Revolutionary Socialism and the Woman's Movement
Revolutionary Socialism
AND THE
WOMAN'S MOVEMENT
By LILY GAIR WILKINSON.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE
SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY,28 FORTH STREET, EDINBURGH
50 RENFREW STREET, GLASGOW
REFORM OR REVOLUTION. A Lecture delivered at Boston, Mass., by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
Socialists are not reformers. The key-note of this address shows why the working class can get nothing out of Reforms. Once read by an intelligent person he is proof against any Reform craze.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM FROM UTOPIA TO SCIENCE. By Frederick Engels. Translated from the German by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
The student will likely come across articles in the capitalist press lauding all kinds of things, from a "profit sharing" bakery to the Post Office, as Socialism. In this book the historic and economic development of Socialism is traced, and the scientific bedrock upon which the science is based is set forth in plain language.
DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM IN GREAT BRITAIN. Authorised by the N.E.C, of the Socialist Labour Party. Price, One Penny.
An historic economic sketch of affairs in Great Britain down to the present time, showing the development of industries and of capitalist and labour economic organisations.
THE SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY: ITS AIMS AND METHODS. Price, One Penny.
This pamphlet deals with the important problem of Socialist unity. In it we offer the methods of organisation and the arguments by which they are supported to the dispassionate study of all who wish for its accomplishment.
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, Written by Frederick Engels as an Introduction of the previous Work from his pen, entitled, "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific."
It designates that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of Society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of Society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against each other.
Revolutionary Socialism
AND THE
Woman's Movement.
By LILY GAIR WILKINSON.
"What is freedom? Ye can tell
That which slavery is too well:
For its very name has grown
To an echo of your own."
I.
INTRODUCTORY.
Throughout the whole period of civilisation woman has been a slave. The form of slavery may have varied from age to age, but in one way or another woman’s written history has been a record of dependence and subjection, and to-day the wrongs and degradation which slavery brings weigh more cruelly upon her than ever before. During the past century all the evils of society have been intensified by the monster power of capitalism; there is more poverty, more shame, and more oppression in our midst than was ever dreamt of in former days. And wherever there is oppression, it is women who are most oppressed by law and custom; wherever there is shame, upon women the stain is deepest; wherever there is poverty, it is women who suffer the greatest privations.
We hear much from reformers and moralists of the famous "Woman Question," but women themselves are at last awakening to the fact that all this questioning does nothing to alleviate the misery of their bondage. This is the healthy and hopeful sign of modern feminine slavery; women are everywhere beginning to recognise the inferiority of their social position and to revolt against it. No matter how heavily nor how lightly the invisible chains may weigh upon her individually, a woman who has truly become conscious of her subordinate position must always be a woman in revolt. To her there comes a burning sense of the shame and disgrace of subjection; there is always with her the living reality of slavery—a weight of chains insufferable, yet powerful enough to hold her down, strangling and impeding her efforts to be free.
Everywhere increasing numbers of women are beginning to feel this yoke—becoming conscious that they are born in bondage—and everywhere more and more are giving active signs that they can strive for freedom. It is no longer merely a case of a "Woman Question" bound up in the volumes of learned theorists; there is to-day an actual Woman's Movement where in the past there was only a mark of interrogation.
The world in general is at last startled out of its indifference by these signs, and on all sides there is much talk of woman and her slavery, of woman and her hopes of freedom. The many conflicting opinions (all equally assured) of course result in much conflict of action.
It is necessary that the Socialist Labour Party should make clear its position towards so prominent and so confused a movement in society. Socialism stands for social freedom for all, and therefore it must very definitely stand for the emancipation of the greatest sufferers from social bondage—namely, the women. In the sense that the feminist movement also professes to be a movement towards the emancipation of women, it has a very special significance for the Socialist Labour Party. And it is all the more urgent that prominence should be given to the true Socialist position because the bourgeois feminists have received great support in their campaign from many reformists calling themselves Socialists, who, pretending to serve the cause of women, serve that of the enemy instead.
What then is the position of revolutionary Socialism towards this modern feminist movement? How far is Socialism in sympathy with feminism, and in what are the two movements antagonistic? Before stating the difference it is better to show the points of agreement. Briefly stated, the sympathy between Socialism and feminism consists in this:—both are alike antagonistic to the reactionary principles of the "anti-feminists."
These reactionary principles are based upon the theory that women are naturally subject to men because they are naturally inferior. This assertion is generally made with a pretty "half-concealing, half-revealing" veil of sentiment, but, plainly stated, it would appear to mean that social inequality of the sexes is the necessary result of the physical and mental inferiority of the female sex. Now, this statement is nothing more than a loose generalisation made from the consideration of a few particular cases; to prove it satisfactorily would entail an enormous amount of labour in the way of research, experiment, and statistical enquiry, carried out by persons of proved capacity. As it is, however, the charge comes from wholly irresponsible, not to say prejudiced, quarters, and is made without true scientific authority. In our present state of knowledge we have no proof of either physical or mental inferiority in the female sex. It must always be remembered that right development in both sexes brings with it great and necessary differences between male and female. The healthy, well-developed woman does not become masculine, either physically or mentally, any more than the healthy man becomes feminine. Woman's aim is not to reach to man's estate, but to her own. This must not on any account be disregarded in making a comparison between men and women; if it is the comparison will have no value. Bearing this in mind, it can easily be seen that the usual arguments in no way prove the inferiority of women.
As regards physique, recent scientific research does not bear out the theory of female inferiority. We must not judge from mere outward appearance; superior physique is not proved by superior height, nor by superior strength of certain muscles, such as the biceps in the arm. A better standard to judge by would seem to be the total vitality of the individual as manifested in the physique. In this respect what evidence modern research has given goes to show that women on the average are actually superior to men. This would appear to be a strange anomaly, considering the disadvantages imposed upon women in regard to physical development, did we not remember the greater vitality required by women in the natural function of motherhood.
In regard to mental inferiority the main argument has been made from a comparison of the size of the male and female brain. There have been men who have passed laborious years in trying to show that the average female brain is smaller than the average male brain. Professor Bischoff claimed to have proved that on the average woman's brain weighs 100 grams less than man's brain, and from this he confidently asserted that the mental inferiority of women was demonstrated. On the death of the learned Professor it was found that his own brain weighed just five grams less than the average of the despised female sex! The pathetic irony of this case has no doubt tended to cool that particular form of anti-feminist zeal.
As a matter of, fact these experiments have proved nothing. Some of the heaviest brains ever weighed have belonged to idiots and to the insane; and in comparing the proportion of brain-mass in men and women with the weight of the entire body, it appears that the females have the advantage by ¼ per cent. This argument from brain weight is therefore totally inconclusive, even granting the unscientific supposition that the weight of the brain is the criterion of mental capacity.
Another favourite contention is that woman's inferiority is proved by the absence of transcendent genius in women. This assertion, like the other, is not proved, nor is it capable of proof. We are too apt to judge genius merely by prominence and publicity, and these are just the things which most women avoid and dread as tending to deprive them of a certain vague abstraction called "womanliness," upon which they are taught to depend for success in life. How far women (in spite of a seclusion partly enforced and partly induced) have excelled in the past, may never be known—only here and there in history do we get a glimpse behind the veil—but it is certain that renown and success have for the most part been reaped by men. The fame of Socrates was supreme in his age, and comes down with glory to ours; but Socrates acknowledged superior genius in a woman when he sat as a learner at the feet of Aspasia.
But even if women's physical and mental inferiority were fully proved we must remember that the argument cuts both ways. Bebel, Mill, and others have long ago pointed out that inferiority of the female sex would be an argument against the subjection of women, and not for it. As Bebel says: "the laws of nature hold good in human life. If a gardener or planter sought to maintain with regard to a given plant that it could not grow, although he made no trial, perhaps even hindered its growth by wrong treatment, such a man would be pronounced a fool by his intelligent neighbours." Now, if a similar statement originated with a woman there would not be wanting men to generalise upon the instance as a proof of the incapacity of the female mind for logical methods of thought; yet the supposed logical mind of man has not generally perceived that the alleged inferiority of women is in reality an argument in favour of instituting equality of the sexes in social benefits. Before we can judge whether women are naturally deficient as compared with men they must have an equal chance with men of development. This they certainly have not at present; opportunities of larger knowledge and experience in social life, which are given to men, are denied to women. In nearly all civilised countries women are still refused the right to take part in the making of the laws which they must obey. Ali sorts of difficulties, legal and conventional, are put in the way of women who desire to take upon themselves their own responsibilities. Women, in fact, are not given equal social opportunities with men.
The question of natural inferiority or otherwise seems therefore of minor importance, It matters little to any practical woman whether her sex as a whole is less capable than the male sex as a whole. She may very well leave that matter to those who love to wrangle about non-essentials. She may very well turn her attention to the vastly more important question—that of the unequal social opportunities of the sexes, of the undoubted social inferiority of women.
So far, then, the Socialist and feminist movements are in full agreement. Socialism is in sympathy with the exposure of the superficial and illogical arguments of the anti-feminists. Socialism also recognises all the world over that women must have equal freedom with men if ever social freedom is established at all. And, furthermore, in regard to the present. Suffragist movement, the S.L.P. does not share the bourgeois horror of the mildly "militant tactics" of the "Neo-Suffragists." The S.L.P. gives credit to the Suffragists for their organised efforts to gain publicity for their cause. Certainly the methods used are frequently of a vulgar nature. But what of that? As a certain nineteenth century wit has said, "the one touch of nature that makes the whole world kin is—vulgarity." This, at any rate, would seem to be a means of proving kinship with the bourgeois politicians of the House of Commons—and for the Suffragists, whose aim is a mere reform of bourgeois legislation, that must surely be a desirable end.
In any case the matter is of no concern to Socialism, and the Socialist Labour Party in no way bases its opposition to the Suffragist movement upon it. But the real significance of that opposition must now be considered, the points of agreement between Socialism and feminism having been mentioned by way of introduction. The statement of difference is more important than the statement of agreement, because the whole action of those who desire the true and complete emancipation of woman depends upon their understanding of this side of the question.
II.
PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM.
In considering the false basis upon which the feminist movement rests it is necessary first to make clear the basis upon which Socialism rests. The basic principles of Socialism must therefore be briefly outlined.
The development of society is conditioned by the invention and use of those instruments with which the whole wealth of society is produced. Throughout history the owners of the most important means of producing wealth have been enabled by the power of ownership to form separate and dominant classes in society. The resulting conflict of interests between those who had the power and privileges of ownership and those who were disinherited caused perpetual struggles between the classes. In modern times the struggle is between capitalist class and working class. With the introduction of machinery into industry and the expropriation of the peasantry the power of industrial capital was enormously increased. The owners of the new productive machinery formed the rising capitalist class. The working class, on the other hand, was largely recruited from the expropriated peasantry, who, being deprived of their lands, were forced to enter the towns and there to live by selling themselves to the capitalist owners as workers of the machines. Thus capitalism acquired an enormous impetus, and the foundations of modern wage slavery were laid.
The wages paid to such workers represent the price of the labour-power which they sell to the owners of the machinery of production. Labour-power being the only thing which a member of the dispossessed class has for sale, and by the sale of which he can live, he is forced to bring that labour-power (and he himself goes along with it of course) into the market, to endeavour to sell it there for what it will fetch, in just the same way as any other goods are sold. If the supply of labour-power is large in relation to the demand for it, the price (wages) will be low. If the supply of labour-power decreases relatively to the demand, the price will go up. Thus that price (wages) constantly rises and falls above and below a central point—that centre being the cost of production (or, more correctly, the value) of labour-power. The cost of production of labour-power is equal to the amount of labour which is necessarily expended upon the production of those things which create, maintain, and reproduce that labour-power. This, in the long run and on the average, is what a worker will get by the sale of his power to labour—only this and nothing more.
Now this bargain between capitalist and worker must also be understood from the capitalist's point of view. Why the worker has to make the bargain is obvious; he has no other means of living. But why does the capitalist make the bargain? Because in operating the tools of production, with their wonderful modern productive powers, the workers will produce more than the equivalent of that amount of wealth which the capitalist must return to them in the form of wages in order that they may go on living and come back to work another day. In the capacity of owners the capitalists appropriate and enjoy this surplus-wealth created by the labour of the working class; not, be it marked, because they take any active part in production, but merely because they are owners. To the owner goes the product.
When the workers themselves will own and control the machinery of production which they alone operate, they will enjoy the full product of their labour, but so long as there is a parasitic master-class standing between them and their instruments they will be robbed of the greater part of that which they produce.
Of old, the owner of the tool was also its operator; production was then an individual affair. To-day, by the highly organised division of labour, production has become co-operative, or social. Ownership, however, is still private, or individual. This brings about a contradiction at the very heart of society. The development from private production to social production has yet to be completed by the development from private ownership to social ownership. Nothing short of this is Socialism. All reformation of the present capitalist system is useless to the workers, since by the system of buying and selling labour-power which capitalism makes necessary to them, they are for ever robbed by a small minority in society—the owners, or capitalist class. And this robbery is always increasing in degree; the result of improved productive methods is a lessening of the demand for labour, and, consequently, an increase of the "unemployed army," i.e., an increased supply of labour in relation to the demand for it. In this way wages are lowered and capitalist robbery becomes greater; and greater also becomes the poverty, degradation, and slavery of the workers.
Thus the only hope of the workers is Socialism. To build their hopes and waste their energy and resources on attempts at reforming capitalism is mere illusion.
Now, in all this, the interests of working women are just the same as the interests of working men—directly opposed to the interests of the members of the capitalist class, women and men alike. The question is one of class, not of sex. Sex antagonism may have a very practical interest for the women of the bourgeoisie, but for women of the working class the practical question is the question of class antagonism.
From a wider outlook it may be shown that the true interests of all women are in reality bound up with the interests of the majority, the working women; because no woman, whatever be her position in society, can escape altogether from the burden of the age-long degradation of her sex while that degradation in any way endures. But, while this is fully recognised, too much is not to be expected in that direction. It must be remembered that the feminist reform movement is naturally very attractive to women in the capitalist camp. And, moreover, class prejudice is a thing that dies hard.
Therefore, whilst acknowledging that the true interests of all women lie in Socialism, and that in this sense there is a sex question distinct from class, we must endeavour to be practical and not to forget that the question of Socialism is essentially a working class question, and for all practical purposes must be regarded from the working class point of view.
