A reasonable journey (2025)

From the March 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Richard Headicar describes how his socialist viewpoint on the world developed, and some of the people he met along the way.

Few, if any, of the guests at my 21st birthday party in 1954 would ever have imagined that their cheerful host – then a chauvinistic, Tory-supporting Christian monarchist – might someday become a member of the SPGB. Indeed, I would myself have dismissed such a proposition as utterly delusional. Yet while some may consider such a comprehensive transition remarkable, I simply regard it as nothing more than the consequence of a number of eminently reasonable decisions taken in the light of changing circumstances.

In fact, although I was blissfully unaware of it, the first seed of change had already been planted. It had been surreptitiously sown a week previously by Dr Donald Soper on my very first visit to Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park. Soper was one of three brilliant Methodist preachers who had held me spellbound from the age of 14 by their outstanding oratory (the others were Dr Leslie Weatherhead and Dr William Sangster, then the doyen of Westminster Central Hall and the grandmaster of the craft of homiletics). What Donald Soper said that day about the use of atomic bombs against Japan completely shocked me. He cast doubt upon the official version of events offered in justification: that doing so averted the need for an invasion, thereby saving millions of lives. So profound was my disbelief that I departed the park firmly resolved to prove him mistaken. Surely, I thought, governments – well, Western governments anyway – would never countenance such an extreme act without incontrovertible reasons. My shock was much greater, however, on discovering that not only was everything Soper said absolutely true, but there was so much more that he had omitted to say. For several years I became immersed in trying to learn all that I could about the real situation, following a trail from Gottingen (where research into nuclear physics had been carried out) to Los Alamos (in California where the first atomic bombs were developed) through to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Needless to say, I had not the faintest notion of where this newly-acquired knowledge would lead me, never for a moment thinking that it would affect my political allegiance. Very soon, however, a series of events occurred that were to have a significant impact in that respect.

The first of these was the Suez crisis in 1956. Out of curiosity, I joined a march from Speakers’ Corner to Trafalgar Square where a massive anti-war rally was taking place. All I knew about Egypt was that it had pyramids and that according to headlines dominating the popular press, a scheming Egyptian politician named Nasser was causing trouble. Also that the British Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, seemed to be changing his mind every week about what he should do. But, once again, my political complacency was challenged when I learned of the dubious motives of the Western powers, centred on the protection of their substantial economic interests in the Middle East. One of the speakers that day was Anuerin Bevan, another compelling orator, and the passionate humanity of his words persuaded me that perhaps the Labour Party was the place to be in order to restore my faith in our political leaders…

Over the ensuing years, as a result of my ongoing investigations into the labyrinthine deceptions surrounding the manufacture and use of the first atomic bombs, I developed a particular concern regarding the rapid escalation of the arms race, especially in relation to nuclear weapons. My next reasonable step seemed only logical: on 7 February 1958, I attended the inaugural public meeting of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Appropriately enough, given my wavering but just about extant Methodist beliefs, the meeting was convened at Westminster Central Hall.

The promising news that over 70 Labour MPs had pledged their support to the cause provided precisely the nudge I needed to join the Labour Party. At its 1960 conference in Scarborough, a unilateralist motion proposed by Frank Cousins, the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union (T&GWU) succeeded in winning a narrow majority. It was countered immediately by Labour Party leader Hugh Gaitskell with his oft-quoted, highly emotional avowal to ‘fight and fight and fight again to save the party we love’. Amazingly, it was at this point in the Labour Party’s long history that a group of MPs came to the realisation that the use of the ‘block vote’ was ‘undemocratic’. This was something the left-wing minority had been pointing out for many years, but obviously such a belated recognition of their previously disregarded submission was in no way related to the fact that, on this occasion, it had worked against the Executive Committee. Bill Rodgers, aided and abetted by four other ‘moderate’ MPs – Dick Taverne, Anthony Crosland, Douglas Jay and Roy Jenkins – wasted little time in forming the Campaign for Democratic Socialism (CDS). These fervent supporters of democracy, however, appeared determined to devote most of their energy in a concerted effort to portray CND as a haven for ‘communists’.

