The Daily Worker Newspaper, November 20, 1926, Page 8

(ean ance cmaemey 5 een nemanmnanaen a eeananenne amen tammete ee Bernard Shaw--Fool of the Bourgeoisie , By K. A. WITTFOGEL. Bernard Shaw, the English dramat- ist and writer, is no revolutionary Marxist. Co-founder and member for a long number of years of the re- form-socialist union of the Fabians (so-called after a Roman general who is supposed to have crushed his op- ponents not by open attack, but by caution and hésitation*), Shaw has just recently rejected the revolution- ary methods of Communism as a de- plorable tactical error, Even for Marxism, the theoretical expression of the Communist movement, Shaw— quite logically—is unable to muster up any enthusiasm. Once before, in his literary youth, Shaw was an ad- herent of the Marxian theory of value. But that was a long time ago. Today he obviously has only quite a hazy idea of the basic thoughts of Marx- ism. That does not prevent him from disapproving these thoughts most en Like many social reformers wh: have no objection to socialism “com ing” some day—a hundred years afte: their death—Shaw, too, calls himsei a socialist. What is the nature o this socialism of his? In his dramati cycle, “Back to Methusala,” the poe presents a socialist to us who, in spit of his alleged socialist sentiments: holds fast to.tlie good old manners and virtues of the bourgeoisie. “Bour- geois manners may be snobbish man- ners, they may offer no kind of pleas- ure . . . but they are better than no manners at all. Many bourgeois vir- tues may be false, but at least they still exist.” Hence bourgeois sdcial- ism, “virtuous” or “honorable” social- ism. This is undoubtedly one of the sides of the artistic-political personal- ity of the English poet. In contradic- | tory union with this, however, there is | Shaw | is not only a last bourgeois; he is also | another side to Shaw’s nature. #last. bourgeois. In his manner he Tecognizes and hastens the decline of capitalistic bourgeois society. Herel lies not only his literary) but also his political, world-historical signifi- cance, Bernard Shaw’s Other Side. Nonetheless, Lenin, who knew Shaw’s Fabian attitude very well, de- scribed the Englishman (more exactly | the English-Irishman) as “an honest fellow among out and out hypocrites,” as a reformist who stands much far- ther to the left than the resi. In fact, no reformist has recognized and pil- | loried, like Shaw, the contradictions and the weak points of bourgeois so- ciety. Altho himself bound to the ex- isting capitalist world by a thousand ties, Shaw still sees with outright rev- olutionary acuteness that the culture and the ideals of the bourgeoisie have run their course, that they are devoid of their meaning. Each single truth of the bourgeoisie is a lie. Bourgeois ideology, which once had its historic force, has today become rotten an weak with age. This ideology must be demolished; its emptiness must be exposed! Shaw, standing within the camp of the bourgeoisie, is one of the most persistent, one of the most clever and successful destroyers of the ideals of the bourgeois era. By means of the social comedy, he plan- fully attacks the structure of bour- geois ideology from all sides. The bourgeoisie would very much like to make capitalistic wage-labor palatable to the workers by senti- mental phrases. In Shaw's “Man and Superman” a young bourgeois “ideal- ist” watches his chauffeur repair the damaged car with the sweat of his brow and says, while looking on: “tf believe very much in the dignity of labor.” This remark did not make the slightest impression on Shaw’s chauffeur, He answered calmly: “That's because you have never worked yourself, sir. . . My aim is to do away with work.” According to Shaw, then, there is nothing to the “dignity of labor,” as capital proclaims it. Nor does the “dignity” of the bourgeois fare any better. The latter is nothing but a legally protected robber, The Span- ish robber-captain, Mendoza (in “Man and Superman”), faces the wealthy English Tanner and introduces him- self to him with the words: “Allow me to introduce ‘myself: Mendoza, president of the League of-the Sierra. Iam a robber. I live by robbing the rich.” Whereupon Tanner replies: “I am a gentleman; I live by robhing the poor. Let us shake hands!” The es- sence of bourgeois society is here drastically concentrated in~a single sentence, But: the-sgentiones is not only a robber; he is also a hypocrite, a lying fellow who, in the face of the unpleas- ant aspects of his world, buries his head deep in the’ sand, “I have the scruples of a gentleman,” declares Edstaston in “Katherine the Great.” The Russian gentleman, his partner, does not understand this. “In Russia a gentleman has no scruples, In Rus- sia we look facts in the face.” There- upon Edstaston makes the reply, mag- Se eS | AERO TE nificent in a twofold sense: land, prince, a gentleman never looks | nantly: a fact in the face, if it is an umpleas- am fact. 2. 2 % Measured by this standard: to be sure, Shaw himself is no gentleman, either; for, as we have already seen, he has an outspoken predilection for the “unpleasant facts” of bourgeois society. Here everything has become a commodity.. But then the essential content of things and accomplish- ments is distorted in a twofold man- ner. Let us take the doctor, Under capitalism he is compelled to sell his medical services the greatest number of times and in the most remunerative form. Shaw formulates it thus: “I cannot seriously injure my shin with- out forcing upon a surgeon the diffi- cult self-directed question: “Would not a handful of gold pieces be more useful to me than this man’s leg to him? Could he not write just as well, or even better, with one leg than with two? And the gold pieces would be so extraordinarily useful to me just now. My wife—my dear little ones— the leg may become gangrenous—it is always safer to operate—he will be well in two weeks—artificial legs are made so well now that they are really better than natural ones. .. .” This schism, which arises from the inner- most nature of capitalist society, can only be done away with, concludes Shaw quite correctly, thru the sociali- zation of the medical profession. Until then the medical profession Will necessarily remain what it is at pres ent, “a conspiracy for the. exploita- tion of the general credulity and human suffering.”** x “In Eng-the Salvation Army exclaims indig- What Shaw says otherwise about {a copy. of Plato’s “Republ@” as a part- bourgeois culture—with the ormal|ing gift, but a revolver and hundred bourgeois it is a gloss which can be } Undershaft cartridges.” » acquired by every poor devil in @shor*} All social pacifists who wish to see time if only ‘one takes the trouble | socialism brought about by purely (“Pygmaleon”), ete., ete, . . . can “spiritual” means may confidently read in Shaw’s different writings | write these sentences of Shaw in their themselves, or it ean be heard from | albums. off the stage, Only two of Shaw’s ‘‘ex- The “Fool” of the Bourgeoisie. *) posures,” because of their highly po-} How, then, is it possible, many will litical ‘significance, should ba briefly | perhaps ask themselves, that a man touched upon, Shaw’s remarks on the | who utters such truths can be an role of religion in bourgeois society, |author esteemed by the bourgeoisie and hig discussion of the problem of |}and played in bourgeois theaters? force. -Both are found in the Salva- |The riddle is solved if we recall that tion Army drama, “Major Barbara,” |Shaw is.a comedy writer, that he ut that comedy in which the poet, in cer-|ters all of his unpleasant remarks in . tain sentences, comes closest to a rev-|the form of apparently unobligatory. olutionary coticept of things. jests. One recalls the fool in Shakes- The cannon king, Undershaft, de-|peare’s plays. This fool, under the clares serenely: “All religious organt-| protection of his cap and bells, could zations.exist because they sell them-|say things out openly the mere hint Selves to the rich.” The defender of |of which would have cost the head of anyone speaking seriously. It is just the samé with Charlie Chaplin's social satire, And tho both artists have cer- tain bourgeois evils, ambiguities and deviations in common, the destructive, anti-bourgeois effect of their best work remains untouched. To conclude. Shaw is the Shakes- pearean fool of later bourgeois cul- ture. But, said Lenin in connection with the remark reproduced above, may Shaw be a buffoon for the bour- geoisie, for the revolution he is some- thing entirely different. We may make this sentence of Lenin’s more concrete. Shaw is an enemy of the bourgeoisie living in the camp of the bourgeoisie. By his demolition of bourgeois ideology he weakens the moral authority of the ruling class, tionary proletariat struggling to over- throw this class, In doing this it is relatively unim- portant whether Shaw “wants” the | proletarian revolution or whether he does not want it. Neither did the great philosophers of enlightenment of the eighteenth cefitury want the revolution. become importéut spiritual wall-break- | ers of the coming social upheaval, i *Ig supposed to. The Fabians, in choosing their name, fell a victim to an eat legend. More recent histor- ical writings judge the accomplish- ments of Mr. Quintus Fabius Maximus essentially less favorably. **Preface to “The Doctor at the Crossroads.” To Webster-Thayer-Judge- 3 Hangman. “Not the Army! It is the church of the poor.” Whereupon the capitalist replies cynically: “One more reason for buying it.” Now the Sal- vation Army man\becomes angry: “I don’t believe that you know exactly what the Salvation Army is doing for the poor.” Answer: “Oh yes, I know. It pulls their teeth. That is enough for me—as a business man... . “How so? Why, religion makes the workers altruistic!” “Indifferent to their own in ts, that suits me to a T. It directs thoughts towards heavenly things ... And not towards trade unions or socialism. Splendid!” We see, the social role of religion is clearly grasped and, indeed—may Shaw not be offended—entirely in the sense of the accursed Marxism. At the end the problem of power is then cut imto. “Spiritual” power alone, about which the reformist friends of Bernard Shaw rave so soul- You have given your decision You have denied their appeal Their last appeal Not for freedom Not for mercy, But for justice For a chance to prove es Their innocence Their Innocence believed in By millions of workers The world over. : Deep down in your soul (if such as you have a soul) _ You know damned well That Sacco and Vanzetti Are innocent Innocent of robbery and murder But guilty For you and your kind Of a far greater crime A thousand times greater crime The crime of beinng radical Sacco and Vanzetti Are guilty of despising fully, is in no way adequate; material Capitalism power must lie at ‘the basis of it. The| Militarism head master, Cusins, converted from imperialism And all the institutions Sacred to the grafters. You denied them a new trial You want to cover up ; With the martyred corpses Of two innocent workers The cesspool of inquity . . That Is Massachusetts’ Justice- That Is capitalistic justice But the stench of your guilt x And the gullt of your gang ; Shall rise to the heavens And liberated posterity Will curse your memory. ‘ —By ADOLF WOLFF. his Salvation Army craze, declares: “I gave the educated man weapons against the common man in that I taught the former Greek. Now I shall give the common man weapons against the educated man,” His bride says: “Is there no higher power than this?” She points to a bomb. “Yes,” an- works into the hands of the revolu- , Nevertheless,, they have | i