Farage — opportunist supreme (2025)

From the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘That means less money to cover rent, the weekly shop or a pint down the pub’ (Nigel Farage on the Labour government).

Last month’s Socialist Standard carried an article on May’s local election results which saw Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party win hundreds of seats and perhaps present a serious future threat to the traditional two-party Labour-Tory dominance of UK politics. At the same time the article pointed out that this might just be a flash in the pan, and that come the next parliamentary election Reform’s star may have waned, as has happened in the past with other seeming new pretenders to power.

Nevertheless, it also drew attention to the particularly distasteful nature of Reform’s political agenda, with its open and unashamed promotion of xenophobia, calculated to embolden those with racist outlooks and other particularly obnoxious agendas. And though the Socialist Party is not in the business of focusing its criticism on specific capitalist politicians, preferring to see individuals in that role as instruments of the system they are committed to, it would be at the very least disingenuous of us not to put some focus on the politician who is the embodiment of Reform UK and its policies. We are of course talking about Nigel Farage who is the face, we can say the inventor, of that party, without whom it is hard to imagine it could continue being any kind of force in British politics.

In this perspective it is probably useful to point to some aspects of Farage’s previous political attitudes and activities, which led up to and form at least part of the policies now being embraced by his party. We can find the following:

• In the early 1980s, when a student at Dulwich College, he is on record as voicing admiration for Hitler and was reportedly a vocal supporter of the National Front.
• When this was put to him later by a journalist, he admitted to having said ‘some ridiculous things’, but, when asked if these were racist, replied, ‘it depends how you define it’.
• Standing for UKIP at a 1994 by-election, he sought to enlist the support of the figure he called his political hero, Enoch Powell, who had become infamous for his racist ‘rivers of blood’ speech.
• In the years that followed he was associated with figures from the BNP.
• As leader of UKIP from 2006, he advocated dismantling the NHS, declared opposition to gay marriage and made numerous appearances on the Kremlin-run RT television channel, expressing admiration for Vladimir Putin and his take-over of Crimea in 2014.
• He has consistently voiced support for Donald Trump, referring to him as his ‘pal’, defending his use of misogynistic language (‘grab ‘em by the pussy’) and, in the run-up to the 2020 American elections, making a speech at a rally in Arizona in which he described Trump as ‘the single most resilient and bravest person I have ever met in my life’.
• He presented himself, in a column in The Sun newspaper in April this year, as a modern-day Keir Hardie, stating that ‘when Keir Hardie founded the Labour Party in 1893, he declared it existed to give the working man and woman a voice’, but that now ‘Keir Hardie would be turning in his grave and ‘Labour no longer represents hardworking Brits’.

So now, with characteristic opportunism, Farage, sniffing political power, is seeking to present himself as the leader of a kind of neo-Labour Party who will fix everything Labour has always promised to fix for workers but never has. Statements he has made in the past about privatising the NHS and cutting welfare benefits have ceased, and his focus is on how his party would run things, as he put it in his Sun column, ‘in the interests of the working man and woman’.

In reality, he would be no more able to do this than Labour, which, when in power, has always simply carried out the task of administering capitalism in the interests of those who monopolise society’s wealth – as any government must. So the idea that, if elected, Reform would do anything different is manifest tosh. But tosh that, currently at least, seems to be having significant purchase on workers, judging by that party’s recent local election successes.

And another button that Farage is pressing harder than ever in his courtship of voters is the crude nationalism that, as we have seen, has been present in him since an early stage. In ramping up his longstanding scapegoating of foreigners and minority groups of various kinds, he is blaming them for multiple problems suffered by ‘British’ workers which he says the current government is not taking drastic enough steps to remedy. ‘Labour’s biggest betrayal of the Red Wall is immigration’, is how he expressed this in his column in The Sun.

From what we have seen, the description of Farage as ‘xenophobic and pandering to racism’ and ‘a disingenuous grifter’ contained in a leaked memo from the Coutts’ bank he was recently and publicly in dispute with really does seem to fit the bill. But we know of course that in the end Farage is only an extreme example of the opportunism inherent in all capitalist political leaders as they seek to control a system that breeds economic chaos, poses the constant threat of war and environmental degradation and can only ever offer workers at best a few crumbs from the table of the rich.

If workers continue to follow the likes of Farage (or any other leader), it will be a long wait before we get the new system we need where the sole motive of production will be to meet the reasonable needs of all in a world society without borders or states or classes. And, of course, before that can happen, workers will also need to throw off their own sense of powerlessness and the illusion that change can only be brought about by certain exceptional individuals.

Howard Moss

Proper Gander: Being informed about informers (2025)

The Proper Gander column from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was probably a coincidence that a BBC documentary about the tyrannical Russian state was released on the same day as the government’s Defence Secretary John Healey announced increased investment to move the UK to ‘war-fighting readiness’, especially against Russia. While its timing gave the programme a propagandist tinge, it doesn’t consider how the Russian state may be a danger to those of us in the UK, but rather how it oppresses those living under its rule.

The threat of being ‘denounced’, to the extent it exists in Russia, isn’t something easy to empathise with elsewhere. Aspects of what it means to be ‘denounced’ are found in any country, as all have legislation covering what politically-motivated acts are deemed unacceptable, and anyone risks the consequences for their employment, for instance, of being publicly ‘shamed’. However, in Russia, the laws are especially strict and the state monitors dissent from its decrees closely, and so to be ‘denounced’ for transgressing them can mean particularly harsh punishments. One way which supposedly subversive activities come to the state’s attention is through informers. The two featured in the documentary Informers: Hunting The Enemy Within aren’t employed in this role, which they’ve taken on like an enthusiastically-pursued hobby. They gather up information online and in the media about would-be dissenters and often alongside targeting them directly, notify the state regulator, who may then further investigate and prosecute.

One of the informers is Valentin Botzvin, an armed forces veteran who has become ‘self-appointed guardians of Russia’s soul’, as the narration puts it. He targets those who he says ‘are forming an anti-peace system with different values’, including Alisa Gorshenina, who contributed to the design for a video by activist band Pussy Riot. The other snout featured in the programme – Anna Korobkova – is more prolific, claiming to have written 1,000 denouncements. One victim was Alexandra Arkhipova, a social anthropologist at a Russian university. In 2022, Anna sent Alexandra’s employers a letter about her ‘immoral act’ discrediting the military through her academic work, and some of her friends and colleagues were also similarly accused. Alexandra fled to France and began investigating Anna’s real identity, such as by looking for patterns in their style of writing and comparing them with other texts. The camera used for photos on Anna’s Wikipedia entry was tracked to a man called Ivan Abaturov. Alexandra found a written denouncement signed by Ivan which resembled one sent by Anna, and both were traced back to one computer IP address. When challenged, Ivan replied denying he was Anna, in the same writing style. He is described as having been a troublemaker while at university and as himself has posted on social media talking about denouncements.

While revealing ‘Anna”s true identity gives the documentary a narrative and an air of espionage, Valentin the veteran is quite open about informing. As a member of Russia’s military, he had already developed a loyalty to the state, which no doubt gave him the drive to snitch in his retirement. That there are younger people, such as Ivan, who are as keen to denounce others shows how this creed has permeated out. While they may sincerely believe that what they are doing is morally right, this is because they have adopted a belief system which just so happens to align with that of the ruling elite, even if it is against their class interests.

