more serious matters, that is, provided always that they are capable of anything other than Society chit-chat

* * *

Threat or Promise?

The Sunday Pictorial (5/4/53) tells us that American scientists are far advanced in experiments which, if successful, will enable men to live for ever. " What could this mean in everyday language?" asks the Pictorial, and proceeds to tell us. “It would mean that outstanding men like Winston Churchill and President Eisenhower could still be conducting affairs on either side of the Atlantic in the year A.D. 2953.” Cripes!

Here at last is what we Socialists have been looking for. Here at last is the short cut to Socialism that we all want. War, poverty, hunger and all the other evils of capitalism do not constitute so telling an indictment as the threat that Eisenhower and Churchill might still be in control in a thousand years' time.

If mankind will not rouse themselves for their own sakes, surely they will hear the cry of generations yet unborn and establish Socialism before it is too late.

S. A.

Elections in Austria (1953)

From the May 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Value of the Vote

Parliamentary Elections in any part of the world are ever watched with keen attention and invariably occupy much space in the press. This is understandable since with the world-wide interests and ramifications of capital, investors in every civilised country depend for the security of their holdings on stable governments and the continued acquiescence of the mass of the people in things as they are, i.e., wealth and a comfortable life without the necessity to work for a favoured few, and a life of poverty and insecurtiy for the mass of the workers not only at home but also abroad. In a class society such as ours, any upsetting of the government or any upheaval with the ever-present danger of the flouting of established authority by the poverty-stricken masses, strikes apprehension and fear into the hearts of property-holders; the cry goes up that “law and order" must be maintained at all costs. When, for example, Germany collapsed and Austria found herself without a government, the Viennese populace joined wherever they could the invading military forces in plundering to their hearts' content since there was nothing to stop them. Shops and warehouses were stripped bare—the sacred rights of property thrown to the winds, forgotten for the time being, until a government and law and order had been re-established. The old staunch upholders of capitalism, with the late Dr. Renner at their head, assisted by the occupying Powers, saved the situation and the beloved fatherland for the exploiters, as they had done before at the end of World War I. Since then the Austrian statesmen have so thoroughly convinced the foreign investors of their capability of safeguarding their private interests that, but for the distrust of one occupying Power, the other three would probably long have withdrawn their troops.

The general election in February (consequent on the resignation of the coalition government after some discord between the Conservatives and the "Socialists”) with the big and costly propaganda efforts made by a medley of parties, the specious promises of better times, the long lists of reforms dangled before the eyes of the people and dinned into their ears by the radio, bear witness to the concern of the propertied class and their State to get its subjects (mark the term "subjects') to vote for the peaceful continuation of their social order which guaranteed them their privileges. The election over, great satisfaction was expressed by the press of what is now called the free world, over the return of a new government that, whatever its eventual composition, guarantees the continuance of the Trinity of rent, interest and profit in Austria.

While the Austrian electors were extravagantly thanked by the home press for their good sense, the foreign press, with the exception of that behind the iron curtain, joined in the great chorus of praise for the political wisdom and maturity shown by the people. If Socialists cannot join in this eulogising concert and sing-song of the Austrian workers’ political ripeness, our reasons are, of course, very different from those prompting the attitude behind the iron curtain and their agents regarding the Austrian elections. Unlike Socialists, the Russians are not concerned with the workers’ understanding or lack of class-consciousness; all they are concerned with is commercial interest, to maintain the strategic position and control of the rich provinces which they have attained as a result of the war. And this is where they fall out with the other thieves.