A deliciously ironic confirmation that my initial optimism about the Labour Party might have been misplaced occurred on the publication of the Tory government’s 1961 Statement on the Defence Estimates about military budgets. Five Labour Party MPs, including future leader Michael Foot, had the whip withdrawn (basically, expelled) for voting against the government. I was not altogether surprised, therefore, when at Labour’s Blackpool conference, the combination of a dodgy ‘compromise’ proposal, more skulduggery and blatant vote fiddling, by which certain Unions were permitted to reverse their original mandate, ensured that the 1960 unilateralist resolution was duly overturned. In his excellent pamphlet Nuclear Disarmament and the Labour Party, Tony Southall comments ‘one important effect of the new events in 1960-1 was that a whole generation of CND activists shunned the party’.

So far as I was concerned, fully awakened at least to the routine misappropriation of the word ‘democracy’ in pursuit of political expediency, I left the Labour Party, never to return. It was a disappointment to me that so many of my unilateralist comrades chose to remain. By now thoroughly despairing of party politics and sadly disillusioned with the efficacy of ‘democracy’, I was increasingly drawn to the philosophy of anarchism. Nevertheless, I remained firmly wedded to the unilateralist cause while undergoing a number of shifts and slides in my personal evaluation of the official CND position. I found it too narrow and confining and much preferred the intellectually stimulating atmosphere of the divergent attitudes I encountered in the Committee of 100 direct action group. Although broadly supportive of CND’s work, it remained absolutely independent and welcomed other speakers who presented the anti-war case in varying styles and from an individual perspective.

For some time I had been running a platform every Saturday and Sunday at Speakers’ Corner centred around CND. I also participated regularly in acts of civil disobedience and eventually ended up in jail for protesting at the Soviet embassy. I was sentenced in October 1961, a day or so after the Labour Party’s infamous Blackpool conference. Coincidentally, I was due to take part in a much-anticipated debate with an eloquent SPGB representative, Melvin Harris, but was prevented from doing so at Her Majesty’s pleasure. I often wonder whether had I not been so inconsiderately detained, my SPGB membership would have been more expeditious? A much-missed friend and comrade, Edmund ‘Eddie’ Grant, relished relating his own version of my non-appearance, that I simply got cold feet at the last moment and deliberately chose prison as a means of avoiding the superior reasoning of the SPGB.

During the years I spent speaking in Hyde Park on behalf of CND, I’m afraid that I regarded the SPGB as an arrogant bunch who found it almost impossible to see merit in anyone but themselves. In relation to CND, although the SPGB’s criticism of it was correct, the unengaging, predominantly negative manner in which it was presented was decidedly counter-productive. Eddie Grant was one of only three members with whom I enjoyed regular dialogue in a friendly and non-judgemental manner then. Eddie, especially, was a welcome visitor to my platform and in his deceptively disarming way invariably raised thought-provoking questions.

An excellent example of Eddie’s method of patient, albeit politely persistent interpolation is the imaginative ruse he employed to breach my unyielding refusal to entertain the possibility of a society devoid of money or markets. The apparent immutability of both had been deeply ingrained in my psyche from a very early age. Following the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s pioneering book Silent Spring, Eddie had listened to me orating passionately on the disastrous effect on the environment resulting from military activity and developments. On the next occasion we met he presented me with a piece of paper on which he had copied a quote from William Morris:

‘Is there money to be gathered? Cut down the pleasant trees among the houses, pull down the ancient and venerable buildings for the money that a few square yards of London dirt will fetch; blacken rivers, hide the sun and poison the air with smoke or worse, and it’s nobody’s business to see it or mend it: that is all that modern commerce, the counting house forgetful of the workshop, will do for us herein’ (The Lesser Arts) .

He also recommended two books: Morris’s News From Nowhere and Robert Tressell’s The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists. Unfortunately, my reading at the time continued to be dominated by the tedious and complex tomes concerned with weapons and ‘defence’ strategies. I was also becoming increasingly interested in the ideas propounded by various philosophers. Consequently, some 20 years elapsed before I finally read Robert Tressell’s heart-breaking but inspiring masterpiece and grasped that the rational implications of the William Morris quotation spoke of the necessity for a change far more fundamental than environmental intervention. It was only many years after I joined the SPGB that I finally got round to reading News From Nowhere, prior to a talk I gave at Fircroft on ‘The Stateless Society’. With Eddie very much in mind, I included the quote he had handed me all those years previously.

It was at Speakers’ Corner also that I met the Hungarian philosopher Alfred Reynolds (Reinhold), who was to prove by far the greatest influence in my life. He somehow managed to transform my thinking and attitudes without once telling me I was ‘wrong’ but instead patiently explaining his points of disagreement without once claiming they were ‘right’. Two areas in which he shared valuable insights were the danger of ‘group thinking’ and the ‘nature of truth’. He held much respect, even affinity, for the SPGB and claimed that at some point in the 1930s he was briefly a member, though for reasons that I recount in a brief biography I have just completed, it would have been under an assumed name that he joined.

