The damn’d grotesques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.D.P. annual Conference laboured mightily and brought forth several gems. I hasten to rescue some of them from an unhonoured and unsung obscurity, and give them the benefit of our rapidly increasing circulation.

o o o

First Mr. Quelch presents his compliments and begs to say there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain. He wishes there was. And yet “Fighting Carmichael,” “Camborne Jones,” and a host of other young bloods out of the camp of the Quelches were largely occupied at Manchester with appealing to their comrades to hold them back in case they (the young bloods) should “go for” certain members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain who insisted upon preaching Socialism as against Danirvinism—the name given to the queerest lot of rant, cant, and fustian extant.

o o o

Quite apart from the reports the young bloods undoubtedly gave him, Mr. Quelch has many excellent reasons for knowing of the existence of the S.P.G.B. So excellent that Mr. Quelch is probably mortally anxious to escape the necessity for dealing with us other than in the dark and devious ways that seem to delight him.

o o o

But if there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain, what have the “old gang” got to say about it? They have “borne the heat and burden of the day,” as Quelch would phrase it, for thirty years, in an endeavour to build up the Socialist Party that Harry Quelch laments does not exist. Harry will not admit us as the S.P.G.B., and yet there is no other ! For he himself has said it. But it’s a most depressing admission—for him and the “old gang.” However, we refuse—it’s most ungracious of us—but we refuse to consider ourselves dead, even to please Mr. Quelch. We ought to have died within a few weeks of our birth, but somehow or other we’ve hung on, increasing our membership and the sales of our literature for four years. And so far as I can see we shall have to keep on going on.

o o o

For example, it took a member of the S.P.G.B. to polish off Lawler Wilson of the Tariff Reform crowd. Wilson had met the champions of several of the parties misrepresenting themselves as Socialists, and as he is a fairly ‘cute chap, and his opponents’ parties had records that will never come out of the wash with credit, Wilson had a gorgeous time. He came to Battersea Town Hall, therefore, rather cock-a-hoop, and—a packed audience saw him die.

o o o

This isn’t bounce, it’s truth. Ever heard of truth, Harry ?

o o o

Apparently Harry is not prepared to recognise any organisation until it is as big as his own. That is an excellent reason for the I.L.P. ignoring the S.D.F., for the “Labour Party” ignoring the I.L.P., and so on. But then Harry would call the I.L.P. names, among which “cowards” would be the mildest, and something with several B’s in it among the stronger !

o o o

Harry is fond of “langwidge” and big things—particularly S.D.P. big things. That’s why Jack Jones finds favour in his sight. Happy Jack!

o o o

And that reminds me. Jack Jones at the Conference gave off this: “Correspondence is the curse of democracy.” A delegate had attacked the S.D.P. Executive for not doing what the Conference had instructed it to do, and had read the letter (“unwisely,” says Justice) the Executive had sent in reply. “Unwisely ” is a good word, but it barely meets the case.

o o o

The purport of that letter has already appeared in this journal. It was to the effect that the S.D.P. opposition to “Lulu” Harcourt in the Rossendale Valley had been withdrawn partly, at any rate, for the reason that Harcourt was a better chap than many of his colleagues ! As if from a Socialist standpoint there were degrees of goodness among capitalist politicians.

o o o

Undoubtedly the letter was read “unwisely.” It isn’t wise to let the rank and file of the Party know that such views are held by their executive officers. They may begin to have doubts. And Happy Jack was right in the circumstances when he said correspondence was a curse—not a curse in itself, of course, but the very devil of a curse when it is read to others for whose ears it is not intended.

o o o

But this method of secret diplomacy is, of course, vide H. M. Hyndman (same Conference), “wholly undemocratic and dangerous, tending to the support of despotism and the maintenance of corruption and intrigue.” But in the conduct of a supposedly far more democratic organisation it is very good and very necessary, while the publication of correspondence is a curse. We are lovely democrats in the S.D.P. !

o o o

Still, one can understand Happy Jack’s disgust. He is doubtless still painfully aware that Camborne is standing on the map. And I wonder whether it was his experiences in that delectable district that led him to the conclusion that it was desirable to get somebody—”a good cadger” was Hyndman’s felicitous term—”to get down into other people’s pockets without them knowing it.” Nice anti-secret-diplomacy chap, Jack,

o o o

On this matter of the Rossendale Valley contest, it is of some little interest to observe that “there is no folly in striking a blow for Social-Democracy wherever it can be done as effectively as it was at North-West Manchester, with the result of demonstrating to our enemies that there is no position too strong for us to assail.” (Justice, 2/5/08.) Apparently it can’t be done effectively at Rossendale, although they have more branches in that division than they have members in N.W. Manchester !

o o o

It would, in the circumstances, be nice to know what the sapient editor of Justice regards as an effective strike at capitalism. And I wonder what, if any, correspondence, that “curse of democracy,” has passed between the anti-secret-diplomatists at Chandos Hall, and the “good capitalist” party in Rossendale.

o o o

Also I should like to know what F. Davey, of Paddington, and others interested, now think of the reply of the editor of Justice to the statement published by us on the reasons for the withdrawal of the S.D.F. Rossendale candidate.

o o o

This reply characterised our report as misleading and untrue. According to the Justice report of the S.D.P. Conference, however, it was quite true. Oh, the curse of this unwise correspondence !

o o o

And how does this square with the S.D.P. Executive’s statement that “Lulu” Harcourt had improved his position—become more democratic, more sympathetic to Labour, and so on ? “Harcourt had certainly a greater grip on the capitalist parties and would get more Tory votes than before.” (Fred Knee, S.D.P. Executive representative at Conference.)

o o o

That either means that Harcourt is getting more into favour with the capitalist class, or it means nothing. And that’s the way Harcourt is improving his position and finding favour in the S.D.P.’s sight !

o o o

Another matter. I cannot fill the paper with S.D.P. Conference absurdities, lies, and contortions, although it would be the easiest matter in the world. We are for ever being asked why we continually attack the S.D.P., I.L.P., and other parties “who are coming along to the same goal as ourselves.” Our reply is contained in the foregoing—a fair sample of the pitiable, if ludicrous, position the strenuous endeavours of the S.D. and I.L. Parties to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are for ever landing them into.

o o o

These parties are appealing to the working class for support. The working class does not know what it is letting itself in for if it responds to the appeal. Therefore we do what we can to open its eyes ; or at any rate we have taken the precaution of repudiating any responsibility for S.D.-I.L.P. action. When, therefore, the storm breaks and swamps the time-servers in a deluge of the wrath of the once deluded working class, we shall be in the ark with the blessed.

o o o

Ever heard of the Ark, Harry ? No, you’re wrong. It isn’t a public-house.

o o o

Which again reminds me. The S.D.P. are “agin” the Licensing Bill. The l.L.P. are largely for it—most enthusiastically. Another case of unity of idea among the forces of progress.

o o o

What is our view of the Licensing Bill ? It leaves us unmoved. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. It’s part of the great game of political “coddem”—if that’s how the word is spelled.

o o o

I was going to refer to the repudiation by the S.D.P. Conference of Gott, of Bradford, a S.D.P. member suspected of the intention of issuing an agnostic pamphlet about Christ, the enemy of the human race. This might injure Danirvinism in North-East Manchester. Wherefore the S.D.P. solemnly repudiated the pamphlet and worked off its stock cant resolution about religion being a private and personal affair,

o o o

Now perhaps they will repudiate Blatchford and his anti-Christian books. Because Blatchford holds the anti-Christian propaganda of such importance that he would put it in the forefront of the battle.

o o o

Will the S.D.P. repudiate him ? Not much. You see Blatchford is a sort of important person and Gott is not. And the S.D.P. Executive are keen on important persons.

o o o

Sometimes, however, the important person, having been roped in, fails to exhibit becoming respect towards his loving parent organisation. There’s the.unhappy case of H. G. Wells, who burst upon North-West Manchester with two columns of advice to the elector to vote against Danirvinism and S.D.P.-ism.

o o o

Of course Wells is merely an insufferable person whose hat is too small for him, and the present Justice estimate of his Socialist knowledge is fair enough. “Nobody but himself takes Mr. Wells seriously.” A novelist of the Jules Verne school who “thinks he knows something about Socialism” but doesn’t, and so on. But readers of Justice will clearly remember the great chortle with which Justice welcomed the addition to the ranks of the S.D.P. of the great thinker, the literary genius, Wells.

o o o

It's the same Wells. But the S.D.P. view has changed a little—that's all !

Alegra.

Blogger's Notes:

By 1908 the Social Democratic Federation were now known as the Social Democratic Party. They had changed their name in 1907. They were to relaunch (with others) to become the British Socialist Party in 1911.

'Danirvinism' is a cheeky play on words. It's a reference to Dan Irving, who was a leading member of the SDF/SDP in Lancashire. Lancashire was one of the few places outside London where the SDF had been able to secure a significant base, and in some parts of Lancashire  - especially Burnley - were on an equal footing with the ILP. Dan Irving would later become a Labour MP after the first world war.

Suffragette Humbug. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not long ago the hoardings of London startled the man in the street with ugly black and white posters asserting that women were poor, that women were sweated, that women walked the streets, and that misery and vice stalked in our midst, all because women had not the vote. Those statements, issued by the Suffragettes, were and are unblushing falsehoods, unsustained and unsustainable by any shred of evidence.

The Socialist is in no quandary as to why the many are poor. It is not because propertied women have not the vote, nor even because women in general are not electors—it is because the many are robbed. And the stopping of this robbery depends not upon a mere all round increase in the number of votes, but upon the intelligence of the workers and the correct use of the vote in their hands.

Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism. And were the workers to understand rightly their position and their policy, the political freedom they now possess would enable them to achieve their emancipation irrespective of sex. 

It is, moreover, not a sex war that  exists in Society but a class war, but the Suffragettes endeavour to blur this class issue by screeching qualifications.

What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers’ movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.

In their cry for “equality” do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.

The Suffragette movement is upon all counts but a bulwark of capitalism. It is directly opposed to the interests of the working class—women as well as men, and the Independent Labour Party shows its capitalistic nature when it supports that movement in strengthening the political power of the propertied against the propertyless.

Both sexes of the workers are exploited and suffer. Both are  victims of those who live by the ownership of the means of life. Therefore the salvation of working class women lies in the emancipation of their class from this wage-slavery. Their interests are identical with those of working men, and the women of the middle class do but attempt to lure them with false phrases to desert their fellows and to aid the propertied enemies of their class.

The duty of working women is to refuse to allow themselves to be used as catspaws of the wealthy, and to join with their fellows in The Socialist Party, the organisation of their class; thus working for the emancipation of the toilers as a whole, irrespective of sex. Sex-equality cannot be the fruit of the Suffragette humbug, it can only come through economic equality—and economic equality is impossible except through Socialism.

F. C. Watts

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued) (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the May 1908 issue.

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

5.—The Taxes.

While the ground landlord cuts to an ever larger extent into the share of the capitalist in the surplus-value—either indirectly or directly— the State is active in a similar direction. The modern State has grown up with and through the capitalist class, and was the most powerful agent in advancing the interests of that class. Each has assisted the other. The capitalist class cannot dispense with the State. They are in need of its protection both at home and abroad.

The more the capitalist mode of production develops the keener becomes the antagonism of interests and the more conspicuous grow the contradictions produced; but the more complicated also becomes the entire system, and the greater, too, grows the dependency of one individual upon another, and the greater also grows the need of an authority standing above and charged with making each fulfil the duties arising from his economic function

.

Far less than the previous methods of production can a system so sensitive as the present bear the prosecution of antagonisms and disputes by the autonomy of those immediately interested in the fray. In the place of self-aid enters “Justice,” which is watched over by the State.

Capitalist exploitation is by no means the product of certain rights ; it is its needs that have brought forth and given domination to the rights prevailing to-day. That “justice” does not cause exploitation, but sees to it that this process, like others in economic life, proceeds as smoothly as possible. While we have before described competition as the motive power of the present mode of production, we may regard “State justice” as the “machine oil,” which has the effect of minimising the friction in the capitalist system. The more this friction grows, the more intense the antagonism becomes between exploiters and exploited, between property owners and propertyless ; the larger, more especially, is the slum proletariat; the more does each single capitalist become dependent upon the prompt co-operation of numerous other capitalists for the undisturbed conduct of his concern. So the desire for “justice” for this purpose grows stronger, and the greater grows the need to requisition its organs—law-courts and police, and a strong State force capable of supporting “justice,” if need be.

But the capitalists are not only concerned with being able to produce, buy, and sell undisturbed within their own country. From the start the commerce outside plays an important part in capitalist production, and the more this method becomes the predominating one, the greater appears to be the need for securing and extending the outside market in the interest of the whole nation. But in the world market the capitalists of one nation meet competitors belonging to other nations. In order to oust these they call in the aid of the State, which is expected to demand, by means of the armed force, respect for their claims, or—what is better still—to crush the foreign competitors altogether. As States and monarchs become evermore dependent upon the capitalist class, so the armies cease to serve merely the personal ends of the monarchs, and are utilised increasingly for purposes of the capitalist class. Wars are less and less dynastic, and more and more commercial and national, which in the last instance can only be traced back to the economic conflicts between the capitalists of the various nations.

The capitalist State, therefore, is not only in need of an extensive army of officials for the purposes of law and police (besides, of course, for the administration of its finances), but it requires also a strong military force. Both armies are ever on the increase in capitalist States, but in recent times the military force grows more rapidly than the army of officials.

So long as the application of science had not begun to play a part in the technicalities of industry, the technical aspect of war changed but slowly. As soon, however, as machinery came to dominate industry and subjected the latter to continuous evolution, war machines ceased to be stationary in development. Every day brings new inventions and discoveries, which, scarcely examined and introduced, at great expense, are already superseded by a new revolutionising improvement or addition. And the war machinery constantly increases in extent, complication and costliness. At the same time the progress in the means of transit makes it possible to concentrate an ever larger number of troops on the battlefield ; hence armies are continually increased.

In these circumstances the State expenditure for purposes of war (in which the greater portion of national debts is included) have with all great European powers grown within the last twenty years to an absolutely maddening extent.

The State grows ever more expensive, and its burdens become always more oppressive. The capitalists and large landowners naturally seek (having everywhere the law in their own hands) to transfer the burdens as much as possible from their own shoulders to those of the other sections of the community. But as time goes on there is ever less to be obtained from those sections, and thus in spite of all the trickery of the exploiters their surplus-value has to be encroached upon for the benefit of the State.

[To be continued]

Letter: I.L.P. Compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,—A copy of the Socialist Standard for April, containing Mr. J. Brough’s second letter, has just been put into my hands. There are one or two points arising out of the same that I would, with your consent, like to discuss. In the first place I wish to draw the attention of your readers to the manner in which Mr. Brough, like all equivocators, seeks to evade the real issue by constantly changing his position. At the open-air meeting I addressed in July, ’07, Mr. Brough charged the I.L.P. with having formed a compact with the Liberal Party. This I denied at the time. In his first letter (Socialist Standard, Feb., ’08), the charge is reduced to one of complicity—the L.R.C. being the guilty body, the I.L.P. merely a party to the act. That he is totally unable to justify either one charge or the other is made perfectly clear by Mr. Brough’s second letter. The “compact” is discreetly dropped. (A tacit acknowledgment, by the way, of the “veracity of my denial.”) Forced to abandon one position, Mr. Brough takes up another. He now tries to patch up his case by pointing out that certain I.L.P.’ers (acting on their own initiative, as they must have done on the evidence cited by Mr. Brough from the Daily News, Jan. 11, ’06), voted Liberal. This I submit is not the point in dispute. I never undertook to answer for the action of individual members of the I.L.P. But I can, and do, truthfully say that neither the I.L.P. nor the L.R.C. did as Mr. Brough asserted in his first letter—that is, entered in “a compact, a mutual agreement, or contract,” with the Liberal Party.

The “compact” is a figment of Mr. Brough’s fancy. And one that he now wisely, and for him conveniently, ignores. He has failed to substantiate his charge. And his climb down is so obvious, so unmistakable, that I would have left the matter to the intelligence of your readers had not Mr. Brough made himself responsible for another gross and deliberate lie.

He says : “I cannot understand Mr. Swan’s dislike to having his party alluded to as compromising with Liberals, as I and others have heard him say ‘It does not matter how they (L.R.C. men) get to Parliament, as long as they get there.'”

Mr. Brough knows as well as I do that he never heard me say anything of the kind. The remarks he distorts and tries to twist were made by me in answer to a question from Mr. Brough re the attitude of the L.R.C. towards Victor Grayson. In the course of my reply I said that it did not matter whether Grayson had got into Parliament with, or without, the aid of the L.R.C., so long as he had got there. In this case, as in so many others, Mr. Brough puts into words something they do not contain. Not that I am surprised at Mr. Brough resorting to tricks of this kind. They are characteristic of the man. Were he to be deprived of this his occupation would be gone

.—Yours, etc.,

Tom Swan.

Reply:

Dear Comrade,—If Mr. Swan replies somewhat rudely, the reason is probably to be sought in that he hopes by his wild and whirling words to hide the poverty of his case.

At the Editor’s request I simply resume the facts.

In the first place the contention re compacts has obviously not been dropped, for indeed none of the evidence has been rebutted by Mr. Swan.

Contributory evidence has been given, not from one source alone, but from many sources ; and the evidence in proof of arrangements with Manchester Liberals to which the I.L.P., being prime movers in the L.R.C. there, were incontestably parties, is overwhelming.

Again I ask, if there was no arrangement with the Liberals, why did the secretary of the Manchester and Salford L.R.C. state in a letter to the Clarion that “The introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidatures in S.W. and N.E. Manchester” ? If the I.L.P. were not parties to this why were they, as they stated in the Clarion, unable to promote any candidate in E. Manchester “on account of their affiliation to the L.R.C.” ? These facts have already been given, and why has not Mr. Swan, if there is any other explanation than that of an understanding with the Liberals, given a reason for them ?

