SPGB March Events (2025)

Party News from the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our general discussion meetings are held on Zoom. To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/wc/join/7421974305 in your browser. Then follow instructions on screen and wait to be admitted to the meeting.

Gerry-built (2025)

Book Review from the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Party is Always Right. By Aidan Beatty. Pluto Press. 2024.

This is sub-titled the ‘Untold Story of Gerry Healy and British Trotskyism’ though in truth most of it has been told before. The interesting addition is the number of interviews that have helped to add colour and richness to a grim story of political failure and an even grimmer tale of internal strife and abuse.

Alongside Ted Grant of the Militant Tendency and Tony Cliff of the Socialist Workers Party, Gerry Healy was one of the three gurus of the British Trotskyist movement. While all three led organisations that had authoritarian tendencies, Healy’s outfit was by far the worst. Called the Socialist Labour League until it changed its name to the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) in 1973, it became a byword for cult-like sectarianism and was infused with a rancid, hierarchical political culture which was framed and dominated by the leader himself. Healy was a tyrannical bully who often directed and oversaw violence against his political opponents (both inside and outside the party) and who was an expert manipulator. Indeed, that was arguably his main ‘talent’ such as it was and what kept him at the top of the organisation for so long.

Unlike Grant or Cliff, Healy was no theoretician with a knowledge of Marx, even though he liked to paint himself as such. Most of his attempts at establishing this sort of reputation for himself only served to expose his limitations, which were considerable. He was obsessed with Marxist dialectics, but his forays into this were generally just nonsense (Beatty quotes a few examples in case anyone was in any doubt).

Healy also seemed to possess relatively little knowledge of Marxist economics. He was the perennial catastrophist, constantly predicting that capitalism was in its final death agony and that the revolution was imminent. He was effectively saying the same thing in the 1970s and 80s as he had been in the 1950s. Yet the collapse never came.

Some argue that he had a certain charisma, which is why he was able to keep his hold on the party for so long. It was certainly enough to woo a number of high-profile celebrities into the orbit of the organisation, starting with the actor Corin Redgrave and then his more famous sister Vanessa, but including many others from Frances De La Tour to former Spurs football player Chris Hughton.

But this charisma – if that is what it was – was ultimately to prove the downfall of both Healy and the WRP. In 1985, Healy’s secretary Aileen Jennings wrote to the Political Committee of the WRP alleging that Healy was a serial manipulator and sexual abuser of women, naming 26 female victims, mainly party members. This eventually led to a predictable slew of lurid tabloid headlines and was a proverbial ‘hand grenade’ against its supreme leader from which the WRP never recovered. It split into myriad warring factions over the following years.

Healy himself then founded the Marxist Party with loyalists Vanessa and Corin Redgrave but died aged 76 in 1989 and this party – never more than about 50 or so – dwindled away to nothing. The surviving WRP led by Sheila Torrance is also now tiny (estimated at around 120 members at most) though still stands General Election candidates, as periodically does another small surviving faction, now called the Socialist Equality Party and linked to a US organisation of the same name led by David North (a Healy protégé).

At its peak the WRP may have had 3,000 members but when the split happened the party’s finances became one of the biggest bones of contention as it emerged that many of its assets were not actually registered in the name of the party itself, but through other byzantine and opaque structures – allegedly for security reasons. There was a Head Office (with no signage) on Clapham High Street in a building now occupied by Caffé Nero, eight apartments around the corner in Clapham Old Town (Healy himself lived in one of them), a ‘College of Marxist Education’ in rural Derbyshire, and a state-of-the-art printing works in Runcorn that had enabled the WRP to produce the first colour daily newspaper in Britain, News Line. There were also several ‘Youth Training Centres’ it had set up, at one stage several bookshops, and also fleets of vehicles including Healy’s BMW.

The party’s finances were actually another Achilles Heel, as it over-extended itself in a way that couldn’t be sustained through membership income and paper sales alone, however hard the leadership pushed the members and gave them impossible targets to meet. Hence Healy’s well-known soliciting of money from Iraq and – in particular – Colonel Gaddafi’s Libyan regime (which also gave the WRP printing works considerable contracts, including for mass copies of the Green Book). Beatty is sceptical of some of the wilder claims that have been made about links with Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and the PLO as well, but there is little doubt that money came from both Iraq and Libya and was not unconnected with the virulently pro-Arab nationalist tone of much WRP literature.

This then leads us on to another theme – the paranoia and secrecy at the heart of the organisation. Healy was obsessed with the security services, spies and moles, and saw them everywhere. Anyone who crossed him was lucky to be called a ‘subjectivist idealist’ or similar, the alternative was that they were really a spy. Anecdotes about speakers at WRP meetings being asked to speak with their backs to the window (in case MI5 listening devices could pick up sensitive vibrations from the glass) were not entirely unfounded. In fact, the British state did show an interest in the WRP (especially in the 70s and 80s) though this was more because of its links to industrial disruption in the early 70s and then later links to foreign governments and their money, than any assessment of them being a credible domestic revolutionary threat.

Beatty says that the standard description of the WRP as a cult has something going for it, but is, of itself, inadequate because its internal practices were directly a product of its elitist political outlook:

‘Dismissing the WRP as a cult means ignoring the connection between the WRP’s authoritarian culture and the party’s Leninist structure. The WRP can and should be understood also as an extreme manifestation of Leninist vanguardism and its anti-democratic praxis’ (p. xvii).

We could not have put it better ourselves.

Dave Perrin

Action Replay: Size isn’t everything (2025)

The Action Replay column from the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Modern-day capitalism is sometimes called corporatism, because of the large conglomerates that include a number of businesses. Costa Coffee, for instance, was once owned by Whitbread but now comes under the Coca-Cola empire, which has over five hundred brands, including Fanta and Innocent Drinks. You may not have heard of Associated British Foods, but they own Primark, Ovaltine and Twinings, among many others.

Perhaps it will not come as a big surprise that parts of professional sport are evolving in a similar direction, with multi-club ownership becoming fairly common (it’s sometimes just partial ownership). For instance, the Fenway Sports Group is an American company that owns Liverpool FC, the Boston Red Sox (baseball) and the Pittsburgh Penguins (ice hockey). They also own a stock car racing team and a golf league. They claim to have a ‘track record of taking cherished and iconic clubs to new heights.’ John Henry has 40 percent of the company’s total stock, and other large companies and wealthy individuals are partners too.

More commonly, though, it is just football that is involved. Manchester City is the flagship club in the City Football Group, which is mostly owned by Sheikh Mansour and his Abu Dhabi United Group. Among others falling under its umbrella are Girona in Spain, Palermo in Italy, New York City FC and Shenzhen Penguin City in China. Supposedly there is much co-operation among the clubs, in areas such as combined scouting and player sharing.

There are a number of other examples, and it’s not just top clubs that are involved in such ventures. Walsall FC (in League Two) have been acquired by the Trivela Group in the US, which also owns Drogheda United in Ireland and Trivela FC in Togo. They wanted to buy Silkeborg in Denmark, but supporters there objected.

There are various regulations concerning multi-club ownership. In England no-one is allowed to exercise control over more than one league club, and similar restrictions apply at European level, with clubs controlled by the same owners or directors being prohibited from competing in the same European competition. Back in 2017, for instance, UEFA investigated whether two clubs in the Red Bull group (Leipzig and Salzburg) could play in the same competition; it was determined that they could. There have also been more recent examples, such as AC Milan and Toulouse in 2023. Other issues can arise too, such as artificially inflating a player’s transfer value.

No doubt owners and their lawyers will put every effort into keeping within the regulations, just as all capitalist companies do in their quest for profit.

Paul Bennett

50 Years Ago: Rubbish about royalty (2025)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The name which has become well known for attacking royalty is the Labour MP William Hamilton. That is a piece of good luck for the journalists and commentators. Hamilton is an earnest nonentity; so the press can have the luxury of criticizing the extravagance and forelock-touching and the secrecy over the Queen’s wealth, and at the same time disparaging Hamilton. He is reported in various papers as saying he does not want actually to abolish royalty.