The feminist movement, like other reform movements, is of direct interest to the bourgeoisie only, and not to the workers. Feminism, in its larger sense, claims equal political and social rights for women as for men within the framework of the present social system. Socialism claims that even if this were fully achieved it would be no true emancipation of women. Only those women would benefit who belong to the privileged, or propertied, class in society. The majority of women, like the majority of men, belong to the wage-earning class, and this class cannot benefit by the reform of capitalism owing to its condition of social life—the selling of labour-power—which gives to capitalist masters of both sexes the means of carrying on industry by an ever-increasing robbery of the workers.
III.
THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN.
To those who see effects only and do not trace back to causes woman's struggle appears merely as a struggle of sex against sex; but a wider issue is really involved. The woman question is but a part of the wider question of social evolution from the earliest times.
The basic mistake of the feminists is that they do not recognise this, and therefore cannot trace the true cause of the inequality of the sexes. Sometimes they attribute women's social inferiority to her physical weakness; sometimes to the moral weakness of man. But these differences of the sexes, if they exist at all, are more likely to have arisen as effects of sex-inequality than to be causes thereof.
Socialism, on the other hand, does not look for an explanation of social enigmas in any such vague theories. Socialism holds that human society has an essentially economic basis. To Morgan and to Marx is chiefly due the scientific research which shows that the evolution of human society has progressed in accordance with the development of the tools of production and the methods of their ownership. Here we have the secret of the origin of all forms of social slavery, the subjection of women among the rest. Without the introduction of economic inequality, sex-inequality could never have spread throughout the civilised world as it has done. And this economic inequality was itself a quite natural result of the primitive division of labour and the primitive development of the tool.
Women of today, brought up to believe in their helpless inferiority, would gain somewhat in self-respect if they were taught instead the scientific facts of their position; because, while it is true that during all historic periods the position of women has been one of degrading dependence, this was not the case in pre-historic ages. But, of course, while Morgan, Engels, Bebel, and others have shown that the social position of women was superior in barbaric times before the growth of private property, we must clearly understand that it was only relatively so. Privilege in those days had a much more obvious materialistic basis than in civilised times, during which the fashion has grown with the growth of modern social evils of covering up these evils as prettily as may be. The famous "Mother-right" of barbarism was not by any means of an idyllic or chivalrous description. The first division of labour was of a purely physiological nature. Man was the fighter; woman was the rearer of the race. Man procured the food; woman prepared it. It was for man to "fight, hunt, and sit down;" for woman to bear, nourish, and bring up the children. Descent was in the female line simply because the custom of group-marriage between all the members of certain different clans (gentes) made possible only the definite recognition of the mother. This "Mother-right" naturally gave power and importance to women as having control over the children. As Morgan says:—"The members of her own gens, in all probability, predominated in the household, which gave full force to the maternal bond, and made the woman, rather than the man, the centre of the family." What the Suffragists of to-day are striving for, and a good deal more besides, was enjoyed by women in those barbaric days, such "women's rights" being regarded as merely natural. The women not only voted (e.g., in the elections of military chiefs), but had a seat and voice tn the councils. Ancient historians, such as Tacitus, and modern travellers alike, bear witness to the rights of this primitive variety of "Suffragette."
The development of private property was the cause of the downfall of the matriarchal system. Under that system the family groups were the basis of society, and property was hereditary in the gens. When a man married he did not become a member of the gens of his wife, although he lived among her people; he remained always a member of the gens to which his mother belonged, and when he died his property accrued to his mother's gens and not to the gens to which his wife (or wives) and his children belonged; thus a child could never inherit from his father, as they did not belong to the same gens. Such a system was only suited to societies in which property was undeveloped. A contradiction arose as the forms of property multiplied and its importance increased. It was then more and more individually appropriated for the sake of power and ease, and the words mine and thine began to have a fuller significance. As a natural result, inheritance became an important social factor; but so long as children belonged to the mother's gens they could not inherit from their father, however great his importance as a man of property. This contradiction was the cause of the great change from the matriarchal system to descent in the male line, and, finally, in advanced societies, to the introduction of monogamy. Desiring to make their own children their heirs men took possession of their wives. Instead of living in the families of their wives, they took their wives to live with them, and thus the idea gradually grew up of female morality and virtue as distinct from male morality and virtue—an idea which has descended to our own day veiled in a sickly sentimentality which can only partially conceal its materialistic basis.
Another result of increasing productive power by development of the tool was the second great division of labour in society—that of freemen and slaves. Instead of eating their prisoners of war, the conquerors found that, by the use of tools of production, they could force them to produce a sufficient amount to cover their own necessary sustenance and yet leave a surplus for the enjoyment of their masters. This was the first form of exploitation and the first division of society into classes with antagonistic interests. The female slaves not only shared in the degradation of this exploitation, but they suffered further degradation because of their sex. Their helpless position made it possible for men to allow themselves a license which they now did everything in their power (frequently with the utmost brutality) to forbid to their wives. This was the origin of that special kind of parasitism to which all women of the privileged class are born, which enables them to maintain their "respectable" position by the sacrifice and degradation of innumerable women of the proletariat. True monogamy has never been generally established in any society; it is everywhere the exception and not the rule. The present form of marriage is legal monogamy supplemented by prostitution—this is the terrible price which is paid for the reputed honourable position of the wives of civilisation.
Thus the subordination of the whole female sex was first brought about by the power of property. It is probable that in some parts of the world, and in some ages, women made a noble resistance, and fought for their freedom; the legends of the Amazons have in this a scientific explanation. But gradually men increased their ascendency, and women being now dependent upon them for subsistence, not merely as men but as owners of property, were more and more forced into a subordinate and submissive position. The warlike feudal times gave an impetus to this development. These were rough days, in which men did not spare each other; but, as laws and legends testify, they spared women even less.
The development of capitalism was a complete revolution in society, and, among other things, it revolutionised the social position of women. The more brutal laws and customs of feudalism were now out of date, but the new order brought with it a new form of slavery. With the introduction of machinery into industry—the Industrial Revolution—the now dominant capitalist class made the discovery that there was a quite other "sphere" for working class women besides that of the home—namely, the factory. They could be employed to work the machines at lower wages than men, and the consequence was that women and children were exploited in the factories with such cruelty that it is obvious the rough brutality of former days had only given place to a still more revolting form of brutality.
The old idea of "Woman's Sphere" being the Home, to which sentimentalists still cling in spite of facts, was in accordance with the conditions of life under individual production. The home, however, meant more for women in those days than the mere rearing of children. They then took an active part in production within their homes—not as wage-slaves, but for the family benefit. The home-tasks of the women before the nineteenth century included spinning, knitting, baking, the making of clothes, soap, candles, and many other domestic necessaries. All these tasks are now executed by capitalist industry, and an ever-increasing number of women are forced by modern social conditions out of the home into the factories and workshops, there to take once up more a part in production—not now as wives and daughters producing for the family, but as wage-earners producing for the benefit of capitalist masters.
This entrance into the social productive sphere certainly gives to the working women of to-day a semblance of independence unknown before in woman's history. And it gives, moreover, a promise of true independence to come. But while capitalist masters must be served this seeming independence is but a means of enforcing the most cruel slavery ever known.
If a life of wage-slavery is bad for a man it is very much worse for a woman. Under capitalism women have entered nearly every line of production (many involving great danger or inevitable disease), but employment is always given to them as an inferior sort of goods. An exact comparison between the wages of men and women has never been made, but as far as the records go women's wages compare very unfavourably with those of men. It has been shown that the average wage of women manual workers (including the textile workers, whose wages are relatively high) is very little over 7/ per week. That is to say, women do not receive a "living wage." In very many trades (e.g., French polishing and the various branches of the printing industry) men's wages are two or three times as high as women’s wages. In the tailoring and other clothing trades employers seem to find a special opportunity for exploiting female labour. Women employed in these trades receive only 7/ to 16/ weekly for work for which men get 30/ to 40/. In one case a girl is reported as receiving 7/ per week and making seven pairs of trousers in that time, and then being threatened with dismissal for not having produced enough. A man's wage for the same work would be about 25/. Tables may be referred to in the reports on many other industries showing the inferior wages earned by women. Among shop-assistants women earn from £10 to £25 a year; men from £20 to £40. Taking an average, the difference is shown to be 33 per cent. in favour of the male shop-assistants. Where machinery is used women are not paid nearly so much as men for working the machines. A case is quoted by the authors of "Women's Work and Wages" of a large cycle works where 80 men were employed in 1902; in 1905 only 20 men were employed, women having replaced the rest. When the men were dismissed they were told that they could go home and send their wives instead of them. And why? The wages paid to the men had been from 30/ to 40/ per week; the highest wages given to the women for exactly the same work on the same machines was 18/ per week. The home is not "sacred" to capitalists when it is the home of wage-slaves from whom larger profits can be squeezed.
The reasons for the difference between the wages of men and women are somewhat complex. The fact that many women are only part-earners of a family wage, their wages being supplementary to the wages of their male relations, is a great factor in preventing any equalisation of the earnings of male and female workers. And although the growth of "she-towns" (in which the men cannot get work, but have to stay at home while the women go out to earn their wretched wages) shows that it is false to claim that women work merely to gain supplementary wages, still it is true that innummerable widows and single women, who have to support themselves and others without the help of male relatives, suffer from the competition of many less helpless wives and daughters whose necessities only force them to aim at supplementary earnings. But while this and other factors complicate the question, deep down at the root of the whole problem of women's wages is the age-long tradition arising from woman's position of social inferiority. Woman as the inferior being is not credited with the needs of man. Her labour-power has a cheaper price because her cost of living is cheaper.
How much this is the case appears from the very low estimate of woman's needs betrayed by the advocates of a "minimum wage" and other reformers. At a recent meeting in Glasgow the wage proposed as the women worker's minimum for a working week of 51 hours, was only 10/10d. per week. Again, the organisers of women's trade unions are never tired of exulting over the position of the female textile workers as a proof of the worth of their efforts. But what are the conditions which they find so gratifying? In spite of the arduous nature of the work and the skill required, the average wage of women textile workers is calculated by G. H. Wood to be no more than 12/4d. per week. Women are indeed reckoned as cheap goods on the market!
Turning to the "sweated" industries (but where are the workers who are not sweated by capitalism to-day?) we find that the greatest suffering is endured by the women, It is a ghastly record which capitalism produces in the columns of statistics relating to its female slave-driving. If we look down the rows of figures given in reports of investigations made into the conditions of the "sweated" workers we find over and over again the same terrible story told in the same chill words. The earnings of women working as much as 14, 15, and 16 hours daily are frequently shown to amount to no more than 4/ or 5/ per week. We even find cases quoted in which the worker toils for as much as 18 hours a day and earns only 5/ weekly. Cases are given of women making shirts for 1/3d. per dozen, and as one woman doing this work expressed it:—"It is just putting out our life to keep it in; but the putting out is the quickest." Another woman who was given trousers to finish at ½d. per pair (the finishing taking two hours for each pair), found it, as she said, "easier to starve without the work." Suits of "shoddy" for children are made by women working for 14d. per suit, the net result of twelve hours of very hard work being no more than 9d. A woman doing this work in Scotland had had a family of seventeen, of whom seven survived. With unconscious irony she expressed the bitterness of her life of misery: "God took most of my bairns," she said. "He is the best friend we poor folks have."
Such cases are by no means exceptional, but are quoted in the various reports with sickening recurrence: Figures are totally inadequate to express the meaning of such conditions; the slaves who suffer day by day what the cold and lifeless statistics are incapable of expressing, alone know that meaning in all its horrible reality.
As has been said, woman's wage "is too low to live upon and too high to die upon." The fact is that modern capitalism calculates on, and to a great extent flourishes upon, the most odious of social evils. Many employers of female labour do not scruple to make this plain to the women who apply to them for situations. No wonder that the bourgeoisie recognises prostitution as a "necessary evil." "Necessary" to capitalism, which grows fat upon it!
Bitter want drives countless wives and daughters to this horrible resource as the one means of warding off starvation; and before all working women, existing in the terrible uncertainty which is now the condition of working class life, is always the possibility of having some day to make the ghastly choice between shame and starvation. On the one hand, the hypocritical bourgeois moralists are crying, "Woman's sphere is the home!"—on the other hand, capitalist conditions are forcing women out of the home into the misery of modern production, or into the still greater misery of personal debasement.
These universal evils make the talk of feminist reformers seem like a bitter mockery. While countless numbers of women are driven by actual dread of death to sell themselves into some form of misery, while the very conditions upon which capitalism exists deprives them of any other means of life than this, how can mere reforms within the capitalist system bring about the true emancipation of women?
IV.
SOCIALISM VERSUS SUFFRAGISM.
Let bourgeois reformists fight as they may among themselves, it is for Socialism ever to express the interests of the workers, men and women alike, and to show that reforms cannot bring better conditions to their class. It is here, then, that the Socialist Labour Party comes into conflict with Suffragism.
The Suffragist movement makes two false claims upon the sympathy and support of working class women. (1) It claims that the present agitation for the extension of the suffrage to women on the same basis as it is granted to men, would enfranchise working women in general; (2) It claims that enfranchisement alone would lead to improved conditions for working women.
The first of these claims is made by limited Suffragists only; the second is made by both limited and adult Suffragists. The Socialist Labour Party combats both positions.
Taking first the question of a limited extension of the franchise to women, it is easy to see that the various Bills brought forward have had an undoubted bourgeois origin. It is proposed to extend the franchise to women upon the same basis as it is given to men. But this is a basis of property. This movement is in reality a movement in the interests of women of property; these women desire the emancipation of the women of their class—an insignificant minority—leaving the vast majority, the working class women, in bondage. They would thus subordinate the interests of their sex to the interests of their class. From the beginning of the movement it has been so; the famous John Stuart Mill petition and amendment of 1866 and 1867 demanded the suffrage for women on the ground of property qualifications. The petition began with these words;—"That it having been expressly laid down by high authorities that the possession of property in this country carries with it the right to vote," etc.
At the present day these bourgeois reformers are agitating on the same lines, in spite of their fair words to working women; but in the face of Socialist criticism the true facts are now disguised by false pretences. It is claimed that working women would be enfranchised if a limited Bill were passed. This, in fact, is one of the main contentions of its supporters. They state that the majority of women enfranchised under the householder, lodger, and "latch-key" franchises would be women of the working class. This sounds well in theory, because it is obvious that the majority of women who might vote under such a franchise would, be working women, if they could fulfil the necessary conditions. But what are those conditions? To vote as an "occupier" a woman would have to be the owner or tenant of a house for which rates have been paid, and could then only vote after a year's occupancy. As a "resident" a woman might vote by the "latch-key" franchise as inhabitant of a house, flat, or single room; but in this case the "resident landlord" must have no control over her habitation. Legal decisions, such as that of Douglas v. Smith, have made the actual working of this franchise exceedingly difficult. For a "lodger's" vote a twelve month's occupation of a separate room, with an annual rental, unfurnished, of £10, or, furnished, of 5/ per week, is necessary, The "service" vote is given to an occupier who occupies by virtue of his service, and does not apply to servants living in the employer's house.