Further, Mr. Swan’s bare denial is totally insufficient to dispose of the evidence from the Manchester Courier of Dec. 16th last, that—

“Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew.”

And did not Mr. Clynes, M.P., himself say upon his victory (Daily News, 15/1/06) that “the victory is due to a combination of forces, which, by their united power, had given a great blow to Chamberlainism” ? This and other evidence has already been given. Is it necessary to give more?

The Daily Chronicle, 1/1/06, in an article on “Triangular Contests” said:—

“A settlement [between Liberals and Labour men] has been arrived at in many of the great centres of population—in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Preston, Wolverhampton, Sunderland Stockport, Leicester, Huddersfield and a number of other towns.”

Again, the Daily News, 15/1/06, said :—

“At Halifax, again, Mr. Whitley’s wise arrangement with Labour has produced an ideal result in his return with Mr. Parker at his side and nearly 4,000 votes in front of the Tory candidate. Here there is an object lesson in the right use of great and in the main harmonious powers. The same moral applies to North-East and South-West Manchester, where it is clear that the Labour candidate had the whole Liberal Party at his back.”

And so we might go on.

With regard to the answer to a question put to Mr. Swan at a meeting, it is again Mr. Swan who is lying. The question was not put by me, but by W. L. Brown, of 39, Buckingham Street, Moss Side, Manchester, of whom I have made enquiries, and he writes : “Mr. Swan had said that ‘the return of V. Grayson for Colne Valley had done more to put the fear of God in the capitalist party than any other event during the last thirty years ! I asked how it was that the return of K. Hardie, P. Snowden, and J. R. MacDonald and others had not filled the capitalist with fear also ; were they not Socialists ? Mr. Swan replied, ‘Damn it, man, you’re only quibbling. Of course they are Socialists ; everybody knows they are Socialists. It does not matter under what banner they get to Parliament as long as they get there.'” It will be seen that this agrees substantially with my version, while it flatly contradicts the assertions of Mr. Swan on that matter.

In his first letter Mr. Swan gratuitously accused the S.P.G.B. of being a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties; up to the present he has not substantiated his statement, nor can he do so. His statement, if I may be pardoned the use of his own lurid language, is “a gross and deliberate lie” ; while evidence has repeatedly been given in these columns, and in the Manifesto of the Party, proving that the I.L.P., which he champions, is in practice a “mere adjunct” of the Liberal Party.

For the rest I am prepared to leave the case upon the evidence already given, which evidence Mr. Swan has yet to meet.

—Yours fraternally,

Jim Brough

American Parties and the Unity Question. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article under this heading appearing in the last issue is simply the expression of the opinion of the writer alone and must not be taken to imply that the S.P.G.B. has in any respect changed its open and avowed hostility to Mr. DeLeon and the American and English S.L.P.

Manchester outdoor meetings. (1908)

Party News from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Boggart Hole Clough was a well known outdoor speaking pitch in Manchester in the late 19th and early 20th century. Check out its wiki page for more details. Alexandra Park was also well known as a meeting point for demonstrations and outdoor rallies.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For June. (1908)

Party News from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued). (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the March 1908 issue.

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

3.—Profit.

Now whence does the capitalist class draw its income ? The owners of merchant’s capital and usurer’s capital derived their profit and interest originally by way of deductions from the property of persons dependent upon their assistance and mediation, and belonging to various sections of the community. The owners of industrial capital, however, obtain their profit by exploiting the propertyless wage-workers. But as the capitalist mode of production develops, so industrial capital gains the ascendancy over other kinds of capital, and subjects these to its service, as we have seen. This, however, is possible only by assigning to merchant’s and usurer’s capitals part of the surplus-value wrung from the wage-workers. Owing to this development the surplus-value produced by the proletarians became to a greater degree the only source from which the entire capitalist class derive their incomes. Just aa handicraft and peasant agriculture lose in economic significance and decreasingly influence the character of present-day Society, so do the old forms of merchant’s and usurer’s capital, which obtained their profit from the exploitation of non-capitalist sections of the community, lose their importance. To day there are already States without handicraft and peasantry—England for example. But none of the modern States is thinkable without the great industries. Anyone desirous of understanding modern forms of capitalism must start from industrial capital. It is in surplus-value, which is produced by capitalist industries, that is to be sought the most important and increasingly prominent sources of all profit.

We have in the previous chapter become acquainted with surplus-value, which is produced by the industrial proletarians and appropriated by the capitalists. We have also observed how the amount of surplus-value produced by each worker is increased by adding to the worker’s labour burden, by the introduction of labour-saving machinery and cheaper labour, etc. At the same time with the development of capitalist industry the number of the exploiters proletarians grows and the amount of surplus-value going to the capitalist class increases by leaps and bounds.

But as, unfortunately, “life’s joys are vouchsafed unmixed to no mortal,” the capitalist class have to divide their surplus-value, although this dividing is most hateful to them ; they must part with portions to the ground landlords and to the State. And the share taken by these two partners grows from year to year.

_________________

4.—Ground-Rent.

When we talk about the sections of the community who are becoming more and more the sole owners and exploiters, the monopolists of the means of production, we must distinguish between capitalists and landowners ; for the land is a means of production of a peculiar kind. It is the most indispensable of all: without it human activity is impossible. Even navigators of the sea or air need a point of departure and landing. But the soil is also a means of production incapable of increase at will. Yet until now it has not happened in a large area that every bit of soil has been cultivated by its inhabitants. Even in China there are still large plots of uncultivated laud.

Under the domination of peasant proprietorship in Europe during the middle ages the peasant owned his farm and agricultural land. Water, woodland, and pasture land were communal property, and uncultivated soil was so plentiful that everybody could be allowed to take possession of and cultivate such land as he had begun to bring into cultivation from the wilderness. Then commenced the development of commodity production with the consequences of which we have already become acquainted. The products of the soil became commodities. That reacted on the soil, which was also made a commodity possessing value. The single peasant communities and associations now endeavoured to restrict the circle of their members, and the latter began to regard the land they owned in common and partly (as in the case of forests and grazing land) also used in common, no longer as common property of the community and therefore inalienable, but as a kind of joint private property belonging only to the existing members and their heirs; property from which all members who subsequently joined the community were excluded. They were desirous of making the land a monopoly. But someone else came to covet the property of the community, namely, the feudal lord, who had been the protector of the common property. If this property in land, that had become so valuable was to be made private property, then he was anxious that it should pass into his possession. In most directions, especially where agriculture on a large scale was developed, the feudal lord succeeded in seizing the peasants’ common property. Peasant-hunting, the driving of some peasants from their homesteads, followed. Nearly all the soil, even that not under cultivation, now passed into private possession: the ownership of land became the privilege of the few. Thus owing to the economic development, particularly to the formation of large property in land, the soil had become a monopoly long before the existing area of cultivation was exhausted, and much before over-population could have been talked about. If, therefore, the land occupies an exceptional position as a means of production because it is incapable of being increased at will, that is not in consequence of all the available soil being already under cultivation, but is due to the fact—at least in civilised countries—that it has already been taken possession of by a minority. There a monopoly of quite a peculiar character arises. While the capitalist class has a monopoly of the means of production, there is within the capitalist class no monopoly of certain means of production by certain members of that class—at least, no permanent monopoly. Whenever a ring of capitalists is formed for monopolising a certain important invention—for instance, a new machine—other capitalists may always come along, who could also purchase this machine, or surpass the same by meariK of a new invention, or imitate it sooner or later. All this is impossible regarding property in land. Landowners have a monopoly not only as far as the non-possessing class is concerned, but also from the standpoint of the capitalist class.

The peculiar character of property in land is developed most acutely in England, where a small number of families bave possession o£ all the land, to which they hold on firmly and do not sell. Who ever requires land obtains the same on lease for a certain rent called ground-rent. (Strictly speaking, “rent” ard “ground-rent” are not synonymous. “Rent” generally includes a portion of interest on capital. For our purpose here, however, “rent” and “‘ground-rent” may be used as identical terms.) A capitalist desirous of having a factory or dwelling-house built, or of establishing a mine or a farm in England, cannot as a rule, purchase the land, but may only rent the same on lease.

In Germany the capitalist is mostly also the ground landlord ; the manufacturer owns the land upon which his factory stands ; the mine proprietor is also the owner of the land in which the pits are sunk ; while the owner of large tracts of agricultural land on the continent of Europe cultivates the same mostly on his own account instead of letting it to a farmer. When the capitalist carries on agriculture on his own soil, when he himself is ground landlord, he need naturally not share his surplus-value with another, But that does not materially alter the case; for he has, generally, only become ground landlord by paying to the previous owner of the farm a capital, the interest on which corresponds to the amount of ground-rent. Hence he pays the ground-rent anyhow, and in the one form as in the other it diminishes his profit.

But the monopoly character of landed property becomes more acute, the stronger the demand for land grows. As population increases, so the capitalist class become more in need of property in land. To the same extent ground-rent grows, that is to say, the total amount of ground rent paid in capitalist Society. The ground-rent of every farm need not increase. A farm yields under otherwise equal conditions the more ground rent the more fertile and the more favourably situated (lor instance, nearer to the market) it happens to be.

Into the laws of ground-rent we can, of course, not enter here. The opening up of new and fertile land can therefore cause the ground-rent of exhausted soil to go down ; the ground-rent of newly opened-up land will, however, only grow so much the more. Thus improvements in the means of transit may depress the ground-rent of a nearly situated area in favour of a more distant one. Both cases have happened during the last two decades. American ground-rents have risen, and indeed (in so far as agricultural protective tariffs have not acted in an opposite direction) at the expense of West European ground-rents. This, how ever, only applies to land used for agricultural purposes. In the towns ground-rent is everywhere rising most rapidly ; for the capitalist mode of production drives the great mass of the population more and more into the towns. Unfortunately, by this aggregation the profit of the industrial capitalists suffers nothing compared with the growing physical and mental degeneration of the toiling masses. And here we encounter the housing of the workers as a new source of their sufferings; but this is not the place to enter into that.

(To be continued)

Notes and Clippings. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fred. Jowett, M.P.,—who signalised his career as a public man by bargaining with the Liberals for the exchange of support—has been giving what the Clarion is pleased to call “a Lesson in Political Tactics.” The lesson does not consist, as one conversant with his actions would suppose, in an exposition of the gentle, if somewhat dirty, art of collecting “fly-paper” votes. On the contrary, the member for West Bradford lectures the Scotch representatives on their “docility,” pointing out that Irishmen have.obtained concessions by reason of their militant attitude.

* * *

And how does this Political Bottom comport himself when confronted by the assembly which he so valiantly belabours on paper? Call a witness—Lloyd George : “There were only five or six Socialists in the House of Commons. Though some of them might make wild speeches outside, in the House of Commons they were thoroughly tame. They were there, tinkering up bills, and doing odd jobs of that kind in the Liberal workshop.” Verily, the master class, relieved and amused at the nightingale “roaring” of the bogus lions, may well say “Let ’em roar again, let ’em roar again.”

* * *

A paid organiser of the Independent Labour Party, speaking in opposition to a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, on the 12th of April, in Finsbury Park, said that he had had it on the best authority that Ramsay MacDonald had been offered a post in the government by Asquith, and his manly bosom “visibly swelled” when he informed his hearers that the man whom Quelch says is out for the making of his own career, refused.

* * *

Query: Did the organiser expect him to accept ? Had he done so, what would have been the position of the Independent Labour Party ?

* * *

We pause for a reply—which we do not expect from officials or organisers of the I.L.P. An expression of opinion from any of the rank and file of that organisation would be warmly welcomed—and recorded—by the Socialist Standard. Personal contact with members of the I.L.P. has given more than one of us high hopes of the rank and file. Not a few who had been merely lacking in information as to the methods of their organisation, when enlightened by the mouth or pen of a genuine Socialist, have expressed deep dissatisfaction, which must lead to the inevitable discovery that false methods are the inevitable outcome of a false theory.

* * *

Anything short of the recognition that the emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the working-class itself, will inevitably breed the particularly noxious species of parasite that lives upon its own kind, the sentimentalist whose attitude is an eternal compromise between broken-bottle-anarchy and we-are-all-brothers fatuousness, disappointment, disgust, and apathy.

* * *

The National Federation of Assistant Teachers—one of the six unions to which some fortunate pedagogues may belong!—is of opinion that “there is immediate necessity for an alteration in the salaries of assistant teachers.” But alack and alas! the organ of the N.F.A.T. has discovered that “the earnest devotee of the scholastic art is as much a victim of the iron law of supply and demand, as any luckless wight of a miner, joiner, or bricksetter ever was.”

* * *

The remedy proposed, of course, is the old, old Trade Union fake. Strive to create a corner in labour. Lesson the supply. In view of the fact that the “powerful” London Teachers’ Association, represented on the London County Council by the late rejected of Peckham has failed to perceptibly influence the Council with regard to its policy of flooding the market with “scholarship” lads and lasses, bearing in mind that the parents who are only just able to send their children to “secondary” schools, feeling the “economic pressure” which is steadily squeezing them down, down to ever lower levels, are eagerly availing themselves of the opportunity to “place” their children, is it likely that the mop of Unionism can stem the advancing flood ?

* * *

No hope, no light for the teacher until he recognises the fact that the “iron law” which binds him and the miner is but an expression of the fact that he and the miner, having nothing to sell but their labour-power, are wage-slaves, and that the united efforts of teacher and miner, joiner and bricksetter, are required to abolish wage-slavedom. This is only possible by an organisation which shall embrace the whole working class. In a word, the basis of the workers’ organisation must be class solidarity and class interests. Its tactics must be aggressive, and its aim revolutionary. Such an organisation (the S.P.G.B.) exists.

* * *

Mem. for “devotees of the scholastic art” :

Socialist Standard, June, ’06 : “The declared reason for the existence of the National Union of Teachers is the furtherance of the interests of the child. Is there not a danger that it may become the happy hunting-ground of the eloquent Party-man in a hurry to round his own life into a success?”

Daily Chronicle, April, ’08: “Everyone rejoices in the deserved promotion that has come to Dr. Macnamara, who has worked with unstinted devotion for the cause of Liberalism.”

* * *

Salary, £2,000.

* * *

Another mem. “N.F.A.T. Handbook,” p. 57 : “The following standard of salaries has been adopted by the National Federation of Assistant Teachers and the National Union of Teachers as a just and reasonable remuneration for Class Teachers:—

Metropolitan Men, Maximum, £220.

Women, Maximum,                  £165.”

* * *

Really, the humility of the average “class teacher,” if the above may be taken as a true reflection of his opinion, “passeth all understanding.” He deliberately rates his services at a tenth of that of his astute former colleague. How is this estimate arrived at ? Will some of the younger members of “the profession” enquire? Why are a woman’s services rated lower than those of a man ?

A. Reginald.

From the Watch-Tower. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Like Mr. Chamberlain, he (Mr. Lloyd George) is essentially a middle-class statesman . . . Wales looks sorrowfully on. He has passed out of its narrow sphere. The Parnell of Wales has become the Chamberlain of England. The vision of the young gladiator fighting the battle of the homeland has faded. … It is proud of its brilliant son—proud of the first Welsh-speaking Minister to enter a British Cabinet, but it waits with a certain gathering gloom for its reward. Is it not thirteen years since he led a revolt against the Liberal Party on Disestablishment, and is he not now a chief in the house of Pharaoh ? Once it has been on the point of revolt; But he had only to appear and it was soothed.”—Daily News, April 11th.

* * *

The wirepullers of the capitalist parties are too astute to allow promising leaders of dissatisfied factions within their ranks to remain such. When they cannot cajole them, when they do not find it convenient to throw them a sop in the shape of a so-called reform, they find them a job and use them, whether it be the Lloyd Georges, or the Isaac Mitchells, to bully or to soothe those whom they once led.

* * *

It is very sad, but there is some hope, in view of events in the A.S.E., that the working class will shortly throw over these misleaders.

* * *

Mr. W. R. Trotter, of the Canadian Trades Congress, writing from Dragon Parade, Harrogate, sends to theYorkshire Post copies of two letters received by him from the President of the British Welcome League of Toronto (Mr. A. Chamberlain), and an excerpt from the report of the Municipal Committee of the Toronto District Labour Council bearing on the emigration controversy.

In the first letter, dated February 21, Mr. Chamberlain says labour conditions in Toronto are worse than he has seen them during the 22 years’ residence there, and he asks Mr. Trotter to “tell the workers of the old country to go slow about coming to Canada until those already here can be found something to do. Tell them from me not to listen to agents, or even the Salvation Army, for they would not be in the shipping business if it was not for the dollars they make.”

* * *

In the second letter, dated March 6, Mr. Chamberlain says the labour conditions have not changed, and thousands are still out of work. He enforces this statement by mentioning that in reply to a test advertisement inserted in a paper for one day only by the League’s secretary, 1,500 men wrote that they were prepared to go to farms in British Columbia. “My own opinion is,” added Mr. Chamberlain, “that a halt should be made for a while, and an effort made to place the people already here into work before advising others to leave their homes in England to come to Canada.”

* * *

The excerpt from the Municipal Committee’s report calls attention to the unemployed problem in Toronto, and says : “Your Committee would further recommend that this Council places itself on record as holding the Manufacturers’ Association and the Salvation Army jointly responsible for much of the unnecessary suffering among the unemployed of the city, many of whom are victims of the misrepresentation of these two organisations.”

* * *

We also learn that the “Army” are appealing to the charitably disposed in Canada, to relieve the distress there, meanwhile they are advertising to take emigrants to Canada because of the employment to be there obtained. The same old game. And the “unspeakable Stead” says the head of the Salvation Army, General Booth, is a Socialist! What, has Mr. Stead’s friend, the Czar, done that he should be left out in the cold?

* * *

“May I draw the attention of I.L.P. branches to the fact that after 14 years the (Licensing) Bill provides for Local Veto, which has so long been advocated by the I.L.P. ? And may I also urge branches to at once take the matter in hand and follow the example of the Selby I.L.P. in support of this strongly democratic measure.” -W. Farley, Selby I.L.P. in Daily News.

* * *

According to the program of the I.L.P. that body “demands” the Municipalisation and public control of the drink traffic, neither of which will be secured by the Government’s Licensing Bill, either now or in fourteen years time. But probably the I.L.P. wire-pullers fear that if they oppose this “strongly democratic measure” they will lose some of the fat jobs they now secure talking twaddle in Nonconformist pulpits.

* * *

“Modern industry reckons on a reserve of the partially employed.” Daily News leader, 14/4/08. Winnow a full column of the chaff of capitalist-nonconformity and a two line grain of truth is saved. But this grain of itself damns for evermore the Liberalism the Daily News is concerned to maintain as a dominant factor in the political arena. “The partially employed,” is an endeavour to soften the harshness of the term, “unemployed.” A reserve of unemployed is necessary to modern industry. Liberalism is the political expression of modern industry. Lloyd George, the bright particular star and the fiercest democrat of the present administration, has emphasized this sufficiently. Therefore it follows as the night the day that Liberalism, by standing for modern industry, must stand for the maintenance of the reserve of unemployed upon which modern industry depends. Thus we arrive at the unalterable position of Liberalism upon the question of the unemployed, with which, among other things, the present Government proposes to deal at some time or the other. The value of its proposals in this connection may therefore be very adequately appraised beforehand. They represent the exact equivalent of nothing.

What did Welford Say? (1908)

Pamphlet Review from the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poverty : its cause and cure. A Reply to Dr. G. F. Welford’s “Socialism.” By. A. E. Peters and A. W. Kersey. The Palmerston Press, Tiverton. 1d.

The opening sentence, of this pamphlet says : “the writers are both young men in their early twenties,” so the Editor decided to hand it to a young man also in his early twenties to handle in the Socialist Standard. We are unfortunate, however, in not having seen the statements to which it is a reply; for however good it may be as a reply to Dr. Welford, it is most certainly not a good exposition of the principles of Socialism, nor is it by any means an adequate statement of the cause and cure of poverty.

We are left to imagine the circumstances that called it forth, but we glean something like this. Dr. Welford, of Tiverton, fulminated against Socialism, although whether in the Press or on the platform we are not told. Two young men in the district with socialistic tendencies take up the cudgels in defence. Hence the pamphlet under consideration which bristles with points we should be inclined to challenge, and which propounds some flagrant heresies in the name of Socialism.

In discussing the causes of poverty, these are placed under the heads of Insufficient Production, Waste, and Unequal Distribution, and the poverty at present prevailing is attributed to all three. To us the last is alone sufficient to explain our poverty problem, for poverty does not afflict Society as a whole but only a portion of it. And this class nature of modern capitalist society is entirely overlooked by our authors, with the result that the class-struggle, the central guiding factor of the Socialist movement, is ignored. The poverty of the working class is not due to insufficient production, nor to waste, but simply and solely to robbery. The workers produce too much and glut the markets and never get the chance to waste anything to set the market free again. Neither of these factors then can be the cause of their poverty.

The most important portion of the pamphlet, however, is that which explains how Socialism will be established, and here the situation is very imperfectly grasped. The idea of a Socialist government being able to socialise all industries is characterised as absurd, and the counter-idea is put forward that each industry will be socialised by the government getting a fresh mandate from time to time. To us the return of a Socialist government would mean the expression of a majority of opinion in favour of the abolition of capitalism, i.e., the abolition of private property in the means of living; and the work of a Socialist majority would be to carry out that mandate. That a majority of opinion would be in favour of Socialism and at the same time in favour of Capitalism is incomprehensible. The difficulty of our authors, I suspect, is the same as that of the so-called “Socialists” in the Labour Party, who do not represent a majority of opinion in favour of Socialism in their constituencies.

The class-struggle is openly repudiated when they say “the method of Socialism is not to try to force the will of one class upon another class.” The method of Socialism must be, and can only be, the working class expressing its determination not to be exploited any longer, and it is extremely doubtful that the exploiting class will agree with them. The working class is in opposition to the capitalist class and cannot be successful until it has educated itself and organised its forces to be powerful enough to overthrow the political representatives of capitalism and force its will upon them.

The final portion discusses the outlook for Socialism, and we observe the Labour Party is included among the list of parliamentary groups of various nationalities as representing Socialism. Again we should not agree. The Labour Party is most emphatically in no way representative of Socialism, and it is quite untrue to say that each of the workers they represent is a worker for Socialism. We should be more inclined to agree with the actual conclusion if it were correctly quoted, as follows: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”

D.K.

Profit versus Wages. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many railway stocks have (1) been deliberately watered, and (2) risen in price on the market, so that while railway men are badly paid, the present holders of the stocks are apparently making small profits. Many railway companies have enlarged their ordinary capital by the delightfully simple process of multiplication by two. £100 of original stock has been changed into £100 of “preferred” and £100 of “deferred.” This has not been done behind the scenes, but boldly and with the permission of our rich men’s parliament. As a consequence it is made to appear that the net receipts of railways are only about 3½ per cent. of their “paid up” capitals. But the nominal capitals have not been “paid up” ; and even in so far as the original capital is concerned much of it is unreal. Thus the magnitude of the injustice which they suffer is hidden from railway servants. They risk their lives for the public every day and what do they get for it? In 1904, the 27 leading railway companies paid in wages only £29,000,000 or only 25/- per employee per week ! These 27 companies own nearly all the railway lines, employ nearly all the railway servants and make nearly all the profits assessed by the Inland Revenue Commissioners. And what do these profits amount to ? As I have shown, they amount to nearly £40,000,000 per annum, or far more than is paid in wages in one of the most dangerous and most useful of all occupations. 

– Chiozza Money, M.P., in “Riches and Poverty.”

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

T. Swan (Manchester) — Later.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For May. (1908)

Party News from the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blog update: A proposed overhaul

What with the blog recently hitting 20,000 posts, I've become increasingly aware of the fact that the blog is becoming a bit too unwieldy and overblown and, in its current format, more difficult to navigate. For example, if you were to look to the right hand side of the blog's homepage, to the label section, and scroll down to 'Book Review', it will tell you there are currently 1961 posts listed under that label. Now, that's a mind-boggling number . . . so many book reviews, so little time . . . but it doesn't really assist the reader in finding a particular book, a particular author or a particular subject. 

So, in light of this, I'll be adding some new features on the blog in the coming weeks and months which will hopefully assist visitors in being able to find what they want to find on the blog. This will include the following: 

• Specific pages for individual Socialist writers. 
• Following on from the special pages at the top of the homepage for current Socialist Standard columns such as Pathfinders, Material World and Cooking the Books, individual pages dedicated to regular monthly columns of yesteryear from the Socialist Standard. 
• A page giving a chronological list of all the short stories which have appeared in the Standard and other socialist publications down the years.
• A page giving a chronological list of all the poetry which have appeared in the Standard and other socialist publications down the years.
• Individual pages dedicated to the various publishers that have been featured and reviewed in the Socialist Standard over the course of its history.
• And also, when time permits, occasional posts which seek to cover certain subjects with a list of links of articles and reviews that go into more detail. I've done something similar in the past with posts on the 1924 Labour Government, Orwell and Spain, May Day and the Socialist Standard  . . . and, cough, Socialists and Christmas.

In the meantime, carry on with using the label section on the right hand side of the homepage as it becomes increasingly bloated and, if that doesn't work for you, use the search box in the top left hand corner of the homepage. That can provide more information than the label section but don't come crying to me when you type in "Stafford Cripps" and it spews out 148 posts in no particular order.

Hell's Alley (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

Hell's Alley

(Dramatization of events preceding to, and from "Bloody Saturday", June 21 1919, arising from the Winnipeg General Sympathetic Strike)

Note: I have taken a few liberties with the events of this time in order to best condense the events and feelings of the time. For example: Secretary of the Seattle Trades and Labor Council, James Duncan, had actually made his address a couple of weeks earlier. And those of the Central Strike Committee as were arrested had been arrested days earlier. So Sam Blumenburg, soldier Bray and Helen Armstrong would not be present. However, Helen did take lumps on occasion and is useful in conveying sentiments of Strike Committee. The Socialist, Blumenburg, was actually a dry cleaner but rates being written in, not just for his classic (genuine) one-liner but to show problems of "enemy aliens". The secret police reports are of various times and sometimes condensations of more than one report to give the idea of the hysteria and paranoia that existed in some official circles. Likewise with government officials. The beating is as nearly accurately reproduced as possible. There is some controversy as to whether the workers did or did not destroy some of the interior of the streetcar, so I left it out. They did not, as some historians have claimed, tip over the streetcar. They tried, but it was too heavy. So are a lot of things.

Larry Tickner

Cast, in order of appearance:

COMMENTARY: Relates happenings and statements of others away from scene. As he gives wide cross-section of views of various elements it is important that his face not reflect conflicting emotions and should be blanked out with makeup. It is occasionally necessary that he be able to call on a booming voice that will shake the rafters.

"WORKERS": All somewhat apolitical, reflecting the general situation of the time. The common headgear of workers, at the time, was the bowler hat. But as such is not likely to carry the desired impression upon today's audiences it is perhaps better that they wear tweed or cloth caps. 

WORKER 1: Generally more than average social awareness. Experienced. Knows he is in a tough fight but prepared to hang in there no matter what. 

WORKER 2: Considerably less aware, but not lacking in courage. Slight foreign accent.

WORKER 3: Probably would have given in at the first blush if not carried by the tide of determination amongst his peers.

WORKER 4: Highly idealistic (more than the others). Still retains the original religious fervor. Prepared to act first and think later.

(Soldiers all in uniform)

SOLDIER BRAY: Active supporter of the strike.

OTHER SOLDIERS: As many as can be comfortably accommodated on stage. An attempt to attain an approximate balance between them and workers.

HELEN ARMSTRONG: Wife of socialist and carpenter union organizer George Armstrong. A socialist speaker in her own right. A proud upright woman. Femininely attractive enough, but dressing in such a manner as to neither hide nor exploit the fact.

SAM BLUMENBERG: Socialist, slight Jewish accent, but quite articulate. Fellow metal worker with Russell.

JAMES   DUNCAN:   President   of  Seattle   Labor   Council.   He   is   not unsympathetic  to groundswell  of need for industrial  unions  but is attempting to achieve it by reforming the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

MESSENGER BOY

ACT 1

(Open Set)

Market Square, opposite Winnipeg City Hall. Center stage is a raised platform suitable for speakers. There are a few chairs on the platform for the speakers. At extreme stage left and extreme downstage stands Commentary. He holds a scroll before himself. He can use it for cues, but it is preferred that he memorize his lines. He remains still when not speaking and when he speaks the "participating" players freeze, except where otherwise noted. (Note: All entrances and exits are made from amongst the audience.)

COMMENTARY: Saturday morning, June 21st, 1919. Market Square, opposite Winnipeg City Hall. The war to end all war is over. Wartime restrictions are still in effect. The Social Democratic Party has been declared illegal. The journal of the Socialist Party of Canada has been banned, as have the works of Marx and Darwin, and some of the plays of Gilbert and Sullivan. The men who fought four years for a "glorious new world" return to find it the same one they left — widespread unemployment, with all too familiar grinding poverty, aggravated by rampant wartime inflation. Nationwide discontent reflects itself, in Winnipeg, in the form of a six-week General Strike.

[Enter Worker 1. He briefly shuffles around at the base of the platform until he is joined by Worker 2.]

WORKER 2: Where's the Strike Committee?

WORKER l: Don't know. Guess we're a bit early.

WORKER 2: Storm bother your place much?

[Enter Worker 3]

WORKER l: Blew off a few shingles. Fixed them. But I sure don't want to see a storm like that again. 

WORKER 3: Blew a big piece off the roof of the Children's Hospital. What the hell? Strike or no strike we don't want to see children suffer. [Others nod in agreement] Me and a mate offered to fix it. Hospital

Director said he'd see us roast in hell first. 

WORKER 2: What the hell's the matter with them? Why do they hate us so? Don't they see all we want is a decent living? 

[Enter Worker 4] 

WORKER 3: Don't know. Say we're all Bolshevik or Reds or something. Whatever that is. Enemy aliens getting German gold to ruin the country. 

WORKER l: That's nothing. Been saying things like that about us for 20 years. Longer. Far as I can remember. Anything to keep our wages down. Been through it three times now. Try to get a union, decent wages. Each time, they use the police and scabs to break our strike — Courts to fine and imprison our union leaders. Forced to go back to work, at worse conditions. Alongside scabs. [Spits] 

WORKER 4:  But this time it is going to be different. We are better organized now. All workers together striking for each other. Worked last year. Got three wage settlements by threats of general strikes. 

COMMENTARY: With the workers properly organized there is nothing they may not successfully demand from the capitalist, by means of a general strike. 

WORKER 2: But without a general strike the metal masters beat the workers down within a month. That's why we had to support them this year. Make things better for all of us, too. 

WORKER 3: But maybe we should not have all gone out. It's been 6 weeks now and things are getting bloody tough. Don't know if there will be enough food for my family. 

WORKER l: Don't lose heart brother. The Strike Committee says that as long as there is one crust of bread amongst us we'll share it. We must be strong, to win. 

WORKER 2: Why do the metal masters hold out so long? Even they admit the men cannot live on their present wages. Why can't they see the justice of our case? 

WORKER l: We don't even get the minimum conditions just laid down by the League of Nations. 

COMMENTARY: I worked hard to establish my business. As a logger. In the sawmills. Worked to get an engineering ticket. I alone am best qualified when and whom to hire and fire and how much an employee should be paid. And no bloody Red is going to tell me different. 

WORKER 4: [In almost dreamy nostalgia] Remember, six weeks ago, when we came out? Labor Council called on all unions to support the Metal Trades. Eleven o'clock in the morning, as arranged, I took off my apron, put on my hat and left the job. The streets were full of people. 'Twas like a Roman holiday. Not just union people either. As many without unions came out in support of the metal workers' cause. Even soldiers changed over to our side.

WORKER 2: Even the Strike Committee was surprised. In the afternoon went to their favourite restaurant. It was closed, of course. [All laugh]

WORKER 4: Even police voted to come out.

WORKER l: Agreed with Strike Committee though. Stayed on to keep order. Even said they'd bust our heads if we got outa line. Never needed it though. Strike Committee cooperated to see everybody kept calm.

WORKER 3: [Apprehensively] But now they have fired all the police for being sympathetic to the strikers. Replaced them with boss's goon police.

WORKER 4: Dumb buggers are no good for anything anyway. Just say boo and they fall off their horses. Think we should run 'em outa town. Worse scab herders yet.

COMMENTARY: Sawing, sawing, sawing. What the hell we sawing up these old oxen yokes for anyway? We hire on to be policemen, not bloody woodcutters. [Pause] Don't know. Don't care. For six dollars a day I'll do anything. Don't need oxen yokes no more anyhow. Got tractors now.

[Immediately enter Soldier Bray. He is readily recognized and accepted by the workers. As he steps upon the platform other soldiers begin to mingle with the crowd.]

BRAY: Comrades, the soldiers are with you in your demands for collective bargaining. We also demand an allowance for returned soldiers.

WORKER l: How can we trust the soldiers? You have not always been with us.

BRAY: I know what you mean. Last winter some of us did act against workers. Beat up on foreigners. Even destroyed the Socialist Party's headquarters. We now know we were wrong. But we had been misled by newspaper nonsense that screamed about enemy aliens, red menace and such. Strikes financed by German gold.

COMMENTARY: Secret Police Agent 57, reporting from Vancouver, B.C. There is reason to believe Bolshevik agents have landed on our shores. 5,000 of them are training under arms in Canada and the United States. They have violet rays and know how to use them to blind people.

BRAY: [Continuing] Then the Union members convinced us your interests are our interests. That is why we are here today, to stage another parade. When the soldiers' support is shown the justice of our case will be seen and we will win.

[Most of crowd obviously restless and leaning towards action.]

WORKER l: [As he speaks Helen Armstrong mounts the platform.] But the Mayor has forbidden more parades. And the Strike Committee says we should avoid confrontation. [Quoting the Strike Committee] The best thing to do is nothing. Go to the beach. Make love.

HELEN: That's right Comrades, I beg you wait for the advice of the Strike Committee. They should have been here by now. I was to have met my husband . . .

WORKER 4: We can't wait any longer. It's been six weeks now.

HELEN: Wait. Here comes Sam Blumenburg. [As Sam mounts platform] He's on the Strike Committee.

SAM: Sorry I'm late. I was to bring a visiting speaker but he didn't show up.

SOLDIER 2: [In a badgering manner but the rest not too sympathetic with him.] You sound like an enemy alien. How do we know the papers aren't right? How do we know you ain't gettin' German gold?

SAM: [Not in any way intimidated, scoffingly laughs.] What is this enemy alien? And German gold? Workers see damn little gold of any kind. In my country it was very bad — very poor. Then the Canadian government says, Come to Canada, Land of Big Opportunity. Shows a poster; Woman with a nice white apron, waving to husband coming in from field. So I come. What do I find. All the good land gone. Even farmers who have it can hardly make a living. Long unemployment lines. Miserably low wages. Then I get a job with Bob Russell. He says he wants to make a union that gets good wages for everybody. Not just craftsman. I think, maybe this is the big opportunity government talks about.

SOLDIER 2: Russell's a socialist. How do we know you are not using the strike to make a revolution, like the papers say?

SAM: You crazy? Socialism could never happen that way. Sure Bob wants a new society. Me too. One with no money, no wages, everything free. But it can only come by majority action. Right now all we want is enough wages so we can live to see that day.

SOLDIER 2: Hah, what country do you come from?

SAM: [With all the confidence of someone who had dealt successfully with the question many times before] ... It is not necessary to ask where I come from. My face is the map of Palestine and my nose is Mount Zion. [All laugh and that ends the matter].

[Enter James Duncan. He takes to the platform as he is welcomed by Blumenburg.]

SAM: Here is the visiting speaker I was to meet. James Duncan of the Seattle Labor Council.

[A lot of booing and hissing from those in attendance. But sentiment not shared by Bray, Blumenburg or Helen Armstrong.]

WORKER 4: Yankee Craft Union Snob.

BRAY: Wait. Let's hear what the man has to say. [All quieten.]

DUNCAN: Brothers and Sisters. I am sorry I am late. Got a bad time from the border guards. Said if I'd been a day later they wouldn't have had to let me through at all.

COMMENTARY: Honorable gentlemen of the house. The legislation before you will permit us to scourge the country of the enemy alien red menace once and for all. It will permit us to deport any of them. Reds of any kind, even British born reds, without trial. And once again make our country free. [Speaking rapidly] House of Commons: First Reading — all in favor say aye. Second Reading: all in favor say aye. Third Reading: all in favor say aye. Senate: First Reading — all in favor say aye. Second Reading— all in favor say aye. Third Reading — all in favor say aye. Signed by the Governor-General Total time elapsed 40 minutes

DUNCAN: I understand your sentiments. They are not unlike my own. [As he speaks the crowd begins to warm to him giving each other nudges and nods of approval]. We have just had a general strike in Seattle for almost the same reasons as yours — low wages and refusal of the employers to recognize joint industrial bargaining. I am now on my way to the AFL Convention. [Boos and hisses]. If I cannot get them to reform their organization to embrace all workers I will join with you to help found one big union to represent all workers. [Enthusiastic cheers from all and applause from those sharing the platform] I wish I could stay longer and help your strike but I am late and must go to the AFL Convention. My heart is with you. [Exits to applause].

BRAY: Hear that, comrades. Our case is just. Workers everywhere are sympathetic to us. Many are striking in support for us.

COMMENTARY: Secret Police Agent 98 reporting from Ferni, B.C. You do not have to worry about the union leaders here becoming revolutionary. They don't want to lose their soft and cushy jobs.

BRAY: Vancouver is out, Calgary is out, Lethbridge, Edmonton —

COMMENTARY: Dear Mr Prime Minister, as your Minister of Labour I must respectfully advise that, this is not an opportune time to make a declaration in favor of the principle of collective bargaining as it would be grasped as an excuse by the strikers to claim they had forced the government and thereby proved success of the sympathetic strike.

BRAY: Saskatoon is out, Regina, Prince Albert, Brandon, Port Arthur, Fort William, Toronto.

COMMENTARY: Edmonton out two weeks — Vancouver a month.

WORKER 3: [Apprehensively.] But there is talk of getting scabs to run the streetcars, If that happens the strike is broken.

WORKER 4: Don't worry Comrade. [He uses this address for the first time, reflecting the increased pitch of anxiety.] We know how to look after scabs.

COMMENTARY: Secret Agent 67, reporting from Calgary: What the new union policy will be, will depend on how dangerous things may be to their personal liberty. Already their fear is making them hesitant and, as far as possible, they will tone down their program. I recommend reformed labor laws, which would meet with the approval of the Conservative labor element, aiming at the elimination of basic grievances and a satisfactory settlement to the returned soldiers and simultaneously the deportation of alien trouble makers. Decisive and concerted arrest of the leaders, a quick trial with a sentence making release or confinement dependent upon their future policy.

BRAY: Comrades, it is time to begin our parade.

HELEN: No, no. Wait for the Strike Committee [Blumenburg nods, in agreement.]

COMMENTARY: [Continuing] Unionism, rightly organized, is the very basis of national unity and strength. Especially will this be proved when the inevitable international complications ensue. With regard to this new movement, only two courses are open — either crush it ruthlessly or reform the labor laws of the country [while Commentary is finishing a boy messenger hands Helen a note and hastens nervously away.]

HELEN: [Upon reading the note shrieks] God! They've arrested my husband. They're arresting the whole Strike Committee. [In her sobbing grief she awakens to the danger to Sam.] Oh, Sam they'll be after you too. You have no family to hold you. Run!

SAM: No, I must stay with my Comrades and help the strike.

.HELEN: [Bray and the crowd showing sympathy and anxiety for Sam.] Don't be a fool. You're the only one on the Strike Committee without an English background. They are deporting foreigners who didn't even have anything to do with organizing the strike. You can't help us from jail or deported. Run .. . run! [Hesitantly and reluctantly Sam exits to the well wishes of the crowd.]

COMMENTARY: Sam Blumenburg escapes to the United States where he is active in Socialist and labor organisations for the rest of his life.

BRAY: Now the soldiers are in charge. We will begin our parade. [Steps from the platform to take his place at the head of forming parade.]

HELEN: No! No! Wait!

WORKER 4: [They are all in an ugly mood.] I'm bloody tired of waiting. [Helen runs beseechingly from one to another. Her helplessness is symbolized by lack of dialogue. Each pushes her gently but firmly aside.]

WORKER 3: Look! Here come the mounties. [Note: the ensuing confrontation with police is somewhat pantomimed. Crowd begins mocking and jeering. Mockingly hold their backs upright, stiff and hands in front as though holding horses reigns. As the mounties "go through" the crowd turns in unison to watch them pass (a bit of choreographic talent needed here). Helen, and to some extent Bray, are not out of agreement with the sentiments expressed but their apprehension shows as things begin to get more and more out of control.]

WORKER 1: Bloody mechanical men!

WORKER 2: Can't you understand the workers' needs?

WORKER 4: [As they pass through] Bloody scab herders! [All looking down the street.]

BRAY: [In relief] They're gone. Now we can begin.

COMMENTARY: [In a voice that rattles the rafters] COMPANEEE! Fall in! [Following lower volume but with military precisioness]. Ninetieth Winnipeg Rifles ready for action at a moment's notice, Suh! 100th Winnipeg Grenadiers, ready at a moment's notice, Suh! 106th Infantary ready at a moment's notice, Suh! 79 Cameron Highlanders, ready at a moment's notice, Suh! Twenty machine guns on mobilized units. Ready at a moment's notice, Suh!

HELEN: [Looking in direction of mounties.] Wait, they're turning. They're coming back. [Crowd all jeer as they part ranks as though horses going between them. As the eyes of the crowd follow the mounties away. Worker 4 picks up a rock and makes ready to throw it after the mounties. Helen tries to stop him but is brushed aside. The others aghast, at first, but then start picking up rocks and hurling them after the mounties. All except Helen and Bray, curse the mounties as they pass.]

BRAY: [As things get out of hand.] Let's not lose control of ourselves. Let's be orderly.

Worker 3: [In relief] They're gone.

WORKER 2: Here comes a streetcar.

[They all crowd around. Helen and Bray are quite helpless now. Worker 4 jumps as though to grab the trolley line.]

WORKER 4: I've got the trolley cord. It's stopping!

[Helen and Bray have the same feeling toward the scab but do not take part in what follows, for slightly different reasons. The crowd make actions that indicate pulling the scab out of the streetcar.  They make a cordon, ironically similar to the one the mounties passed through. They in turn take a punch at the scab and shout obscenities at him as he runs the gauntlet and runs away. There is a great amount of noise from crowd.] 

HELEN: Listen! The mayor's reading something. 

WORKER 3: Who can hear?

WORKER 4: Who cares anyway. Bloody boss's stooge. 

COMMENTARY: In the name of the security and protection of the King all herein assembled are instructed to disperse .. . [Drowned out by the noise.] 

HELEN: The mounties are returning. They have their revolvers out. 

COMMENTARY: [Military voice] At the READY . . . AIM . . . FIRE! [Pause] [regular voice] One bystander is killed instantly.

[All paralyze looking in direction of Worker 2 as he holds his leg in pain. Half crawling to extreme stage right where he lays down dying. Remains there for remainder of scene.]

WORKER 2: Hide me. No, do not call the doctor. I am foreign born. They will deport me. [Dies] 

COMMENTARY: Dead of gangrene. [Now all begin to jerk and fall as though being shot and clubbed and trampled by horses. Helen goes to the help of a half-dazed worker.] 

HELEN: Here Comrade. I'll help you. [Screams in pain as head jerks back from clubbing. Arises from momentary unconsciousness] Run! .. . Run!

[As commentary speaks all in unison go through a slow motion act of running. First stage front then left, then right, raising their hands in horror at what they "see" in each street.] 

COMMENTARY: Blockaded across each street are the special police. In the right hand of each is half an oxen yoke. In the other hand some have revolvers.

[All go through action of being clubbed, being shot; falling; getting up; stumbling in every direction.] 

HELEN: [Half dazed] Come Comrades. Hide in this alley. We'll be safe here. [All go to centre stage stage and crouch as though hiding.] 

COMMENTARY: Mommy. Why do people call that little street hell's alley? Come along dear. Don't ask such things.

[In a few moments they are startled by something at stage left.] 

ALL: The goon police!

[They all retreat to stage right but again are confronted.] 

COMMENTARY: At each end of the alley cordons of special police, clubs in hand.

[They all go through action of being beaten.] 

WORKER 4: [Going through action of fighting back]. Fucking bastards!

[But  he  is  clubbed from  one  side  and  then  another.   Crumples unconscious, as they all do, in tortured heaps.] 

COMMENTARY: Scourge the streets! Find them, find them! Punish! Punish! Punish! Beat! Beat! Beat! Law and Order! Law and Order! [Slight pause].

[As strikers begin crawling off stage helping each other, carrying the unconscious and the dead worker, Commentary continues.]

We return to work like whipped dogs. Work alongside scabs. Lose seniority. Pensions. Sign allegiance oath. [With vengeance] Sign! Sign! Sign! [Some exiting workers resentfully go through action of signing. Some spit in hatred.] Some are permanently blacklisted. [Slight pause] Troops arrive to take over the streets . .. Trucks with mounted machine guns patrol back and forth. But the streets are empty of strikers. Bloody Saturday is over.

ACT 2

COMMENTARY: Same qualification as Commentary in first act [could be same performer but recommend the part be divided.]

JUDGE: Complete with those mysterious robes they are prone to wear.

[Commentary 2 assumes the same position as Act 1. The judge is at his bench fiddling with papers as Commentary speaks.]

COMMENTARY: History books will largely by-pass the participants in the events of these days. Worse. Some will write in heroes who had very little to do with the struggle. This is not to say there were not key martyrs and heroes. There were. And their bravery and suffering matched any. But the genuine ones would not have had it that they were so heavily written in, nor that the rest be so easily passed over.

JUDGE: [Forcefully banging his gavel] Order in the court!

COMMENTARY: Many "aliens" have been deported. The vast majority of them are unknown to the strike leaders. Those of British backgrounds get a trial. As to fairness? The trial is by a jury. The jurists are mostly farmers with little in common with the accused. It is doubted, by many, that a similar jury could be found anywhere else in the country.

JUDGE: The seven of you: A.A. Heaps; Reverend Wm. Ivens; R.E. Bray; George Armstrong; John Queen; R.J. Johns; W.A. Pritchard, have been jointly charged on six counts of seditious conspiracy which we have spent these many weeks reviewing but may be briefly summarized as follows:

Count 1: A general form of seditious conspiracy to bring hatred and contempt to excite disaffection against the government, the laws and the constitution and generally to promote ill-will and hostility amongst the people and between classes.

Count 2: Seditious conspiracy in overt acts; in the calling of seditious socialist meetings and distribution of seditious socialist literature; Participation in the founding of the One Big Union with syndicalist objectives; The prosecution of an illegal strike, to discommode and inconvenience the inhabitants of Winnipeg and the paralyzing of all industries and business in Winnipeg and endangering the lives, health, safety and property of said inhabitants.

Count 3: Seditious conspiracy to carry into effect a seditious intention to endanger human life and to cause serious bodily injury and to expose valuable property to destruction and serious injury. 

Count 4: Seditious conspiracy to organize an unlawful combination or association or associations of workmen and employees to get demands by unlawful general strikes which were intended to be a step in a revolution against the constituted form of government in Canada. 

Count 5: Seditious conspiracy to undermine and destroy confidence in the government, laws and constitution. To persuade workmen to form unlawful associations for the purposes of obtaining control of all industries and of obtaining the property rightfully belonging to other persons.

Count 6: Seditious conspiracy to unlawfully bring about changes in the constitution and to enforce the "Soviet" form of government in Canada through means similar to those used in Russia. 

Count 7: Committing a common nuisance by use of an unlawful general sympathetic strike in which various employees walked out illegally and which endangered the lives, health, safety, property and comfort of the public and obstructed the exercise and enjoyment of rights common to all His Majesty's subjects.

Aug 1, 1919: The Winnipeg Eight at Vaughan Street Jail 

COMMENTARY: In making his charge to the jury the judge makes it clear that he believes in the guilt of the accused. The defense protests the method of choosing a jury and the prosecution attorney confides to a colleague that with any other jury in the country a conviction would be unlikely. Upon reconvening the jury renders its verdict.

JUDGE: I have the jury's verdict before me. [pause] A.A. Heaps. Not guilty on all seven counts.

COMMENTARY: A labor alderman in the City of Winnipeg. Member of the Strike Committee. Upholsterer by trade. Only one of the seven to be acquitted on all seven counts. Defended himself. His address to the jury took all of one day.

JUDGE: Reverend William Ivens. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Had been ousted from the Methodist church for his pacifist views. Subsequently founded a labor church in the Winnipeg Trades and Labor hall. At the time of his arrest was editor of the Western Labor News. Defended himself. His address to the jury took 14 hours. While in prison, elected to the legislature for the Independent Labor Party, where he served 16 years.

JUDGE: R.E. Bray. On six counts of seditious conspiracy, not guilty. On the charge of committing a common nuisance, Guilty. Sentence: six months in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Soldier. Member of the Strike Committee. Representative from the Soldiers Committee. Philosophically a pacifist. Only joined the army to get work. Subsequently becomes an organiser for the newly-founded One Big Union. Spends his reclining years in Vancouver growing gladiolas.

JUDGE: George Armstrong. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Member of the Strike Committee. Member and one-time organizer of the United Brotherhood of Carpenter and Joiners of America. Prominent lecturer for the Socialist Party of Canada. While in prison elected to the Manitoba Legislature on a reformist ticket. Subsequently returns to write and speak for the Socialist Party in relative obscurity.

JUDGE: John Queen. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: A silver-tongued labor orator. Alderman of the city of Winnipeg. Advertising Manager of the Western Labor News. While in prison, elected to the Manitoba Legislature and subsequently reelected the rest of his life. Serves seven terms as the mayor of Winnipeg.

JUDGE: R.F. Johns. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Railroad machinist. Active member of the Socialist Party of Canada. During entire strike was in Eastern Canada involved in other union activities. His imprisonment results in an undue strain on his wife causing him to drop all Socialist activities. He returns to school to become a machinist teacher and ultimately the Manitoba Director of Technical Education.

JUDGE: William A. Pritchard. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Vancouver organizer for the longshoremen's union. In Winnipeg on a four-day visit as executive representative of the Vancouver Trades and Labor Council. A prominent speaker for the Socialist Party of Canada. His address to the jury, two days, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. each, becomes a classic in judicial circles. Pressures from his imprisonment have tragic effects upon his family. He is subsequently several times elected the Reeve of Burnaby and is a key factor in the founding of the reformist British Columbia CCF Party. For this latter act some of his fellow socialists never forgave him. In 1979 three years before his death at the age of 93, in his home in Los Angeles he wrote "Had the government carried out its initial move there would not have been any trial. . . Andrews, principal counsel for the crown went one evening to the Penitentiary and announced: By tomorrow you will all be deported to Britain — wives and children to follow. . . . But Armstrong at once called out: Hey, Alfie! What are you going to do with me? Send me to Alaska? He was born in York, Toronto. This put the kibosh on the hurriedly devised scheme."

COMMENTARY: Two others are tried separately.

JUDGE: F. .J. Dixon. For your part in writing and circulating articles in the Western Labor News you are hereby charged with seditious libel.

COMMENTARY: A labor member of the Provincial legislature, undertook the publication of Western Labor News when the others were arrested. Made a stellar performance of conducting his own defence and despite hostile charge from the judge, after 40 hours the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty.

COMMENTARY: R.B. Russell is charged on six counts of seditious conspiracy and one count of common nuisance.

JUDGE: R.B. Russell. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: two years in Stoney Mountain Penitentiary.

COMMENTARY: Secretary of Canadian Railroad Machinists. Esteemed to be leader of the strike. Prominent member of the Socialist Party of Canada for which he runs while in prison. He is narrowly defeated by fellow strike supporter, Dixon, on the second count of a preferential ballot. Labor throughout the world demands a pardon for him as far away as Glasgow, Scotland, threaten a general strike if he is not released. He is pardoned. Upon release, he becomes secretary and main organizer for the newly founded One Big Union. It is Russell's expressed intention to fight for workers on the industrial field, while at the same time educate them in socialist ideas for the ultimate abolition of capitalism. For a while the OBU makes an impressive impact upon labor scene; its presence being felt in a wide spectrum, including Nova Scotia miners, textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in New York and San Francisco and amongst western lumber workers. For fifteen years it publishes a weekly journal with union business interspersed with socialist theory. But the writing is on the wall. The OBU has to fight on too many fronts: employers with an understandable mutual antagonism; government; police; and other unions — first there is the international craft unions, then the international industrial unions — and the Communist Party, whose worm-within and Moscow-obedience policy is scorned by the OBU. Ultimately the OBU withers to a mere Winnipeg base. After 43 years, at the founding of the Canadian Labor Congress in 1962 what remained of it is officially disbanded. On Labor Day 1964, four weeks before his death, Bob Russell is officially recognised as the father of labor in Manitoba. A school and a wing of a children's hospital are named after him. [Pause]

In the words of Pritchard at the time ". . . in my own mind I rest assured that the historian of the future will drive the knife of critical research into the very bowels of the bogey that has been conjured forth out of the imagination of certain legal luminaries of this city; and placing everything in its proper position will appreciate at their worth each fact and each factor; and will appreciate at their proper worth all those persons who have become part and parcel of what has been conceded to be the greatest case in the history of Canada."