“The object of my book is not to destroy the Monarchy” (News of the World).

“Sack the lot except the Queen, her husband and Charles. Pay them properly taxed salaries and take over the two Duchies” (Guardian).

Does it matter? Hardly at all. Hamilton gave his case away in a TV interview on 31st January. Explaining the origin of his hostility to royalty, he recalled his father’s wage as a miner between the wars — £2 a week — and went on: “And it is still the same today, there are the rich and the poor.” Yes, it is. One has to ask if he seriously thinks, then, that putting down the royals would alter it? And, if this is still the position after the voluminous Labour reforms for which he has worked, why has he not thought of working for Socialism instead?

But there is an opposite fallacy which should be mentioned too. It is the idea that a surge of resentment of the sheer plutocracy the Queen represents is an indication that the working class are up in arms against the system. Unfortunately, no. The fact is that royalty’s popularity has always had ups and downs. (…)

… [T]he alternative to monarchy could be a dictator, or a Nixon. Looked at from another point of view, this brings us to the truth. Are things any different for the working class in the countries where they have no monarchy? Manifestly they are not. The class division of which royalty is a tiny, if spectacularly absurd, part exists just the same. The great majority spend their lives struggling to make wage-labour’s ends meet, and other people with other titles lap up the fat of the land.

[From the article, Rubbish about Royalty by Robert Barltrop, Socialist Standard, March 1975]

Editorial: An end to the war in Ukraine? (2025)

Editorial from the March 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hopefully the war in Ukraine will end quickly. Ideally, it should end immediately and unconditionally — in the interest of humanity in general and the working class in particular, the killing and destruction should just stop — but this is not how wars end. Unless one side wins outright, there are negotiations based on the perceived balance of force between the two sides.

Russia claims the main issue at stake in Ukraine has been whether or not the country should join NATO, with the rulers of the Russian state arguably perceiving this as an existential threat in the same way that in 1962 the rulers of the USA saw the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba. On that occasion Russia backed down and the crisis was defused. In 2022 the US and its allies in NATO refused to back down. So did Russia and they decided to invade.

Normally, wars are fought to win but the US declared that its aim was limited to weakening Russia by forcing it to divert resources into fighting a war without end. Russia has been waging war to win, perhaps not necessarily to conquer the whole of Ukraine but certainly to conquer as much as it can along its frontier and to force Ukraine to sue for peace.

Russia would certainly like to capture Odessa and Kharkov too but it looks as if they will have to settle for the 20 percent of mineral-rich Ukraine that they have already taken, if only on condition that what’s left of Ukraine doesn’t join NATO (or, ideally, the EU either). A block on NATO membership seems to be what Trump has offered Putin as the basis for a settlement, which has come as shock both to the Ukrainian government and the European members of NATO.

The European leaders were also shocked at the US exploiting Ukraine’s weakness to extract free access to rare earth metals there. They saw this as ‘transactional’ and said NATO was about ‘defending democracy’ rather than such sordid considerations. Maybe NATO is not primarily economic but this was no shock to socialists. It’s how we would expect a state engaged in the competitive struggle for profits to behave given half a chance,

Why this change of US attitude? We can only speculate. America seems to have decided that Ukraine’s joining NATO is not after all that strategically important from its point of view, especially when it has other, more important strategic considerations in East Asia and the South China Sea and has arguably been pulling back from many of its foreign commitments for years, the latest being Afghanistan.

Since the complete defeat of the USSR in the Cold War, represented by its break-up into independent states at the end of December 1991, what was left as Russia has not constituted too much of a threat to the US as such. No doubt there are revanchists among Russia’s ruling elite who dream of re-incorporating the parts of the former USSR such as the Baltic statelets, but not necessarily to overrun the whole of the rest of Europe, as claimed by war-mongering generals and fabulating politicians.

The US has decided that that’s not its problem but Europe’s to deal with — and, more particularly, to pay for. European governments, including Labour here, are to increase military spending. Another example of how capitalism wastes resources that, in a different world, could be used to meet people’s needs.

Socialist Sonnet No. 183: Security (2025)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Security?

 

 

Does security have a going rate?

What, precisely, is the calculation

Demanded by protecting the nation

And its capital? It’s the other state,

Of course, aggressively belligerent

And quite determined to get its own way,

Which is responsible for this outlay

On our proud military deterrent.

Whatever’s spent, the other then spends more,

Thereby by forcing increased expenditure,

But never enough, it seems, to be sure

Peace will be achieved and maintained through war.

When they attack their aggression’s immense,

When we attack it’s always self-defence.

D. A.

The Kirkdale Bye-Election. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blatchford Eats his Words.

Appeals to “Socialists” to close up their ranks and help in every possible way to return Mr. J.. Hill to Parliament are falling fast and furious and the usual reasons are being advanced by those whose policy is changed as often as is demanded by the necessity to maintain the circulation of their newspapers, secure the attendance of the public in large numbers at their meetings or to bring themselves into prominence as “leaders” of the working class. Mr. Robert Blatchford, who for weeks in the columns of the Clarion has been explaining “Why the Labour Party is no good,” now urges all, Socialists and Labour men alike, to help to swell the ranks of the “useless” Labour Party by returning a candidate who will be as useless as the best of them. In the Clarion Election Supplement Mr. Blatchford eats his own words and declares that “the workers need a strong and United Labour Party” because “two ominous words, ‘Conscription’ and ‘Protection’ are being freely bandied about, and attacks, open or covert, are being made upon Trade Unionism and Education,” and further, “The Liberal Party may be a better Party than the the Tory Party, but the best Party for Labour is a Labour Party.” And this whilst the ink is hardly dry on his utterances on the failure of the Labour Party and his declarations that only a Socialist Party will do ! But then, Robert Blatchford is a journalist and also writes romances.

The S.D.F. Position.

Edward Hartley, too, calls us “To Arms ! To Arms !” He also, in Justice and elsewhere, has been asserting the necessity for a Socialist party, but like Blatchford and others, is not honest enough to admit that it exists in The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Hill should be helped because he “is not only the secretary of a strong and well-organised trade union (!) but a good Socialist who has advocated his principles for years.” But, Hartley adds, “Even if he were not a Socialist, but only a Trade Unionist who would stand firm on the principle of independence in political action, he would be better than the best candidate who could be selected as either Liberal or Tory.” We hope our friends who tell us they believe in our policy of hostility to all other parties, but who remain in the S.D.F. because they also believe that to be an uncompromising Socialist organisation, will note its willingness to support non-Socialists and even anti-Socialists under the conditions stated by Mr. Hartley.

The Liberal Attitude.

Mr. Hartley says also that the Liberals find the Tory candidate so acceptable that there is to be no Liberal candidate, but on the other hand, it may be that the Liberals find Mr. Hill so acceptable that they prefer to leave the field open to him. After all, if at the General Election they were willing to assist “independent” candidates, like Mr. Ramsay McDonald, Mr. T. F. Richards, Mr. Jas. Parker, Mr. G. J. Wardle and others into the House of Commons, why should they fight the Labour candidate now that they have discovered how “sensible, respectable and adaptable” the Labour members are ? As the Daily News admitted, when commenting on Mr. Gill’s address at the Trade Union Congress “no Liberal who is in earnest about his creed . . . can do anything but rejoice in the strength of a party at once so sincere and so reasonable.” And judging by his election address, no Liberal need fear the return of Mr. John Hill for the Kirkdale division. (Since the above was written the Kirkdale Liberal Divsional Council have passed a resolution urging the Liberal electors to vote for Mr. Hill.)

Mr. Hill’s Program.

The Labour Leader prints certain portions of Mr. Hill’s election address, and even from these it can be seen how far he is in conflict with the programs of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. Amongst other things Mr. Hill says :—

Aliens' Bill.

I deeply regret that through lack of employment at home British Workers are forced to go to other countries as “Blacklegs,” or stay at home and starve. I am in favour of a Bill to give Protection to British Workers by the prohibition of Aliens being imported to take the place of men on strike, or to undercut or displace British Worker.

Education.