The mindset of those who are at risk of being informed upon is different. As Alisa explains, the threat of retribution for expressing nonconformist views makes her fearful and paranoid. Alexandra felt she had to leave Russia, as did Noize MC, a rapper who was being monitored for his ‘sharp, socially conscious lyrics’, with some of his gigs being cancelled by officials. Alisa chose to remain in Russia, saying that to leave would be to have something else taken away from her, along with her rights. A caption at the end of the programme says that she was arrested, detained and found guilty of displaying an ‘extremist’ rainbow emoji and insulting the army, for which she was fined. We’re also told that by the end of 2024, almost 3,000 critics of the war against Ukraine were being prosecuted, while almost 300,000 denunciations were registered with the state regulator in the first year of the conflict.

When a state criminalises disagreement with its ideology, this shows a weakness in any arguments for it. But this weakness is eclipsed by the strength wielded by the state through its legislation and punishments. These are applied randomly in Russia, as Alexandra explains, in that one person may avoid any sanctions for writing a provocative social media post, while others may get prosecuted just for clicking ‘like’ on one. This may be due to gaps in the resources available to the state, but as Alexandra says, this inconsistency contributes to the threat. For those who question the way they have to live, anxiety about being denounced adds pressure to self-censor. Music acts such as Pussy Riot and Noize MC bravely attempt to express some anti-state sentiment, which represents a little optimism. Unfortunately, at the moment, state oppression and limited class consciousness would make any movement for genuine change in Russia difficult to establish.

According to its iPlayer page, the BBC Eye strand offers ‘high-impact investigations and in-depth reporting from our award-winning World Service team’. With a running time of only 22 minutes, there’s a limit to how in-depth Informers: Hunting The Enemy Within could be. So the documentary doesn’t consider the context much beyond saying that denouncers threaten to ‘bring back ghosts from Russia’s past’, particularly during Stalin’s rule. Throughout the decades between then and now, the state has remained, and even when it has been less autocratic it has still enforced and engendered acceptance to maintain itself. These ‘ghosts’ may now be more active, but they’ve always haunted those living under the regime.

Mike Foster

Thoughts on the future (2025)

From the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Humans are both magnificent creators and problem-solvers as well, obviously, as beings capable of incredible stupidity and ignorance and, to quote the title of a New Order album, of power, corruption and lies. We cry at the folly of the human race, which has achieved so much in technological and scientific achievement, as it has in the arts, and yet which still continues to treat humans and the natural world as so much gunpowder to shoot out of the cannon of profit or power.

It is difficult to understand why humans put up with the resulting stress, the inefficiencies, the deprivations, the downright failures. It is as though most people view themselves as passive agents who can, at most, protest the system’s injustices in the hope that the powerful will respond, vote for what they believe to be the best alternative or at least the less offensive, and trust that the leaders and experts know what they are doing and will ensure their welfare. However, reality does not seem to conform to such expectations when it comes to protesting, voting and trusting. Instead, the system seems an inherently unstable structure, with its economic booms and depressions, its constant eruption of wars somewhere around the world, its inability to care about or effect sufficient environmental restoration, and the constant explosions of pseudoscience and misinformation that accompany cultural movements and fads, which are like commodities in the realm of ideas.

We are clearly not going to have the better world that the scientific and democratic revolutions promised us. This is because the voices of those who rightly insisted upon our release from the rule of aristocrats and the church ignorantly associated the rise of capitalist production with liberty. There is very little in capitalism to support that contention, even though those democratic revolutions released commodity production from the clutches of feudal privilege. Peasants were also released from the landlords of the ancient regime, and then fell into the equally ruthless hands of the bourgeoisie.

Change of masters

In this new world based on factory production, only the masters changed. The new ones introduced a form of ‘freedom’ without the prior obligations of the landlord. Living in slums, dressing in rags, suffering fatal industrial accidents, and being paid the least that the capitalists could get away with became the new normal, just as being owned by a master or living off one’s master’s land were the previous normal. Much of the world still resembles this embryo of a society based on greed and exploitation. Unionisation, technological advances and a degree of trickle-down economics improved the material lot of a greater percent of workers than our ancestors experienced in prior centuries, but the values that govern our system have not changed. We remain, most of us, essentially slaves to a system prioritised not to meeting the needs of the community but to making a profit.

It is amazing that the human spirit persists through this horror show that we live in. Doctors and nurses do incredible work to help the ill by putting the person first and the cost second, but health outcomes remain predicted by poverty and stress. I offer emotional support to local nursing home residents for a half a day per week, and their greatest complaint is not their medical conditions or loss of their home, although these are traumatic and depressing, but just the fact of residing somewhere that is understaffed. In such a nursing home, the residents wait long periods of time to be changed when they soil their bed. They wait hours for someone to notice they have turned on the light outside their room indicating a request for help. The food is almost inedible, after a life of homemade meals. The few activities offered hardly fill an expanse of time with nothing to do except watch TV. Muscles weaken and stiffen, and bodies waste away because physical therapy is too infrequent to make a difference.

That example is symptomatic of our entire economic system. While yes, bridges and buildings are somehow maintained, and supermarkets for most of us in the western world are stocked plentifully; the entire economic system of capitalism seems to hop along on one leg into an insecure, unstable future because one cannot predict the economy, the availability of jobs, the unemployment ahead, whether the mortgage will be paid without fail over a thirty year period, whether war will strike us, whether our planet will worsen, and how much social services will or won’t be financed based on the ideology of the constantly changing governments.

Meanwhile, our system is like a bus being driven by a thousand drivers each tugging in different directions. Because in capitalism all goods and services are commodities, thousands of companies use up human and natural resources with no intelligent oversight and with no regard for the living planet that is our home. Even the governing bodies that do exist to monitor and make recommendations about health, the environment, poverty, literacy, or other human needs, can only advocate, can only raise so much money, and must always fight cost-cutting priorities, varying ideologies, and think tanks that promote business interests by fighting activism with pseudoscience and misinformation. The needs of business and the needs of the community and of all living beings are almost always antagonistic.

A world without commodities

The one change that could definitively solve many of these intractable capitalist problems is the end of commodity production. The commodity is a feature of all shades of capitalism: moderate welfare state capitalism, state capitalism governed by autocratic left-wing or right-wing parties, or dictatorships run by charismatic narcissists, generals and religious extremists. Every government, whatever its political flavour, revolves around capitalism’s defining entity, the commodity. That institution allows the propertyless to survive only by selling their commodified skills. It allows economic production to be defined by the selling of goods and services. It limits access to society’s benefits based on priorities such as price, cost, profit and loss. It encourages thousands of companies to strip the planet like so many piranhas in the quest for profits. And its products are not produced primarily with quality, durability, or even need in mind, but mass-produced for cheapness and marketed through advertising to maximise persuasion and create false needs and wants, with oftentimes ill effects on human health, emotional wellbeing, financial security, the living planet, and other ‘externalities’ that profit cares nothing about.

A world without commodities would be one in which the priority of production would be the meeting of human needs. This would likely incentivise humans to work, to do their best, to maximise their knowledge, education, and skills, and to reduce the endless negative repercussions of the acquisitive nature of capitalism, which often brings out the worst in people. The liberty that capitalism claims to offer, which is really the liberty of capitalists to produce with minimal legal or political restrictions, comes hand-in-hand with all those externalities which erode human liberty: crime; violent gang or cartel shootings; corruption at all levels of the society; the drug trade; wars, unpleasant workplaces and work itself; rampant pseudoscience and misinformation; a worship of individualism that breeds narcissism; the widespread destruction of our oceans, lakes, rivers, forests, air, soil quality, species, and weather; the huge waste in human energy and resources that goes into managing commodities (banks, advertisers, traders, investors, insurers, ticket inspectors, sellers, buyers, exchangers, the machinery of war, and much more). All these side effects mean that capitalism erodes human liberty more than it promotes it, even in those countries fortunate enough to have some degree of freedom of speech and movement.

A world without commodities will require production under different rules. Production in the modern world merges many sciences, and so the research, planning, and execution of how best to meet human needs is essentially a scientific project. Money too often distorts this. Money is not real, but an entirely cultural and psychological phenomenon that evolved with power and property. Money does not belong in science, in the same way that political ideologies in university settings should not distort the practice and results of science. Our own world community should make use of productive machinery to meet our material needs, allowing us the freedom and liberty to live our own lives as we choose and according to our own values and interests. ‘Freedom’ will no longer be just an ideological soundbite used to con voters, but a reality, for the first time in human history.

The desire to build a world without commodities goes with the desire to live sustainably, both individually and as a culture. Capitalism, and its repressive antecedents (feudalism and slavery), distorted our concept of nature, essentially objectifying it. The rise in environmentalism represents a fairly recent development in our understanding of nature, even though it often fails to identify the economic culprit behind the objectification of living beings, namely commodity production. Socialists strive for the abolition of commodities, including the wages system, which reduces people to machines who sell their abilities to employers. Technical social questions will then be rid of financial considerations, which are not part of nature, or of our nature.

Such questions could be: Where do I want to live? What kinds of work would I find satisfying? What are the most pressing local needs that I wish to help meet? What can I do to help beautify my city? Are there realms of knowledge that I wish to contribute to? These, and many more personal questions, may finally be answered by self-knowledge, adventure, imagination, and a profound sense of serving other humans that religions can only fantasise about. A society in which our needs are in harmony with the needs of society as a whole. A society in which the purpose of production and of administration is the meeting of needs, in which we no longer fear poverty, starvation, war, or oppressive state ideologies and their henchmen. These are permanent and durable solutions to the problems that we face today, that may yield a sense of comfort and belonging that we are entitled to as humans who show our giving side each day when serving employers, families, and neighbourhoods.

We should feel that our world is ours. We are for the most part good, though imperfect, beings, who deserve a world in which our built-in, vulnerable fears of being emotionally damaged and eradicated by death should be matched by a sense that our community exists as much for us as we do for it. The eradication of the commodity, and its replacement by goods and services produced for free with the aim of meeting our needs, will bring out the best in the human animal, intellectually, emotionally, socially, and in terms of physical and emotional health.

There is no need for a world that encourages violence, competitiveness, ideological rivalry, ruthlessness and greed. Because we are imperfect beings with the potential for both good and evil, it behoves us to establish a social system that will be more likely to bring out the good than the bad. We owe that to ourselves, so that we can continue to evolve emotionally and psychologically, having finally conquered the most basic material needs of existence.

Once we have met those basic needs without unnecessary complication, stress and waste, we may continue to evolve more important qualities that today’s social system frustrates or prevents, and which our children deserve to be raised by: generosity, kindness, aesthetics, reason, gratitude, wisdom and, as beings on possibly the only planet that sustains any degree of complex life, awe at life itself, from the quantum level to the breathtakingly huge and beautiful universe, that the consciousness inside our humbly small heads allows us to marvel at.

Dr Who

Family History and Beyond (2025)

Book Review from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Remembering Peasants: a Personal History of a Vanished World. By Patrick Joyce. Penguin £10.99.

The author was ‘the London-born child of Irish rural immigrant parents’, and here he examines the history and current situation of peasants, concentrating not just on Ireland (where he discusses his own family history) but also Poland, and in addition with some attention to Italy. It is an eloquent and wide-ranging account, supported by a range of photographs, the earliest dating back to the late nineteenth century.

One chapter deals with the problem of defining who counts as a peasant, but there is no simple answer to this. Peasants are not necessarily serfs; they consume (part of) the products their work creates, with the family and its economy having a central role. They do not seek to maximise their income, and either owned the land they worked or had long-term tenancies. They may produce for the capitalist market, but the extent of this varies according to time and place. They live in ‘cultures of scarcity’, where prosperity for one person means another going without. Any money earned was not re-invested but kept at home or lent at very low interest rates. And ‘peasant societies are societies of the gift, not the commodity … What is given should be given freely: that which is given without expectation of return feeds the giver again and again.’ (The different tenses in this paragraph reflect those in the book.)

Religion often involved various traditional beliefs being incorporated into christian world-views, but ‘Religion usually had the law on its side, and so it also had the support of those who upheld the law, the landowners and state.’ There was a great deal of ‘everyday suffering’, and in some places it was the best of the crop that was surrendered in rent. Most years there would be ‘pre-harvest famine’ from spring onwards.

A powerful chapter deals with peasant revolts and rebellions. Peasants could feud with and even kill each other. There was a code of behaviour, which even the powerful had to recognise, and minor acts of revolt, such as quiet sabotage, could be used to get even. Sometimes this could escalate to violence and murder. In Ireland in 1882, for instance, a land agent was killed after many hundreds had been evicted and an estate converted to a place for fishing and wildlife shooting. There were larger peasant uprisings, such as the German Peasants War of 1524–5, the Romanian rebellion of 1907 and the Tambov Rebellion in Russia in 1920–1. The twentieth century indeed saw much violence inflicted on peasants: ‘These barbarities were foundational for the emergence of modern states.’ Most of those imprisoned in Soviet gulags were peasants.

Depending on the terminology used, peasants have now largely been replaced by small farmers, and globally over a billion people still do agricultural work, mostly in India and China. But whichever labels are employed, it is clear that peasant history was largely one of struggle, poverty and repression.

Paul Bennett

SPGB 2025 Summer School: What is Marxism? (2025)

Party News from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels) gave us a method for explaining how society functions, based on materialist principles and analysis of the economic framework within which goods and services are produced. This body of work has been summed up as ‘Marxist’. Since the 19th Century, these theories have been interpreted by countless historians, economists, sociologists, philosophers and political theorists and activists. Their work too has been called ‘Marxist’. Where does an interpretation become a misinterpretation, and how can we judge what’s accurate?

The Socialist Party’s weekend of talks and discussion considers how Marxism has developed and its influence today, and the extent to which it is an essential part of the case we put for a marketless, stateless society of free access and production for use that we call socialism.

Talks include Howard Moss on Do Socialists Need Marx?, Keith Graham on Marxism and Marx — Can They Ever Be Friends?, and Darren Poynton on Karl Kautsky and the Invention of Marxism. More details are online.

The Socialist Party’s Summer School 22nd-24th August 2025

Our venue is the University of Worcester, St John's Campus, Henwick Grove, St John's, Worcester,WR26AJ.

Full residential cost (including accommodation and meals Friday evening to Sunday afternoon) is £150; the concessionary rate is £80.

Book online at worldsocialism.org/spgb/summer-school-2025/ or send a cheque (payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain) with your contact details to Summer School, The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN. Day visitors are welcome, but please e-mail for details in advance. Email enquiries to spgbschool@yahoo.co.uk.

Manifesto To the Proposed International Congress. (1917)

From the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

To the proposed International Congress

COMRADES,—

Residing as we do under the control of the “democratic” British Government, we are not permitted to send Delegates to the Congress to state our views, present our case, and defend our policy, as we so strongly wished. All the more is this to be regretted as our organisation is the only one in the British Isles that takes its stand upon a definite and avowed Marxian basis and follows a policy logically deduced from that basis.

We hold that the Working Class must march to its emancipation from wage-slavery and the domination of the Capitalist Class, by the conquest of political power. In the British Isles the means wherewith to accomplish this are already in the hands of the workers, as, despite certain anomalies in our franchise, the workers have the overwhelming majority of the votes at their disposal when an election takes place. Hence the great, immediate, and pressing work requiring to be done is the education of the Working Class to an understanding of Socialism—to a realisation of their slavery and the method of their emancipation.

The Working Class are slaves to the Capitalist Class. While the Workers produce all existing wealth by applying their labour-power to the materials provided by Nature, this wealth, and the instruments necessary for its production, along with the great storehouse of Nature’s materials -the earth- are owned and controlled by the Master Class under a system of private ownership that necessitates the selling of the bulk of the products upon the markets. But while powers of production increase by leaps and bounds, the markets grow but slowly. Hence the struggles between the various groups of Capitalists for the control of these markets and the routes thereto so that they may dispose of the commodities the wage-slaves have produced. Practically all the wars of the last three centuries, from the struggle against the Dutch and Portuguese in India to the present colossal carnage which is devastating the whole world, have had their essential causes rooted in the demands of the various groups of Capitalists to control these markets and routes.

The Workers’ share of these conflicts has been to slaughter each other in their Masters’ interests, to find a grave if killed, or be offered the degrading and comfortless shelter of the workhouse if disabled or maimed. The hardship, misery, want, and suffering following these wars fall always upon the Working Class. Thousands of cripples and tens of thousands of men with constitutions ruined by military service will feel the horrors of the struggle for existence with tenfold bitterness after the war. In the midst of the conflict the Pensions Minister, Mr. G.N. Barnes – a member of the ILP and of the “Labour Party”, and “Labour” Member of Parliament for Blackfriars Division of Glasgow – has admitted that over 100,000 men have been discharged from the British Army as medically unfit for Service without allowance or pension of any kind. To soothe the ruffled feelings of these unfortunate victims of capitalist brutality this so-called representative of the Workers said:

“It has been claimed that these men should be put on pension . . . . inasmuch as the doctors have passed them in . . . . I want to say that they will not get it while I am in the office.”—Official Report, col. 254, March 6th, 1917.

No matter which group of the Masters win the struggle, the Workers remain enslaved. The division of interests is not between the peoples of the world, but between the classes — the Master Class and the Working Class. Not, therefore, in their fellow Workers abroad, but in the Master Class at home and abroad, are the working-class enemies found.

What interest have the Workers, then, in either starting or carrying on war for their masters? Absolutely none.

Every Socialist must, therefore, wish to see peace established at once to save further maiming and slaughter of our fellow Workers. All those who on any pretext, or for any supposed reason, wish the war to continue, at once stamp themselves as anti-Socialist, anti-working class, and pro-capitalist.

Moreover, where the Working Class have the necessary means —the franchise— for their emancipation within their grasp it is clearly an anti-Socialist and treacherous act to urge them to use those means for the purpose of placing political power in the hands of the masters. The flimsy excuses so often used to cover up such acts of treachery to the Working Class merely add evidence to support the truth of this statement.

Applying these tests of real understanding of Socialist principle and correct action to the organisations in this country claiming to be Socialist, we find all of them except the Socialist Party of Great Britain failing to stand that test. The Fabian Society, with Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. Sidney Webb at its head, merely wishes for an extension of the Civil Service system under the control of a bureaucracy, and is opposed to the Workers being emancipated from their slavery. In addition to supporting the carrying on of the war, both the society and its individual members readily support the return of Liberal Capitalists to Parliament.

The so-called Independent Labour Party is ready at all times to make political bargains with the Capitalists and to urge the Workers to place power in the hands of the masters. Thus Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester, Mr. Philip Snowden at Blackburn, Mr. F. Jowett at Bradford, Mr. James Parker at Halifax, Mr. G.H. Roberts at Norwich, Mr. G.N. Barnes at Glasgow, and Mr. Clynes at N.E. Manchester all owe their seats in Parliament to bargains made with the Liberals, in return for which they gave their support to Liberals in these and other constituencies. While protesting — in some forms — against the war, and now urging “Peace by negotiation”, the ILP allowed its members like Mr. Parker and Mr. Clynes to assist in the recruiting campaign.

In a letter sent to his constituency on 11th September, 1914, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said:

“I want the serious men of the trade unions, the brotherhoods and similar movements, to face their duty. To such it is enough to say ‘England has need of you’ and to say it in the right way.

“They will gather to her aid; they will protect her.” Daily Chronicle, September 9th, 1914.

In the Merthyr Pioneer for 27th November, 1914, the late Mr. Keir Hardie, another ILP Member of Parliament, said:

“I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting. I know too well all there is at stake.”

How is all this different from assisting in carrying on the war? How clearly it shows the treachery of the ILP leaders and Members of Parliament!

Moreover, the ILP has allowed its members to accept office in a Capitalist government without making any protest or repudiation. It is true that their 1917 Conference passed a resolution dissociating the organisation from Mr. Parker’s action in taking a Government office, but not only is Mr. Parker allowed to remain a member of the ILP, but no protest at all is made when other members, as Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Roberts, accept office under similar conditions. While protesting against German Social-Democrats voting war credits in the Reichstag, ILP members have steadily voted for war credits here.

The claim of the ILP to be a Socialist organisation is fully repudiated by the actions of its members, of which the above are but examples.

The British Socialist Party has been just as ready — if with less success — to try and enter into arrangements with the Capitalist parties for seats and offices. At General Elections they have shown their impartiality by advising the Workers to vote for Capitalist candidates of the Tory brand in some constituencies — as South Hackney, Norfolk, etc. — and for Capitalist candidates of the Liberal type in other constituencies. The one MP who until recently was a member of the BSP — Mr. W. Thorne owes his seat to the Liberals and Tories in West Ham combining to make him a present of that constituency. In the early days of the war he, with Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Hunter Watts, and others, took a prominent part in the recruiting campaign, calling upon the Workers of Great Britain to take up arms for the slaughter of their fellow Workers on the Continent, although Mr. Hyndman admitted that whichever side won the Workers would not benefit a single jot. Just lately Mr. W. Thorne has returned from a trip to Russia, taken, along with Mr. O’Grady and Mr. W. Sanders, on behalf of the British Capitalists, to persuade the Russian Workers to continue the war on the Eastern side.

In the ranks of the BSP a division of opinion has developed, resulting, after a struggle between the two sections, in the secession of the defenders of the war – Hyndman, Hunter Watts, Lee, Irving, and the rest — and the formation by the secessionists, of the National Socialist Party. The absurdity of the title is balanced by the merit it has of showing how completely pro-Capitalist and anti-Socialist these individuals are.

The BSP has now joined hands with the ILP in a so-called peace propaganda, but the confusion and double-dealing lying behind this movement is shown most glaringly by the fact that both these organisations remain affiliated to the Labour Party that has whole-heartedly supported the war from its inception.

One of the rewards given for this support was the appointment of Mr. J. Hodge, “Labour” Member for Gorton, as Labour Minister. Within a week of his appointment he tried to show his utility to the masters by threatening to use the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act against the Boilermakers of Birkenhead, who were protesting against the rotten conditions imposed upon them by the employers.

The organisation calling itself the Socialist Labour Party has never understood how the Workers are enslaved, and for years has propagated what it calls Industrial Unionism as the method of emancipation. Its attempts to reconcile this position with its claim to be a political party has led to such confusion in its ranks that when the war broke out it was divided as to whether it should support or oppose it.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN alone takes up the Socialist position here. At the beginning of the war we pointed out the essential factors forming its cause which we have given above, and we have steadily and consistently pressed this view by all the means in our power, and maintained it upon all occasions without change or deviation. Thus we said in the first issue of our official organ to be published after Britain’s entry into the war (Sept. 1914):

“THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN . . . whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers of this and other lands, who are being used as food for cannon abroad while suffering and starvation are the lot of their fellows at home.

“Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity . . .”

While in the February 1915 issue we said:

“We . . . declare again that there was nothing in the conditions of any country which justified Socialists voluntarily supporting either side in the war, and record our condemnation of such action as a betrayal of Socialist principles arising from lack of political knowledge and unsound political organisation.”

So, with our own hands clean and our every action in accord with the CLASS struggle and the solidarity of the interest of the Working Class the world over, we bring before the international proletariat our DEMAND FOR PEACE without any change of attitude or re-adjustment of policy. We stand for PEACE without reference to terms, since the fruits of Capitalist war are the Masters’, and only the pains and penalties thereof the Workers’.

The grim humour of the claim that Britain is fighting to “crush Prussian Militarism” is clearly shown by the fact that a Bill is being passed through the liberty-loving, democratic British Parliament establishing “Militarism” in a far worse form than either the present Prussian or the late Russian rulers ever attempted. Men who have crossed the seas because they refuse to accept military service are to be forced into the army of the “allied” country they may be in or brought back to serve in the army here!

To the Socialists of other countries we extend our fraternal greetings. As soon as conditions will permit us to do so we shall endeavour to join forces with our Comrades for the purpose of establishing a Socialist International Congress where Socialist policies shall be decided, where misleaders and tricksters who use the name and fame of Socialism will be exposed and denounced, where the message of Socialism will be sent forth to the toilers of all countries in clear and unmistakable terms, where the gage of battle against the Capitalist Class will be thrown down to the clarion call:

“WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS; YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN.”

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

193 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1

20th June 1917

Jottings. (1917)

The Jottings Column from the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Just now it is the fashion for everybody to ask everybody else to define their attitude, to state their war aims. Not to be outdone, God has lined up with the rest in so far as he has made a pronouncement as to his attitude. At least, so we are told in a “Prophetic Message" that is being circulated. I don’t know what enterprising individual has managed to secure an interview, or what pressure has been brought to bear; that, I suppose, is a diplomatic secret. He is pro-Ally, of course, as the message below will show.

“If it were not for the prayers of mine own chosen people, who are calling unto me day and night, I would have swept the people of this nation from before me,'' saith the Lord. "But it is the prayers of my people who are saving this nation and withholding me from destroying them utterly. But I am still the prayer-hearing and prayer-answering God, and for mine own people’s sake I will not destroy, but I will pour out the vials of my wrath till they humble themselves and repent, and seek me to deliver, for I am the Lord God of Hosts, and I am still the God of battles as well as the God of peace. 

Taking it on the whole, it is about at clear as anybody else's “attitude,” but I have a strong suspicion that God has told the same tale in other than Allied quarters. He can hardly be blamed for trying to keep square with everybody, as his reflections cannot be at all comforting, considering the mess he has made of the human race. If I might venture to give him a tip, the best attitude he could have adopted, to my thinking, was that of "benevolent neutrality.”

#    #    #    #

Speaking of "attitudes,” there is no mistaking that of the Labour Party. To anything savouring of democracy they are in deadly opposition. They make no effort to hide it. In fact, they are brazen over it. Their members never seem to tire of affirming their allegiance to the capitalist class, and the capitalist Press is invariably at their disposal for the purpose of voicing their their support of capitalist interests. But one of the clearest official pronouncements is made by Mr. W. F. Purdy, chairman of the party executive and assistant secretary of the Shipwrights Union in an interview with a correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian” (7.6.17), from which I take the following extracts. Speaking on the party's attitude toward the war and the Stockholm Congress he said:

At the Annual Conference at Manchester in January there was an unmistakable decision that the Labour Party should not take part in any international congress on peace and war until victory was achieved, and then only with the Socialists and trade union organisations of the Allied Powers. . . it was an honourable obligation on all sections of the party to respect it or get out. (This latter is a rub at the I.L.P. peace delegates.) . . . They (the I.L.P.) opposed the voluntary recruiting scheme, they opposed Labour taking any share in the first coalition Government, they opposed the Military Service Act, they opposed our joining the present coalition Government; yet all these decisions have been endorsed by the legally elected and constituted conference of the party. As chairman of the Executive of the Labour Party, I am not going to meet or sit in conference with representatives of the enemy countries while we are at war. I mean to carry out the policy of British Labour as laid down by our representative gathering. That policy is to pursue the war to a successful termination—which means to a complete victory over the enemy.

So there you have it. Capitalism for ever! On with the orgy of blood !

#    #    #    #

Perpend. Lord Hugh Cecil in the Debate on the Franchise Bill (6.6.17) “cheered himself by thinking that the Labour Party hardly ever knew its own interests; indeed, the political incompetence of the Labour Party was much the greatest safeguard of our constitutional system.” 

Gee!

#    #    #    #

Such is the prevailing ignorance and confusion regarding the real causes of the war and the issues involved—due, in the first place, to the indifference, before the war, to matters political and economic, and secondly, to the deliberate lying and bluffing of the capitalist and pseudo-labour Press and politicians—that it does not come as a surprise to find sections of “organised” workers hotly denouncing and and repudiating each other, for all the world as if the responsibility for the war was theirs as well as their masters’.

Such a position was the outcome of the recent peace convention at Leeds. It claimed to be a representative gathering. It was. I.L.P.ers, B.S.P.ers, Labour fakers, Quakers, Syndicalists —in fact a regular hotch-potch—rubbed shoulders with each other. From such a mixture of elements nothing tangible and clear could emerge, and, as one foresaw would be the case, the issues put forward for discussion were capitalist issues pure and simple.

Of course, the mere cry, of “peace” was sufficient to rouse the Labour Party into immediate opposition, along with other organisations, some of which were allied to those represented at the convention! Can you wonder at the success of every move made by the master class ? Some want peace, others don’t. Those who want peace suggest negotiations on terms that concern only the capitalists. Those who deprecate any “premature” or “patched-up” peace do so also for reasons that only concern capitalists. The latter are usually led by the type of idiot who believe that “capital and labour ought to be reconciled” in a time of national stress, and who devote their energies to bringing about such a condition (they believe it possible!)—that is, when they are not wholly engaged in the service of capital.

A great many there are, of course, as we happen to know, who thoroughly understand the correct line to be taken up—based on a dear conception of Socialist principles—and there is no reason whatever why anyone should be left in the dark. The matter is quite ample. Yet when one examines the composition both of convention and opposition, and reflects that all of them derive their knowledge from the same source, is., the stuff emanating from such people as Lansbury, MacDonald, Blatchford, Hodge, Bottomley, etc., etc., it makes one-wonder if the light will ever down on them—whether order will ever come out of chaos.

Due to this condition of things, it is unfortunately true that the majority of the working class of Britain, despite the suffering entailed, accept and support, and very often defend, the principle of the “right” to fight, to suffer, and to die in defence of the interests of their masters.

It remain for Socialists to combat and banish this fatal principle. Only by the permeation of Socialist doctrine will capitalism and labour-fakerism, with their concomitant evils—war and ignorance-cease to exist.

#    #    #    #

A minister, asked in the House of Commons how many British airmen lost their lives in the last German air-raid on London, replied that he did not know. Such a reply must add greatly to the general confidence in the veracity of the war figures the Government treats us to.

#    #    #    #

Anyone familiar with the protean accomplishments of Bill Thorne will not be surprised at his latest stunt. As a versatile artist Bill is Class A, and it should not be long before he is top of the bill. His latest “turn” is a visit to Buckingham Palace to see the King. Bill describes it as very interesting. ” It was marked by an entire absence of formality or convention. It was my first visit to Buckenham Palace, but I went there as if I had known the place all my life.” That’s just Bill all over. He can adapt himself anywhere. I wonder if he went in the coat Sir F. E. Smith gave him. I can imagine the look of imitative dignity on Bill’s face as he was ushered in by the flunkey!

And what would the flunkey have thought could he have known that he was bowing and scraping to one of the biggest flunkeys in the country ? But perhaps the coat did the trick. Good old Bill! If cheek can accomplish anything you’re the boy for the job. Hobnobbing with Royalty ! Gee! I wonder what’s in the wind!

#    #    #    #

A report is current that the extensive work of the German missionary societies in Togoland is being taken over by Scottish missionaries, and that a large sum of money is being raised for the purpose. This would appear to mean that the country itself, as in the case of Uganda, where the flag followed the missionary, will be “taken over”—in the interests of British capitalism, forming, as it does, a valuable source of raw material which the manufacturer at home is anxious to take advantage of, along with an available amount of labour-power requisite for its supply. It used to be said that “the flag follows the missionary, trade follows the flag," but, as a writer in the “Daily Mail” (9.6.17) points out, the old motto is amended in this crisis—trade directs the flag. One aspect of it that is never amended is that exploitation follows the lot, every time. The following lines by A. C. Benson should be appropriate to the occasion :

“Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free, How can we extol thee, who are born of thee? Wider still and wider, shall thy bounds beset: God, who made thee mighty, make mightier yet."

Gott mit uns! Truly we are a great nation !

May Field

Russia and Ourselves. (1917)

From the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The situation created by the Russian Revolution is in many respects not without its humorous side. Hailed at first by the British Government as the “glorious deliverance of the Russian peoples,” the B.G. now takes up the “wait and see” stand with an occasional transition to the “come back all I have said” – both eyes being meanwhile centred on the Council of Soldiers’ and Workmen’s Deputies.

The maniacal ravings of the labour crooks, too, along with the quite-understood activities of the B.S.P., the I.L.P., and the rest, towards the Russian worker, is not without a touch of real humour. Each and all are tumbling over themselves in their efforts to advise the Russian how to make the best use of his diplomatic opportunity. The situation resembles, in some ways, that good time when the “Daily Herald” League sent Tom Mann to South Africa, during the period of the farcical strike, to teach the working class there the real art of economic organisation. It was just another example of the pupil knowing more than the teacher, with a simple reminder that it was sheer impudence that prompted the sending of Tom Mann.

Let it be said at once, the Council of Soldiers’ and Workmen’s Deputies requires no advice from the Labour recruiting sergeants on this side of the water. We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain make it plain that we are not prepared to congratulate the Russian peasant upon assisting the Russian capitalist class to a more complete dominance. True, the workers there, through the temporary dislocation of affairs, have seized certain advantages. True, also, it is, that the declaration “no annexations, no indemnities,” is a staggering blow for the Allied aims, yet we ourselves are not going into hysterics regarding it. Certainly we are not to be found crying peace talk along with those who, like Phillip Snowden and J. Ramsay MacDonald, have never ceased to vote war credits during nearly three years of mad, murderous slaughter.

Just how low down and despicable the part played by the labour crooks has been is shown by the following gem mouthed at the Leeds menagerie by one of the chosen Stockholm candidates :

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, moving the resolution hailing the Russian revolution, regretted that when war broke out British democracy had not kept hold of the situation.” – ‘Daily Express’, 1.6.17.

That the workers here were never in a position to resist the starting of the war chariots the merest child must know, but Ramsay Mac. took particular care that they never would stop them if it lay within the power of him and his party to prevent it.

The action of the labour leaders at the Trades Union Congress at Bristol in 1915, in crushingly voting down a resolution of censure for not having secured some sort of guarantee from the Government that adequate compensation would be provided for the disabled and the dependents of those losing their lives in the war proves conclusively how beautifully the labour fakers helped the workers to “keep hold of the situation” in the early days of the conflict. The activity of such people in mouthing peace talk just now is consistent with the laudable desire to “get right” with the war-sick Tommies, whose trade union contributions keep them fat jobs, ere those war-sick Tommies return to make a few enquiries.

That we have due justification for refusing to slap the Russian on the back, with expressions of sickly sentiment, congratulating him upon having achieved his emancipation (sic!) is clearly shown by the fact that the Council of Soldiers’ and Workers’ Deputies despatched a congratulatory message to the Leeds conference in which an invitation to Stockholm was embodied.

Despite the dearth of news from Petrograd and other centres we are in a position to know that the Russian capitalist class still hold the field, both economically and politically. If it were not so, then M. Kerensky, clearly an agent of the Russian ruling class, would have been removed long ago. Indeed, his election could never have been even mooted by the victorious proletariat.

Signs are not wanting that the workers out there are already losing strength, as the following words issued in manifesto form by the Council of Soldiers’ and Workers’ Deputies to the Commander of German troops on the Russian front in reply to the pourparlers with a view to concluding peace, bear witness :

“He has forgotten that Russia knows that the overthrow of her Allies would mean the overthrow of Russia and the end of her political liberty.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” 10.6.17.

Such words are hardly indicative of class-consciousness and form strong contrast to the much-lauded “no annexation, no indemnity” pronouncement.

When, too, it is pointed out that just prior to the issuing of this statement a meeting of the self-same deputies had stood up and vociferously cheered M. Kerensky, the new figurehead of Russian oppression, it will become increasingly apparent that in giving trust to such a body the Russian worker is relying upon the proverbial broken reed.

Small wonder, then, that the labour hacks in this country are so anxious to assist in their usual slimy, game of confusing working-class minds and conflicting vital issues.

If proof should be wanted of Kerensky’s little game ― and, needless to say, he has been pointed to as a genuine Socialist by the prostitute Press ― it is contained in the following extract from an Order of the Day issued by the wily Minister of War to the Russian troops:

“Remember that whoever looks behind, stops, or draws back will lose everything. Do not forget that if you defend not the honour, liberty, and dignity of the country your names will be cursed. The will of the people must rid the country and the world of violators and usurpers. Such is the high deed to which l call you.”― “Daily News,” 28.5.17.

It, would appear as though Kerensky’s mortal fear lest the wretched soldiers look back is prompted by a dread that his own game might be discovered. The chances are, to, that if he, the Russian soldier stands to lose everything, he will also be losing his chance of a German bullet. Certain it is that enough evidence has been forthcoming to conclusively prove the reluctance of a very large proportion of the Russian Army to continue the senseless slaughter which has transformed the European plains into vast graveyards.

Briefly examining the American intervention one is struck by the similarly black treachery of the labour leaders, such as Gompers and his crowd, to that of our own so-called Socialist parties. They too will adopt the same backing-out moves when peace seems imminent as our gang.

These moves, however, become increasingly difficult as the war drags on, for the age of learning is upon us. Proof of this could hardly be more obvious than the latest proposal of the Government to give sectional enfranchisement to women in order to hide the huge slump in votes that must face the master-class nominees at the elections that must follow a declaration of peace. Increasing evidence is forthcoming of the dread of the international capitalist class at the great unrest shown even now, during the carrying through of a great war ― an unrest as yet in its infancy, but which is rapidly expanding and will continue to do so.

Capitalist society is sapping its own strength ; it is staggering under the sheer weight of its own exhausting intensity. Mr. Balfour himself declared, in addressing the Canadian Parliament during his recent visit to Canada :

“We are convinced there can be only one form of government, whatever it is called, and that is where the ultimate control lies in the hands of the people. We have staked our last dollar on it, and if democracy fails us we shall be bankrupt indeed.” ― “Common Sense,” 9.6.17.

Whether Mr. Balfour does or does not believe that the ultimate control to-day lies in the hands of the people, the present writer is not seriously concerned with. The approaching bankruptcy of his class is as certain as the equinoxes. Meanwhile we of the Socialist Party will continue to fight straight, convinced that when we again face our fellow workers no man will be able to show that we have falsified, in the slightest particular, the cause we claim to uphold.

Let us not, therefore, be deluded into beliefs concerning the new Russian Constitution which we know to be fallacious. The Russian workers are still the bottom dogs, while the capitalists of Russia are still basking in luxury and idleness. A few more weeks and the dupes of the Russian financiers will lapse once more into their wonted miserable condition.

Only through class conscious organisation on political lines can the Russian proletariat emerge from their long-endured bondage. In this they resemble the workers of all other countries, and to the work of education necessary to achieve such organisation I commend all Russian Socialists. 

B. B. B.

By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the time of writing these paragraphs there has been going on in the daily Press a considerable agitation with regard to the prices of foodstuffs. For a whole week glaring headlines have appeared intimating to all and sundry what the great man of the “Business Government” Lord Rhondda (formerly known as Mr. D. A. Thomas, of the Cambrian Combine) is going to do when he gets into his stride. How these men who are alleged to be the be-all and end-all of great commercial undertakings, possessed of the bump of directive ability and so forth, come and go is indeed pitiful to behold. To mention two only who have recently strutted across the stage and departed, leaving behind them a record of dismal failure, one might cite Lord Devonport and Neville Chamberlain. Other instances will readily suggest themselves to students of current events.

One of the articles of food which plays a very important part in our existence is meat, though, of course, we wage-slaves seldom become possessed of the historic “roast beef of old England,” our masters considering that the foreign variety suits our tastes, and also our pockets, better. However, to come to the price of this said meat, let me quote:

“Lord Inchcape, the chairman of the P. and O. Company, has raised the question of the price of Australian meat in a manner which cannot escape the notice of Lord Rhondda.

In a letter to the “Times” Lord Inchcape states that he is chairman of the company which owns the steamers that bring the frozen meat from Australia and therefore has inside knowledge. The meat is sold in Australia to the British Government at the following prices : beef 47-8d. per lb., mutton 65-8d. per Ib.

Under the arrangement made by Mr. Runciman two years ago the shipowners carry this frozen meat to this country at a freight of 1d. per 1b. If cost freight, two months interest, and cost of insurance is added, the meat is delivered on the quay in London at these prices : beef 6 3-8d. per lb. mutton 65-81d. per 1b.

Mr. George Roberts, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, stated in the House on Wednesday that the landed cost of New Zealand lamb in this country is 8d. per lb.

The price of Colonial lamb in London stores just now varies from 1s. 3½d. per lb to 1s. 5½d per lb. In small butchers’ shops it is more.”—“Star,” June 22nd, 1917.

Now from the above it will readily be seen that some of our patriotic capitalists are doing a fine thing out of the war. While “our heroes” are bleeding for their masters’ country, our Business Government stands idly by looking at the profiteers bleeding the wives of the men at the front, and the remainder of the workers at home. When will the day dawn ?

* * *

The continual demand for men to keep up the strength of the Army is an additional factor for promoting the development of engineering science. With the taking from industry of men hitherto engaged in peaceful pursuits, an ever-increasing demand is made for what are called “labour-saving” devices. One of the latest of these is a machine for farms, and the claim is put forward that it takes the place of four men. The announcement reads :

“I have to-day witnessed a demonstration with a machine capable of doing the work of at least four men, and can be managed by one. It does away with “the man with the muck-rake.” There are no heaps to be spread ; the distribution is done by one operation.

The machine, which is a British patent, can spread, it is stated, a ten-acre field with manure in almost one-sixth of the time taken by hand labour.”—”Daily News,” June 9th, 1917.

From the foregoing it would appear that the war after the war will be very much intensified as a result of the advances which are being made in various directions, the case quoted being typical of many. How numbers of men are to regain possession of jobs which they held prior to enlistment, and which were promised them on their return from the field of battle, is an interesting question. It would seem that quite a number of these promises are of the pie-crust order. The scramble for work which is bound sooner or later to take place must inevitably lead to a general worsening of conditions of labour ; and the retention of the means and instruments of wealth production, including these so-called “labour-saving” devices, by the master class will be a curse instead of a power for good to the many. Work, then, for the social ownership of these necessary means of life which when thus owned will ensure more time for rest and recreation to those who use them.

* * *

On previous occasions reference has been made to the “patriotic” generosity of the master class. It is no new thing for these profiteers to seek to batten on the misfortunes of their wage-slaves. They are prepared at all times to suck the life-blood of the workers, whether they be men, women, or little children. In the course of debates on Pensions in the House of Commons some of the more honest members have frequently pointed out that the unscrupulous employer is always endeavouring to take advantage of the pension awarded to the discharged soldier in order to obtain his services cheaper than he otherwise would do. Recently I came across an advertisement which will further illus­trate the point. It is as follows :

“Army, navy, or police pensioners, or men invalided from either service, wanted as warehousemen ; wages 30s. to commence ; perm., with certain advancement to suitable men. Apply Kearley & Tonge, Ltd., etc.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” June 19th, 1917.

As some people change their names during their lifetime, and working men have a habit of forgetting these facts, let me say at once that the late Sir Hudson Kearley is now Lord Devonport, and was until recently a prominent member of the win-the-war government. Now, it is the firm with which he is connected that issued the advertisement above referred to. Does he think 30s. a week sufficient to exist on in these days of high prices ? And what of the specious promises held out to “our heroes” who “kept the Huns from our door”? Verily, the precepts and the practices of our masters are as wide as the poles asunder.

* * *

I notice that the Discharged Soldiers and Sailors Association are running a candidate for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool. The other nominee is Lord Stanley, the 22 year old son and heir of Lord Derby. It would be interesting to learn why it is that this “soldier” son of the Secretary of State for War is seeking Parliamentary honours when so many other mothers’ only sons are sent to the trenches. Is St. Stephen’s so much safer even than the staff headquarters in France or Flanders ? And where is the “equality of sacrifice” ?

The workers of Abercromby should remember that the present Lord Derby, at the time he was Lord Stanley and Postmaster-General, referred to the Post Office workers as “bloodsuckers” when they were seeking better conditions of employment. And also that in supporting Mr. Hughes, the “soldiers’ candidate,” they are voting for a continuance of capitalist exploitation and the misery arising therefrom. The only effective means of putting an end to the dirty, mean and despicable practices of the international master class is by understanding Socialism and becoming one in the class-conscious army. When the workers generally have done this and, only then, will they be in a position to write “Finis” to the anomalies and injustices which arise from capitalist society, including this manifestation of hostility toward the re-examination of discharged and rejected soldiers.

* * *

The loftiness of those noble souls who form the Cabinet and who have recently agreed to grant a general amnesty to the Irish political prisoners is nicely set forth in the terms of the announcement. Mr. Bonar Law said :

“The Government, after long and anxious consideration of the position of the Irish political prisoners, have arrived at a decision which it is now my duty to announce. They feel that the governing consideration in the matter is the approaching session of the Convention upon which Irishmen themselves will meet to settle the difficult problem of the future administration of their country.”

—”Daily News,” June i6th, 1917.

One can understand this act of condescension. With the loss of Nationalist seats to the Sinn Feiners and “our” protestations of concern and filial “affection for smaller nations,” the retort is being made in many quarters : What about your attitude toward Ireland ? It is said that America desires to see some concern shown for this country as well as for Belgium. And last but not least, it is just possible that by fixing up some kind of Home Rule the Government may be able to extend their recruiting campaign.

Notwithstanding the acts of grace on the part of the Government, a still larger expenditure of lotion will be required to eradicate the nasty taste left in the mouth as a result of the shootings in the early days of 1916.

* * *

The tit-bits that appear in the newspapers here regarding Russia and the revolution are of a very contradictory nature. However, some very interesting quotations do occasionally creep into the columns of the Press, as instance the following :

“The organ of the Council of Soldiers and Workmen’s Delegates, after quoting two English newspapers to the effect that the declaration of the Provisional Government and the pronouncements of the revolutionary leaders show that the Russian peace formula coincides with the British and French war aims, says :

“You are deceiving yourselves, gentlemen, or, rather, you are vainly striving to delude your fellow-countrymen concerning the real policy of the Russian revolution. The revolution will not sacrifice a single soldier to help you repair “historic injustices” committed against you. What about the “historic injustices” committed by yourselves and your violent oppression of Ireland, India, Egypt, and innumerable peoples inhabiting all the continents of the world ? If you are so anxious for ‘justice’ that you are prepared, in its name, to send millions of people to the grave, then, gentlemen, begin with yourselves.”—”Daily News,” May 30th, 1917.

After well chewing this delectable morsel I can quite conceive the need for sending the decoy ducks, Thorne, Henderson & Co., to Petrograd to counteract this rather frank statement of Russian opinion concerning the aspirations of their British and French Allies. Ireland, India, and Egypt ! A hit, a palpable hit, my masters !

* * *

It is recorded that the meek and lowly Nazarene once said : “A new commandment give I unto you that ye love one another.” But I read of a man of god who came many many centuries after, and who lives on the cross instead of dying on it, that his gospel is one of “tar and feathers.” He is a whole-hogger for the war, and wants two tribunals set up, one for determining essential businesses and what individuals are essential to those businesses. The scheme is to apply to single men. Those, essential, according to this divine, “he would dress up in red and purple so that there would be no doubt that they should stay.” He then says :

“Every man not so dressed he would make his life such a burden to him that he would get out somehow or somewhere.”

The other tribunal to deal with Government departments is to work along somewhat similar lines. Says Dr. Furze, Bishop of Pretoria :

“Get everybody exempted who is essential to stay, and as to anyone not essential, give him a week to get to the front or to Potch (training camp), and if he did not get there in that period, tar and feather him.”—”Daily News,” May 24th, 1917.

The scheme suggested is worthy of a Christian parson ! A mission to clergymen is indeed necessary.

* * *

Is this a joke ? The Coal Controller recently announced that now is the time to store coal. Lots of four tons may be ordered at a time, but the total tonnage to any one private house from now up to September 30th is not to exceed twenty tons ! Twenty hundredweight would be a devil of a lot for most working-class families to pay for, and quite beyond their means of storing.

* * *

Mr. Bonar Law a short while ago made reference in the House to the profits of shipping companies during the war. The shipping interest is strongly entrenched in that place, which may possibly account for their unique position. He thus unburdened himself

“As an illustration of what profits shipowners had made, he mentioned that he himself had a few hundreds invested in shipping, and last year he received on his shares a dividend of 47 per cent., which was after excess profits duty had been deducted.”—”Daily News,” May 25th, 1917.

The thought arises in one’s mind that, seeing that the shareholders are doing so well, are the seamen and others working on the boats sharing is this increased prosperity, or is their reward only the increased risk of finding a watery grave ?

* * *

Many strange and incomprehensible things have happened during the last three years in what is called the “war for liberty.” A contributor to the “Daily News” (8.6.1917) who writes under the heading of “Under the Clock” draws attention to a notice which was exhibited at the works of the South Metropolitan Gas Co. Here it is :

IMPORTANT NOTICE

“From and after this date no appointments to or engagements on the Company’s permanent or regular staff will be made until the close of the war. When peace is declared applicants for such positions will be required to produce satisfactory evidence of what they have done for their country in her hour of need.

19th August, 1914.

By Order.”

The “Daily News” writer says he objects to the last sentence, which suggests an inquisition that no private body ought to undertake. To which I say hear, hear. This is the firm where the employees have the doubtful blessing of a model system of co-partnership.

* * *

The present scribe recently came across an announcement that the Scottish burghs were allowing the sale of sterilized tuberculous meat, which was destined for the poor. Really, the poor are a long suffering lot, and one sometimes wonders when they will turn like the proverbial worm. However, to return to our sterilized beef, let me lift the following :

“While the Local Government Board is considering whether it will follow the example of Scottish burghs and permit the sale of sterilized meat, it is interesting to note that in a comprehensive report written by Dr. Howarth, Medical Officer of Health, City of London, he says : “In my opinion it would be inadvisable for the Corporation to undertake the sterilization of condemned meat with the object of subsequently selling it to the public.” –”Daily News,” June 1st, 1917.

True, members of our class build decent houses, but most of us live in bug hutches ; produce spacious and comfortable railway carriages, but are content to travel strap-hanging ; yet, at least, one hopes that our fellow workers will resent partaking of condemned meat which has been sterilized. If there is a shortage why not despatch this aforesaid meat to our old nobility for a change

* * *

We are still being urged to stave off the “German menace” by a more rigid economy of food-stuffs, and we are further informed that the latest key to victory is the kitchen. So to the whole bunch of keys already provided is added the skeleton key. But the way our masters muddle is enough to make the angels weep. Listen to this:

“The other afternoon I saw with my own eyes two piled-up lorries of putrid sides of bacon in process of conveyal through Paddington, what time such women of England as happened to be passing (and there were numbers of them) held their noses and did their best to cry “shame !”—”Daily Sketch,” June 21st, 1917.

* * *

When perusing the quotation which follows I thought I was reading an account of how the Germans treat British prisoners. The idea that such was not the case is almost unthinkable to one brought up in Christian England, and who is continually told that we English are clean fighters and love to play the game straight.

“Mr. G. Dyce Sharp writes “A story of how officers in charge of British prisoners divert themselves at the prisoners expense has recently come to my knowledge. The sister of one of the prisoners, who has just heard from him writes : ‘My brother then goes on to speak of the way in which the officer read through their letters, asking inquisitive questions about the writers jeered and commented upon the contents, and finally tore them up before their eyes. He thought it such fun that he took a fellow officer to enjoy it with him.’ These were English officers at an English barracks, and the prisoners in question were conscientious objectors.”—”Star,” June 22nd, 1917.

English militarism is on all fours with the Prussian variety.

* * *

The urgent need for men for the Army which we are again hearing a lot about, reminds us that there are quite a considerable number of sky pilots, or gentlemen of the cloth, who are firm believers in the righteousness of “our” cause and who are skulking around. Might I suggest a comb-out of the clerical profession beginning with my Lord Bishop of London, who, I notice, recently explained in Hyde Park to the procession he had led thitherward was no a pacifist one. He further stated that there were no more mistaken people than the conscientious objectors. “He had studied the Bible far more than they had, and his conscience was absolutely at peace as day by day he prayed for victory in the great cause.” (“Daily News,” June 11th, 1916.) How this divine is able to make so sweeping a statement one is at a loss to understand. His bald assertion that he has studied the Bible more than the objectors or I have cuts no ice. Then why is he so arrogant ? Has the mantle of the Pope fallen on his shoulders ?

The Scout.