It is true that Austrian workers have often fought and suffered for the democratic ideal, i.e., at least for freedom of organisation and association, free discussion, freedom of the press, etc. Who has forgotten the Austrian workers’ tragic heroism in 1934? (see Socialist Standard for March, 1934). But, withall, can one say that the workers of Austria are politically enlightened and mature any more than the mass of the workers in other lands? The answer must, unfortunately, be no. The fact alone that the numerically huge S.D.P. collapsed like a house of cards at the outbreak of World War I, and again even in times of peace, in 1934, at the hands of a mediocre clique led by a political dwarf like Dollfuss, proves their political backwardness. One can reasonably agree with the Austrian S.P. member who wistfully said to this writer at the time of the 1934 defeat: “ If only 10 per cent, of our members had understood and been imbued with the democratic and Socialist ideal, we would have had more fighters than we needed to crush the Schuschnigg-Dollfuss gang.” To which one might add that, if there had been 10 per cent class-conscious workers in the party, such a clique of usurpers could never even have raised its ugly head, and the working-class would have been spared the awful sacrifice and punishment that was inflicted upon it.

Political maturity! What with all the past promises of better times remaining unfulfilled, with the promise of full employment having turned out to be mass unemployment, and yet the people continuing to vote for the bankrupt upholders of a social order that produces all the misery and conflicts—one may well ask: Where does die political enlightenment and maturity come in? Were it not so tragically serious, one might consider it a joke. Why, a ripe and alert working class would surely not waste their time and energy listening to the worn-out platitudes and piffle of capitalist politicians and being taken in by their cliche programmes, which invariably include, of course, a "fight for the country’s freedom and independence,” “securing its economic future,” "increased production,” "social justice,” "peace, the rights of man” and so on, ad nauseam.

With some 300,000 men and women on the dole in a country of only about 6 million people, and with the problem of the unemployed youth, which will add another quarter-million to those seeking work, and knowing, on the other hand, as people must by now, the utter impotence of the existing political parties to effect any improvement in this dreary picture and appalling outlook, a people politically ripe and understanding the Socialist message, would consider that the time had come for revolutionary political action to end the sorry farce of capitalism instead of keeping on supporting and inflicting it on their children. As it is, however, about half of the electors were probably quite at a loss to know how to vote, since there is nowadays hardly any difference between the various political set-ups.

Even the much-vaunted improvements in housing conditions must be viewed against the background of the dreary picture of the general position of the workers. Does anyone imagine that there is happiness and a sense of security behind the facades of these huge blocks of council houses ? Gone is the time of the low rents; the screw has been put on, and anybody thinking that the “red city administration” and their banks, who control this property like everything else, have softer hearts than other capitalist overlords, is woefully mistaken. Even when in work, the tenants have to fight their life long to keep the wolf from the door, but woe betide when the breadwinner falls on evil days and becomes even less able to face the bills for gas and electricity and the rent collector! He will then discover how much of all this “public property“ belongs to him.

Political maturity! Only those are mature who have realised that the present social order has come to a hopeless impasse and that all attempts by the existing political parties and their spokesmen and statesmen to improve conditions, or avoid the terrible conflicts engendered by and raging within the framework of that competitive system, are doomed to failure; only those who have realised that what is needed is a fundamental change in the constitution of present-day society, as advocated by the S.P.G.B., their companion parties and by the great pioneers of scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels; only those who have the will and who will work for that fundamental change; only such people can lay claim to political maturity. All else is quackery and confusion and illusion.

Until the people have succeeded in overthrowing the present grotesquely stupid and inhuman social order, the mass of the people will remain what they are—heirs to the slavery of ages, exposed to all the evils and vicissitudes of a system based on property and production for profit. It is the height of folly on the part of the working class to continue placing their trust in mealy-mouthed professional politicians and glib-tongued “personalities,” and to fall again and again for their propaganda, despite all past disillusions and these leaders' glaring failure everywhere to deliver the goods. With the technical achievements and mass production that the last 100 years have brought to mankind, the social adjustment to this technical development, i.e. the fundamental change in the constitution of society as taught and advocated by scientific socialism, is now the only thing that matters. That teaching is that the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution must be converted from private and state control to the common property of the whole people, if poverty, insecurity, class-conflict and war is to be effaced from the face of the earth. It's as simple as that.

Rudolf Frank