As a Nonconformist, I believe in simple Bible study—the Bible is still my best book: at the same time, Bible lessons should only be given to children at their parents’ desire, as every parent should have the fullest opportunity to teach his child his own faith. I believe that religion thrives best and retains its sincerity without State interference.

Temperance.

As a total abstainer, I am in favour of the people of every town or parish having the fullest direct veto on the renewal of old licences or the granting of new ones. The common people ought to have the right to say whether or not temptation shall be beside their homes and amongst their children.

Franchise.

I am in favour of Adult Suffrage. Meantime, I would support the agitation for the extension of the franchise to women on the same basis as it now is, or may be, extended to men. I also favour the Bill giving married women the right to vote on their husband’s qualifications.

In conclusion.

As I am opposed to the present commercial system of production for profit, I would advocate in Parliament the Nationalisation of the production, distribution, and exchange of the common necessities of life. The enormous and ever increasing trade and wealth of the country is only tending to make the poor poorer, and rich richer and creating a luxurious, idle class on the one hand, and a starving unemployed class on the other. It is only by a more scientific system of society, a more just division of the products of labour, a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work, that the workers shall be emancipated.

And it is on utterances such as these that the Clarion, the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Trade Unions unite ! Such unity proves our case against them in regard to political action.

Mr. Hill’s Hotch Potch.

So far as we know Mr. Hill is the first “Labour” candidate to advocate the exclusion of aliens, and to adopt the Tariff Reformers’ position that the low wages and lack of employment of the working class here are due to the admission of aliens. Evidently Mr. Hill is one of the “working-men Tariff Reform missionaries” that Mr. C. Arthur Pearson threatens shall take the field against Socialism. The paragraph concerning “Education” conflicts with the resolution of the Trade Union Congress, the program of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., and again typifies the latitude allowed to “Labour” candidates for vote catching purposes, and proves conclusively how the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. will ignore their own programs in order to be “in the swim.” Both these two bodies, also, are pledged to public ownership and control of the drink traffic, a “reform” which Mr. Hill does not support. His reference to “the common people” is an insult to the working class, and his plea for a more just division of the products of labour is an admission that the present system is just and all Mr. Hill wants is to make it more so !

The Only Way.

There is one course for the workers of Kirkdale to adopt, although the result will be announced before these lines are in print,—Abstain from voting. A candidate who will pander to all sections, as Mr. Hill, with the support of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Clarion, is doing, proving thereby that he holds to no guiding principle beyond the personal desire to add the much coveted letters M.P. to his name, or, if we acquit him of this, showing conclusively that he does not comprehend the working-class position, is worse than useless to his class, and can only fall a victim, as the others have done, to the flattery and the hospitality of the master-class representatives. To serve the working class a candidate must stand as a rebel, be prepared to act as a rebel if elected, and to take all the consequences of such action. Prating about “a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work” after two thousand years of wars, barbarities, faction fights and other loving pleasantries which Christ’s followers indulge in, may be a good card to play in Liverpool and the appeal no doubt goes straight to the heart of atheists like Robert Blatchford, and the leaders of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. But neither by looking up to Christs nor down to devils, neither by appealing to politicians nor by relying upon “leaders” will the workers secure their emancipation. Only by realising that they are slaves, that there is no hope for them while Capitalism exists, that their emancipation can only be secured by abolishing, not palliating, the capitalist system and by organising themselves to take for themselves possession and control of all the means of producing and distributing wealth, will their historic mission be fulfilled. As voting for Mr. Hill would not assist them, but make the existing confusion worse confounded, we trust that the result will show that large numbers of the workers of Kirkdale have declined to vote for either of the candidates before them. But we confess we are not hopeful. The Social Revolution must be preceded by a mental revolution. Much deep study must be undertaken before the mental revolution is accomplished, and until then the workers will fall an easy prey to Labour Misleaders like Mr. Hill and his supporters.

Jack Kent

“If Mr. Hill is defeated,” says the Labour Leader of September 27th, “he will not be defeated on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of our Socialist purposes or faith.” And, it may be added, if Mr. Hill is successful he will not be successful on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of the Socialist purpose or faith.

Justice, however, declares it to be a “Socialist” fight. The contest, they say, is “one between Socialism and anti-Socialism.” “The fight is distinctly one for and against Socialism, and if Mr. Hill wins it will unquestionably be a Socialist victory.” In view of the candidate’s program, which Justice admits might be “more pronouncedly Socialist,” these words must have come as a severe shock to those S.D.F. members who assert that their organisation is “stiffening.” It is more flabby than ever.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fact that Victor Grayson fought Colne Valley without the sanction of the Labour Party has upset several members of that “sensible, respectable, and adaptable” collection of odds and ends. Writing in the A.S.E. Journal for August, Mr. G. N. Barnes says that “each section should endeavour to fall in line with due regard to the general situation. Otherwise there may be more or less irregular candidatures leading to friction and a breaking up of the solidarity which has so far characterised the Labour Party. If Socialists, for instance, are going to run candidates ‘on their own’ without regard to the feelings of the Trade Unionist section, and, as in this case, without consulting the party as a whole, then Trade Unionists may be disposed to return the compliment.”

***

Mr. Barnes’ reference to “solidarity” is amusing. Even the Daily News for September 3rd wrote concerning it: “Its members are but loosely joined together : in its small aggregation it comprehends the extremes of opinion. Today they are often seen walking into different lobbies in Parliament.”

***

The following report appeared in the Times of August 27th:—

” The ‘Survivors of the all-night sittings’ of August 19 and 20 dined together at the House of Commons last night, among those present being Mr. Whitely, Mr. J. A. Pease, Mr. Herbert Lewis, the Master of Elibank, Mr. Fuller, Captain Norton, and Mr. Whitley (Liberal Whips), Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease (Unionist Whips), and Messrs. Burns, Cavendish, Hobhouse, T. W. Russell, Ainsworth, G. Baring, W. Benn, Bowerman, Carr-Gomm, Clough, C. H. Corbett, Courthope, C. Duncan, Dunn, Fenwick, Gill, Goddard, C. L. Harmsworth, Haworth, A. Henderson, Henry, Higham, Illingworth, MacVeagh, Manfield, Markham, Nicholls, John O’Connor, Pearce, C. E. Price, Rainey, T. F. Richards, Silcock, A. Stanley, Whitehead, and W. T. Wilson. The menu for the occasion was something in the nature of a novelty, among the dishes being ‘Consommé Tortue à la Banbury,’ ‘Harengs aux Baleines Ecossais. Sauce Wason,’ ‘Gelée Lloyd-George,’ ‘Harcourts Verts petite culture,’ ‘Grouse de Hampstead Heath (Tué par M. Whiteley et Sir Hood),” ‘Pèches Anglaises sucrées, sans impôot (Garanties par M. Jean Burns),’ ‘Moelles pain dore du Sud Afrique à la Chinois,’ ‘Dessert de 45 héros,’ and ‘Gâteau (Gagne par M. Jeremie McVeagh).’ The wines were described as ‘Moselle Piesporter Cuvée Caisse Fermée Minisère de Finance. Ad Hoc.” ‘Champagne Cuvée Dorsdors’ and ‘ Porte ! Porte ! Dow’s 1878.’ The concluding line on the menu was ‘Prorogation—Le Roi le veult.'”

***

Subject to correction, the “Survivors” named Bowerman, Duncan, Gill, Henderson, and T. F. Richards are “Labour” members. Who paid ?

***

Lord William Cecil is recording, in the columns of the Times, the impressions of his recent visit to China, where he went with the object of seeing the Christian missions at work in that portion of the Far East. What he has to say is far from reassuring says the Church Times. He found only too convincing proof of the tendency among European residents in China to sink to the lower moral standard of the Orientals. Foreseeing a time when China, like Japan, will enter into close relation and intercourse with the West, he dreads a Yellow Peril no less serious than the peril of aggression, which he believes to be imaginary. The Yellow Peril he fears is that of moral contamination for Europe, through the adoption of Chinese morals and ideas.

To meet this Lord William thinks that every effort should be made to make known the religion of Christ to the Chinese ! But a knowledge of this religion has not prevented the Europeans from falling !