Now, taking all these qualifications into account, the possibility of a large women-worker's vote dwindles away. Certainly women of the capitalist class could qualify to use the franchise, even when they were not independent, property-holders. Capitalists already buy for their sons the necessary qualifications tor voting; with this kind of woman's suffrage they could do the same for their daughters, and so greatly increase the voting power of the propertied class. But how are the women of the working class to get their qualifications? The average wage of working women does not exceed 7/6d. per week; what proportion of these wage-workers will be able to pay £10 for an unfurnished room, or to prove occupancy independent of any resident landlord? Under the law as it is to-day a great many male workers are unable to use the franchise; unmarried working men are very rarely able to live under the conditions necessary for voting. If this is the case in regard to men, how will unmarried women of the working class obtain the vote with their still more wretched wages? The law has already decided that married women are not women at all, and unless they are specially constituted into legal personality, the law will, in all probability, interpret the Bill in such a sense that married women, as legal nonentities, will be unable to vote. In any case, working class married women are not likely to be able to show separate property qualifications which it is hard enough for the husband alone to fulfil.
An attempt has been made by members of the Independent Labour Party to prove that a limited Bill would enfranchise working women. A record was taken in regard to the municipal vote in "50 towns or parts or towns," and the result claimed to show that 82.45 per cent. of the women voting are working women. But this record being taken by the I.L.P. branches in "towns or parts of towns," and these branches having their connection in working class districts, the conjuring trick of this marvellous 82.45 per cent. is revealed. The true marvel would have been had the figures turned out otherwise. We don't look for capitalist majorities in working class "parts of towns," which capitalists are, as a rule, at every pains to avoid as residential quarters. Again, the term "working woman" is so loosely and vaguely defined in the directions given to the branches as further to deprive the record of any real value. It would, indeed, hardly be worth mentioning, but that this 82.45 per cent: has been much used by the Suffragists in their propaganda in order to gain working class support.
Without very full statistics (which we do not at present possess), it is impossible to state what proportion of working women would be enfranchised by the limited measure. But it is certain that the proportion would in itself be insignificant, and, as compared to the proportion of enfranchised propertied women, it would amount to a relative decrease of the working class vote. The present Suffragist agitation is, in fact, a fraud upon the working women.
While the workers must not be side-tracked by this Suffragist fraud, they must also be on their guard against the illusive claims of the Adult Suffragists; not that Adult Suffrage is in itself undesirable, but because it is not desirable as the aim of working class effort, or the expenditure of working class energy and resources.
The Adult Suffragists maintain that their reform would lead to sex equality. This is to lose sight of the true function of politics, and so to put the cart before the horse. Women's subjection did not arise from political disabilities—these disabilities arose from women's subjection; and, as previously shown, this subjection has its roots deep down in economic inequality. Politics are the result of economic conditions, and in all its variety political action has gone upon lines of economic interests. The enfranchisement of every man and woman could only extend the possibilities of political action, but could not, of itself, remove the economic conditions of which political action is but a reflex.
Every Socialist is in a sense an Adult Suffragist, inasmuch as this is the only democratic method of election. But the suffrage in itself is neither desirable nor undesirable to the workers—its worth depends upon the use that is made of it and the economic power by which it is backed up. The claim of the Adult Suffragists is, of course, that by the use of the vote the workers could secure what conditions they please. As a matter of fact this is a fallacy which the impotence of the present Labour Party is exposing to the workers in actual practice. The vote is useless to the workers while it is not backed up by an organised economic power sufficient to ensure the introduction of Socialism.
The power of the enemy, the capitalist class, does not lie in the vote, but in the possession of property, and the resulting control of production. Which possesses true social power, and which is the social slave—the disfranchised lady-capitalist, or the enfranchised wage-worker in her employment?
The real interests of the workers are not bound up in mere political enfranchisement, but in the complete emancipation of all, men and women alike, from the power of capital.
V.
SOCIALISM THE ONLY HOPE.
Emancipation from the power of the private owners of the means of production will be true emancipation for women, because it will be complete. When all are collectively, or socially, the owners and. operators of the means of production, all will have equal access thereto, and thus women will at last be placed upon an equal footing with men.
Through generations of suffering capitalism has forced women to take a part in production, not merely in domestic life as dependents of men (as in pre-capitalist days), but socially, and as independent of men. The foundation of a lasting independence for women has indeed been laid, since women now take part in the co-operative productive work of society; but while the conditions of the workers' lives remain conditions of wage-labour, their labour is slave-labour, and they are despoiled of its fruits by their masters. When all women, with all men, shall be the owners of those things wherewith they work, and by which production is carried on, then their labour will be the labour of the free, and they will themselves reap its fruits.
The enemy of the women workers is not the male sex, but the capitalist class. That class is made up both of men and women. Many women are direct employers of labour; many are shareholders in capitalist industries; and as employers and shareholders they have equality with men. Do we find that their influence is used in favour of their women employees? By no means. Where their class interests are concerned women capitalists in general act no more mercifully than men capitalists. Their interests are to extract the fattest possible dividends out of the life-blood of the workers, without considering, or even knowing, whether the labour that creates these dividends is that of men or women. Would it not be folly in working women to expect these luxurious capitalist ladies to recognise common interests with them?
But the bourgeois feminists make a special appeal to the women workers under the pretence that their interests can be served along with the interests of wealthy women—that the privileged section will fight the male tyrant for the benefit of all women. The different class interests, different mode of life, different outlook, and different aims of the women of the bourgeoisie are ignored.
It is true that for these women also the bonds of slavery still exist, but they are rather silken cords than the iron chains borne by working women. So soft indeed are these cords that the majority of women in the capitalist class are quite oblivious to their own degradation. The affluence in which they live acts as a narcotic. Wealthy women are surrounded by a sensuous and hypocritical "chivalry," which for the most part they blindly accept without detecting its falsity. They are content to have as their aim in life the buying and selling of themselves into that peculiar ornamental slavery and dependence which is the capitalist ideal of marriage. Capitalism creates its institutions in its own image, and it is therefore not surprising that marriage in the capitalist class should be a mere business contract, The strangely callous competition which characterises this "marriage market," gives to bourgeois marriages the human peculiarity of female rather than male rivalry. The male bird displays his brilliant plumage glittering in the sunshine to attract the female; but in bourgeois society it is the woman who adorns herself. She is brought up to think that her success in life is conditioned by the making of "a good marriage" (meaning a wealthy one), and this is indeed the road to success where the ideal in life is dependence and luxury.
Certainly there is a minority, and an increasing minority, which resents this state of things. While the majority remains lethargic and indifferent, the more energetic and thoughtful women of the bourgeoisie are striving to free themselves from this peculiarly insidious form of slavery. During last century a great advance was made in this way. Many women (and men also who held liberal opinions on this subject) agitated for "the emancipation of women"—by which, however, they only meant the emancipation of those belonging to their own privileged class. From the bourgeois point of view this is perfectly logical; the immediate interests of the women of the capitalist class lie in introducing whatever reforms of capitalist conditions may give them greater freedom and independence. Their degradation is in reality a degradation of sex, and it is very possible to lessen it under existing economic conditions.
