Quote. [voting] (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The only way to guard against throwing your vote away is to vote for the party that stands for what you stand for. To vote for something that you don’t want in order to avoid something else that you don’t is to do worse than throw your vote away."—The Call.

Blogger's Note:

My educated guess is that The Call cited above was The New York Call, which had been launched in May of 1908. There was a British 'socialist' paper with the title of The Call but that dates from 1916-20.

Anybody else think that the quote is reminiscent of the following famous Eugene Debs' quote?:

“I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want, and get it.”

The Bury debate. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Executive Committee have received the following communication from Mr. Allan, who signs himself the General Secretary-Treasurer of the British Advocates of Industrial Unionism, with a request for publication. We have asked our comrade Fitzgerald for his remarks on the matter and append his reply.—ED.

____________

After a debate between the S.P.G.B. and the S.L.P. in Bury on August 2nd, in which the S.P.G.B. representative was Mr. Fitzgerald and the S.L.P. representative was W. Davis, the former gentleman endeavoured to slander the I.W.W. by stating that while the Industrial Unionists made a point against the Trade Unions in that they created their own scabs by expelling members who were out of employment and who allowed their dues to lapse for a period of say one year or so, the I.W.W. did so still the more because it had a rule expelling members out of employment who were sixty days in arrears. In proof of this he read from Article VI., Section 10, of the Constitution :—

“All National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions, Local Unions and individual members of the Industrial Workers of the World that are in arrears for dues and assessments for sixty days, counting from the last day of the month for which reports and remittances are due, shall not be considered in good standing and shall not be entitled to any of the benefits or payments from any fund of this organisation.”

He claimed that the term “shall not be considered in good standing” was an Americanism which involved expulsion, and although the rule does not specifically state that members who are out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he gratuitously assumed this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W., that they shall be kept in the organisation by being excused payment of dues.

However, as I always like to be doubly sure, I wrote to W. E. Trautmann, General Secretary-Treasurer of the I.W.W., and this is a copy of his reply, which should effectually ram the lie back in Mr. Fitzgerald’s teeth if he intended purposely to slander the I.W.W., or gently correct him if he was only mistaken.

____________

COPY OF W. E. TRAUTMANN’S LETTER.

Chicago Ill., U.S.A. 

Aug. 17, 1908.

Comrade and Fellow-Worker,

In reply to yours of August 3rd, I wish to state that there is no occasion for anybody to drop out of the I.W.W. when once a member, as those out of a job are exempt from paying any dues, etc; but if those who work and earn money so that they could pay their regular dues to the organisation, neglect their duty, they thereby suspend themselves, after three months lapse of time, from the organisation (Note, they suspend themselves.—W.G.A.).

The Constitution, of which I enclose a copy, does not state that members out of work are exempt from payment of dues, but that has been the rule since the inception of the organisation, and is especially now of great benefit to the organisation, as those without jobs are allowed to continue the agitation for the I.W.W. as members thereof, although they do not pay dues and are receiving exemption stamps to show it. 

(Signed) W. E. Trautmann.

Further comment is needless, and if Mr. Fitzgerald is honest he will tender his apology and admit he was wrong.

Yours for Industrial Freedom,

W. G. Allan. 

20.9.08.

___________

TO THE EDITOR

5th October, 1908.

Dear Comrade,

Beyond a further point of explanation of the occurrence at Bury I can add no evidence to that so conclusively embodied in Mr. Allan’s own letter as to the truth of my statement.

I stated that the Constitution of the I.W.W. by excluding members for a shorter period of non-payment of dues than the ordinary trade union, helped to make its own blacklegs faster than those they (the I.W.W.) denounced, and pointed to unemployment as the chief cause of this non-payment. Mr. Allan first denied that such a rule existed, and when confronted with a copy of the Constitution, and the rule he quotes in his letter was pointed out to him, he tried to escape by saying that there was another rule exempting those unemployed from payment of dues. He was at once handed the Constitution and challenged to find such rule, and, of course, failed to do so. The letter purporting to come from W. E. Trautmann re-emphasises this fact by stating that “The Constitution does not state that members out of work are exempt”—the only point in dispute. What fancy, unwritten laws may prevail in Chicago—or in Trautmann’s mind—have no bearing on the point, seeing that the I.W.W. was formed in 1905, has had a convention each year since, and is still without such a rule in its Constitution.

Mr. Allan says that “although the rule does not specifically state that members out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he (Fitzgerald) gratuitously assumes this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W.” It is a pity Mr. Allan did not read the rule he himself quotes, as it there states ” ALL. . . . individual members,” etc. This admits of no exception, and therefore I assumed nothing in the matter. As to it being a “well-known principle,” so little is it either a “principle” or “well-known” that it, is embodied in neither the Preamble nor the Rules.

The only lie in the case is Mr. Allan’s assertion that the I.W.W. had a rule in its Constitution exempting unemployed members from payment of dues, the falsity of which is fully proved by his own letter. The only apology due is one owing to your readers for having to go over ground already fully dealt with in our debate with the Advocates published in the August and November, 1907, issues of this journal.

Fraternally yours,

J. Fitzgerald

Another Rod in Pickle. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Constitutional Association being dead and its “Black Marias” scrapped after a few hours of pitiably inglorious life, the Anti-Socialist Union, with Mr. Claude Lowther as President, bobs up with its little lot. “The standard works of Socialism are being studied, and every candidate (for a speakership in the Union) will be subjected to a viva voce examination of a hundred questions before being regarded as qualified. Pamphlets will be published . . and a circle of anti-Socialist writers, speakers, M.P’s and others will he formed, who will meet once a month and exchange ideas.”

So once more we are in for a nice hot time—running round to try and find where the anti-Socialist members of the Union are on the stump. The difficulty with the Constitutional Association was that it took the precaution not to announce where its great public demonstrations against Socialism were to be held, and when we did happen to alight upon one, the anti-Socialist speaker took the very necessary step of refusing opposition. As the Daily Express rather naively pointed out, it was dangerous to allow a Socialist on an anti-Socialist platform because the Socialist was in possession of the facts and the “anti” was not, the result being that the Socialist made Socialists while the “anti” made—well, made rather a fool of himself ! What they had to do, then, according to the Express, was to wait until a certain handbook was published, which would contain information that would simply wipe the Socialist propagandist off the map. We waited patiently and with some interest for our untimely end to overtake us, but that dark, documentary spell-binder never saw the light, and the “Black Marias” out of which our doom was to be pronounced, are probably now doing more useful service as coffee stalls.

The Anti-Socialist Union’s special line, however, is not a book, but a list of 100 questions. When all these have been answered satisfactorily, its speakers take the road, and the Daily Express, unabashed, anticipates that that moment will see the rout of the Socialists commenced.

Well, the Express is welcome to its anticipation, and it had better get all the comfort it can. before the realisation comes. Because if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the Socialists will run when the rout commences—in chase of the “anties,” who will be hot-foot in retreat.

But we fear that, although it is welcome, to it, the Express gets no very satisfactory comfort out of its anticipation. The Express is vastly more knave than fool, and although it may jeer at our confidence, it knows quite well that its anticipation will never be realised. However, our contemporary cannot be expected to admit anything of the sort. Its express purpose in life is to run the gamut between the mild perversion and the downright lie, particularly when dealing with the position of the Socialist. Its business is not to say what it thinks so much as to say what it wishes its readers to think. And as the potential orators of the Anti-Socialist Union will doubtless be amongst its most assiduous devourers, they may, if they are very simple, derive sufficient confidence from the utterances of the organ of the greatest hustler on earth to go on with their work—particularly if, as will doubtless be the case, a decent stipend is attached to the job.

We only wish that it were possible for us to be present at some of the meetings of the circle whereat “ideas” will be exchanged. Might we suggest to the Anti-Socialist Union that the public be admitted at a small charge. We at any rate would get full value for our outlay—in merriment.

However, let them all come, and the sooner the better—for us. But we hope the two first questions on that hundred list will not be, say, “Is there any remedy for the poverty problem that will stand the test of examination other than Socialism ?” and, “Is there one single useful or necessary thing performed by the capitalist to-day that the workers, properly organised, could not perform for themselves ?” Because in that case there is a very good chance that the other 98 questions will never be reached and therefore the compleat anti-Socialist propagandist never be fashioned and let loose to add to the gaiety of life. And that would be a pity indeed.

Dynamite. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jeering at the claims of the Tariff Reformer as the possessor of a nostrum that will alleviate poverty, Burns, at Tynemouth, 14.10,08 (Daily News report) said “I am not a prophet, but I suggest this : If Protection were in existence, it would never see one hard summer because the people would perish.” So. The people who under Free Trade have so great an advantage over the miserable wretches who are forced to exist under Protection, are so strong, so virile, so well nourished after their generations of prosperity, that they would perish in one summer of Protection that the miserable weaklings of Protection manage, somehow, to pull through years of. No, we should not describe Burns as a prophet. A much shorter word will suffice. He doesn’t seem to have sense enough to know when he is giving the game away. Verily, if his salary is to be preserved to him the Lord must make quick and violent incision in him, for he is indeed raw.

* * *

“In Newcastle Mr. Hudson (Labour) was hand in glove with the Liberal candidate at the last (general) election. He was entertained at the Liberal Club less than 36 hours before the election, and he urged his supporters to split their votes between the Liberal and himself, which was very loyally done.” 

Sunday Chronicle, 13.9.08.

* * *

“Mr. Hudson says that he is not going to take a hand in the contest and his attitude is the outcome of his loyalty to the Labour Party. Newcastle is a strong one-man seat for Labour. Two Labour candidates mean that both would be defeated at the next general election.” 

Sunday Chronicle, 20.9.08.

* * *

“The Independent Parliamentary Labour Party which boasts of its independence of either of the old political parties, has refrained from putting up a candidate at Newcastle because Mr. Hudson, the “Labour” member for the double-seated constituency, believes he cannot be independent of the Liberal vote at the next election ; or, at any rate, the leaders of his party believe that . . . Conservatives can afford to smile at the sight of Labour kow-towing to the Liberals who make helots of some state servants.” — Evening Chronicle, 18.9.08.

* * *

“Forty-six deaths from starvation in the county of London for 1907.” 

Home Office White Paper.

* * *

The Registrar General’s analysis of the 1901 census recently published shows that general labourers in industrial centres have an average mortality more than twice as high as the average for all workers, while the mortality among clergymen is less than half the average.

* * *

“The time is fast approaching when the real struggle will be between the man who wields hammer and chisel and the man who holds the cash-box—Capital versus Labour, if you like. Whig and Tory must give place to these.” 

The Business Man’s Magazine.

Whig and Tory know this already. The Business Man’s Magazine’s writer’s point is merely that Whig and Tory will soon be forced to drop the present pretence of political partizanship in the general interest and come out in what the draper would call “fast colours.”

* * *

Since the law came into operation that closed public houses in Scotland all day on Sunday and early on Saturday, the proportion of charges of drunkenness and disorderliness per 1,000 of the population of Glasgow has increased from 17.7 in 1904 to 27.7 in 1907 according to the official figures supplied by the Chief Constable of Glasgow. In 1904 there were 13,850 charges; 1905, 15,263 charges ; 1906, 20,458 charges ; and in 1907, 22,314. This is how the facts support the argument of the temperance crank that the absense of facilities for drinking prevents drinking being indulged in.

* * *

From 1896 to 1905 the total deaths from all classes of accidents in connection with mines in the United Kingdom was 10,202. (Blue Book.)

* * *

The latest report of the General Board of Commissioners states that since 1858 lunacy in Scotland has increased by 202 per cent. as against a population increase of 58 per cent. On the 1st January last the total number of insane person in Scotland was 17,908.

* * *

“According to the Board of Trade ‘Labour Gazette,’ returns from 268 trade unions, having a net membership of 648,585, showed 8.9 per cent. of the net membership as unemployed. According to the report of the New York State Labor Department, out of a total of 387,450 trade unionists reported on, 138,131, or 35.7 per cent., were unemployed on 31 March. The New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph stated, on 27 April, on the authority of Mr. Herman Robinson, general organiser of the American Federation of Labor, that at least 40 per cent. of the trade unionists of the city of New York were unemployed on 1 April.” 

Morning Leader, 5.10.08.

The Pillory. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. John Burns at Tynemouth, 14.10.08 (Daily News report) said in reference to the Tariff Reformer’s allegation that under Free Trade England was a country of vanishing trades, “If that was true (which he denied) it was unpatriotic to allege it.” Burns’s conception of patriotism is, then, a readiness to lie with all the heart, and soul, and strength, when circumstances require it. Burns is a patriot—for £2,000 a year!

* * *

David Cummings, of the Boilermakers, has gone the way of Isaac Mitchell, of the General Federation. They both have jobs under the Board of Trade, and the capitalist class will doubtless find them eager to justify their salaries. It is better so. In the ranks of the workers they were worse than useless. The workers know now where they are—and why. George Barnes is said to be in the running for a similar job. He also will be better there—if he goes. At present he denies it. But these denials are generally to be taken cum grano salis. If George doesn’t go it will probably be due to the fact that he hasn’t a biblical name. Men with biblical names seem in much greater request, witness John, Isaac, and David. Now if George had been named Barrabas——

* * *

A. S. Headingly, of the S.D.P., is advertised in the St. Louis Labor (3.10.08) as open to speak in the large cities of America at 15 dollars a time. It is not stated whether his address will consist of exhortations to the workers to keep their finger-nails clean and see that the crease in their pants is always in perfect alignment, or whether he will take as his subject “the application of soap below the collar line and its relation to the Revolution.” These grave questions will doubtless be duly considered as usual, notwithstanding that the lecturer’s fee is so low.

* * *

We have been requested to announce that “on Oct. 12th the Rev. Ernest J. B. Kirtlan, B.A., B.D., late chaplain of H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubs, member of Fabian Society, and lecturer for the S.D.P., will speak in connection with the anniversary of the South London Wesleyan Mission. Subject: ‘Fag-Ends.'” The combination of qualifications and the occasion, not less than the importance of the subject, have impelled us to comply. We are sorry that the address will have been delivered some weeks before we can publish the news to the world, but we have done what we could.

* * *

Act 1. Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., introduces a Bill to provide for a citizen army.

Act 2. The S.D.P. issue a pamphlet explaining what Mr. Thorne means. (This was laudable and eminently necessary.)

Act 3. Has not yet been constructed. It might properly take the form of an explanatory pamphlet on the S.D.P. explanation of Mr. Thorne’s Bill.

* * *

Mr. A. E. Wachter is, I understand, a well-known Clarion Scout in his own neighbourhood. He writes to the Sunday Chronicle to enlighten a “middle-class father of eight,” who seems to have alleged that the working “classes” do not pay rates. Mr. Wachter says the working “classes” do pay rates. Mr. Wachter should read THE SOCIALIST STANDARD regularly. It would save him making exhibitions of ignorance. The working class does not pay rates; and there is only one working class. To refer to working classes is absurd.

* * *

“He did not care tuppence ior the abstract opinion of any man who did not come into his trade union and plant down his little bit of money and do his little bit of work.” (G. N. Barnes, M.P., Salford, 4.9.08.) The value of a man’s views is in proportion to the regularity with which he planks down his little bit of money in the union. Mr. Barnes is refreshingly frank.

* * *

At the Sanitary Inspectors’ Conference at Liverpool on the 9th, Sir J. Crichton-Browne said that if Mrs. Hemans were alive she would have to add another verse to her well-known poem in eulogy of tenement buildings. It would probably run, he said, thus—

The tenements of England, piled tier on tier on high.

Stand not by brooks, in verdant nooks, that rest and glad the eye,

But they rest fair, in sun and air, are clean and free from croup,

And safely there the weary sleep, and the sickly cease to droop.

If this is humour it is of the type that requires labelling. If it is not perhaps the least unkind remark one could make would be that Sir J. C. Browne’s poetry is at least as good as his facts; to which might be added that while the poet may properly claim licence for his fanciful figments, the scientist must make his appeal on more solid ground.

Socialism V. Religion. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr H. M. Hyndman, having been badly mangled (by his brother Rothstein and others) on the German war scare issue which, in conjunction with brother Blatchford, he was good enough to offer the general Press as an excellent subject for a silly season discussion, has broken out in a fresh place. We have now to beware of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism has been played out “by the growth of popular science and freethought,” but apparently the same growth is playing in the power of the Pope, or the religious organisation the Pope is the figurehead of. Really, H. M. H. has mistaken his vocation. He should be where positive genius for “scare heads” would be appreciated. He is the silly season writer par excellence. He can provide an acceptable substitute for the great gooseberry every time.

Clericalism, high church, low church, Roman church, “Labour” church, and tin Bethelism of any calibre, are all in the ruck of reaction. Their power for evil depends, so far as we are concerned, upon the measure of working-class ignorance prevailing. Given that change in social conditions that will free men economically, the religious forms and influences which have been built up and maintained upon economic subjection, must go. Our business, therefore, is to direct the working-class mind toward that change of social conditions.

But does not the influence of the churches tell against our efforts ? It does where it can, of course, but its effect is not one to be troubled about, and very far indeed from being strong enough to warrant our departure from the course mapped out for us. The forces that affect the stomach are on our side. The armies of mankind move upon their stomachs. A starving man, offered the bread that perishes or the water of life, grabs at the bread every time—naturally.

The evolution of industry creates the starving man. We show him the way by which alone he may find the full satisfaction of his needs. The churches pretend to show him the way to heaven. The hollowness of the pretence may not appeal to him. The emptiness of the offer does. Hence the dilemma of the churches and their efforts to compromise on blankets and coal tickets. But it won’t do. The futility of charitable schemes and the offence of charitable schemes are alike too palpable. The Socialist alone holds the field. He alone can show the reason for the starving man. He alone can show the starving man the road to the ever full dinner pail.

Therefore we need not trouble about the churches. If they get too near our path we may give them a passing thump with the club of our argument. We can do that in our stride. As for concentrating upon the iniquity of “the Holy Catholic Church,” or turning out of our path to engage it, that is sheer Hyndmaniacal nonsense. The Holy Catholic Church may go hang. When we have nothing more important to do it might well be possible to amuse ourselves by crumpling it up. But we have a long way to go before we can afford the time.

Alegra.

The Forum. Some Open Discussions. (1908)

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

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

Some common objections to the S.P.G.B.

Rufus (Isleworth) writes to suggest that we should cease from “vilifying the S.D.P. or I.L.P.” If these are wrong he thinks they should be let go their own way. The main difference, he submits, between the S.P.G.B. and the other parties is one of method. He asks if it is not possible for some common ground of action for all “progressive forces” to be found, and hopes that THE SOCIALIST STANDARD will be “kept for Socialism, the one grand hope of us workmen. The policy of washing one’s dirty linen in public is very questionable.” “Rufus” will find in back numbers of this paper, answers to all his points. In the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (one penny) he will find our attitude completely erudicated. “Rufus” and anyone else concerned is heartily recommended to read that pamphlet. No one has been able to touch its argument so far. No one can dispute its evidence. However, we will briefly reply to his points here. Where have we “vilified” the said Parties? Is it vilification to criticise and denounce their wrong-doing, if that wrong-doing is calculated to mislead the working class, and to that extent delay the organisation of the workers on class-conscious lines— the necessary preliminary to Socialism ? That is the limit of our vilification—if that is what “Rufus” means by the word. We should be traitors to our class if we failed to do that. We would “let them go their own way” quite readily if they did not take a section of the working class with them. Because they do, and because their way is the wrong way, and does not lead to their professed objective (only sometimes professed, by the way) viz., Socialism, we must, being Socialists, endeavour to arrest them. The difference between our Party and those other parties is a difference of principle. THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, says “Rufus” should be kept for Socialism. Agreed. As also must the Socialist Party, or it ceases to be the Socialist Party. If the Socialist Party occupied nine-tenths of its time in the advocacy of something which was not Socialism, could it be a Socialist party—particularly when the nine-tenths of its work had no necessary connection with Socialism, and consisted of proposals that capitalist parties were largely prepared, when necessary, to endorse ? Would a capitalist party endorse a proposal that materially affected its interests ? If not, can any of those proposals be seriously regarded as of material benefit to the working class, seeing that the interests of the capitalist class are always in direct opposition to the interests of the working class? If “Rufus” answers these questions in the negative, as we think upon careful reflection he must, he has the key to the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The principle of the differences between us and the other parties consists in our recognition of the necessity firstly, secondly, and lastly, of organising the working class upon the basis of their class interests—of preaching and explaining Socialism, and that alone, to them as “the one grand hope,” and of pointing out that nothing else matters. To the extent to which the other parties press upon the attention of the workers the things that do not matter, they are diverting their attention from Socialism—the only thing that does matter. They are dividing the working-class forces. They are not organising the working class upon the basis of class interests. They are asking the workers to concentrate upon demands that the capitalist class is quite prepared to concede under pressure—demands that in large measure the capitalist class of other countries have conceded with no material advantage to the workers. Hyndman himself, no less, has admitted the futility of these demands—obviously futile when the capitalist class are ready to give them ; for if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the capitalist class will not give anything that cuts into their profits.

That is the principle. All the other parties are reform parties. They advocate the things that are futile. Therefore we denounce their futilities and urge the workers to rally to the Socialist Party.

And that answers the question as to the common ground for all “progressive” parties to work upon. If Socialism, as “Rufus” admits, is the only hope, then the only common ground for “progressive parties” is the ground occupied by the Socialist Party. Ergo the only progressive party is the Socialist Party. The only Socialist Party is the S.P.G.B.

As to the objection to the washing of dirty linen in public, “Rufus” does not seem to see that the objection implies the existence of the dirty linen. “Rufus” thinks that anyhow it should be washed in private. That might be all right if the working class knew it for dirty linen. They do not—unfortunately. Therefore by cleansing it in public we show it is dirty.