***

The correspondence in the Church Times on Socialism was brought to a close on September 15th with a letter from Mr. Harry Phillips, writing from the Church House, Westminster, He “was once a member of the I.L.P., but is not now,” as he “can no longer support Labour when it declares for secular education !”

***

In the course of his letter Mr. Phillips says : “Under the rule of a strong Socialist majority on the West Ham Town Council, there was more poverty, more suffering, and greater want of employment, than at any other period during the history of West Ham, and had it not been for the generous subscriptions of strong individualists and capitalists like Mr. Dewar, and others, the suffering would have been a great deal worse ; it was exactly the same at Poplar. I am not now alluding to the bribery and corruption of a few men, none of whom were Labour men, nor am I in any sense attacking any Socialist members of the Town Council, but the administration during the Socialist regime instead of reducing poverty, intensified it. Rates and rent went up enormously, and unemployment and suffering increased.”

***

Now, even a Christian Socialist might try to tell the truth sometimes ! There never has been a Socialist majority on the West Ham Town Council, and far from rates and rent going up enormously, it is a well-known fact that in West Ham and in districts further East rents have fallen considerably, although rates have risen. As we have repeatedly shown, a rise in rates is not always followed by a rise in rents, but, on the other hand, rents often fall concurrently with rising rates. The landlords always secure the full amount that competition for house accommodation will permit them to exact, irrespective of rates. And very often high rates mean low assessments, and low rates high assessments.

***

In their efforts to capture the working class for Christ the parsons are ably assisted by some of the Labour Misleaders. Mr. G. J. Wardle, M.P., speaking at Brixham Congregational Church on Aug. 25 delivered himself as follows:

“There were thousands of men who had to work hard from week to week, and yet at the end there was nothing for them but the workhouse and a pauper’s grave. Every working-man who was discontented with the present conditions was so because he knew that life to him was not what it ought to be and what it might be. Under a system of industry in, which they could see the Divine hand, he knew that there would not only be security of tenure, but no unreasonably long hours and small wages, whilst he would have those comforts which health demanded.”

***

Mr. Wardle, apparently, has no conception of a time when the working man shall cease to be such, as distinguished from the non-working section of the community. No, all that is wanted is “fixity of tenure” (which apparently means that the workman’s nose is to be fixed to the grindstone) and not unreasonably long hours or unreasonably small wages. These of course are very vague terms, suitable to the occasion. And what reason has Mr. Wardle for suggesting that the Divine hand (whatever that may be) is not to be seen in the present system of industry ?

***

At the annual demonstration of the Blaina district of the South Wales Miners’ Federation on August 26th dissatisfaction was expressed at the action of Mr. T. Richards, Labour M.P. for West Monmouth, in supporting Liberal candidates. Mr. Richards, in reply, said that he went to support the Liberal candidate at Bristol at the request of a Labour Leader (whom he did not name) and he was not sorry that he had helped to return Mr. Robinson, the Liberal member for Breconshire. Loud cheers greeted his speech, after which Mr. W. Crooks, M.P., addressed the meeting, no doubt on the “solidarity” of the Labour Party.

***

At a Primrose League demonstration Lord Londonderry spoke of the great and growing danger of Socialism to the State. He said :

“There is £152,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank, the savings of ten million persons, for the Socialists to take. A million and three-quarter persons have put nearly £53,000,000 in trustee savings banks. Some £68,000,000 has been placed by workmen in building societies, and there is some £50,000,000 invested in industrial and provident societies, co-operative and friendly societies, and trade union benefit funds, while small holders hold some £20,000,000 worth of Government stock.

“All these are workmen’s savings, and they are all to be confiscated by the Socialists, all to be shared by the thriftless, all to be looted by the ‘have nots’ at the expense of those who have something.”

***

These figures make a total of £343,000,000, and as we showed last month, there is only about £100,000,000 of money in the Kingdom, so that even under Capitalism these “workmen” would be in a bad way if they wanted to withdraw their savings in a hurry. It is unfortunate that his Lordship did not give the numbers of all these various kinds of thrifty workmen. But according to him the depositors in the P.O. and Trustee savings banks number 11,750,000 “workmen.” The Industrial and Provident Societies have about 2,250,000 members and the Trade Unionists number about 2,000,000. Exclusive, then, of the Building Societies, at least 16,000,000 ‘workmen’ have deposited all these savings. But the workers only number about 13,000,000, or, with their dependents, 33,000,000. And of these, according to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 13,000,000 are always on the verge of hunger !

***

The sums mentioned by his Lordship do not represent the savings of the working class. Take the P.O. for example. The commercial and trading class know, what the working class, as a rule, do not, viz., that deposits are unattachable, that is, that in event of a bankruptcy, deed of composition, or any other circumstance, the creditors of a depositor in the P.O. Savings Bank cannot touch his or her deposit. Hence many of these wide-awake folk deposit up to the limit (£200) as a sort of provision against a “rainy day.”

***

The working class (S.D.F. resolutions notwithstanding) have nothing to lose but their chains. This also applies to many members of the “respectable classes,” the clerks and shop assistants, and many of their chains are “duds,” as watch snatchers have sometimes found, to their chagrin.

***

The S.D.F. is continually passing resolutions, and sending them to various representatives of the master class and the latest is a “stunner.”

***

Thus saith the S.D.F. Executive : “That this meeting of the Executive Committee of the S.D.F. enters its emphatic protest against the invitation given by King Edward VII on behalf of the British nation to the German Kaiser, and declares its intention to make this protest publicly effective upon his visit in London if necessary, seeing that the presence of a reactionary militarist such as the Kaiser is in no wise welcome among a free and self-respecting people.”

***

The issue of Justice which contained this resolution contained also “A Practical Suggestion for Socialist Unity” by E. R. Hartley, from which it was apparent that E.R.H. desires “Socialist” Unity in order to send to Parliament “someone who shall speak with confidence and authority.” This “someone” is “H. M. Hyndman.” E.R.H. waxes enthusiastic. “Hyndman, the economist, the educated gentleman, the polished and scholarly traveller, . . . Hyndman, with his sublime capacity for magnificent indiscretions” and so on. Evidently the resolution quoted above is one of Hyndman’s “magnificent indiscretions.”

***

Consider the position. In its literature and on its platforms, the S.D.F. declare that the people of this country are slaves. Mr. Hyndman has gone further and has denounced all those who are not class-conscious Socialists as “slaves and curs indeed.” Now, slaves and curs cannot be “free and self-respecting.” The S.D.F. Executive have allowed their jingoism to get the better of their Socialism, and in pursuit of their policy of currying favour with the jingo and “patriotic” section of the master class, of which the advocacy of compulsory military training forms a part, have thrown their Socialism overboard again, and declared what they know is a lie, viz., that the people of this country are “free and self respecting.”

J. Kay.

Letters: Socialism or Reform? Two Letters on Tactics. (1907)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,—I saw the July number of your journal in the local public library and straightway sat down to read it. What struck me most was your vigorous hostility towards the Labor Party. Being an ardent Socialist myself I would much rather the Labor Party in Parliament was Socialist, but if this was so I cannot see how they could have acted any different if a start was to be made at all in bettering the lot of the poorer working class. Socialism is utterly impossible until the people become Socialists, and as the time is very far distant when the people will decide that it is only by Socialism that Society will become a healthy organism it becomes necessary for us to adopt seasonable methods. It surely cannot be urged that to try and obtain immediate relief for those who feel the crushing burden of poverty the most is travelling in a wrong direction.

If a small Socialist party were in Parliament and preached nothing but the doctrines of collective ownership of the land and machinery of production nothing at all would be done towards mitigating existing evils, in fact, if I understand you rightly, nothing else matters, and until the Socialist Government comes along let things go on as they are, as, for instance: working 12 hours a day for £1 a week, children attending school half starved, taxes on food, and the glorious prospect that, at some future time you may occupy a place in the workhouse when a pension of about 10/- a week would obviate it.

It must be admitted that remedies for this lamentable state of affairs are very pressing and I for one think it far better and safer to climb the ladder of progress rather than try and leap to the top, which, perhaps, may be very good exercise but accomplishes nothing.

Yours faithfully,

V. Wilson.

_____________

Uncompromising consistency.

Dear Sir,— Since I heard a very interesting lecture by Mr. Anderson in Finsbury Park, I have (now and again) been considering the policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, and although I have thought myself an out-and-out Socialist for some years, I cannot altogether agree with your doctrines.

I do not love compromises, but I have grown more and more convinced that inconsistent compromises are among the necessary evils of existence.

Nothing in nature is absolute, and it seems impossible that any social or political action can take place that is entirely free from compromise, because no two people could entirely agree as to what is absolutely the best way to promote human welfare.

Then it is, theoretically, impossible for any progress to result from two forces acting in directly opposed directions, unless the party of progress were the stronger. Progress seems to me to be the resultant of the action of different forces which are to some extent inclined towards one another.

This may appear mere fantastic theory to you, at first sight, but really it is merely a way of illustrating a conclusion I had already reached by considering actual experiences.

Another point: the supporting of “palliative” measures. It seems to me that there are cases when it is the obvious duty of every Socialist, and indeed of every kind of humanitarian, to do all they can for such measures. Would it be your policy to refuse to support a measure (on the grounds that it delays the ultimate triumph of Socialism) to better the condition of half-starved children ? It seems to me that if you refused to support such measures, because Socialism might be the ultimate gainer by your opposition, you would be offering blood sacrifices to an idea, and so making an idol of Socialism. Of course I do not believe that, in actual fact, you would oppose measures that might be to the obvious present advantage of the workers as a whole ; but then why pretend that it is possible to be uncompromisingly consistent ?

Finally, you must not think that I think that The Socialist Party of Great Britain is doing harm ; I think it is doing a great deal of good ; but only as one of many forces working towards Socialism

—Leonard J. Simons.

_____________

Reply:

With each of our correspondents we find ourselves at least in partial agreement. Thus, for instance, we agree with Mr. Wilson that “Socialism is utterly impossible until the people become Socialists” and therefore

We are making Socialists.

We also agree with Mr. Simons that “Progress” (given the identity of our conceptions of progress) “is the resultant of different forces which are inclined towards one another,” and that “it is impossible for any progress to result from two forces acting in directly opposed directions unless the party of progress were the stronger.” Precisely. As The Socialist Party we take our stand upon the essential minimum upon which the real interests of all wage-workers are united or inclined towards each other, but these united interests are at the same time directly opposed to those of the capitalist class. Hence on Mr. Simons’ own showing no progress can possibly result from any attempt at compromise between two forces in direct antagonism, and that the workers’ only hope is to become, as indeed they must, the stronger party. Compromises are, therefore, not only inconsistent—they are utterly futile.

Both correspondents tacitly admit that the evils that cry for palliation are the effects of capitalist exploitation and that in reality Socialism alone is the remedy, yet both, curiously enough, consider reform nostrums of greater importance than Socialism. And this attitude we believe is the result of allowing generous sentiment to usurp the place of reason. Knowledge and reason are of far greater importance than sentimental impulse, and the kindest intentions result in the greatest harm where they override truth and logic.

The whole working class (so named because they do the work for which they get a grudging subsistence) have to produce thrice the amount of wealth they get in wages. Millions of men in this country toil for less than a pound a week. Thousands of women have to slave for wages insuflicient to purchase food alone; and many thousands eagerly hunt for employment without success ; while as a result of this

Ruthless Exploitation

thousands of children go to school and millions of men and women go to work insufficiently clothed and insufficiently fed. We know this and we are working to end it. Now who is going about it the better way ?

We are asked to practically withdraw our energies from what is admittedly the only thing that can put an end to the evils it is sought to palliate and to devote ourselves to inducing the capitalist class to provide meals for school-children and old age pensions. In other words we, and the workers generally, are urged to confine ourselves to begging the ruling class to treat certain of its victims more gently rather than that the workers organise and concentrate upon taking the power to make victims away from the ruling class. But so long as the people confine themselves to crumb begging and do not threaten his supremacy, what more does the capitalist demand ?

The class that lives by profit controls the state administratively, judicially and politically, and it is incontestable that any measure of so-called reform that is granted will only go to serve the interests of the ruling class. Thus any miserable measure that may be passed for the feeding of school children would be passed whether we supported or not, while it could only result in paltry soup kitchens for a few—nothing adequate in any sense—and would be used as an instrument for beating down wages. It is indeed futile to oppose such a measure, and no part of our policy, but it is equally futile to abandon work for the removal of the cause in favour of a thing that would not decrease the sum total of working class misery. We seek to own and control collectively the product of our labour, so that our children should not be degraded as profit-producing larvae, but nourished and clothed as they should be.

The old age pension scheme of Mr. Barnes, M.P., Labour misleader, would give the few workers so unfortunate as to survive the age of 65 a pension of 5s. per week, which could only operate as a bribe to encourage them to starve slowly outside rather than enter the workhouse, where they would be better off. Indeed, whatever paltry pension may ultimately be granted will be to relieve poor rates of the growing burden of the workers who are discharged in favour of younger men, and will also operate like the pensions of soldiers, police, etc., as

A Premium on the Acceptance of Low Wages.

as many workers know to their cost.

Any genuine reform that takes a bite out of capitalist interests (and no reform can be genuine that does not) can only be obtained in opposition to the capitalist class by the workers capturing political power. Thus to obtain even reforms would require what is essentially a revolution. But the working class cannot be united upon a measure that can only doubtfully benefit a small number of them ; while the number of evil effects of capitalism is so vast that scarcely any two workers can be united upon all the innumerable palliatives called for, and as to which are the most pressing. By having their attention directed to effects only the efforts of the workers are made mutually antagonistic, and are scattered and nullified by being directed to all points of the compass upon the myriad effects of capitalism, instead of being focussed on the cause.

For the workers to do anything in their interests they must first obtain the power to do it; the next step, therefore, upon which all workers can be united is the capture of political power for the inauguration of industrial democracy. Whether for genuine reform or for Socialism the substitution of working class control for capitalist control—the revolution—is essential, and it alone can stop what is admittedly the cause of misery and poverty—the exploitation of the workers for profit—and can convert the machinery of production from the means of profit for a handful into the means of life and happiness for a people.

To put, as is done in many instances, a long list of “palliatives” before the workers not only excites division and scatters the workers’ energies, but leaves the cause of evil unchecked, confines the workers’ attention to

Fruitless Efforts at Reform

within the present system, serves capitalist interests and starves and hinders the only forward movement, thus postponing indefinitely both the removal of the cause and the healing of the wounds.

The workers, we believe, can only be united upon broad and elementary fundamental principles, since even transitional measures are conditional on working-class supremacy and can only be determined by the state of industry and the needs of democracy at the revolution. These principles are given in our Declaration of Principles and may be resumed briefly as:—

Firstly : that the poverty and slavery of the workers and all that flows therefrom is due to their robbery by the class owning the means of production and distribution.

Secondly : that to remove the ills under which they labour the workers must themselves own and use collectively the means of producing wealth.

Thirdly : that the workers cannot use or own the political and industrial machinery in their interests or gain any real advantage until they capture the supremacy, therefore the essential step is the revolutionary step, the

Control of Society by the Working Class

organised as a class party for Socialism. Upon such essentials the workers as a whole can be united, for all who live by labour stand to gain.

The alternative before us is not, then, as Mr. Wilson would have it, between climbing a ladder and jumping to the top, no metaphor was ever more unfortunate ; but the alternative is between marching surely and always toward Socialism as we are doing toward the only remedy by the only road—or marching, as are the reformers, in circles within capitalism with much shouting and capitalist applause but no advance whatever.

Finally, even regarding such inadequate and restricted measures of alleviation that may be possible within the capitalist system, and even supposing the ruling class could be induced to grant them, we direct attention to the following incontrovertible proposition: That the only effective way to induce the ruling class to attempt to palliate the evils of their system is to organise the workers for the overthrow of that system.

F. C. Watts

Editorial: “Our Wonderful Prosperity” (1907)

Editorial from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Board of Trade return issued in support of Free Trade and giving figures showing the phenomenal amount of wealth that is created by those who do not enjoy it, was recently seized upon by the Dally Chronicle in an endeavour to convince the working man that he is prosperous. The figures, however, to the seeing eye show how fundamental is the great class antagonism ; and although the “national wealth” is spoken of and the amount per head calculated, it is seen that there are not one but two nations—those who live by labour and those who live upon those who labour—and that the hirelings who live by labour stand without the pale of this wonderful prosperity.

In reviewing the figures the Daily Chronicle did not refer to the significant increase in pauperism, lunacy, degeneration and unemployment that has been apparent during the past decade. It referred, it is true, to the fact that the cost of pauperism had nearly doubled since 1861, but tried to minimise this by stating that the proportion of paupers had decreased from 364 per 1,000 in 1861 to 249 per 1,000 in 1906. These figures, however, by no means show that the conditions of the working class have improved even compared with such an unfavourable period as 1861, for it is evident to all who have any knowledge of the history of the Poor Laws that the decline in pauperism has been due (as Ashcroft and Preston Thomas point out in “The English Poor Law System”), to the progressive imposition of more onerous conditions of relief and more rigorous tests, to the compulsory stay of vagrants and to the rigorous restriction of outdoor relief.

These facts however, are carefully hidden by the capitalist statistician, and he will complacently point to the decline in pauperism until recently as proof of a decline in poverty, while in reality it shows no such thing, for it is the result of the golden rule of capitalist poor “relief,” to make conditions of “relief” so onerous that the workers will—as indeed they do—rather starve than accept of it. It is most eloquent, of the workers’ condition, that in spite of this the past few years have seen an actual increase in pauperism.

Work and Wages

All who have studied working-class conditions know that the poverty and unemployment of that class is terrible indeed, and that figures drawn from returns made from a few “aristocrats of labour” are utterly inadequate to convey the depth of the poverty or the extent of unemployment among the toilers as a whole, many of whom sink yearly into the hopeless and increasing mass of slumdom through the pressure of economic circumstances. Rates of wages are also used by many to give a totally inaccurate impression, for no allowance is usually made for unemployment, “short time” or sickness, it being so arranged that if a workman gets for six months a wage of 30/- weekly and is compelled to be idle for the rest of the year, his wages are nevertheless represented not as 15/- but as 30/- per week.

One or two items of working-class consumption are given that show a decline in price, but no allowance whatever is made for the adulteration and reduction in quality which are daily more apparent in all things consumed by the workers ; while the fact that house room and many household necessities and provisions have increased in price is rarely mentioned.

The figures given by the Liberal M.P. for Paddington are, indeed, significant enough in themselves, for they show that one million people possess nearly one half of the income of the country. Yet Liberal organs parade the growing “wealth of the country” before the impoverished and worn-out toiler as proof to him that he is prosperous.

The “prosperity of the country” means the prosperity of those who own the country, not of the working class, and those who deny the class antagonism should endeavour to explain how it is that while the so-called national wealth increases by leaps and bounds the condition of those who produce this wealth shows no improvement, but that their employment grows less secure and their toil more intense.

Marx or Malthus? (1907)

Book Review from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The demand for an “eight hours’ day for all workers” by the enthusiastic young man whose estimate of the relative value of broken-bottles and bullets as missiles appears to be in need of some revision, led us to a study of J. M. Robertson’s “The Eight Hours Question.”

The member for Tyneside shows the uselessness of this particular “palliative” by a searching analysis of its effect in case of “particular legislation” in that direction. He simply “wipes the floor” with such “Socialist” opponents as Webb, Shaw, and S.D.F. Jones. His position may be summed up by the following quotations:

“They (Messrs. Webb & Co.) have undertaken to provide a manual of fact and theory for the politicians and labour-leaders who have to deal with the question. Their only bias is the bias of sociological inclination. Yet their altruistic bias is quite as fatal in science as a mercenary one would have been inasmuch as it is even more likely to blind and mislead. Generosity and nobility of feeling will not suffice to decide the matter for those of us who feel that half the miseries of life spring from action undertaken from motives either benevolent or genial. . . Mr. Webb is sensitive about the ungenerousness of pointing out to the working-men that they are mistaken, but he seems to have no misgiving about leading thousands of them to the bitterest disappointment.”

Waiving the question as to what is meant precisely by “sociological inclination,” members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain will heartily concur in the foregoing : indeed, one might use the words as a text when combating the fluffy sentimentalities of the I.L.P’er who derives his “economies” from the New Testament (with profuse apologies to the Old), or the perfervid oratry of the average S.D.F’er on the question of “free maintenance,” who, like Dick Dauntless in “Ruddygore,” argues that it must be right so long “as your ‘eart be your compass” in so far as “this ‘ere ‘eart of mine’s a dictatin’ to me like anythink.”

But clearly as Robertson sees the futility of the legalised restriction of hours (and, incidentally, of other palliatives); although from his own historical and sociological works the fact of the “class struggle” might be deduced : while “economic causation” is the master-key by which he unlocks the mystery of the rapid spread of early Christianity ; he fails to follow his own clues, and, obsessed by one idea (Neo-Malthusianism), proposes counter palliatives, which while they might lighten the burdens of a class doomed to remain in slavery for all time, are grotesquely beside the mark to those genuine Socialists with whose principles, apparently, the learned member has yet to become acquainted, Socialists who believe with him that “the one hope lies in the good sense of the more thoughtful workers, who ought to be the means of guiding aright the rest, they themselves listening to economic reason rather than to the blind impulse which attacks the symptom instead of the cause.”

But here, oddly enough, our author, who elsewhere rightly insists upon the vital importance of verification of premises, takes for granted what is obviously his main contention, namely : that the cause of poverty is overpopulation. In a book of 150 pages, there is not a line directly devoted to the proof of what he regards as the “essence” of Malthusian teaching, viz : “Population tends to increase in an excessive ratio to food”—which, to say the least, in a book which is practically a plea for “Neo-Malthusianism”—is a curious slip. His ludicrously easy task of exposing the absurdities of the Fabians does not justify him in the belief that he has exposed the errors of what he is pleased to call “a crude Marxian economics,” still less does the fact that Gronlund made an error in his statement as to the debated question of the number of Malthus’ children, or that Tom Mann gravely assures the worker that the lessened hours of labour will benefit both the proletarian and capitalist, justify him in the belief that he has established the truth of the precious “law,” which “holds good no matter what be the efficiency or equality of the distribution of wealth.” In the terms of his own main contention, having regard to the implied object of the book, (chapter 13 is called the “Population crux,”) J. M. Roberston’s “The Eight Hours Question” must be regarded as a literary miscarriage, a splendid warning to Guy and Guenn in the avoidance of a non sequitur, a striking example of the truth of the ever-recurring fact that scholarship, literary ability and even genuine sympathy with the worker, are absolutely no guarantee that the real issue for the worker can be more than glimpsed. The exhibition of possibly the most brainy man the Liberals can claim placing himself upon the level of palliative-mongering “Labour-leaders” and middle-class bureaucrats, whose fallacies he deplores, and whose antics he must despise, gives one “furiously to think.” It becomes increasingly right, meet, and our bounden duty, at all times, and in all places, to strenuously oppose those who, whether by reason of mental obfuscation, or by reason of deliberate attempt to contuse the worker for their own ends—the two reasons merge only too easily in the “leader”—have inscribed “Socialism” on their banner, and are acting falsely to the grandly simple principles involved in that faith.

Lack of space forbids more than a cursory examination of the proposition that poverty is caused mainly by “overpopulation.” J. M. Robertson, ashamed, apparently, of the crudely absurd proposition iirst enunciated by Malthus, viz., that population tends to double itself in geometrical progression, whilst subsistence can only be made to increase in arithmetical progression, contents himself with saying that “Population tends to increase in an excessive ratio to food.” Now, it is evident that, put into its very simplest form, this must mean: the more food (“warmth and clothing” is somewhat illicitly smuggled in later on) available, the greater the birth-rate. Yet, on his own showing, the “upper” classes tend to reproduce less, and here the “food supply” is adequate, not to say excessive. Does Robertson maintain that this lessened rate is due to the adoption of Neo-Malthusian teachings ? Grant even that such principles have been adopted, is it not flying in the face of all logical procedure, to assume that this lessened birth-rate is due only to the operation of that circumstance. Further, in ancient Greece and Rome, is it not a fact that the “lower orders” tended to increase at a faster rate than the “upper” classes ? Were there Malthusians then ? Was abortion and infanticide practised more by the patrician than by the proletarian, by the “citizen” than by the helot?

In all seriousness, one asks: Is there not sufficient food, or is it only the purchasing power to obtain food which the English wage-slave, the Indian ryot, the Irish peasant lacks ? “When her population was at its highest Ireland was a food-exporting country. Even during the famine, grain, meat, butter, and cheese were carted for exportation along roads lined with the starving, and past trenches into which the dead were piled.” Had that food been available, possibly, Robertson may retort, there would have been more reproduction and more want. On which very point one seeks in vain for anything approaching a proof, and is fobbed off with such gratuitous assertions as “With such general distribution of wealth as we all wish for, population would easily double in 20 years unless the lesson of prudential restraint be learned step for step with the improvement.”

It is curious that it does not occur to the minds of Neo-Malthusians that there is another alternative worth considering, viz., that poverty causes overpopulation. The development of this point would result in lengthening an already over-long article. Perhaps the Editor will allow the point to be considered on another occasion. I content myself at present with pointing out that the lowly organisms which haunt the blood of man, and try deadly conclusions with the friendly phogocyte multiply in a way that the worthy Malthus would have called “very striking,” and that, deprived of nourishment, several of the one-celled plants and animals protest by retiring into semi-privacy for a while, and then forming themselves into mere reproducing agents, one organism giving rise to innumerable ”spores.” “Neo” Malthusianism will hardly touch these degenerate beings.

Of course, the Socialist is well aware that the big fringe of unemployed tends ever more and more to aid the employer in beating down labour to a mere subsistence-wage, but he is also aware that this is because the worker, under our present system, is a mere commodity, a curious piece of mechanism differing only from the machine it minds in its power of producing surplus-value, in handing over to its owner the handsome difference between its own cost of subsistence and the value of the commodities its labours have brought into being.

It is the duty of The Socialist Party of Great Britain to tell the workers in general, and the Malthusians in particular :—

(1) Whatever temporary good may accrue to a few individual workers from the adoption of their principles, no permanent benefits can possibly be gained by the working class as a whole.

(2) This particular palliative, along with its bosom friends Total Abstinence, Thrift, Clean Boots, Brushed Hair, and the New Theology will be preached to you by all sorts and conditions of men. The S.P. of G.B. will be at the old stand, giving a hand to Economic Pressure, who will not too gently, but firmly, persuade you that Socialism is your only hope.

Augustus Snellgrove

The Trade Union Congress. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the “function whose chief value lies in its fraternisings and picnickings” to quote a prominent Labour journalist, has been held. Once again long resolutions, tending to obscure the issue, have been proposed, seconded and carried by the representatives of 1,700,000 organised workers, which organised workers will think no more about those resolutions until some of them read of the doings of the next Congress twelve months hence.

The usual course of procedure was followed. The Congress was officially opened on Monday, when addresses of welcome were delivered by the Mayor and Councillors of Bath. “The speeches were excellently suited to the occasion.” Had the worthy city fathers anticipated that the deliberations of the delegates would in any way affect the foundations of that society in which they play the part of oppressors, sages and circus performers at different times, they would have been otherwise engaged. After the lions had welcomed the lambs and the lambs had dutifully bleated their thanks, Congress proceeded to appoint tellers and other temporary officials at a guinea or so a nob, and after the usual scramble for these jobs the delegates adjourned for a garden party !

On the previous day the S.D.F. trio, Lady Warwick, Mrs. Bridges Adams and Will Thorne, assisted by other Gas Workers, held an education meeting at which they advocated the usual palliatives concerning which that other S.D.F. star turn, Mr. Hyndman, once remarked, “The crushing law of competition would decree that those educated, well-fed children should, on reaching maturity, be only better wage-slaves for capitalists.” The gospel-temperance wing of the Liberal Party also secured Mr. W. Crooks for a temperance meeting.

Tuesday the delegates assembled to hear the address of the president, Mr. A. H. Gill, M.P., who, like Mr. Shackleton, would lose his seat if he advocated the abolition of child labour in the factories. Of course the address referred to the victories Labour has already secured because of the presence of a Labour Party in the House of Commons. The Trades Disputes Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act were especially mentioned, although, as we have several times shown, these Acts are not worth the paper they are printed on. Even this was partly admitted at the Congress. Mr. Parker, of the National Enginemen’s Society, pointed out that insurance companies declined to effect policies in the case of older workers, with the consequence that these were thrown out of employment. It may interest Mr. Parker to know that the Manchester Unemployed Committee have just issued a report in which they state that their efforts have been greatly hampered because employers, owing to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, decline to employ other than young men, and that the Bodmin Guardians have resolved “that the fact that insurance companies are declining to accept the risks’ incurred by the employment of semi-incapacitated workmen will tend to seriously increase the cost of out-relief, as many who are now able to earn a partial livelihood will be debarred from employment altogether, and will thus be thrown entirely on the rates. The Board therefore urges that the Workmen’s Compensation Acts should be amended either by a system of contracting-out in such cases or otherwise, so as to obviate the difficulties which may arise when employes through age or infirmity become uninsurable at the ordinary rates of premium.” And after this Congress passed the usual resolution in favour of a pension of 5s. per week for all workers over 60 years of age. What is to happen to them between 40 and 60 ?

The president’s utterances concerning Machinery and Unemployment were interesting, and showed that whilst he has somewhat of a grasp of the cause of unemployment he does not see that that cause is inherent in the capitalist system. He pointed out that owing to machinery and speeding up “the productive capacity in the various departments has increased (during the last 30 years) by fully 25 per cent. with the same number of workmen in the same time.” And as a remedy he urged an Eight Hours Day and concentrated effort to secure the “best possible wages on working the machine.” It has time after time been demonstrated that a reduction of hours means at least as great productivity, and it does not occur to Mr. Gill that the working class should organise to take over and control the machinery which is throwing them out of employment.

The debate on Labour “Unity” was interesting in that it showed that the majority of the “independent” Labour members have never really believed that the Liberal Party stand for the master class as against the working class. They desire to form a “United Labour Party” by working with men whose Liberalism cannot be questioned, and who, if the “independent” attitude of the L.R.C. men is the correct one, are enemies to their class. In the end the Congress instructed the Parliamentary Committee to continue its efforts in the direction of “Unity.”

The Government were urged to abolish the House of Lords ! It was claimed that it was an “obstacle to the efficient carrying into effect of the declared expression of the people’s will through their elected representatives.” And yet we are also told that the presence of only 30 Labour members in the Commons has resulted in the passing of many important measures for the benefit of the working class. Why, then, worry about the Lords ?

The proposal for a minimum wage of 30s. per week of 48 hours for adult workers in the London district gave Mr. D. C. Cummings and Mr. Shackleton, M.P., the opportunity to warn the delegates that they were really going too fast and ought to slow down ! Poor old David will have to “stand from under” when the workers do commence to go fast.

By 1,239,000 votes to 126,000 Congress carried a long resolution on Education, which included a demand for purely secular instruction. What effect this has upon Trade Unionists may be gathered from Mr. John Hill’s election address and speeches.

Many other resolutions were passed and ultimately the delegates went their several ways. What has been accomplished for the working class ? Nothing, simply nothing. If all the reforms which were demanded were passed would the relative position of the master class and the working class be altered? No. Even if the 1,700,000 “organised workers” were prepared to support, on the industrial field, the efforts of the Parliamentary Committee to secure reforms from Parliament (which, of course, they are not) the inevitable march of capitalist development would nullify the effect of any reforms ao secured, as it has done even with the much vaunted results of Labour Party activity. The Congress provides a jovial interlude in the yearly life of prominent Trade Unionists, and that is the only justification for its continuance. Does any delegate, from Thorne and other S.D.F. men down to the respectable nonconformists who proposed the resolution commencing “recognising that great and permanent principles which are essential to the well-being of human Society underlie the ancient institution of the Sabbath” honestly believe that they can moralize a capitalist government into passing into law all the “demands” formulated at the Congress ? And if not, if they must wait until we have a class-conscious proletariat, do they think a class-conscious proletariat will concern itself with such matters as these ? Assuredly not: it will take over the means of life and organise industry in the interest of all. Reforms such as those demanded by the Congress may and probably will be carried into effect by a capitalist Government to stave off the final overthrow of Capitalism, but even then it is clear that the surest way to secure reform is to organise for Socialism.

T. R. EASURER.

The Proletariat (The Working Class). By Karl Kautsky (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

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

2.—Wages.

Wages cannot be so high as to make it impossible for the capitalist to carry on his business and to live from it. For under these circumstances it would be more advantageous for the capitalist to give up business altogether. Hence the wages of the worker can never rise high enough to equal the value of his product. They must always leave a margin, a surplus value, for only the prospect of this margin induces the capitalist to buy labour-power. Thus in capitalist society wages can never rise so high that the exploitation of the worker comes to an end.

But the margin, the surplus value, is greater than is generally supposed. It consists not only of the profit of the manufacturer, but also much that is reckoned as cost of production and sale, viz., ground rent, interest on invested capital, discount for the merchant who disposes of the goods produced by the industrialist, taxes, rates, etc. All this comes out of the surplus value which the product of the worker yields above his wages. This margin must consequently be considerable if an undertaking is to prove profitable. Wages can, therefore, never rise sufficiently high to enable the worker to receive in his wages anything approaching the value he has created. The capitalist wage system means under all circumstances exploitation of the worker. It is impossible to abolish exploitation so long as that system exists, and even where high wages are being paid the exploitation of the worker must be extensive.

But wages hardly ever reach the highest possible point, more often, however, they fall to the very lowest. That point is reached when the wages of the worker cease to purchase his very necessaries of life. If the worker not only starves but starves quickly, his work ceases altogether.

Between these two limits wages fluctuate, becoming lower as the customary wants of life of the workers decrease, as the supply of labour-power in the labour market increases, and as the power of resistance on the part of the workers decreases.

Generally wages must, of course, be high enough to keep the worker in a fit state to work, or better said, wages must be so high as to ensure to the capitalist the measure of labour-power needed by him. Wages must hence be high enough to make it possible for the worker not only to maintain himself in a fit state to work but also to reproduce children fit to work.

The economic development shows the tendency—so favourable to the capitalist—of reducing the cost of maintenance of the workers and of thereby decreasing wages.

Skill and strength were in times gone by indispensable to the worker. The period of apprenticeship of the handicraftsman was a very long one, and the cost of his maintenance was considerable. Progress in the division of labour and in machine construction caused special skill and strength in production to become superfluous. This progress makes it possible to replace skilled by unskilled—that is cheaper— labour-power; it makes it also possible to replace the labour of men by that of weak women, and even children. Even in manufacture this tendency was perceptible; but only with the introduction of machinery begins wholesale exploitation of women and of children of tender age, exploitation of the most helpless of the helpless who fall victims to revolting ill-treatment and spoliation. Here we get acquainted with a new characteristic of the machine in the hands of Capital.

The wage-worker who did not belong to the family of the employer had originally to receive in his wages not only the cost of his own maintenance but also that of his family if he were to be in a position to reproduce his species, to regenerate his labour-power. Without this reproduction of labour-power the heirs of the capitalist would find no proletariat to exploit. But if the wife, and, from early childhood, also the children of the worker are in a position to provide for themselves, the wages of the male worker can almost entirely he reduced to the cost of maintenance of his own person without the slightest danger to the reproduction of labour-power. And the labour of women and children has the further advantage of their being less capable of resistance than men. Moreover, through their entering the ranks of labour the supply of labour-power in the labour market is tremendously increased.

The labour of women and children does not only lower the cost of maintaining the worker, it reduces also his power of resistance and increases the supply of labour-power—in short, it has the effect under any of these circumstances of causing the wages of the worker to fall.

3.—The Dissolution of the Proletarian Family. 

The industrial labour of woman in capitalist society means the entire destruction of the worker’s family life without substituting a higher form of family. The capitalist mode of production, in most cases, does not dissolve the individual working-class household, but it deprives it of all its brightness, leaving only its dark side with the waste of woman’s energy and her exclusion from public life. The industrial labour of woman to-day does not mean her relief from household duties, it means adding a fresh burden to those she already bears. But one cannot serve two masters. The household of the worker goes to wreck and ruin if his wife has to assist in earning subsistence for the family ; but what present society puts in place of the individual household and the individual family is miserable refuse: the soup-kitchen and the day-nursery in which the leavings of the physical and mental nourishment of the rich are thrown to the lower classes.

Socialism is accused of aiming at the destruction of the family. Well, we know that each particular mode of production has its particular form of household to which corresponds a particular form of family. We do not consider the present form of family to be the last, and expect that a new form of Society will also develop a new form of family. But such expectation is something altogether different to an endeavour to dissolve all family ties. Those who destroy the family —who not merely want to do, but actually DO destroy it before our eyes—are not the Socialists but the capitalists. Many a slave-owner in the past has torn husband from wife, parents from children able to work : but capitalist methods surpass the abominations of slavery ; they tear the suckling from the mother, forcing her to entrust her infant to the care of strangers. And a society in which that occurs daily in hundreds and thousands of cases, a society that has specially founded “charitable institutions patronised by the ‘nobility'” for the purpose of making it easier for the mother to part from her child—such a society has the audacity to reproach us with intending to dissolve the family, because we are convinced that household-work will develop into a special branch of industry, thereby transforming the character of the household and of family life.

4. Prostitution.

Besides being reproached with the intention of dissolving the family we are accused of aiming at community of women. This reproach is as void of foundation as the other. We assert on the contrary that the very opposite of community of women, of sexual compulsion and immorality, namely, ideal love, will form the basis of all marital relations in the Socialist Commonwealth, and such love can generally prevail only in such a state of Society. But what do we see to-day ? The want of resistance on the part of women who have hitherto been confined to their households and have mostly but a faint conception of public life and the power of organisation—is so great, that the capitalist employer dare pay them wages which do not suffice for their sustenance, and incite them to prostitution as a means of augmenting their wages. An increase in the industrial employment of women has everywhere the tendency of causing au increase in prostitution. In the modern state of the fear of God and pious morals there exist entire “flourishing” branches of industry in which the women workers are so badly paid that they would have to starve to death were they not to stoop to prostitution. And the employers declare that just upon these low wages depends the possibility of their successful competition, and that higher wages would rain them.

Prostitution is as old as the contradiction between poverty and riches. But in ages gone by prostitutes occupied in the social scale a position falling between those of beggars and scamps, constituting a luxury in which Society could afford to indulge, and the loss of which would by no means have endangered the very existence of that society. To-day it is not only the women of the loafing proletariat but working women, who are compelled to sell their bodies for money. This selling of their bodies is no longer only a matter of luxury, no, it has become the basis of industrial development. In the capitalist system of production prostitution becomes one of the pillars of Society. The defenders of this society themselves practise community of women, the vice of which they accuse us; of course, community with women of the Proletariat. And this method of community of women has taken root so deeply in present society that its representatives declare prostitution to be a necessity. They cannot conceive that the abolition of the Proletariat must mean the abolition of prostitution, because they cannot possibly conceive a society without community of women.

The community of women of to-day is an invention of the “higher” grades of Society, not of the Proletariat. This community of women is one of the ways of exploiting the Proletariat. It is not Socialism, but its very opposite.

Blogger's Note:

It was the German SPGBer, Hans Neumann, who translated Kautsky's writings from the German into English for the Socialist Standard.