In the mid-1980s, when I gave a talk for the Islington branch of the SPGB (prior to becoming a member myself), a telling contribution from Eddie Grant, challenging my rejection of the democratic process, removed the final obstacle to SPGB membership. I became a member of the Party in 1988 and Eddie’s lucid rebuttal of my contention that the right to vote was meaningless was instrumental in that decision. Given my many conversations with him during the preceding years, my protracted journey to membership should have been much shorter. Alas, I had been too preoccupied with saving the world from perceived nuclear annihilation to pay proper attention to his wise illuminations.

In the process of change, interspersed with landmark episodes, there are countless subtle and often subconscious influences too complex and personal to properly record, and some are perhaps destined to remain unfathomable. I frequently ponder upon my own readiness to take the reasonable steps that led me to my eventual destination.

Was I born with a predisposition to more readily embrace ‘logical’ development? How much importance should be given to the impact the Methodist preachers had and the early lessons they conveyed to me about listening, constructing and delivering an argument and the use of humour? Would I ever have moved on at all if I had not been confronted with those dramatic political events? How much does the chance of circumstance play? Meeting with such exceptional individuals as Eddie and Alfred was most assuredly not pre-ordained.

Are we simply the products of our personal, social and political environments? If this is so, why are we not ‘behaviourists’ like B F Skinner? Is becoming a socialist the result of a conscious choice, and what do we mean by this? If choice is assumed, can we ever be sure it is not merely the result of circumstance? In presenting the case for socialism, should more consideration than at present be given to the philosophical and psychological implications?

Richard Headicar

Blogger's Note:

Richard's obituary appeared in the same issue of the Socialist Standard.

Obituary: Richard Headicar (2025)

Obituary from the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

In January, we received the sad news that our very popular, long-standing member, Richard Headicar had died shortly after Christmas, aged 91, having been in ill-health for some time. Years ago, he had been diagnosed with throat cancer. After treatment, his voice was considerably weaker, which unfortunately curtailed his public speaking activities that he performed so well. Nevertheless, he remained cheerful and positive, as always.

I first met Richard in the mid-1980s when he gave a talk as a non-member at a public meeting of the old Islington Branch. At that meeting, although he spoke as a critical visitor, he continued the friendly and non-judgemental dialogue with several members at his regular platform at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park. Richard continued to attend our meetings to discuss his evolving political ideas and he joined the Party in 1988. He subsequently represented us with great oratorical skill, passion and humour at many indoor and outdoor meetings. He was particularly experienced and adept at dealing with hecklers at public meetings. He was a regular and committed attendee of Islington Branch and stood as the Party’s candidate in the Holborn & St Pancras constituency for the 1992 General Election. His friendly and engaging manner and persuasive ability helped the branch thrive in terms of making new members, talks, debates and social events. He was very sociable and always keen to continue the discussion/debate in the pub after meetings. At Head Office, he served on the Executive Committee for a few years and ran classes for new speakers, passing on to members the benefit of his long and valuable experience.

Speaking at Hyde Park in the 1980s.

Richard and I soon discovered that we shared an interest in football and tennis. This led to regular games of tennis, and we were often joined on court by a number of members and friends. With his wicked sense of humour, he loved to wind people up on various subjects. Knowing that I dislike and don’t celebrate Christmas because of its awful mix of intense commercialism, nonsensical religion and tiresome clichés, he would gleefully wind me up by sending me ghastly Christmas cards every year with a personal message cheekily explaining that he’d deliberately chosen the worst-taste card he could find, with a picture of angels, a snowy scene with Santa Claus or maybe a cute-looking robin.

He had become a vegetarian in 1960, when there were very few veggie restaurants in London. He enjoyed good food, beer and wine (especially a good Rioja) and often invited friends and comrades to his philosophy-focused dinner parties. His wide-ranging interests included philosophy, environmentalism, music, sport, politics, literature, music and perhaps more bizarrely, watching ‘B’ movies; he was also fond of board and other games, e.g the classic table football game Subbuteo (way back, he’d taken on the inventor, P.A. Adolph, and proudly told me he’d only narrowly lost 2-1).

He was a bit of a technophobe and a critical observer of certain modern social trends, particularly the growing obsession with computers and mobile phones. We had a good laugh when he told me about several cities introducing a ’texting lane’ on pavements in an attempt to prevent collisions between pedestrians.

Later in life, he retired to Hethersett near Norwich where he lived in a sheltered housing complex. Ever the activist, and as a champion of social housing, he worked hard to support the residents and further their interests. He also participated in diverse village groups such as dementia support, pensioners’ rights, bereavement and bowls.

Across his life Richard had been greatly influenced by the Hungarian philosopher Alfred Reynolds, so much so that in recent years he wrote a biography of him that was reviewed in the March 2024 Socialist Standard. Without doubt, all those who met him will recognise that Richard was a real character and he will be greatly missed by the party and all who knew him. Our condolences go to his family and friends.

Chris Dufton

Blogger's Note:

The accompanying pictures of Richard are not from this month's Socialist Standard but are from this piece on Richard from the Sounds of the Park website. (Credit to Sophie Polyviou for the more recent picture.)

I had the good fortune to be in the same London branch as Richard in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and I can only echo Chris's fine sentiments in his obituary. An engaging and kind comrade, Richard had time for everyone, and had a particular skill in conveying socialist ideas in a unique manner. (None of my blood and thunder class war cliches.) The SPGB were lucky to have him in our ranks.

Editorial: On the Cause of War. (1908)

Editorial from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the Cause of War.

A few years ago the Sociological Society published some papers by J. S. Stuart-Glennie on “Some General Historical Laws,” designed to establish, among other things, that a “periodic law” operated to bring into inevitable conflict the East and the West, the Mongol races and the Aryan races at intervals of half a millennium. The Russo-Japanese War seems to have happened most opportunely for the purposes of the argument, and was hailed by our author as a palpable fulfilment of his prophecy: “Thus as, long years ago, I predicted from this periodic law, there has occurred in this twentieth century another of those great European-Asian conflicts which, at intervals of approximately half-a-millennium, have marked the age since the upbreak of the truly ancient civilisations in the sixth century B.C.”

The order of the events which culminated in this last upheaval are given thus: “The first epoch opened the Graeco-Roman half-millennium which culminated in the world conquest of Alexander . . . and of Aristotle. The second, that of Julius and Augustus Caesar and the establishment of Christianism by Constantine. The third, that of Mohammed and the first conquests of Islam, opened the Medieval half-millennium of the Byzantine empire and the barbarous Western anarchy only temporarily abated by Charlemagne. The fourth, the Asiatic conquests of the Turks and the first Crusades opened the Feudal half-millennium. The fifth opened the modern Industrial half-millennium of access to and attack on Further Asia, and the establishment of the Crescent for the Cross in Asiatic Europe.” The sixth epoch was punctuated by the Russo-Japanese War and—there you are ! The Russo-Japanese War was clearly ordained by the Fates about the time the crust of the earth was solidifying, and couldn’t have been otherwise.

The Revelations of General Kuropatkin.

Clearly, therefore, General Kuropatkin’s idea that the whole cause of the trouble was merely a dirty financial deal in which the Russian Royal House was engaged, has not taken into account the whole of the case. The Russian Royal Family doubtless wanted the timber wealth of Manchuria and were quite prepared to ride rough-shod over all the undertakings ever made in the name of their country ; they were prepared to drench a continent in blood in order to put money into their own pockets, and, on the showing of Kuropatkin, did it. These, however, were mere accidental causes only. Actually, on the hypothesis of “periodic law,” the war was, like the salvation of the soul of the hard-shelled Baptist, foreordained before the foundation of the world.

We fear, however, few students of history will be able to subscribe to Mr. Stuart-Glennie’s thesis on the evidence adduced. They will be far more ready to accept Kuropatkin’s plain statement of the immediate causes of the war, the more particularly as all wars can, with a high degree of certainty, be connected with approximately similar causes. Mr. Stuart-Glennie’s “periodic law” could not apply unless the conditions, at the expiration of the half-millennium time limit, were favourable to war between the races concerned. If a forest fire had swept Manchuria free of timber a year or two before the outbreak between Russia and Japan, the “periodic law” would have been punctured, if, as Kuropatkin asserts on indisputable evidence, it was the fact that the timber land was the bone of financial contention. The “law” that depends upon so small and accidental a thing as a bonfire, is not one to base large calculations upon.

Some Cant and a Lesson.

Once again, then, it is established that wars are in general the outcome of conflict of economic interests. And once again we are brought up against the rant or the cant that the moralist newspaper gentlemen, who are pleased to do our thinking for us, and who are concerned to ascribe, as far as possible, other causes to wars in order that the truth may be obscured, retail for our consumption. Where, as in the case of the Russo-Japanese War, the “gaff has been blown” so thoroughly by a man in a position to speak with absolute authority as Kuropatkin, it is difficult to disguise the brutal, sordid facts. The only thing possible, therefore, is to speak as though the case were quite exceptional. At this sort of game the Daily News is always first class. In its leading article upon the subject it delivers itself thus : “We had known that a Royal Family’s greed played a considerable part in this horrible business ; we now know that it was the moving cause, and that, but for the greed of the St. Petersburg Court circle the war would never have occurred.” And again : “Deliberately to bring about one of the most terrific wars of history in order that a worthless set of royal relations, hanging about a court, may handle a little more gold than they had before, is a development that may suit a commercial age, but adds a new shame to the history of mankind.”

“New shame !” There is nothing new in it. It doesn’t make a difference in the “shame” because the persons standing to benefit are a royal gang of financiers and not a gang of professional bucket shop keepers, or capitalists in quest of new markets. It’s the old “shame,” as old as wars are old, and the only “moral” there is to it, is the lesson it offers for working-class learning, that the capitalist class control the State, because they dominate politics, and are prepared to use all the power of their control in their own interests, whether they lie in the direction of using the weaponed arm of the State for the purpose of cracking the heads of native workmen who manifest discontent, or in the direction of carrying on an aggressive policy abroad for the markets of the world and the benefit of their own banking accounts. In either case the remedy lies in the workers capturing political control in their own interest —the interest of the useful section of society.

Hell in the Clouds.

Discussing the further question of the development of aerial navigation and its possible relation to war, the organ of the “Prince of Peace” pursues its dull and melancholy way:—

“To drop various explosives down upon large objects like cities would not be difficult, but, after all, there are such things as Hague Conventions against the random destruction of private property.”

“Fool and slow of heart, who hath bewitched you?” Verily, the faith of the Daily News in Hague Conventions is of the brand that ought to move mountains. But faith never yet moved a mountain and there is no reason to suppose it will be more efficacious in the future than in the past—not even when the object to be moved is a mountain of stupidity or fraud such as the Hague Convention undoubtedly is. The question is, can the Hague Convention prevent the conflict of national commercial interests ? If it can, and when it does, it may stop wars which are, every one, the outcome of capitalist rapacity. But as it doesn’t try to stay the war of capitalist commerce, and could not effect it if it did, it follows that the interference of the Hague Conventions will stop wars when wars are impossible ! Just then.

But, say the peace-makers, the Hague Convention, we know, cannot stop wars, but it can by agreement, humanise them. It could, for example, rule out airships, or at any rate, prevent their use in the discharge of explosives from above and so on. Yes, it can—as it ruled out expanding bullets, and the inhuman practice of smoking out the enemy who had taken refuge in caves, and all the rest of it. But its ruling would not affect the matter worth tuppence for all that. It did not in South Africa.

The way of Peace.

You can’t humanise war. If you could it would not be war. While we have wars we must have inhumanity. And we must have wars until Socialism. Because even assuming the possibility of the present development of capitalism toward monopoly, reaching the universal trust stage, wars between sections of the working class and the dominant power would still continue, and probably be far more bloody than now. Even now we have our Right Honourable John Burnses and others of the “humanity-mongers” calling for the use of the deadliest weapons in industrial struggles.

The immediate object of war is to dispose of the opposing forces. To do that, if they won’t cave in, “you must kill ’em, and kill ’em, and kill ’em blooming dead” as somebody said somewhere. And you don’t kill ’em with humanity either. You use explosives and steel. The idea is to get as much explosive matter pumped in as possible in order that the opposition may be crumpled up the quicker. And that’s where the balloon may come in. If it can be used in that way to suit capitalist purposes it certainly will be; and would be the day after the signing of a Hague Convention, by all concerned, prohibiting it.

The only power that can stand between the people and the inhumanity of war is the organised working class of the world. The only hope that the intelligent peace-makers have against the possibility of serial machines dumping murder upon them from the clouds, is in the working class of the world organising themselves before the navigation of the air has reached the stage of the efficiently practical. Their only hope, that is, is Socialism. An for the peace-makers of the Daily News order, they merely howl “peace” when there is no peace— nor can be.

Editorial: Volume V. (1908)

Editorial from the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

With this issue THE SOCIALIST STANDARD enters upon its fifth volume, and each volume represents twelve issues containing more real information of Socialism and the Socialist Movement than any paper of whatever size appearing in this country. For four years THE SOCIALIST STANDARD has appeared with regularity each month, notwithstanding that our death as a party after three month’s existence was foretold by the quidnuncs; and notwithstanding the opposition of those who sought to silence us by the operation of the law of libel.

For four years the Party Organ has maintained consistently the attitude of hostility to all the forces seeking the maintenance of capitalism, palliated or otherwise; and for a like period the claims of Socialism as the one subject of real interest to the working class have been maintained against those who, on the one side, while persistently calling themselves Socialists, are busy following the will-o-the-wisp of the “practical” politicians into the bogs of reform, and against those who err on the other side and would sacrifice the Socialist Movement to their own horror of the temptations of political action, by relinquishing the strongest weapon the working class ever can have in its struggle for emancipation—the political weapon—because that weapon, corroded by its long connexion with the oppressing class, corrupts some of those who attempt to grasp it for their own selfish or misguided ends.

For a party such as ours, dependent entirely on the voluntary work of its members, without a single individual financially interested in either the Party or its Organ, the existence and the appearance of our paper is something of which the Party membership may well be proud. Written by workmen in the brief intervals between toil and sleep, its articles are always, we believe, easy of understanding by those who, like the writers, have first-hand experience of the conditions of the problem with which they treat.

While, however, our paper is justifiably a source of pride, it is so, we would remind you, only because it is our paper, and being ours, we, the Party, are responsible for it. Let the Party, then, remember its responsibilities. Anything which can provide a point for the further explanation of Socialism, in anything they may be reading, members should make a note of, cut it out if possible, and send it to the Head Office clearly marked.

Our paper is a very important item in the work of the Party, and the energies of every member are needed to ensure its success. Everyone can do something, if it is only selling it, and if the members will remember the claims of their Party Organ, Volume V. will probably show them developments and improvements which will make it of even greater service than it has been in the past.

The first three volumes, bound together, had a good sale and are even yet obtainable from the Head Office. It may be that the four volumes now completed will be obtainable similarly bound together. If so, they will represent such a collection of Socialist literature as to provide a valuable addition to the bookshelves of the student of this important and interesting subject.

Editorial: The Eight Hour Day. (1908)

Editorial from the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Eight Hour Day.

The speeding up of the workman, the ever-growing intensity of the labour exacted from him, renders imperative a longer repose so that he may recuperate his working strength and maintain his maximum productivity. Hence flows the modern tendency toward shorter hours so that the profitableness of the worker to the capitalist may increase. It is the necessary and inevitable outcome of modern industrial conditions even from the capitalist point of view, and is by no means a sign of victory over the ruling class.

If the champions of the eight hour day were to confine themselves to stating the truth about their pet reform there would be little need to quarrel with them, but when they claim as one of the virtues of the eight hour day that it will abolish or greatly reduce unemployment, we join issue. It is rankest charlatanism to foist a piece of some necessary capitalistic patchwork upon the slow-minded as the remedy for the workers’ greatest ill, yet, unfortunately, it is the characteristic procedure of the labour leader.

In the present instance, if the reduction of working hours is to bring about more employment, it could only be by decreasing the output per man, and providing more work by causing the employment of more men to produce the same amount as before. But would it have any such effect ? So far as positive evidence goes it is directly against any presumption of a lessening of the output per man. Even past masters in the art of red-herring trailing give themselves away at times. Thus Sidney Webb and Harold Cox in their book, “The Eight Hour Day,” state in considering the result of a general reduction of the hours of labour in all trades that—

“The successive reductions of the hours of labour which this century has witnessed have been attended, after a very short interval, by a positive general increase in individual productivity. In many cases it has been found that the workers did more in ten hours than their predecessors in twelve. The effort to get more than a certain amount of work out of a man defeats itself.”

__________

The question that matters.

Instance after instance is given of the increase in efficiency and output that follows the reduction of the working day, showing how chimerical is the idea that a slight reduction in hours will put the unemployed in work.

Even as recently as the opening of the Mining Exhibition at Olympia on July 11th evidence was given of the normal result of a shortening of hours. Thus Lord Airedale of Gledhow: —

“In regard to the question of an Eight Hour Day, and of the consequent restriction of the hours of labour in mines, and the question of the increased cost that they were threatened with by mine owners, owing to the difficulties arising from the limitation of hours, he ventured to think that from what they saw that day of coal machinery, the mining engineers of that country would rise to the situation, and by the application of technical knowledge, he believed the threatened crisis would really not arise. It was cheering to note by such exhibitions that mechanical invention knew no end, and if it paid to use machinery when increased cost of labour came in, they might be assured that the difficulty would be successfully dealt with.”

It should be clear, then, that however necessary to capitalist development the reduction of the hours of labour may be, and however useful it may be in other respects, yet it most certainly is not the panacea for the great and growing evil of unemployment that its champions would have us believe. Besides, the question which overshadows all others in the eyes of the worker conscious of his position is not the paltry juggle with hours of labour, but rather the vital question of to whom shall the product of these working hours go ?

The workers, indeed, instead of wasting precious time and energy discussing and petitioning as to the particular sauce with which they are to be eaten, should at last awaken to the fact that it is not necessary that they should be eaten at all, and should take their stand with us accordingly.

Editorial: Exit Unrestricted Competition. (1908)

Editorial from the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Exit Unrestricted Competition. 

“The truth is that the assumption made by economists and by public opinion during the greater part of the last century, that unchecked competition would always secure the public the cheapest and most efficient service, is one which does not apply to railways, and which may be found in the future to be inapplicable to an increasing number of other businesses. The risks attending competition are too great.”—Morning Post.

Of course ! Unrestricted competition is a good thing, the thing upon which the greatness of the Empire has been built up and depended, the thing that made for stamina and fitness, that developed enterprise, and all the rest of it, until—until the risks became too great, until, that is, it ceased to pay. Now we drop the cant and go in for combines and the elimination of competitive waste, because that way lies the larger profit. If the maintenance of the ancient method spells the disintegration of the Empire —perish Empire ! Perish fitness, perish enterprise, perish everything, but leave us still our profits !

____________

Capitalist Concentration.

Some of the effects of this railway combine are already making themselves felt. In London the G.W.R. and the G.C.R. have managed to close eight town offices between them. Similar savings are being effected in other departments. A reduction of the Staff of the Railway Clearing House is rumoured and will inevitably occur. The L. & N.W.R. and the Midland Railway will find themselves in the position of being forced to take steps similar to those taken by the G.N.R. and G.C.R. (into which combination, by the way, the G.E.R. has now entered) and will take those steps gladly. Indeed, pooling arrangements have for a long period been in operation between the L. & N.W.R. and the Midland Railway, and a working agreement exists between the L. & N.W.R. and the L. & Y. Co.—a case of intelligent anticipation. Notwithstanding official denials, it is absolutely certain that an extension of this agreement is being arranged, and out will go more workers on to the labour market.

____________

The Struggle for Existence Intensifies.

Every economy means, as was pointed out in the last issue, displaced labour. Every move toward capitalist efficiency means a greater intensity of labour exploitation and a keener struggle for existence. The nationalisation of the railways offers no way of escape to the railway workers. As the capitalist Manchester Guardian points out in its article on Railway Alliances:—

“Prices on the Stock Exchange rise when such a scheme is announced and drop at the prospect of a continuance of present methods. We may expect, therefore, that when the time comes for the consideration of some larger scheme of national management our present railway proprietors and managers will be among the most convincing witnesses in favour of its economy and administrative advantages.”

Or, in other words, the capitalist class will itself be quite ready to appreciate the advantages of nationalisation because that means, under the present system, the conservation of their class interests. Better conditions for the workers, even for those the elimination of waste has spared employment, is a matter of very minor moment indeed, and then is conditional upon increased productivity.

____________

The Way Out.

No. Against the trend of commercial development toward concentration nothing can stand. No reform, no misnamed palliative, is of any avail to appreciably soften the grinding, crushing, devastating effect of its outworking upon the proletariat. There is no solution at all for the problem, no hope at all for the workers, outside Socialism. Only the Socialist Party has the message of good cheer. And the Socialist Party (that is, in England, the S.P.G.B.), while insisting upon the futility of any reform and the fatuity of the reformer, points out that capitalism, gorging itself to satiety with every increasing profit on the one hand, is perforce digging its own grave on the other. This concentration has effected the practical elimination of the capitalist himself from the sphere of actual production. The working class is in command of the workshop and the factory. The whole process of wealth creation is in the hands of wage earners. Socialism will give them the control of the product as capitalism has given them control of production. Only then will poverty cease to exist. Only then will the workers achieve their freedom. Meanwhile our business is to go forward, undeterred by the influences that astute capitalism has surrounded the Labour Leader with to his undoing, refusing to dabble with the pettifoggeries of the reform parties, that must spell no more than disappointment or apathy or both to the workers misguided enough to follow at the tail of such agitations,—to go forward with our work of preaching discontent, of explaining economic phenomena in the light of Socialist philosophy, of agitating, educating, and organising the working class until, recognising their position and their power, they accomplish the capture of political might in order that they may secure themselves in the possession of the means of living, and enjoy unmolested the product of their own toil.

Editorial: Brimstone and Treacle. (1908)

Editorial from the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Speaking at Leicester on May 24th, Ramsay MacDonald, in moving a vote of thanks to “General” Booth, stated (Morning Leader, 25.5.08) “I have a good many irons in the fire, but there is not a single iron that I find the Salvation Army does not hold one end of.” So much the worse for the irons of Ramsay MacDonald.

o o o

“I am sitting on the Committee dealing with the Children’s Bill, and when we get into any difficulty or want any particulars,” he went on, “below the bar sit two representatives of the ‘Army,’ and they are prepared to extricate us.” Verily the source of MacDonald’s inspiration is enough to justify any act of political lunacy he may, and frequently does, indulge in. If having so many irons in the fire compels him to rely upon officers of the Salvation Army for information on the condition of the children question, it’s certainly time he took a few irons out. It is not an edifying spectacle to see even Ramsay MacDonald burning his fingers.

This, however, may be relied upon. Directly it may safely be done, MacDonald will burn his boats at present moored to the Salvation Army pier. Therefore, “lest we forget,” we credit his political account with this laudation of the most expert sweating organisation extant.

____________________

More Labour Unity.

Will Thorne, fellow-member of the Labour Party with Ramsay MacDonald, does not agree at all with the latter’s estimate of the utility of the Salvation Army. While MacDonald (same speech) thinks that “whatever agency comes and goes, the country cannot spare one agency—and that is the Salvation Army,” Thorne expresses the hope (Reynolds’s 31.5.08) that “the Salvation Army would soon be wiped out, and all such sweating organisations.”

o o o

Credit where credit is due. Will Thorne sometimes blunders into a correct position. How it is managed, I suspect, not even William could inform us. “Act of God or the King’s enemies,” as the way-bill puts it, probably ! The Salvation Army is an absolutely anti-democratic, quasi-religious body, trading upon ignorance for its membership, working upon credulity and barbaric fear for its funds, acting as capitalist hack and agent in its administration. With unctuous ostentation it professes to be saving the souls of the poor, while all the time it is damning their bodies, wringing profit out of their necessity, kudos out of their misery, and advertisement out of their weakness.

o o o

It is a blend of Pecksniff and Gradgrind, with an infusion of the Cossack. It combines the methods of the Charity Organisation Society and the Inquisition. It is at once a fire insurance company, a sweat shop, and a black-leg purveyor. It grinds the faces of the poor in defiance of the biblical injunction. It is prepared to accept the money of the usurer who was whipped out of the temple, the Judas who sold his master, the welcher, the pimp, and the rest of the congregation fore-doomed to the lake of fire which burneth for ever—according to the book of love. Has not the “General” announced that he is ready to take contributions from anybody and sanctify them in further use ?

____________________

The Last Straw.

With the result thus acquired the Salvation Army dispenses hell and skilly to the “submerged ten” (human derelicts who, forced to choose between the devil and the deep sea, select, for some unknown reason, the former) in the proportion of a full pound of spiritual brimstone to a pennyweight of carnal flour water. Its special line, apparently, is the saving of souls from the pit by the plentiful mortification of the flesh, and—it is the sort of organisation that Ramsay MacDonald delights to honour !

o o o

All the same, I’m surprised at Thorne. If he’s not careful Ramsay will be cutting off his two hundred. He may protest that Ramsay couldn’t, but there’s no knowing what the MacDonalds and the Hendersons couldn’t work between them. There’s no knowing what they are doing. All that Thorne and Macpherson and the rest of the Labour Party know about the inside affairs of the Labour Party in Parliament is what MacDonald and Henderson tell them. Of course it will be a “dirty shame” if Bill is cut off with a shilling, but if Bill calls Henderson names in the “House” and flouts MacDonald’s opinions outside it, what can he expect ? Besides, Bill, what about that unity of purpose on all questions affecting the working class ? What about that solid front ? Where’s it gone, Bill ? Oh, Bill! you are a naughty boy!