But for working women it is a totally different matter. Capitalism has for them loosened the bonds of sex, only to rivet upon them the chains of wage-slavery. The attempt to win the adherence of working women to the bourgeois feminist movement, under the pretence that with equal political rights with men they could secure better wages, is utterly deceptive. The capitalists, who hold control of the means of production, and who by better organisation may still greatly enhance their profits, can utilise their power by introducing new machinery and by further combination. Less labour being then required, the unemployed army will grow ever larger, and, as consequence, wages will tend to go down. Far from making it possible to raise the wages of the worst paid section of the workers (the women) to an equality with any better paid section, the progress of capitalist industry tends to lower the wages of the better paid sections to the level of those that were formerly worse paid. A mere coolie status for all is the outlook for the workers in the future, unless they use the power they possess to free themselves altogether from the wages-system.
What is that power?
It is the power that belongs to all men and women who are wage-slaves—the power of the producers. The workers as a class must unite on the basis of the productive function which they fulfil in society—as industrial workers, in fact. This is the only sure way to freedom. Before the introduction of Socialism can become a practical and immediate possibility, the workers must be sufficiently organised to direct and control industry in their own interests. Without such organisation they are completely at the mercy of the master class, whose armed forces are ever ready for use against even sporadic efforts to resist increasing robbery.
In this unity of the workers on the industrial field lies their strength. At present they are not united; they are disunited. The few who are organised at all in the trade unions are organised on mere craft lines; they are helpless against the growing power of capital, and the different sections are fighting against each other instead of against the masters. There is blacklegging and strife where all depends on union and harmony. Union is strength, but trade unions are weakness.
Woman's part in the Industrial Union movement is important. This is a class movement, and no section of the workers must be left out of it. Women, who take an active part in production to-day, will naturally take their place as producers in the industrial organisation of the workers.
We need only look back into the history of past revolutionary struggles to see how well women have played their part therein. "Women cannot fight," say certain bourgeois theorists, "and therefore ought not to take part in government." Can women not fight? Because they do not belong to the paid forces organised for the coercion of the oppressed at home and abroad, is that to say they cannot fight? Women certainly are not elegible to belong to troops of hired assassins, but wherever the fight is for freedom, when the class war breaks out in violence and bloodshed, women do not shrink away like cowards and hide themselves in the home. Was it not the women who led the way for the starving people of France in 1789? Did not the women of the Paris Commune of 1871 know how to shoulder their rifles and defend the barricades along with husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons? Did they not know how to die, upright, facing the enemy, with the undaunted cry of "Vive la Commune!" as their last utterance? And only the other day, when the workers of Belfast were shot down by the soldiers of the capitalist government, did the women not face these soldiers again and again just as the men did?
Women can, and do, fight for freedom. In the struggle of the future, whether the warfare be mainly industrial, or whether it be of a more violent nature, as certainly it may, women will take their full share of the burden. For them the inducement is even greater than it is for men, because in general their suffering is even greater.
As the industrial organisation gains in strength it will certainly express itself politically; such political expression will be a natural outcome of unity on the economic field. Civilised men and women avail themselves of civilised methods, and the ballot will be used by the revolutionary workers as a means of expressing their intentions in a civilised manner. But such expression would be a mere farce were it not backed up by the organised might of the workers acting as a class. Behind those workers who may have the vote and use it as a means of revolutionary expression, must be the solid ranks of workers in factories, mines, mills, railways, and in all the other manifold branches of productive activity, united as workers, irrespective of sex or of suffrage privilege, or any other kind of privilege, united because they are the toilers, the producers, the sufferers, by whose toil and suffering society exists.
Here women, enfranchised or not, will have their rightful place. If capitalist governments continue to deny the right of all men and women to vote, then here in the daily life of the workers—on the industrial field—lies the power which will overthrow the economic and political ascendency of capitalism. If, on the other hand, the master class, in frenzy of fear at this growing power of their slaves, should throw out Adult Suffrage among other sops, then women, as well as men, educated by the revolutionary struggle in the industrial organisation, will know how to use the ballot. They will see clearly that not in the mending of the wages-system, but in its ending, lies their only hope. And straight for that end they will cast their votes.
Should the masters then be blind or mad enough to refuse to yield, they will merely court disaster. The day of that refusal must hasten the final action. The workers, united as a class of men and women long exploited for the benefit of a few, will retain their places as producers, but will in future utilise the means of production, no longer in the interests of that few, but in their own interests. This will be the General Lock-out of the Master Class and the introduction of Socialism.
With the establishment of Socialism and the abolition of Capitalism and the wages-system dependent thereon, women will at last be placed upon an equal footing in society with men. Men and women under Socialism will have equal access to the means of production. Each individual will be able to produce enough and to spare for individual needs. Thus one sex will no longer have power over another. Women, married or unmarried, will always have access to the means of producing the necessities and comforts of life, and will thus be able to gain an independent livelihood, when necessary, merely by taking part in social production.
This is not so under present conditions, and cannot be so, because access to the means of production is not free. The private owner stands between the worker and those things wherewith work is carried on and wealth produced. The wage-earner can only take part in production by first entering the labour market, there to be sold for a price. The conditions of the labour market being even harder for women than for men, working women when thrown upon their own resources to-day are in the most pitifully helpless state. The only means of escape from this is some kind of dependence upon men. The result too often is that a woman who is destitute is forced by her economic position to debase herself. Capitalism thus makes prostitution compulsory, and puts women at the mercy of men. Under Socialism there would be no such compulsion. Women would therefore, equally with men, have full opportunities of healthy development and independence.
It is impossible to predict the detailed results of this true freedom of women. Whatever ideas individuals may hold in regard to this can only be more or less of guess-work. The course of social evolution must decide.
But this much can be said: If the home in its true sense is the ideal of the race, if monogamy in its true sense is also an ideal, these are ideals which will only be possible of realisation under Socialism. There is nothing in Socialism incompatible with that true home life which capitalism destroys. What is only bitter mockery as preached by capitalist moralists may very well become a healthy and beautiful reality in the Socialist Republic.
In any case it is to Socialism that women must look for their freedom; and Socialism can only be achieved by a united working class. Let the women workers of to-day unite with their brother wage-slaves to put an end to that suffering and subjection in which the silent generations of the women of the past have lived and died.
The women of to-day must realise that theirs are the most degrading chains that ever slavery knew. So much the greater then will be their effort. For in proportion as the struggle has been long, and in proportion to its bitterness, must be the strength of the effort towards that freedom which will end it.
THE END.
WHAT MEANS THIS STRIKE? A Lecture delivered at New Bedford, Mass., by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
"What Means this Strike?" is an address delivered before the striking textile workers of New Bedford, Mass. It is the best thing extant with which to begin the study of Socialism. The strike is used as an object lesson to show the nature of capitalist society. The development of the capitalist is clearly given, showing why it is that the capitalist class is able to live in idleness and luxury while the working class rots in poverty and toil.
THE BURNING QUESTION OF TRADES UNIONISM. A Lecture delivered at Newark, N.J., by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
Trades Unionism is one of the methods by which the exploited class of to-day—the working class—seeks to resist or minimise the power of the exploiter. The author goes into a searching analysis of trades unionism and shows how the mistakes incurred by trade unionists lead to the nullification of their efforts at redress. Correct tactics are set forth. No student of Socialism but must be familiar with the trade union movement, therefore this book should be read.
THE PREAMBLE OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD. An Address delivered at Minneapolis, Minn., by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
The organisation of the Industrial Workers of the World, at Chicago, July 10, 1905, marked an epoch in the history of the Labour Movement in America, for the reason that, as the preamble to the constitution declares, there can be no peace between the exploited working class and the exploiting capitalist class; the I.W.W. organised itself on that basis—the recognition of the class struggle.
INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM. An Address delivered at Grand Central Palace, New York, December 10, 1905, by Eugene V. Debs. Price, One Penny.
The Industrial Workers is organised, not to conciliate, but to fight the capitalist class. We have no object in concealing any part of our mission; we would have it perfectly understood. We deny that there is anything in common between workingmen and capitalists. We insist that workingmen must organise to get rid of capitalists and make themselves the masters of the tools with which they work, freely employ themselves, secure to themselves all they produce, and enjoy to the full the fruit of their labours.
REFORM OR REVOLUTION. A Lecture delivered at Boston, Mass., by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
Socialists are not reformers. The key-note of this address shows why the working class can get nothing out of Reforms. Once read by an intelligent person he is proof against any Reform craze.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM FROM UTOPIA TO SCIENCE. By Frederick Engels. Translated from the German by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
The student will likely come across articles in the capitalist press lauding all kinds of things, from a "profit sharing" bakery to the Post Office, as Socialism. In this book the historic and economic development of Socialism is traced, and the scientific bedrock upon which the science is based is set forth in plain language.
DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM IN GREAT BRITAIN. Authorised by the N.E.C, of the Socialist Labour Party. Price, One Penny.
An historic economic sketch of affairs in Great Britain down to the present time, showing the development of industries and of capitalist and labour economic organisations.
THE SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY: ITS AIMS AND METHODS. Price, One Penny.
This pamphlet deals with the important problem of Socialist unity. In it we offer the methods of organisation and the arguments by which they are supported to the dispassionate study of all who wish for its accomplishment.
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, Written by Frederick Engels as an Introduction of the previous Work from his pen, entitled, "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific."
It designates that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of Society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of Society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against each other.
THE KAUTSKY SERIES.—THE WORKING CLASS—THE CAPITALIST CLASS—THE CLASS STRUGGLE—THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. These four pamphlets are translated from the German of Karl Kautsky by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny each.
The reader who has progressed thus far, will find these four pamphlets (to be read in the order given) a veritable mine of facts and information as to the broad lines upon which Socialism is based and upon which the Socialist Republic will be reared.
SOCIALISM. By William Scholl McClure. A Lecture delivered before the Albany Press Club. Price, One Penny.
When it comes to the pessimist, the man who knows what Socialism demands, believes the Socialist Republic would be justice personified, and yet blinks his eyes and says it is all very nice to think about, but that the remoteness of its realisation should place the Socialist Republic outside the consideration of reasoning beings—when one meets that kind of a man, one must have tactics that will suit the occasion. It will not do much good to argue with him, but if one persuade him to purchase a book that treats of his particular case, one may be able to set his brain matter going. That is the object of this work.
MONEY. By Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.
A short compendium of what money is.
WAGE LABOUR AND CAPITAL. By Karl Marx. Price, One Penny.
An essay written by Marx in which the theory of surplus value is explained in as simple a way as the nature of the subject permits. It includes an Introduction by F. Engels.
SOCIALISM AND EVOLUTION. By H. S. Aley, M.D. Price, One Penny.
There is nothing in Socialist literature of this country that covers the same ground as does this little pamphlet: a careful perusal of its contents will prevent any honest student of Socialist philosophy being wrecked upon the shoals of sentimentalism, and thereby save them much time and useless effort in the investigation of social problems.
It will aid them immensely in seeing the social question from a clean-cut, positive stanpoint.
HISTORICAL BASIS OF SOCIALISM IN IRELAND. By Thomas Brady. Price, One Penny.
MARX ON CHEAPNESS Price, One Penny.
The question of protection or free trade in relation to the real material interests of the working class are explained in a "Discourse on Free Trade," delivered by Marx at Brussels in 1848. The portions of this speech which are of vital interest to-day are included in this pamphlet.
TWO PAGES FROM ROMAN HISTORY. Two Lectures delivered at New York, by Daniel De Leon. Price, Twopence. Post. free, 2½d.
This is a critical examination of the dangers that beset the path of the Socialist movement. Historic parallels from critical periods in the history of the Roman Empire are applied to present day conditions, to enlighten and warn the Working Class that it may steer its movement aright. Every student of Socialism should read this pamphlet.
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. By Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Price, One Penny. Postage, ½d.
Written by the two foremost Socialist thinkers, the "Manifesto" is the most representative and widespread exposition of the historical basis of Socialism.
ANTI-PATRIOTISM. Address of Gustave Herve at the Close of his Trial for Anti-Militarist Activity, before the Jury of La Seine, December 1905. Translated by Solon De Leon. Price 2½d.
VALUE, PRICE AND PROFIT. By Karl Marx. Edited by his daughter Eleanor Marx Aveling. Price, Threepence. Postage, 1d.
"Value, Price and Profit," which was written by Marx a couple of years before his "Capital" appeared, is an address delivered to workingmen, and covers in popular form many of the subjects later explained scientifically in "Capital." It is especially helpful as an introduction to "Capital."
HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM. By Wm. E Trautmann Price, 3d. Postage, ½d.
Contents:—Basis of Capitalist System; Concentration of Industries; Operation of Industrial Mechanism; Real Problem Stated and how Accomplished; Revolution in Control; Structure of Industrial Union; Analysis of the Preamble of I.W.W.
NO COMPROMISE, NO POLITICAL TRADING. By Wilhelm Liebknecht. Price, Fourpence Postage, ½d.
A most important work for the Socialist Movement It shows the necessity for keeping clear of all entangling alliances with capitalist parties
AS TO POLITICS. A Discussion upon the Relative Importance of Political Action and of Class-Conscious Economic Action and the Urgent Necessity of Both. Price, One Shilling. Postage, 1d.
It contains the information whereby to arrive at the correct tactics wherewith to reach the goal of the Socialist Commonwealth.
THE FIRST NINE CHAPTERS OF "DAS CAPITAL." By Karl Marx. Paper, 1s. Cloth, 1s. 9d. Postage, 3d.
THE EIGHTEENTH BRUMAIRE OF LOUIS BONPARTE. By Karl Marx. Translated from the German by Daniel De Leon, Price, 1s. 2d. Postage, 1½d.
"The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" is one of Karl Marx's most profound and most brilliant monographs. It may be considered the best work extant on the philosophy of history, with an eye especially upon the history of the movement of the proletariat, together with the bourgeois and other manifestations that accompany the same, and the tactics that such conditions dictate.
REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION. By Karl Marx. Price 1s. 6d. Postage, 3d.
A series of Letters written to the "New York Tribune" from London by Karl Marx in 1851–52 treating of the German Revolution of 1848. The letters were written while Marx was in exile, and they give a history of the events which succeeded the Revolution of 1848 and which resulted in the failure of the insurrection through the counter-revolution which followed.
THE WORLD'S REVOLUTIONS. By Ernest Untermann. Price 1s. 6d. Postage, 3d.
Contents:—The Individual and the Universe; Primitive Revolutions; The Roman Empire and its Proletariat; The Christian Proletariat and its Mission; Feudal Ecclesiasticism and its Disintegration; The American Revolution and its Reflex in France; Bourgeois Revolutions in Europe; The Proletarian World Movement.
THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY. By F. Engels. Price, 1s. 6d. Postage, 3d.
This book, which consists of 217 pages, is the best popular summary in any language of the vital facts discovered by Lewis H. Morgan and elaborated in "Ancient Society." It embodies all the most essential data for arriving at a new and clearer conception of social development.
SOCIALISM, UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC. By Frederick Engels, Price, 1s. 6d. Postage, 3d.
This is one of the few books that must be read by any one wishing to understand modern Socialism. It explains how the meaning of the word Socialism has changed, so that instead of standing for a vague ideal of social change to be brought about by kind-hearted capitalists, it stands for the struggle of the working class to overthrow and do away with the class of owners, and thus to own the tools of production and get the full product of their labour. Engels' introduction to this book is one of the short statements of the Socialist theory of historical materialism.
WOMEN UNDER SOCIALISM. By August Bebel. Translated from the thirty-third German edition by Daniel De Leon. 300 pages. Cloth. Price, 4s.
The Woman Question is not a question by itself; it is a part of the great social problem. Proceeding along this correct line, Bebel's work is an exhaustive analysis of the economic position of woman in the past and present. Despite the boasts of Capitalist Christianity the facts show that under Capitalism woman, especially of the working class, is degraded and dwarfed physically and mentally, while the word home is but a mockery. From such condition of parenthood the child is stunted before its birth, and the miasmas, bred from woman's economic slavery, rise so high that even the gilded houses of the capitalist class are polluted. Under Socialism, woman, having economic freedom equal with man, will develop mentally and physically, and the mentally and physically stunted and dwarfed children of the capitalist system will give way to a new race. The blow that breaks the chains of economic slavery from the workingman will free woman also.
CAPITAL. By Karl Marx. Price 4s. Postage, 5d. extra.
This profound work is the great Source Book of economics upon which Socialist literature and the science of Socialism is founded. It is an absolutely essential book for any one who wishes to discuss Socialism intelligently, either as a propagandist or an opponent.
MORGAN'S ANCIENT SOCIETY. A Revolutionary Work, treating of the Growth and Development of Society from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilisation. By Lewis H. Morgan. Price, 5s. Postage, 4d.
The price formerly was 16/ per copy, but, owing to the copyright having expired, the Book can now be had at a price which makes it accessible to all.
THE SUE NOVELS
Written under the Collective Title of "History of a
Proletarian Family Across the Ages."
Translated from the French by DANIEL DE LEON.
In order to understand our own time it is absolutely necessary that we know something of the times that have gone before. The generations are like links in a chain, all connected. The study, by which we can understand the philosophy of events and learn what has been done and thought before us, is history, and this is perhaps the most fascinating of all studies. The reading of history, clothed in the garb of fiction, without historic accuracy being sacrificed, is the most delightful way of gathering historical knowledge. Many people have a far better idea of Scotch history from reading the works of Scott than if they had depended solely on the dry-as-dust text books. Socialism is more concerned with the history of the people than with the doings of kings and queens; and with a knowledge of the history of the people we can better understand how the great men achieved prominence. Fortunately, the great Eugene Sue has given us in the form of fiction the best universal history extant. It is a monumental work entitled "The Mysteries of the People," or "History of a Proletarian Family Across the Ages." In this work Sue gives the leading and successive: episodes in the history of the race, by tracing through the ages the varying phases of the fortunes of one family under the several systems of society, together with the nature of the struggle between the contending classes.
The following five stories have been translated, and should be read by those entering upon a study of Socialism.
| THE GOLD SICKLE. | Price, | 1s. 9d. |
| THE INFANTS' SKULL. | Price,„ | 1s. 9d. |
| THE BRASS BELL. | Price,„ | 1s. 9d. |
| THE IRON TREVET. | Price,„ | 2s. 6d. |
| THE PILGRIM’S SHELL. | Price,„ | 2s 6d. |
Others are in course of preparation, and will be issued shortly.
Read the "Socialist."
OFFICIAL PARTY-OWNED ORGAN OF THE SOCIALIST
LABOUR PARTY.
A Revolutionary Working Class Paper advocating Revolutionary
Working Class Politics and Industrial Unionism.
ONE PENNY MONTHLY.
Subscription Rate, 1s, 6d. per year
THE
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
BY
KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS
PRICE, ONE PENNY.
Written by the two foremost Socialist thinkers, the "Manifesto"
is the most representative and widespread exposition
of the historical Basis of Socialism.
Reform or Revolution?
BY
DANIEL BE LEON.
A study in tactics. A powerful argument for the uncompromising, revolutionary tactics of the Socialist Labour Party.
PRICE, ONE PENNY.
| KARL KAUTSKY. | —The Working Class. |
| —The Capitalist Class. | |
| —The Class Struggle. | |
| —The Socialist Republic. |
These four pamphlets, taken together, give a comprehensive view of the various elements of modern society and of the aims of the Labour movement. They are very popular in form, and can be read separately, though they complete each other.
Price of each, ONE. PENNY.
ADDRESS ORDERS TO
SOCIALIST LABOUR PRESS,
28 FORTH STREET, EDINBURGH
NO COMPROMISE, NO POLITICAL TRADING. By Wilhelm Liebknecht. Price, Fourpence Postage, ½d.
A most important work for the Socialist Movement It shows the necessity for keeping clear of all entangling alliances with capitalist parties
AS TO POLITICS. A Discussion upon the Relative Importance of Political Action and of Class-Conscious Economic Action and the Urgent Necessity of Both. Price, One Shilling. Postage, 1d.
It contains the information whereby to arrive at the correct tactics wherewith to reach the goal of the Socialist Commonwealth.
THE FIRST NINE CHAPTERS OF "DAS CAPITAL." By Karl Marx. Paper, 1s. Cloth, 1s. 9d. Postage, 3d.
THE EIGHTEENTH BRUMAIRE OF LOUIS BONPARTE. By Karl Marx. Translated from the German by Daniel De Leon, Price, 1s. 2d. Postage, 1½d.
"The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" is one of Karl Marx's most profound and most brilliant monographs. It may be considered the best work extant on the philosophy of history, with an eye especially upon the history of the movement of the proletariat, together with the bourgeois and other manifestations that accompany the same, and the tactics that such conditions dictate.
REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION. By Karl Marx. Price 1s. 6d. Postage, 3d.
A series of Letters written to the "New York Tribune" from London by Karl Marx in 1851–52 treating of the German Revolution of 1848. The letters were written while Marx was in exile, and they give a history of the events which succeeded the Revolution of 1848 and which resulted in the failure of the insurrection through the counter-revolution which followed.
THE WORLD'S REVOLUTIONS. By Ernest Untermann. Price 1s. 6d. Postage, 3d.
Contents:—The Individual and the Universe; Primitive Revolutions; The Roman Empire and its Proletariat; The Christian Proletariat and its Mission; Feudal Ecclesiasticism and its Disintegration; The American Revolution and its Reflex in France; Bourgeois Revolutions in Europe; The Proletarian World Movement.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in 1910, before the cutoff of January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1957, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 66 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse