SPGB 2025 Summer School: What is Marxism? An update

The following session has been added to the programme of the Socialist Party Summer School:

Guest speaker Cat Rylance [of Communist Future] will present ‘Marxism, Reforms and Reformism’  

The question of the role and function that reforms play in the transformation from capitalism to communism has been brought to the surface again in recent years by ‘democratic socialist’ trends advancing the argument for ‘non-reformist reforms’. How does the idea of non-reformist reforms relate to existing approaches to reforms and reformism within the communist movement? And what place, if any, would we understand reforms as having within a Marxist programme? The talk will explore how reforms are related to in the programmes of Classical and Orthodox Marxism, in particular the purpose of minimum demands within this, considering these questions in relation to the approaches of the left today, and thinking about how we might deal with the challenges that emerge from these approaches.

Socialist Sonnet No. 199: Herodians (2025)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog  

 

Herodians

 Now is the time of new Herodians,

Those corrupted by power and vanity

Until, devoid of all humanity,

They are utterly blind to their own plans

Requiring the merciless massacring

Of children. They constantly justify

This infanticide with barely a sigh,

While parasitic sycophants sing

Their praises. Herods don’t do the killing

Of course, child murder is made easy,

Avoiding any need to feel queasy

When it’s done for you by the all too willing.

Also Herods in the shadows without qualms,

Counting profits from the market in arms.

D. A.

Go West—and Starve! (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Latest information published by the Emigrants’ Information Office, 31, Broadway, Westminster, will not make satisfactory reading to those who thought of finding employment in our colonies during the next few months at least.

It is pointed out that a new regulation provides that all emigrants landing in Canada until February 15th, 1908, must possess 50 dols. at the time of landing, and all arriving between February 15th and April 1st, 1908, must possess 25 dols. They must in addition in every case have money for their inland railway fares, unless they can satisfy the emigration officers at the time of landing that they are going to already assured employment immediately on arrival or will be cared for by friends.

The demand for labour is over for the season. In parts of the eastern provinces the supply of labour is now more than sufficient, owing to the thousands of persons who emigrated to Canada last summer from Great Britain and the Continent, and to the recent arrival of large numbers of out-of-work mechanics and labourers from the United States in search of employment. No one, therefore, should go to Canada in search, of work during the winter. Persons wishing to go there should wait till April, but even then they should not start—especially those with, young families—unless they go to take up engagements, or have enough money to live on till they find employment.

In New South Wales there is a demand for hard ground miners, but not in the other States. In no part of Australia is there any pressing demand for mechanics, unless they are specially skilled; the best chances are for carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, and plasterers. Clerks, shop assistants, warehousemen, and professional persons are advised not to go to Australia, unless they have situations awaiting them. The cost of living has somewhat increased of late throughout Australia.

The Dominion of New Zealand grants reduced passages to approved farmers, agricultural labourers, shepherds, woodcutters, and men able to milk cows and manage live stock, who possess £25, and to female servants who will have £2 on landing. There is an excellent demand for all these classes. The local supply of mechanics is about equal to the demand, but skilled men would not have much difficulty in procuring work if they could keep themselves while searching ior it. There is a demand for female machinists and workers in the boot and clothing factories.

South Africa should be avoided by emigrants at the present time. In Cape Colony the supply of labour largely exceeds the demand, and mechanics of practically every trade experience extreme difficulty in obtaining employment. There is a steady diminution in the number of men employed in the building trades, and clerical work is quite unobtainable. All mechanics and others, therefore, are warned against going there now, unless they go out to situations engaged for them, or have means of their own sufficient to keep them for some months. The town council of Capetown has issued a warning to this effect, and in other parts of the colony, as Kimberley, East London, and Port Elizabeth, there is a number of cases of distress owing to the scarcity of work.

In Natal the supply of white labour considerably exceeds the demand. Many skilled married mechanics, such as masons, bricklayers, carpenters, painters, &c., and a few unskilled labourers, are being given work by the Peitermaritzburg Town Council at 4s. a day, which is the usual wages of coloured labourers, whose places they take.

No one would go to the Transvaal now in search of work. In view of the depressed state of the labour market there is only a very remote possibility of employment being obtainable, and, as the cost of subsistence is high, those having small means would speedily descend to a state of destitution. Over 500 white men are now being employed as an experiment on the drainage works at Johannesburg, earning 5s. to 6s., and in some cases 10s., a day. A similar experiment is being made on railways, and white men are being found to work at £5 per month as assistants to gangers, platelayers, &c.

Large numbers of men, especially carpenters, masons, bricklayers, and plasterers, have left the Transvaal through inability to obtain work there. The dispute in the printing trade has been compromised by the reduction of wages to £5 10s. a week in place of £5 15s. There is no demand whatever for the “handyman,” nor for shop assistants, and the number of clerks is excessive. There is a limited demand for female servants, the demand being mainly for house-parlour maids, cooks, and cook-generals.

Some assistance is given to female emigrants to the Orange River Colony. There is no demand whatever for anyone else, and many persons are out of work. Labouring work is done by Kaffirs. Miners and others should not go to Rhodesia at the present time, unless they have work guaranteed them.

A Look Round. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. H. Broughton, a Tariff Reform Lecturer, was publicly challenged by a member of the Social Democratic Federation on December 1st to debate with Mr. Herbert Burrows, S.D.F. Mr. Burrows, however, declined to debate as he has “much more important work to do than of debating with every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets up at the corner of the street,” etc., etc.

* * *

At present Mr. Burrows’ “important work” is to raise a memorial to the late editor of Reynold’s Newspaper, who assisted to side-track the working class by founding the National Democratic League !

* * *

Lecturing at Swadlincote on January 7th the Rev. Conrad Noel said that the ideal of the Church Socialist League was an industry in which there would be no drones and no slaves, where the people would have their liberties and be paid an adequate wage.

* * *

Mr. J. J. Kermode, M.I. Mech. E., states that if the Lusitania were fitted for burning oil fuel she would require only 27 men in the stokeholds, as compared with the 312 necessary with coal. She would be able to carry 4,000 tons more cargo and at least 250 additional passengers.

* * *

And the displaced stokers ? Oh, they don’t count, of course, under capitalism.

* * *

Renter’s Correspondent at Johannesburg telegraphed on January 4th that Messrs. Eckstein are installing 200 Gordon drills. Twenty-five, worked by four whites and 25 natives, were to be started at the Crown Deep Mine in a few days. A native working a Gordon drill in five hours achieved results equal to the average day’s work of 15 coolies or natives. The success of the drills will have a far-reaching result on the labour problem.

* * *

West Ham’s poverty is, perhaps, mainly due to causes over which the public bodies have had little control, admits the Daily Telegraph in its review of the book issued by Messrs. Dent by Mr. E. G. Howarth and Miss Mona Wilson.

* * *

According to this volume, West Ham’s population in 1851 was only 18,817, to-day it is over 300,000. This population is, to an extent which is quite without parallel elsewhere, composed of more or less casual labourers and their families. Nearly all its industries are run on unskilled labour, or skilled labour which boys can easily acquire, and the consequence is that the percentage of hands under twenty-one years of age is very large. When these boys grow up and ask for men’s wages they are turned away, and a new generation of boys is taken on. All this tends to swell the number of casuals.

* * *

In almost every casual labourer’s home the woman has at some time or other to earn money and become the breadwinner ; in fact, she is often more continuously employed than her husband. But such work as she can get is usually shockingly underpaid, and involves cruelly long hours ; and the people who have it to give take advantage of the crowds of hunger-driven applicants and beat down the price to starvation point. Instances of this are given in the volume.

* * *

Rents, we are told, are about the same as in 1888, but rates have almost doubled. It is the lower rents that have risen most, because the poorest people are forced to compete against one another for the cheapest houses, and up goes the price to a height that is positively infamous !

* * *

The authors, of course, have no remedy. It is only the Socialists who have. End the competitive system, abolish private ownership in the means of production and distribution of wealth. Revolution and Revolution alone will suffice.

* * *

The report of the first year’s working of “General” Booth’s Anti-Suicide Bureau must have been unpleasant reading to the teetotal fanatics who trace suicide and everything else to alcohol. Out of the 1,125 cases dealt with only 121 were due to “drink, drugs, and disease,” whilst 609 had their origin in “financial embarrassment or hopeless poverty,” 236 were attributed to “accidents, sickness, and other misfortunes,” 105 to “melancholia, proceeding from loneliness and other causes,” and 54 to “crimes such as embezzlement, forgery and the like.”

* * *

Under the auspices of the Burton I.L.P. Mr O. A. McBrine declared at the Horninglow Schools on January 8th that the General Post Office and the Corporation Tramways are examples of Socialism as far as it can be carried out at the present time. Perhaps Mr. McBrine will read the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B. on the last page of this paper, and then explain wherein either of the capitalist concerns he referred to fulfil any of the conditions necessary to Socialism.

* * *

“Why Manufacturers move to Letchwortb. (Garden City)” is the title of a four page circular issued by the Garden City Company. In the circular appears the following illuminative paragraph, which substantiates the view so often expressed in these pages :

EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF A PRINTING BUSINESS.

“The change to larger and altogether commodious premises has been of immense benefit to all concerned. The brighter outlook and keener air of Letchworth (Garden City) has a marked effect upon the health, spirits, and enthusiasm of the workers, and the business of the Society undoubtedly feels the effect in the increased out-put and improved work. Indeed, the results of the four months working since the removal, give us cause to anticipate the future with every confidence of far more success than we have hitherto experienced.”

* * *

“The relations now existing between the railway companies and the Board of Trade are of a more friendly character than they have ever been before. This is a striking commentary on the oft repeated wild assertion that the Government is not friendly to capital. It would be difficult to find a President of the Board of Trade who had done more for the protection of capital. The railway companies did a very good thing for themselves in accepting the proposals made by Mr. Lloyd George at the time of the labour dispute.”—Daily Chronicle.

* * *

If the companies “did a very good thing for themselves” where, it may be asked, do the railwaymen come in ?

* * *

“What is it that makes men cry out against society and turn to Socialism for help ? Undoubtedly, poverty, with all the misery it entails, is the chief reason. Look at the conditions in which many poor of our great cities live : insanitary houses, more dilapidated and filthy than pigsties, huddled together in gloomy streets on which the sun shines only to make horrors more apparent. There, scourged by terrible diseases, they pass the term of their existence. If they are fortunate they can earn just enough to buy food, and a few moments of oblivion at the gin shop at the corner. But they are never sure even of the common necessaries of life ; more than ten millions—a quarter of our population—are always, through the insecurity of employment, on the verge of starvation. How, then, can it be expected that men and women living under these conditions, without a hope in the world, will be satisfied with our system of society.”—Standard

* * *

Speaking at the National Liberal Club on January 28th of the present year, Mr. Winston Churchill referred to the Trade Unions of Great Britain as great social bulwarks, and as an indispensable counterpoise and a natural corrective to a highly competitive system.

J. Kay

What About Will Thorne, M.P.? (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his “Essays in Socialism” (Grant Richards, sixpence) E. Belfort Bax, of the Social Democratic Federation, says, under the heading “Factitious Unity” :

It is alleged by practical politicians, so called, as a reason for toleration or compromise that a party cannot afford to lose an able man or men merely because they happen to be shaky on some vital point of principal. To this it may be replied that the ability of doubtful members cuts both ways. It may be of more danger to party principles when inside the party organisation than it is of advantage to the enemy when working against it outside. A party having any regard for its principles should surely look to it that its able men—those, therefore, most powerful for leading—should be straight, even more than the ordinary rank and file—and, hence, if they go wrong, should be the more inexorably expelled. A party that is worth its salt can always afford to lose a man or two without collapsing, but it cannot always afford to have a powerful leader inside incessantly pulling the wrong way. Here, again, we ask, is the object of the party to hold together solely for the sake of office, emoluments, or party tranquility, or for the sake of its avowed aims?

Suffrage and Sex. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Civilization, carrying with it as it does, patent evidences of its savage ancestry, frantically endeavouring to hide its humble origin, vainly imagining Gardens of Eden and naked simplicity instead of primeval forest and low-browed beast man, indignant when the first glimmerings of truth appear, ashamed and apologetic by turns when its pedigree can no longer be denied, is necessarily the depository of shams and cant.

No cant that Civilization has uttered is more sickening than that indulged in with regard to the

POSITION OF WOMEN.

“Chivalry” is a rosy-hued dream, compounded of deeds of derring-do against wicked monsters and the rescue of innocent maidens. It is left for the Historical Materialist to lift the veil and to INSIST UPON the viewing of the sinister visage underneath ; “Booty and Beauty” in times of war, the feudal lord’s “right of the first night” in times of peace, for one Sir Galahad a dozen Lancelots ; “bars sinister” brazenly emblazoned on shield, and the Madonna enshrined a second Venus—not without corresponding rites.

Protestantism, the true religious reflex of capitalism, affects utmost concern for women, has no bounds for its indignation against monks and nuns who have converted monastery and nunnery into a stews, a virtuous Bluff King Hal and equally virtuous

GOOD QUEEN BESS

are deeply concerned for the morals of the nation, what time Luther is defending polygamy and a “virgin queen” is wantoning with Leicester.

The Industrial Revolution brings in its train a crowd of “philanthropists” and religious revivalists who hold up their hands in horror at the inevitable immorality in factory and field which surely follows the Revolution, the rising tide of prostitution which is actually one of the bulwarks of capitalist society.

And now, to-day, when men are being replaced by women in the industrial world, the woman misleader is apparently commencing to compete with the man of the same genus, and to draw her own particular red herring across the path of progress to the workers’ emancipation. From the platform and from the police dock, to ”courteous Cabinet minister and brutally businesslike “steward ” they shout

“VOTES FOR WOMEN”

—to which Herbert Burrows, member of the Social Democratic Federation, takes exception, and gently seeks to chide. He, as a “revolutionary Socialist,” points out that the fight is “disingenuous,” nay, even “crooked.” They are merely fighting for a limited franchise for women. He urges them to become, like himself, an “ardent adult suffragist.”

Burrows believes in progress—backwards. The Chartists 60 years ago “demanded” adult suffrage.

Above this din rings out the clarion cry in the

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. “The emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race OR SEX.”

We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain refuse to be led aside by any of the discordant cries around us. Our goal is the Socialist Republic, where, economically free, the position of woman will be no longer determined by mere property “relations, where lip-service homage will give place to high devotion, where “the dark shadow ol haeterism” will be as the fast-fading memory of a bad dream, and the hateful marriage mart a hideous fossil found on the shores of Time to remind the race of its hard probation in the wilderness of capitalism, where woman will be

“Spouse, Sister, Angel ! Pilot of the Fate

Whose course has been so starless.

A divine presence in a place divine,

That on the fountain of our heart a seal

Will set to keep its waters pure and bright”

Augustus Snellgrove

[Quotes] (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Liberals must persevere with their accepted policy of combining the defence of Free Trade with reasonable, just, and prudent Social Reform, which indeed becomes all the more necessary as a protection against the wild schemes of extremists".-—Daily Chronicle.

_________________ 

Exact justice is commonly more merciful in the long run than pity, for it tends to foster in men those stronger qualities which make them good citizens.—Lowell.

_________________ 

Great minds do, indeed, react on the Society which has made them what they are; but they only pay with interest what they have received. Macaulay.

_________________ 

“The Socialists voted for a little known barrister, on the express understanding that in certain other divisions of Manchester and in neighbouring constituencis the orthodox Liberal should abstain from opposing Labour candidates.”

The above extract from the leading article in the Daily Telegraph of January 24th last should be read in conjunction with the correspondence columns of this issue.

Here and There. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Sunday, January 12th, the Hyde I.L.P. and Labour Church held two meetings in the Theatre Royal, Corporation Street. Councillor John Lachlan said they would find, if they considered his practical work, that Christ believed absolutely in the collective ownership of the means of life. Nineteen hundred years ago, he said, Christ founded the creed of Socialism.

* * *

One can quite understand the North Cheshire Herald’s reporter’s statement that this Councillor gave a humorous speech !

* * *

At the same meeting Mr. J. A. Seddon, M.P., was asked about the Labour Party’s Unemployed Bill and the penal clause. He replied that he was not there to defend the Bill nor to say it was a step in the right direction. He did not claim to know the solution of the unemployed problem, and if they were to wait until the remedy was brought about he thought the questioner was a greater enemy to the unemployed than to anyone else.

* * *

If this report is correct what a tower of strength to the Labour Party Mr. Seddon must be.

* * *

According to the “Trenchant Manifesto” issued by the Trade Union and Labour Officials Temperance Fellowship, one of the reasons why the liquor traffic is an enemy of the working-class movement is because “it lessens the industrial efficiency of the worker.”

* * *

In so far as it does this, of course, it tends to relieve the pressure of the unemployed problem. New and improved machinery, better organisation of industry, more healthful conditions of employment, increase the efficiency of the worker and increase the unemployed.

* * *

It is rather cool of the T.U. and L.O.T.F. to accuse the liquor trade of “a sinister avowal that it sets its own trade interests above the welfare of the nation” because its motto is “Our trade our politics,” when it is remembered that existing trade unions set the welfare of their own members not only against that of workers outside but in many cases against members of other trade unions. As a rule, too, by their high fees and other restrictions the unions limit their “benefits” to the privileged few who are permitted to join.

* * *

“On the whole, there is nothing to lead one to suppose that there will be any irreconcilable differences between the Labour Party and the Government when the House of Commons is invited to discuss Mr. Asquith’s scheme (of old age pensions).—Daily Chronicle, Jan. 20th.

* * *

At the Labour Party Conference on Unemployment, Mr. Will Thorne, the S.D.F. M.P., declared “bluntly” that the Party’s Unemployed Bill only played with the question. And yet, as the astute, and far from blunt, Ramsay MacDonald pointed out, Mr. Thorne has backed this very bill.

* * *

Out of his own mouth, therefore, is the member for South West Ham condemned. He has put his name to a bill that is a fraud, and must support it in the House of Commons.

* * *

At the same meeting Mr. Thorne asked why, if those present believed that Socialism is the only remedy, they did not say so ?

* * *

This is pot and kettle with a vengeance, seeing that Mr. Thorne, on his own confession, sunk his Socialism and ran as a “Labour” candidate only at the General Election, and also supported Mr. Percy Alden, the Liberal candidate for Tottenham, S.D.F. rules and L.R.C. Constitution notwithstanding.

* * *

Mr. Theodore C. Taylor, M.P., recently visited Japan and China and, as a result of his investigations, he urges that if we (i.e., British capitalists) are to retain our hold upon the world’s markets, our aim must be better work and more work in the time, to correspond with the shorter hours we now work. As yet, he says, it is mainly in coarse counts that China and Japan compete with Lancashire, but he sees nothing to prevent their spinning finer counts as well. One company whose works he saw had eleven policemen of their own and in the manager’s office was a row of twenty-four rifles for use in case of need. (Of course, there is no class war: capital and labour are brothers !) The company had also provided a Roman Catholic church, a school, and a free dispensary as equipment of the “village” they have built for their workfolks. How kind !

* * *

If the schoolmaster can’t educate the Chinamen as to the advantage of being wage-slaves, and if the priest cannot chloroform them—well, let’s try the cops and the rifles. It is astonishing how effective is the fear of man when the love of God fails !

* * *

By their Gas Act of 1875 the Widnes Corporation are compelled to devote all profits arising from the gasworks to either extension or to reduction of price, but they have now inserted a clause in the Bill they are bringing before Parliament to empower them to devote the profits to the relief of the rates. The landlords are supporting the proposal and the big chemical and soap magnates are opposing it.

* * *

If it were true that rents rise or fall because rates rise or fall, the change would make no difference to the landlords, and they would not therefore be opposing the manufacturers on the point.

* * *

Mr. H. Quelch, of the Social Democratic Federation, was present at the Hull Labour Party Conference, disguised as a Trade Union delegate.

* * *

He asked the Conference to declare itself, and let them know absolutely where they were.

* * *

We can understand his desire to find out where he was and what he was doing, in view of the S.D.F. refusal to again affiliate with the Labour Party, because it is not a Socialist party.

* * *

He also said that he objected to a Labour Party which was a non-Socialist party in England and a Socialist party on the Continent.

* * *

It is no doubt because he objects to it that he was supporting it at its National Conference.

* * *

Mr. Bruce Glasier did not wish to impose Socialism upon those who were not prepared to declare for it.

* * *

And, he might have added, he was not prepared to declare for it whilst it was more profitable, politically and financially, to hide it.

J. B.

Blogger's Note:

Local knowledge of Hyde and Widnes in this column suggests that 'J.B.' was Manchester Branch's Jim Brough.

Correspondence: I.L.P. compacts in Manchester. (1908)

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

I.L.P. compacts in Manchester.

Comrade,—On November 20th Mr. T. Swan of the I.L.P. asserted in debate with J. Marsh (S.P.G.B.), that a member of the S.P.G.B. had stated that the I.L.P. had been parties to a compromise with the Liberals during the General Election ; but this statement was a deliberate lie, as no such compact had taken place. If, he added, the S.P.G.B. were proved locally to have made a statement that could not be verified, of what value were the statements made in their Manifesto and elsewhere ?

Now for the facts upon which the charge was made. On the 28th July, 1907, Swan was announced to debate with Kitson, on “Socialism versus Anarchism.” Wishing to know something more of the Anarchist position, I went to the meeting place, but found Swan holding forth, Kitson having failed to turn up.

At the conclusion of Swan’s address questions were asked for. After I spoke of the compromise referred to above. Swan denied that it had appeared in the Clarion, and, as I spoke then only from memory of 18 month’s previously, I let it pass. After, however, it was referred to by Swan on Nov. 20th, I bought the Clarions for the last three months of 1905 and found “The Clarion Post Bag ” for Nov. 10th, 1905, contained the following :—

”EAST MANCHESTER,  

To the Editor of the Clarion. 

Dear Sir,—Your article in Clarion of October 27 re Socialist candidate for East Manchester Parliamentary Division, was considered by our executive committee at their meeting on November 2, and I was instructed to inform you that the above committee was created by the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council for the purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates in Manchester and Salford at the next General Election.

The committee is representative in character, consisting of trade unions and branches of the Independent Labour Party, and the constituencies they have selected to be contested are South-West and North-East Manchester Divisions.

Our candidates, Mr. G. D. Kelley and Mr. J. R. Clynes, have been before the constituents some time, their prospects of success are excellent, and they have received the endorsement of the National Labour Representation Committee.

Our executive committee are strongly of the opinion that the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidates in S. W. and N.E. Manchester Divisions, and would tend to upset the cordial relations at present existing between the trade unions and Socialist organisations for independent political action, which has taken many years to bring about.

In view of these circumstances, they feel it would be a mistaken policy for the Clarion to put forward a Socialist candidate for East Manchester, and one which they, as the representative body of the Labour and Socialist bodies in the district, appointed for the specific purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates, could not countenance. 

Yours sincerely,

J. Nuttall

Secretary, M/c & Salford Lbr. Rpn. Committee, 29, York Street, Broughton, Salford.”

J. Butterworth, of 7, Royal Street, Ardwick, Secretary of the Ardwick I.L.P.,had a letter in the same issue of the Clarion in which he states in reply to A. M. Thompson’s “I wait now to hear from the constituency,” (Nov. 3/05), that “I or someone else may have something definite to say upon the matter,” “in the course of a few days.” What that “something definite” was we gather from the Clarion of Dec. 1st, 1905, when there appeared the following in a letter, dated November 27th, 1905 :—

“The following resolution was moved by Councillor Fox and seconded by Councillor Sutton:—

That this meeting of the members of East Manchester branches of the I.L.P. cannot consent to the candidature of Bramley without the consent of the M/c and Salford L.R.C. After discussion, the following amendment was moved by Comrade Hunt (of the Bradford branch), and seconded by Comrade Jones (of the Ardwick branch) :—

‘That we, members of the Ardwick and Bradford branches of the I.L.P., although, on account of our affiliation with the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester, cannot withhold our consent to the promotion of the candidature of F. Bramley for the division by the Clarion Board.’ ”

In explanation, A. M. Thompson said “The resolution conveyed in this letter shows misunderstanding of the situation. No candidature is, or can be, promoted by the Clarion Board.”

F. W. Jowett, in the Clarion for December 15th, 1905, points out that “There is one thing, however, which is beyond doubt, and that is the duty of our members in constituencies where a candidate is being run by any of the organisations affiliated to the L.R.C., as an L.R.C. candidate. The cohesion of the Labour movement largely depends upon the thoroughness with which the sections in each constituency concerned unite on the man in the field, to whatever section he may belong.”

Now, I maintain that the I.L.P. as a party affiliated to the L.R.C. are, as a matter of moral obligation, compelled to agree to any arrangement the L.R.C. may arrive (or connive) at. That they did act loyally to their L.R.C. confederates is shown by the words “we, on account of our affiliation to the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester” (their “consent” without support would have been useless to Bramley, as a candidate). Therefore it was a mere pious resolution. Had they supported Bramley they would have been false to their L.R.C. friends, because “the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in M/c would seriously damage the good prospects” of Kelley and Clynes in S.W. & N.E. Divisions. (vide Sec. Nuttall of the L.R.C.) They were, on this showing, as members of the L.R.C., parties to the compact I spoke of.

Perhaps Mr. Swan may use words for a purpose different to that in which words are generally understood. But a compact is “a mutual agreement or contract, a treaty, a league, a confederacy.” (Nuttall). That there was an agreement was made further evident when I saw in the Clarion for December 22nd, 1905 a letter signed “Unification,” in which occurs the following:—

“That there is a great possible danger in the confusion of the word “Labour” with the Liberal Party will be obvious to most people when we read such statements as appeared in a Manchester evening paper—that a certain Labour candidate saw eye to eye with the Liberals on nine points out of ten, and it would, therefore, not be policy to bring out a Liberal candidate and thus create a three-cornered fight. The ambiguity of the term is proving a valuable asset to the Liberal Party ; but when we learn that the L.R.C. are averse to sanctioning the candidature of a Socialist for East Manchester, on the grounds that the Liberals would then contest the two Manchester divisions, where Labour candidates are nominated, we can certainly excuse the outsiders if they consider the Labour Party as a Liberal wing. What other complexion can be placed on such a help-me-and-I’ll-help-you policy ? ”

And furthermore, in the Manchester Courier of December 16th last the following appears :—

“LABOUR AND WEST SALFORD 

Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew. The Labour Party’s love of Liberalism has not been improved in the last two years, and after the success of its own candidates in Manchester last year a renewal of the arrangement which gave the Liberals six candidates to Labour’s two is not likely.”

What has Mr. Swan to say now?—Yours fraternally,

J. Brough

P.S.—As I did not join the S.P.G.B. Until 28th August, 1907, the statement Mr. Swan dubbed a “deliberate lie” was not made by “a member of the S.P.G.B.,” but that, of course, ia a minor point.

Correspondence: Could the workers capture the House of Commons? (1908)

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

Could the workers capture the House of Commons?

Dear Comrade,—Are we justified in assuming that the working class, being the majority of the electors, could return a majority of Socialists to the House of Commons ? I am at present rather dubious on this point, having seen some figures in the “Daily Mail Year Book” for 1908, which seem to disprove the contention that the working class have the power to elect a Socialist majority. For instance, Kilkenny has 1,584 electors and returns one M.P. while Wandsworth has 34,461 and only returns one M.P. The Romford Division of Essex returns but one M.P. and has an electorate numbering 47,614, and Newcastle, with 37,417 voters returns two M.P’s.

Let us imagine an election to have taken place. A Conservative is returned for Kilkenny with 1,000 votes, and a Socialist is returned for Romford Division with 30,000 votes. We see here one Conservative and one Socialist returned, but the Conservative vote is only one-thirtieth that of the Socialist.

I should certainly think that the majority of the voters in divisions with a large electorate are proletarian, as it is only the workers who are found crowded together, while those divisions with a small electorate, which I believe are usually country divisions, would be mostly bourgeois.

In 1886 the Unionists were in a minority of 65,000 votes, yet they had a majority of 104 seats. We find a similar thing in Germany. The Social Democrats polled 3,251,000 votes and obtained 43 seats, while the Centre Party obtained 105 seats and polled only 2,247,000 votes.

I have written this letter in the hope that it may produce a discussion that will dispel these doubts from my mind.—Yours fraternally,

H. A. Young.

Dec. 8th, 1907.

Correspondence: Electoral Tactics in the Potteries. (1908)

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

Electoral Tactics in the Potteries. 

Sir,—Can a worse case of faking and compromise be found than the following ?

At the recent Municipal elections the A.S.R.S. put forward a Mr. Robinson for the South Ward, and his candidature was endorsed by the North Staffs Trades and Labour Council. He is a member of the I.L.P., but did not mention that fact in his election address. Another member of the A.S.R.S., an ex-signalman named Leese, an expelled member of the I.L.P., who poses as a “Labour” man and who has acted as election agent for Mr. John Ward, M.P., undertook to serve in a similar capacity for Mr. Robinson. The Mayor, who was also running in the same ward, called upon Mr. Leese, threatened that he should be opposed next election, reminded him that his (the Mayor’s) class gave liberally to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund of the A.S.R.S., that he (Leese) did not altogether depend upon the working class for his livelihood, and also that the railway companies were objecting to their servants contesting elections. The result was that a notice appeared in the Sentinel the following evening stating that Mr. Robinson had withdrawn, as he did not wish to oppose the Mayor !

In the Wellington Ward of Hanley, Mr. J. Lovatt, member of the S.D.F., and secretary of the Potters’ Union, was put forward by his union as a Labour Candidate, although as he won Justice claimed the result as an S.D.F. victory. At an indoor meeting Mr. Lovatt said he was a Socialist but was putting that on one side and was running simply as a Labour candidate in order to be at peace with the non-Socialists in his union. On Oct. 30th he was supporting Mr. A. Stanley, M.P., an anti-Socialist, at a public meeting !

Thus do the place-hunters obscure the issue.

Yours faithfully,

J.T. Skelton.

[Do figs grow on thistles ?—Ed. T.S.S.]

The Workers’ Share. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Morning Advertiser, commenting upon the unemployed problem, said : —

“It is an old fallacy that shortening the hours of labour of those who have work will enable those who have no work to find it. If, indeed, it were the case that the shortening of his hours increased the efficiency, and therefore the productiveness, of the worker, such an effect might be produced. But there are probably very few cases in which this would be so; and of those the Socialists were certainly not thinking. They mean by shortening the man’s hours to reduce the product of his day’s work. The result would be diminished wealth, and consequently diminished opportunities for employment.”

Socialists do, indeed, realise that in the reduction of unemployment the reduction of hours is only of use in so far as it necessitates the employment of more wage workers. The wily Advertiser scents the danger of a knowledge of this antagonism of interests, and hastens to assure its readers that the reduction of hours could only alleviate unemployment if it increased the efficiency and output of labour, and so, as it certainly would, enabled more work to be done by fewer men ! True, the Advertiser did not say which unemployed. One can quite understand an improvement in the lot of the wealthy unemployed following upon a decrease in in their wages bill and an increase in their wealth.

The interests of that class demand greater efficiency and productivity on the part of the workers, together with a reduction in that portion of the total wealth spent in wages. And the organ of Bung so puts the matter as to convey the idea (which is greedily swallowed by the Labourites who do not realise, or do not want to realise, the fact of the class antagonism) that capital and labour are brothers sharing proportionately out of the bowl into which the total produce of labour is poured. The labourer, however, is a hireling and not a partner. Out of the total wealth his labour produces he gets but his keep while lucky enough to be employed. The more he produces and the quicker the demand of the market is met, the less of his fellows are employed, the sooner is he thrown out of work, and the smaller in proportion is the aggregate share the workers obtain out of the total wealth produced.

It is not, then, as the Advertiser would have it, a question of the increase or decrease in the total wealth, but rather a question of the increase in the number of workers that the master class needs to employ and pay in the production of that wealth. It is a question, in other words, of the share of the total product which the workers obtain, not of its total amount.

The Socialist realises that out of the total product of labour the more the workers get the less remains for the idlers. The worker’s interests under capitalism are rather in the direction of promoting the waste of wealth than in promoting its increase. Not overflowing warehouses, stores and shops and glutted markets, but the destruction of accumulated stocks of commodities and of all kinds of property that must be replaced is the worker’s desire under capitalism, so that he and his fellows may have plenty of work, and of wages sufficient to live upon. It is, therefore, idle for the Advertiser to pretend that the workers’ share cannot increase unless the total produce is increased. Such, however, is the normal capitalist view of things. But, to paraphrase Marx, it is forgotten that the bowl from which the workmen eat is filled with the whole produce of labour, and what prevents them fetching more out is neither the narrowness of the bowl nor the scantiness of its contents, but only the smallness of their spoons.

While capitalism endures the share of the “national” wealth that is obtained by the workers is determined not by the amount of the total wealth but by the condition of the labour market and the strength of the workers in their struggle against the possessing class. Not in the increase of the “national” wealth, but in the increase of their share in it, is the wage-slave class primarily concerned. It is, indeed, the very impotence of the workers in their attempts to increase their share of the total produce of their labour, so long as capitalism is, that must compel them to realise at last, the only way ; and that is through the overthrow of capitalist rule and in social production for themselves.

F. C. Watts

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

W.T.S. (Crewe).—Irrespective of our opinion in the matter, the General Secretary and Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. are condemned out of their own months. In April last they issued a manifesto to Railwaymen in which they said “The delegates” (at Birmingham in November, 1906) “also decided that all negotiations relative to the men’s conditions shall be conducted through the Head Office, and the General Secretary of the Society. It may at once be definitely accepted that until this is done the men cannot hope for any great or substantial reforms.” The italics are ours. The income of the Union in 1906 was £82,978 6s. 0d. and the expenditure £50,813 1s. 1d., of which £25,214 0s 8d. was paid to members in benefits, £69 17s. 0d. in contributions to other Unions, and £25,529 3s. 5d. went in salaries of officers and other expenses of management.

J.B. (Manchester),—At the 1903 Newcastle Conference of the L.R.C. the constitution was revised, but has not since been altered. Candidates pledge themselves to accept the constitution, and “to abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties.” At that Conference it was moved by Mr. John Hodge (Steel Smelters) and seconded by Mr. C. Freak (Boot & Shoe Operatives) “That this Labour Representation Conference, representing nearly a million organised workers, unanimously endorses the candidature of Wm. Crooks, L.C.C., for the bye-election at Woolwich, rejoices in the chance of the return of another member to Parliament who accepts the Constitution of the Committee, and begs every workman in the division to vote for Crooks.” This resolution was carried with one dissentient. The Constitution was revised after the passing of this resolution. At the fourth Conference (Bradford, 1904) the Executive gave the result of the bye-election, describing Mr. Crooks as the L.R.C. candidate and included him in their list of L.R.C. candidates for the next elections. His name also appeared in the next annual report as a candidate and in the following one as an L.R.C. Member of Parliament. Mr. Crooks received £200 from the Committee for his salary for 1906, and presumably, therefore, he was taking the money of the L.R.C. at the time he sent the letter in support of Mr. Hamar Greenwood at York. No member’s salary is paid until he has signed the Constitution.

M.B. (Manchester).—It was stated by Reynold’s Newspaper of January 14th, 1906 that, among other “Socialists,” E. Belfort Bax, J. F. Green, and A. S. Headingley, all of the S.D.F., were members of the National Liberal Club, and that before being elected, every candidate must take a pledge that he will support the principles of the Liberal Party. Mr. Bax makes no secret of his membership. In the Social Democrat for July, 1902, J. B. Askew wrote : “It certainly seems curious that Bax, who is so severe on Bernstein, finds it consistent with his hatred of Liberalism to remain a member of a club which makes it a condition of membership that a member should recognise the principles of the Liberal Party . . . But then, are not the armchairs comfortable, and the whisky good ?” In the following issue Bax replied as follows: “Those members of the S.D.F. (and they count among them men who have certainly paid their tribute to the Cause in the past) who like myself are members of the N.L.C.,” etc. We believe that Mr. H. M. Hyndman is also a member. At any rate he was one of the speakers on May 25th, 1906, when Mr. W. M. Thompson was the guest at a dinner of the Club. Mr. Hyndman spoke after John Burns ! A. Hayday, S.D.F., is president of the South West Ham Radical Club of which W. Thorne and J. Jones are also members.

S.T. (Glasgow).—The S.D.F. “demand” is for “compulsory military training” and this cannot be had without military discipline. The S.D.F. must recognise this, because in that weird document which they term their programme they declare for the abolition of standing armies (number not stated) and the establishment of national citizen forces (number also omitted) and afterwards the abolition of courts-martial; all offences against discipline to be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts. So that they anticipate there will be offences against discipline even when they have national citizen forces.

Men v. Machinery. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

To work all the suspended scenery by an electric motor instead of by hand, Mr. Frank Curzon has just had an installation, invented by Mr. Edward Lytton, put up at Wyndham’s Theatre, and yesterday he saw it in working for the first time.

The saving of labour, money, and time effected by the machinery is wonderful, for now, instead of a theatre requiring from ten to thirty men—according to the work to be done—up in the flies, one man with the machine, which will not cost more than a shilling a week for electric power, can raise and lower all the scene cloths and sky borders and the curtain. It will set a ceiling-piece automatically, will take up scenes at the same moment as it is lowering others, and obviates the necessity of the stage carpenter calling up directions as to whether or not the scenery has been let down the correct distance.

The fact that wire instead of hempen ropes are use has, for reason of safety in case of fire, secured the approval of the London County Council, and the reliability of the machine has been guaranteed by the experiments which the inventor has carried out at the Coronet Theatre.

Daily Mail, Jan. 22nd.

A Discussion on Unemployment. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The leading article in the December issue of the Socialist Standard has been replied to—in a way.

On Christmas eve, when thoughts were turned to wishing Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All Men, the author of that article met Messrs. Williams and Greenwood. Williams said nothing— Greenwood said much.

He assured me he had read my “mean, contemptible, despicable article” in my “dirty little rag,” and proceeded to give his opinion of the Party in general and me in particular. This opinion was not very flattering nor couched in particularly elegant language, and I suggested that when he had quite exhausted his vocabulary of abusive terms he might attempt to refute the statements in the article, or even argue the points mentioned. He assured me, with much gesticulation, that the only way he would argue with me would be to take me by the throat and strangle the life out of me. But as this would still have left the points of difference in dispute the offer was not accepted.

Then I was subjected to a further denunciation for “belittling men who had made such sacrifices for the movement.” The Communist Manifesto states “the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains ; they have a world to win.” And as I presume you cannot sacrifice what you never had, I disagree with his remarks about sacrifices.

But he didn’t mind my theorising on the question of unemployment; what he objected to was my way of imputing dishonesty to them. I replied that if they could square their method of organising the unemployed with the principles of Socialism I should be glad to hear it. Again he expressed his desire to punch my head, but Ludgate Circus at 2 o’c in the afternoon did not offer a good opportunity, so that his discretion supplanted his valour (!). True, he invited me to “bring up my pals” after the punching process, but the invitation was declined. His parting shot was that he was of the opinion that I was not a Socialist but a paid agent of the Tory Party ! This after waxing wrathfully eloquent over my “insinuations.”

It is doubtful whether the incident is worth much attention. The anger of Mr. Greenwood clearly shows he has no case and knows it; and, personally, I regret that he should have so far descended as to make a fool and a blackguard of himself. To bystanders, hearing a man raving in the name of Socialism does not reflect any credit on it, and when he wants to strangle an opponent and go to other absurd lengths to manifest disagreement they are still less likely to be attracted to the movement. If I had said anything in my article which was incorrect, it was, and is, open to Mr. Greenwood or any other to write to the editor explaining the error, and demanding a withdrawal. For my part, I am certain that the mere receipt of a decently courteous expression of disapproval would do more to alter my opinion than all the abuse and the threats which even Mr. Greenwood is capable of.

I trust that his attitude is not typical of his organisation on this matter of argument, because if questions in dispute are to be settled by an appeal to physical force, the S.D.F. would be proved wrong by the powers that be, as would any opinion that happened to be in the minority, and I cannot believe that the man with the stronger arm is always more correct than the weaker one, any more than Mr. Greenwood’s greater size and strength would infallibly prove the incorrectness of the position of—

R. H. Kent.

A Scientist on the Family. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is, that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society, assuming the continuous progress of civilization, it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.

Morgan. “Ancient Society.”

Islington Branch Report. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reorganised in October, 1906, the Islington Branch has made steady progress. Our propaganda meetings have been the means of converting, among others, several members of the I.L.P. to Socialism, who have therefore resigned that body and joined the Socialist Party. The meetings, both at Highbury Corner and Finsbury Park, have well attended. the Socialist Standard sells well here, and we are always sure of a good collection. Several debates have taken place in Finsbury Park, the most notable of which were those with Fred Bramley, late of the Clarion Van, and Mr. Byland, of the Constitutional League. A report of the former appeared in the Party organ, while the latter was given a column in the Islington Gazette. We are now trying to arrange a debate with the Islington Branch of the S.D.F. on the question of “The palliative position of the S.D.F. v. the non palliative position of the S P.G.B.” Finishing up a very successful open air propaganda season, we looked about for a means of carrying on our work indoors, and finally succeeded in obtaining a hall, described by the local press as “the cosy, well lighted, well warmed, cheery-looking Grovedale Hall,” situated in Grovedale Road, Elthorne Road, Upper Holloway, close to Highgate tram terminus. Here we shall continue our work of converting the proletariat of Islington to Socialism. A debate has been arranged with a member of the Islington Borough Council, particulars of which we give from the Islington Post: “The first of a series of meetings to be held under the auspices of the Socialist Party of Great Britain will be the much talked of debate between Councillor Thomas Henry Dey and Mr. A. Anderson, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which will take place in Grovedale Hall on Thursday, February 6th. The Chair will be taken by Alderman T. Wakelin Saint at 8 p.m. Councillor Dey will open for half an hour, and take the affirmative on the question “Would Socialism be detrimental to the interest of the people?” Mr. Anderson will have half an hour to reply. Councillor Dey will have another twenty minutes and his opponent twenty minutes, then a final ten minutes each. Admission will be free to all.” Several debates have taken place from the enemy’s platform on “Christianity v. Socialism,” and on one occasion, in spite of 8 degrees of frost, the audience numbered several hundreds.

Islington, like most other districts, has its poverty problem, and in Pentonville it is most acute. In this district a Children’s Care Committee has been formed “for the relief of children suffering from want of food.” Four schools alone: White Lion St., Risinghill St., Ann St., and Winchester St., have 4,836 children on their roll. The statement of an official in the Pentonville Branch of the Salvation Army that “In spite of all our efforts poverty in Pentonville is increasing,” proves once more that chartity cannot cope with the problem. Neither can any other palliative of capitalism. If you desire to know the only solution come to Grovedale Hall on Thursday evenings.

H. A. Young

Tottenham Branch Report. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are still carrying on our outdoor operations in this district, despite inclement weather. During the last six months of 1907, 90 propaganda meetings were held, the aggregate amount collected bringing over £13 into the Party funds. Our literature sales are on the increase : during one month we cleared 300 Socialist Standards, 150 “Art, Labour and Socialism,” and 100 Manifestoes. Our flourishing financial position enabled us to donate £2 a month to the Centre. We have enrolled 40 new members during the period. On Saturday, August 10th, we opened up propaganda in Walthamstow, and since then some 16 very successful meetings have been held there, to the obvious discomfort of the local reform parties, who have endeavoured to defend themselves (and incidentally advertise their literature) from our platform, while steadfastly refusing to allow our members to get upon theirs. A debate took place on Sept. 20th between Mr. Whybrow (I.L.P.) and Comrade Anderson on “The Tactics of the S.P.G.B.,” and a Mr. C. Quinn was also met and disposed of the subject being “Is the S.P.G.B. the only Socialist Party?”

We have now a sufficient number of members in that district to form a branch, and the coming summer season will surely see the Walthamstow branch in the “Directory.” On Christmas morning we held a meeting at Seven Sisters Corner, making a special collection for the Head Office, which realized 15s 7d.

We are running a series of discussions in the hall of the “Sunbeam” on Wednesday evenings,, where we “sharpen our swords and test our bucklers” that we may be ready to do battle on the behalf of and in defence of The Socialist Party in

TOTTENHAM

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

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

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard