Another Pill For The Earthquake. (1906)

Editorial from the September 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The hardy annual of Compulsory Arbitration makes another appearance at the Liverpool Trades Congress. Mr. Ben Tillett, of emigration notoriety, writing in Reynolds on the subject of the Industrial Arbitration resolution, claims that it will abolish sweating, reduce the hours of labour and assure a living wage, also that, in regard to unemployment, the “Arbitration Courts are the only useful method of dealing with the problem”! Truly, of the quacking of quacks there is no end. It should be noted that it is in support of the candidature of this man that the S.D.F. have issued an appeal to their branches in the Eccles Division.

The reports which reach this country from those colonies that have adopted Compulsory Arbitration in labour disputes are most conflicting, and by no means convey the impression that the workmen are all pleased with the working of the Acts, whilst it is reported, significantly enough, that in many cases the employers are strongly in their favour. It is moreover abundantly clear that they have not abolished sweating, whilst the problem of unemployment is as acute where the Acts are in operation as it is in other capitalist countries.

The effect of the Arbitration laws, even under the most favourable conditions, must be to hasten the development of machinery and to cause a further speeding up of the workman, whilst those who are below a given standard cease to be employed at all. Thus the tendency of this trade-union cure-all is to still further swell the unemployed and, moreover, to prevent the workers by means of these sacred awards or contracts from reaping any advantage from sound organisation, or during a period of good trade. The men are tied hand and foot, and are compelled under penalty to wait until the expiration of the award (which probably happens at the worst moment for the labourer,) before making any effort to improve their lot.

The resolution before the Liverpool Congress reads in part, “The Court shall determine a minimum wage, and shall have power to punish any infringement of awards by fine, imprisonment and payment of compensation to the victimised worker.” It is also stipulated that the Courts shall be constituted by an equal number of workmen and employers’ representatives, and that where not mutually agreed upon the labour Department of the State shall appoint chairman or referee. The resolution, let it be remembered, also expressly limits the application of the proposed arbitration law to the members of those trade unions affiliated to the Trade Union Congress.

We know the astuteness of those employers’ representatives with their life-long training in driving a hard bargain, and we fear for the integrity of even the most steadfast of the men's representatives when exposed to the temptations they must meet from the employers in those Courts. Obviously, the man who favours such a resolution can be no Socialist; he cannot be aware that there is an irreconcilable antagonism of interests between the master class and the working class, and that in the waging of this struggle for emancipation there can be no truce or the workers lose.

The mere fact that a man sincerely supports such a resolution which pretends to ask a capitalist government to legislate on behalf of the workers, and to legislate in such a way that the victim must arbitrate with the brigand about the share he may have of his own product, and to arbitrate, above all, in such manner that the casting vote is always in the hands of the enemy with power to enforce his commands by fine and imprisonment, the mere fact that a man supports such a resolution stamps him as one ignorant of the very fundamental principles of working-class politics.

Items of Interest in the Election. (1924)

From the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Though it is a matter of minor importance, I must confess to a feeling of unholy glee at seeing that Winston Churchill failed again.

Ben Tillett, the strike breaker, succeeded in crawling into Parliament along with J. Sexton, a fitting chum.

Frank Hodges, who assisted to defeat the railwaymen in 1921, is still climbing; he is now a Labour M.P.

Col. John Ward, a deserter from the Labour Party, put up as an Independent against a Labour candidate and just managed to squeeze in.

A few who were one time “sturdy Democrats” tried a change of party but were too late—they backed the wrong horse. Among these were G. H. Roberts, Victor Fisher, and J. A. Seddon.

G. H. Roberts, Labour Party representative in the Coalition Government, put up as a Conservative but was ousted.

Victor Fisher, a onetime member of the Social Democratic Party and friend of H. M. Hyndman, put up as a Conservative and failed to get in.

J. A. Seddon was another Labour mislcader who put up as a Conservative and failed to get in.

Fellow workers, take note of the above and refrain from trusting in Leaders. Trust in yourselves in future and changes of policy by Leaders will work you no harm.

Punchinello

Jottings (1915)

The Jottings Column from the September 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "I have confined myself intentionally to only one aspect of the cotton question ; but undoubtedly we have been supplying our enemies with the means of destroying our troops ever since the beginning of the war." Sir R. W. Ramsay, "Daily Mail," July 1915.

And what will they, the masters say when their children ask "What did you do, daddy, in the great war?"

*     *     *     *

Upon the declaration of cotton as contraband the same paper sums up in the following terms.

   "How many valuable lives have been lost by this gross ineptitude it is impossible to say. Next to the blundering of the negotiations with the Balkan States and the Shell Tragedy it is easily the worst feature of the Government's connection with the war, bad as that is.” - “Daily Mail" editorial, Aug. 21st, 1915.

*     *     *     *

War the Leveller.

  "Mr. Ben Tillett, addressing a labour meeting at Bristol yesterday, said that the hell at the front had made brothers of dukes sons and labourers' sons.
   "I wish people at home could be as united in their efforts to crush the foe,' he added.”

"Daily Express," July 26th, 1915.

Well there now! we always asserted the certain conviction regarding the worker and this resurrection-era of affluence, but we scarcely thought it would be achieved through the crushing of some other section of the working class. Sickening, ain't it ?

*     *     *     *

Just as water finds its own level, so too do the labour misleaders find their true groove - that of dutiful devotion to the master class in time of national conflict. We were waiting for news of that peerless "Daily Herald" sun-god, Tom Mann, and here it is ("Daily Express" 21.8.15) "Since the war began Mr. Tom Mann has visited all the ports to help in the manning of transports.” D-------- if we didn't think so.

B. B. B.

Editorial: Tillett and Dublin. (1914)

Editorial from the January 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tillett and Dublin.
The “Daily Herald” has been left in the charge of Ben Tillett whilst George Lansbury has gone to the States (hunting for fresh finance, no doubt), and the paper has been full of denunciation of the trade union leaders. Ben Tillett, true to his reputation, has played two parts. One in the “Herald,” of Suffragettism and Sabotage, and another at the Conference of Labour leaders on Dublin. Sitting alongside the other misleaders of Labour he moved:

   “That this Conference deplores and condemns the unfair attacks made by men inside the Trade Union movement upon British Trade Union officials; it affirms its confidence in those officials who have been so unjustly assailed and its belief in their ability to negotiate an honourable settlement if assured of the effective support of all who are concerned in the Dublin dispute.”

Some of the rebels (!) are murmuring : “One damned leader in place of another!"

The painting trade is rather slack just now, otherwise Ben might have been in great demand as a whitewasher — look at the experience he has, had. Ask Bottomley.


Birds of a Feather.
Whilst Ben was defending Havelock Wilson, J. E Williams and others, some of whom Larkin accuses of “foul” and black conspiracy, it may be recalled that he is quite willing to sit with them as one of the governors of Ruskin College. Since Ben became one of the bosses, "Justice.” (of Ben’s party) has been silent about that organisation. Some day, no doubt, the “rebel” readers of the “Daily Herald” will realise how they were duped.

When the Omnibus trusts slaves were betrayed was it because of the advertising contract with the paper? Did the large advertising bill of Lipton’s overweight margarine cause the editor to practically ignore the supplying of rotten food for consumption by East End children? The paper just mentioned the fine.

Once upon a time the “Herald” bitterly attacked the Prudential. but shortly afterwards a four column advertisement appeared. Now that there is great unrest amongst the Prudential's slaves no mention of it is made in this “Labour” paper. Can Ben explain?


Socialist (!) Unity.
The International Socialist Bureau has convened meetings for the purpose of uniting the Independent Labour Party and the British Socialist Party. For our part we cannot see why they should not unite. Two parties composed of such similar anti Socialist elements should have linked up long ere this. Mr. H. M. Hyndman and Mr. Robert Blatchford will undoubtedly find many supporters for their “large Navy” proposals among the ranks of the Labour leaders. The condition of unity is that the B.S.P. shall join the Labour Party. That would be a very good thing from our point of view, for it would totally destroy the last tottering claim of the former organisation to be a Socialist body. The way would then be clearer for us of the Socialist Party, and therefore clearer and easier for the working class to follow to their historic goal — Socialism. '

The B.S.P’s advice to the workers to vote Tory has now been officially adopted by the I.LP , and Mr. Keir Hardie gloats over the help the Linlithgow branch recently afforded to the Tory candidate. This is sufficient for the day, of course, and no doubt when the Labour Party has scooped the B.S.P., and as the time for a General election draws nearer, the Liberal dog will rehabilitate itself in the estimation of its unified tail, even unto that most recalcitrant hair, H.M.H. provided, of course, that his services to the cause of anti-Socialist unity are properly rewarded by adoption for a safe Liberal constituency.

The Landlord's Paradise.
The sale of the Covent Garden estate by the Duke of Bedford for several million pounds to the well-known financial magnate and Tory M.P., Mr. Mallaby Deeley, disposes of all the Liberals’ claims as to bringing the land back to the people. So harmless are Lloyd George's taxes, and so empty his vote-catching vapourings, that this astute financial prince laughs at the very idea of the danger to property, and calmly ventures millions upon its stability—a safe enough guide for anybody.

But besides showing the utter fraud of the Liberal Land Campaign in a peculiarly convincing manner, the stupendous transaction is interesting for that it records the passing of the aristocratic property-owner as each, and the rising of the commercial king.

Lyddite For The Fray (1914)

From the December 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

How the Masters Lovingly Treat the Police in Times of Strike.
"One of the elective auditors of the City of Leeds, who has been dealing with the expenditure of £30,000 on police and volunteer workers during the great municipal strike of last winter, has made public some details of the accounts. The maintenance of some 600 special police alone cost £22,000 including payments of £10,000 to various watch committees. Forty casks of beer, each containing 36 gallons, went into the New Wortley Gas Works alone and other orders given by the Gas Department were for 25,700 bottles of mineral waters. The total number of pints of beer ordered for the police was 4,954. A vast quantity of tobacco was consumed, the orders being for 141 lbs of tobacco, 134½lbs of twist and Rotunda mixture; 151 lbs twist, Union Jack and Redbreast, 166 lbs of tobacco, 190 lbs Bond of Union. The cigarettes consumed ran into hundreds of thousands and over 1,100 cigars were supplied. A large number of luncheons were charged at 2s. each, and all sandwiches were paid for at 4d. each. Among the food orders are 13,475 lbs of roast beef at 1s. per lb. The games and recreations provided for the men behind barricades and police guards included footballs, darts, draughts and draught boards,, cards, dominoes, and a gramophone. One account for towels, blankets, mattresses and other items is £444 14s. 6d., while 493 overalls and bed jackets cost £130. New suits of clothes were claimed by 141 men at a cost of £200.”

*    *    *    *

Voluntary (!) Enlistment.

“It would be an admirable thing if all unmarried men between 18 and 30 without the manhood to offer themselves, were forcibly pressed into the Army and put into battalions where the kicks should be far more than the ha’pence." - “Daily Express,” Aug. 20th, 1914.

*    *    *    *

The Men are Called to Fight for their Country.
“How precarious is the life of the London docker may be illustrated by the figures of the weekly earnings of a casual docker, which I take from that invaluable study, ‘West Ham,’ by E. Howarth and Mona Wilson. 9s. 11d , 18s. 8d., 5s. 10d, 33s. 9d., 30s 4d., nil, nil, nil, 5s. 9d., 28s., nil (the net weekly average being 12s. 0¼ d ) On an average day at the London docks, you will find a SURPLUS of at least 10,000 labourers. The scenes which are taking place every day of the week are only the symbol of the miseries that afflict these wretched victims of the industrial machine, of the degradation of character and of the waste of human life.”— “Daily News,” May 23rd, 1914

*    *    *    *

The Three Different Faces of Ben Tillet. Labour “Leader” and Friend of the Poor.
1st Face.—Writing in “Justice,” June 15th, 1912, while the Transport Workers were on strike:
    “The governing classes . . . have the habit of thinking of the worker as a slave and are prepared to kill him with bludgeon and soldiery if he dares to struggle with his chains . . . 300,000 children are wanting food and protection; 100,000 women are wanting support; 100,000 men are fighting for dear life and principle. Our fight is against the capitalists, who not only want to destroy our liberties, making slaves of us, but they would destroy our home and home life as they have done and are doing to the vicious beat of their malignant hate.”

2nd Face — Writing in “Daily Herald,” Sept. 5th, 1914:
  “Every able-bodied man must either fight or be ready to defend his country . . . The objection taken by very many intelligent workers is that . . . there are at least 5 to 10 millions of working-class folk in slum and starvation who could not be worse off by a German invasion or the Government of the most brutal savages  . . . These contentions are true, but nevertheless there is need now to protect the United Kingdom against invasion."

3rd Face — Writing in "John Bull," October 10th, 1914:
   “We must fight because the British worker has more of constitutional and democratic freedom together with social opportunity to guard than the enemies enjoy.”

Comment would spoil the beauty of these three extracts.

*    *    *    *

The Cause of the Workers' Diseases.
“Professor Metchnikoff, the prophet of the microbe or germ theory on whom the mantle of Pasteur has fallen, recently lectured at the Royal Society of Medicine on ’Warfare on Tubercle,’ in which he said that no remedy for tubercle had been discovered. Doctors know however, that the TRUE cause of tubercle is living in slums, unhygienic surroundings, sweated wages and the accompanying starvation.”—Dr. Boyd Known, M.R.C.S., LR.C.F., in “Daily Herald,” January 28th, 1913.

*    *    *    *

The Cowardly Rich.
  “Paris is bearing up. Most of the shops and very many of the houses are closed and shattered. The rich man has packed up his traps and with his menservants and maidservants, his oxen and his asses, the wife of his bosom and the children that are his, has slipped away, either southward, whither the Government has sped, or to the more peaceful watering places in the South Coast of England.”—“Daily News,” Sept. 9th, 1914.

*    *    *    *

Breaking of Treaties.
   “Russia has broken treaties in the past, so has England . . . There is not an important treaty of modem Europe but has been partially denounced, revoked or altered in times of peace. The treaty of Utrecht 1713, of Vienna 1814, of Paris 1850, of Prague 1866, of Berlin 1878, have in part or in whole been denounced. The Black Sea clause of the Treaty of Paris and the Batoum clause of the Treaty of Berlin were openly and frankly denounced and repudiated by Russia in her own sole interest. Let us all admit that Europe accepted the Russian denunciation.”—Arnold White in the “Sunday Chronicle,” Oct. 14th, 1914.

*    *    *    *

Atrocities.
  “In the course of his letter of resignation, General Beyers made a bitter attack upon the British Government. It is said, he wrote, that war is being waged against the barbarity of the German. I have forgiven but not forgotten all the barbarities in this our own country during the South African war. With very few exceptions, all farms, not to mention many towns, were so many Louvains of which we now hear so much.—“Daily News,” Sept. 22nd, 1914.

  “Here is an idea for Lord Kitchener. Why not arrange to have all German prisoners whom we capture during the war sent over to England via the North Sea, in barges propelled from behind by tugs over the mine strewn area.”— “John Bull,” Sept. 5th, 1914.

  “The British left wing have again covered themselves with glory . . . The forests of Chantilly should rank with the plains of Waterloo. The sterling work done in the shadow of these ancient trees will go down to history. Despite sentimental French advices they FIRED a part of the wood and slew the Germans concealed therein like rats as they scuttled forth.”— “Pall Mall Gazette,” Sept. 10th, 1914.

   “The Zouaves and Chasseurs d’Afrique arrived in hundreds of taxi-cabs . . . You will hear with less revolt of the horror I passed earlier in the day, some 240 Prussians dead in one farm together, black and unburied. They were killed by shell fumes possibly, but had been bayoneted for double security.” “Weekly Despatch,” Sept. 20th, 1914.

*    *    *    *

Liberality of the Liberals.
  “Let us bear in mind what this war will do for tens of thousands of young women is to rob them of their husbands, to create a loss which in many cases can never be filled, to alter utterly the meaning and the value of life for many of the bereaved. This is something we cannot pay for and no possible pension that we can devise can touch this main point. . . . Is 7s. 6d. what a great and rich nation should offer to . . . its women who will bear the real burden of the war? It seems to me that to ask this question is to answer it. I have not yet found a single person who attempts to justify the 7s. 6d.”— “Daily News,” Nov. 11th, 1914. (Article by C. Money.)

*    *    *    *

The Alliance of Labour and Liberalism.

  “On what outstanding feature of domestic policy during that time (i.e., the last 8 years) has the feeling of the Labour Party been with the Opposition and against the Government? Was it so in the Trades Disputes Bill, Old Age Pensions, the Coal Strike, the Insurance Act, the Labour Exchanges, the Budget of 1909 or the Parliament Act? Is it so in the case of the Home Rule Bill, Plural Voting or Welsh Disestablishment? The fact of course is, that on every fundamental question of home politics, the Government has had no more constant supporters than the Labour Party.—“Daily News,” Jan 28th, 1914.

   “They must recognise that the Labour Party was not a Socialist party. Many of its members had been driven into its ranks and still continued to maintain the closest possible connection with the Liberal organisations in their constituencies . . . The policy of the Labour Party has been deliberately to keep the Liberal Party in office.”—“Labour Leader,” April 16th, 1914 (reporting speech of Philip Snowden).

*    *    *    *

THE Casualties of Peace and the Casualties of War. 

  "Peace hath her casualties no lees saddening than war. There were for example, no fewer than 476,920 cases of disablement, and 3,748 men killed in seven of the principal industries of Great Britain during the year 1913.

  “These figures are contained in the official statistics issued on Saturday of the working of the Workmen’s Compensation and Employers' Liability Acts for last year. They may be compared with the British casualties during three months of the present war of approximately 60,000.

   “The industries to which these figures apply were those connected with mines, quarries, railways, factories, harbours, docks, constructional works and shipping, and the army of workers in them number 7,509,353.”—“Daily Citizen,” Nov. 16th, 1914.

*    *    *    *

The War and the Financiers. 

   “This morning the public has before it the biggest and best loan ever offered for subscription. The British people are invited to find the money to the amount of £350,000,000. The finding of the money requires no sacrifice whatever . . . The return offered to the subscriber is exceedingly handsome . . . the yield being as high as 4 per cent. . . . offered on the best security in the world. . . . The war has brought the investor good. . . . From both the patriotic and the financial point of view it is a magnificent in vestment. — “ Daily Mail," Nov. 18th, 1914.

Frank Vickers

The 61st Trades Union Congress. (1929)

From the October 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ben Tillett's Day Out.

The 1929 Annual Congress of the T.U.C. was held this year at Belfast under the chairmanship of Mr. Ben Tillett, M.P.

What decided the choice of Belfast, we do not know. That Belfast is far enough away to preclude the embarrassing presence of embittered workers from the mining and cotton districts is fairly certain. Windy platitudes, therefore, had free play.

Mr. Tillett’s presidential address was received by the Press with more than the usual flattery that is doled out to the trade union and Labour leader.

Says the Daily Herald: “He acquitted himself in a manner which has given the keynote to the Congress—that of business efficiency tempered with humanity." Mr. Tillett’s form—on the one occasion when the present writer heard him, corresponded more closely to Billy Sunday revivalism, tempered with acrobatics. But different audiences call for different turns— as variety artists know.

Mr. Tillett, pre-war firebrand, war-time jingo, and recent communist pet, delivered a flamboyant speech, whose main argument was a characteristic piece of nonsense. He declared “with an air of triumph ” that “To-day the trade unions are an integral part of the organisation of industry" (Daily Herald report, September 3rd).

    They negotiated as equals, and did not deal only with hours, wages and conditions, but with policy and economic organisation in the widest aspects. . . . They hold an unchallenged position as representatives of the working class in all negotiations affecting conditions of employment. . . . There is nothing in the organisation and direction that can now be regarded as the exclusive concern of the employer.

What comforting news to miners and cotton-workers in the desolate poverty-stricken villages of Northumberland, Lanarkshire and Manchester. It might, of course, strike them as curious that there are ever industrial disputes at all. And, more curious still, that disputes of recent years have led to an encroachment on their already low standard of living.

If Mr. Tillett meant that many employers have now learned that it is an advantage to them to deal with an organised body of workers, and that they sometimes negotiate with trade union officials about adjustments of wages, conditions and hours, his statement is not untrue; but why the “air of triumph"?

What cause is there to be triumphant because the cotton masters consulted cotton trade union officials and allowed other trade union leaders to negotiate the recent wage reduction?

If Mr. Tillett’s words were intended to mean what they say, then they were just bluff. The trade unions are not to-day, and never have been, an “ integral part ” of the organisation of industry. They do not, and never have, been able to negotiate “as equals nor do they deal “with policy and economic organisation in the widest aspects.” The trade unions do not do any of these things because they have not the power. They neither own nor control the machinery of production and distribution, and those who own and control have no need and no intention of relinquishing their ownership or their control or the power over policy which accompanies ownership and control.

Turning to rationalisation, Mr. Tillett said:—

   They had already given official support to the rationalisation of industry provided adequate safeguards were given to the workers . . . rationalisation meant the most complete application of science and scientific organisation to industry—in plant, processes and production.

Rationalisation is a new name for a process as old as capitalism. Improvements in machinery are introduced by the capitalists for the benefit of capitalists. They are the outcome of competition between sections of the capitalist class, and can only have the effect of reducing the human labour required in production. The less labour-power required for the production of a given quantity of wealth—the more profits there are for the capitalist. This process is, and always has been, a feature of Capitalism. To-day the only difference is, that the pace has become quicker, and the trusts and combines more powerful. The smaller capitalists are vanishing; the position of the working class grows more insecure ; and their relative portion of the wealth produced becomes less and less.

Mr. Tillett went on to say of rationalisation that, “It was their duty to see that the results of the tendency were beneficial to the workers.” But he omitted to explain how this is to be done. The rationalisation of their industrial organisation is dictated by the employers in their own interest. The trade unions have not the power to stop it (Mr. Tillett himself described it as “ inevitable ”) and they have not the power to impose conditions on the employers. Point was given to this by the admission of Congress that is impotent to save the musicians from the unemployment and other effects of the introduction of sound films. The unions have not succeeded, and cannot succeed, in making it a condition of rationalisation that it shall take place only if the results are “beneficial to the workers." Trade unions can perform a useful and necessary service to the workers under Capitalism, but—not being the owners and controllers of industry—they cannot control industrial development; and when Mr. Tillett states that they can, he is doing a definite disservice to those whose interests he is paid to represent.

Mr. Tillett's further contribution to our knowledge was a boost of Empire trade and Empire development “in the interests of the workers,” and in imitation of the U.S.A. In answer to this dangerous doctrine that working-class interests may be promoted by the development of capitalist industry and trade, whether in Great Britain, Europe, the Empire or in any other geographical unit, it is only necessary to consider the U.S.A., which, for the moment, is the object of Mr. Tillett’s admiration. In the U.S.A. every feature of capitalism as we know it here, is faithfully reproduced— with some aggravations. Inequality of wealth is even more striking than here, unemployment is no less—some estimates place it higher; insecurity there is as great, pauperism, overcrowded slums, the brutal crushing of strikes, and, last but not the less harmful, Yankee Ben Tilletts—all the features of triumphant capitalism exist in their profusion over the water.

At the same time, it is wonderful how ideas catch on. Sidney Webb dines with the King, Snowden stays with the King, Macdonald visits the King to say good-bye when he goes abroad—and, not to be behind, Tillett does his bit and becomes “Imperial.” Of course, Tillett has drunk much that inspires since the celebrated Devonport Farce on Tower Hill years ago.

Industrial Unionism.

Congress rejected a resolution, moved by Mr. A. J. Cook, asking the General Committee to try to promote organisation on the basis of “ one union for each industry.”

Mr. Ernest Bevin, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, opposed the resolution, and pointed out that it would mean breaking up his organisation into 180 separate unions. He instanced the difficulty even of defining an industry in the face of continued capitalist combinations, in which financial control extended over all kinds of processes. He stated that "one of the associated companies of the Imperial Chemical Industries controlled 78 distinct processes ” (Daily Herald, September 4th).

The Daily Herald.

On Wednesday, September 4th, it was announced in the Daily Herald that the T.U.C. in private session had agreed, by 3,404,000 votes to 47,000 to make certain new arrangements for the development of the paper. Other newspapers announced that the new arrangement contemplated the handing over the the Daily Herald to a private company, with, however, explicit guarantees that policy will remain under the , control of the T.U.C.

Workers Banks.

A Fraternal Delegate from the American Federation of Labour did his best to outshine Mr. Tillett's home-produced nonsense by advocating "workers' banks.” He described experiments in this direction which have been made in the U.S.A., and expressed the opinion that if all workers patronised their own banks “a chill would be sent along the spinal columns of the financial captains.”

How perfectly simple! How is it that nobody has thought of it before! So easy, fellow workers; just put your surplus wealth in your own banks and show Rothschild and Sassoon what you are made of. What puerile inanities. It is difficult to believe that such piffle comes from paid representatives of the workers. The working class receive as the price of their labour power just that which will purchase the barest necessities in the form of food, clothing, and shelter. They simply cannot save enough to matter. The capitalist class appropriate the enormous remainder.

Then he gave the answer to his own hot-air by informing Congress (Daily Herald, September 5th) that in U.S.A. they are faced with the "difficulty of keeping men of 50 and over employed . . . particularly where labour-saving machinery had been introduced."

It looks very much as if U.S.A. workers of 50 and over are not likely to have any savings or anything else, and those under 50 will be busy enough, when they are in work, trying to provide for their over-fifty relatives. 

The Cotton Arbitration.

Attacks were made on Mr. C. T. Cramp and Mr. A. G. Walkden for their part in the arbitration, which resulted in a 6¼ per cent. reduction in wages for cotton operatives. They made the extraordinary defence (see Daily Herald, September 6th) that they "did not believe, and had never believed, that any wage cut would improve the cotton trade,” but that the terms of arbitration gave full power to the Chairman, alone if necessary, to "give the award both on the principle and the amount of reduction.”

This is, of course, no defence at all, even taken in conjunction with their further plea that if they had not agreed to a 6¼ per cent. reduction, the "cut would have been double.” Since this term of the arbitration was not known to the operatives, but was known to Mr. Cramp and Mr. Walkden, they could either have refused appointment to the Board or have insisted on the operatives making their own decision. It is at least probable that the latter would have rejected arbitration on such terms.

How does this square with the Chairman of Conference’s speech?

The Turner-Mond Conferences.

A resolution calling for the discontinuance of the Industrial Peace negotiations between the General Council and the T.U.C. was rejected by a large majority. Peace! for whom?—robber and robbed? Are the workers to abandon the only industrial weapon they possess, and leave themselves open to the systematic attacks of their masters? What else can peace mean? To babble of peace whilst the cotton dispute is still fresh in the memory and another attack on the miners is impending, is sheer hypocrisy. Peace—who asks for war anyway? The workers cannot afford to strike from pure frivolity. It is they who suffer during a strike, not their masters. It is they who see their children go hungry and without adequate clothing, who see their homes depleted and sold up.

The tone of the Congress was quiet and expectant—their friends now being the Government and A. J. Cook having dropped the game of sniping at the General Council and coining silly slogans. But throughout the five days the cause of all the evils from which the workers suffer were not even glimpsed by the delegates. The cause is the private ownership in the means of life and the only solution is common ownership. Then those parasites who live by robbing the workers and exploiting their ignorance will disappear.

Harry Waite

"Murder Will Out" (1917)

From the October 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is curious what strange instruments truth at times will find by which to express itself. This reflection is strengthened by a letter in that “organ of the Democracy,” “Reynolds's Newspaper" (Sept. 3rd.) from “Recruiting Sergeant" Ben Tillett to the members of the Docker’s Union.

This budding field marshal is reported to have said, among other things, in reference to the proposed International Conference:

  We are of the opinion that before any meeting it possible the organised Labour of each belligerent country should first of all define its attitude by democratic vote, that its representatives should be purely Labour representatives,and under no Government patronage, with a view of free expression of opinion.
  That this Conference upholds the rights of democracy to its share of representation in determining peace settlement, and invites the democracies of all the belligerents to co-operate with a view of ending the tragedy of the war.

“General" Tillett it greatly concerned that the labour representatives shall be “purely" labour representatives. This, to start with, knocks out all the “labour" members of the Government, and also all those who, during the period of the war, have assisted the Government—directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially—in the task of roping in the workers for war purposes, including Henderson, Hodge, and of course, Tillett himself.

As for the suggestion that the Conference upholds the “rights of democracy to its share of representation in determining peace settlement," the governing class will allow the workers as much voice in the peace settlement as highwaymen allowed their victims in the matter of their robbery.

But seriously, the desire of the labour “leaders” to take part in the function of cutting up the swag, shows that they either do not understand the slave position of the working class, or that they deliberately misrepresent it. In the first case they are fools, in the second case rogues, and in either case they are of no use to the workers.

It is the mission of the propertyless class— instead of seeking to participate in the division of the spoils—to see to it that there shall be no spoils. To do this they must put an end to the exploitation of the producers by the non-producers, i.e., the capitalists.

It is the duty of the workers to achieve a real peace—a peace guaranteed by the identity of interest of all the members of society in contrast with the “peace" hitherto prevailing. Such a peace can only be obtained by the realisation of the Object of the Socialist Party.

We are further told that “We can only end the war by striking at militarism” (not capitalism). But here comes the gem of the letter: “The genuine working-class movement must take its affairs out of the hands of political adventurers and parasites, take its destinies in both hands, and ask organised Labour in all lands to war against militarism, repression, and annexation, and to be prepared to enforce this should occasion arise."

This is a brilliant example of the devil rebuking sin, for what are Tillett and his colleagues but “political adventurers and parasites," out to lead the workers up a blind alley, where they may be the more easily victimised and exploited? Evidence of this can easily be found in the various issues of this journal, and also in our Manifesto.

An additional instance of this is furnished by Tillett himself in the final sentence of his epistle, in which he advocates the use of the “industrial and economic weapon," ignoring the political weapon.

It is reported in the “Daily Sketch" for September 1st 1917 that the Australian Government had suppressed the I.W.W. in Australia, and imprisoned some of its members. Can a better object lesson in the necessity for political action by the workers be needed ?

In a series of interviews during the T.U.C. Mr. Tillett is reported to have said re Stockholm, “How can there be democracy without a defined policy?” This, from a man of Tillett’s record, is almost Gilbertian, or would be if it were not so tragic.

Is it necessary to recall the famous prayer on Tower Hill, when Tillett hoped that “God" would strike the late food controller dead, and to compare that with his attitude since the war? During this period we find him using his energise to the utmost in the dirty work of getting other people to fight and kill each other, taking on this job under the auspices of a government a prominent member of which was his one-time enemy. Lord Devonport.

Is this Tillett’s idea of a “defined policy” ?

However, such contradictory actions are common to all reformers. Forever chasing will- o'-the-wisps, they are forever getting deeper into the mire of capitalism.

Hutch.

Press Clippings (1916)

From the December 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following quotations and comments appeared in the “Manchester Guardian” of Oct. 25th last in a review of "Portraits of the Seventies”—a new book by the Right Hon. G. W. E. Russell.

Mr. Russell'a veneration for Gladstone is well known, and by reason of it perhaps his occasional indications of disapproval for his great leader's attitude derive additional emphasis. At any rate the incident with which Mr. Russell closes his portrait of Archbishop Thompson seems decidedly significant: — “On the evening of May 2nd, l882, I was at a party in Eaton Square, where Gladstone and Thompson were among my fellow-guests. As we entered the drawing-room the Archbishop turning to the Prime Minister with his most impressive air, said ‘I want you to tell me about the State of Ireland.' Feeling, like most other people who were not wilfully blind, a profound misgiving about the unchecked reign of murderous outrage, I listened intently to the reply. ‘The state of Ireland,’ said Gladstone with eager emphasis, 'is very greatly improved. Rent is being generally paid.'" "Not a word," remarks Mr. Russell, "about human life, which, after all, is a more important thing than rent." Four days later came the Saturday of the Phoenix Park murders, “and the Irish difficulty,” says Mr. Russell, "entered on the acutest phase it has ever known.

While the above provides only another illustration of what is a commonplace among Socialists—the Mammon-soaked psychology of the masters’ politicians—it may be enlightening to those numerous members of our class who still regard the hypocritical, Bible-hugging lick-spittle of the master clan as the "grand old man” and democracy-loving friend of the workers.

*  *  *

The “Manchester Guardian" of Oct. 10th remarked that 

“ . . . the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions are taking every possible step to investigate and deal with the new source of danger from T.N.T. poisoning. During the quarter ending Sept. 30th twenty-one deaths were reported from that cause."

How well the war-workers are doing! In addition to the splendid exercise of tending machines and boilers working almost at bursting point, and enjoying the exhilarating excitement of making explosives in factories which blow up at the rate of one every few weeks, they even have chance of sampling the deadly stuff intended to send to a mythical paradise the Teuton fellow-slave who is also being fooled by his master.

*  *  *

At the first meeting of the British Manufacturers’ Association, comprised of 700 firms employing over a million workers, Mr. George Terrell, M.P., who presided, said of trade unions,. “No more remarkable change has occurred than our attitude to-day in connection with these unions. Many of us are saying ‘Well, these union leaden are not such bad chaps after all'; they have dropped a lot of their Socialistic nonsense.” (“Daily Mail,” 26.10.16.)

Mr. Terrell is herewith informed that there exists no such thing as “Socialistic nonsense." Socialism is based upon sound reasoning and sense in all its aspects. If he really believes that Socialism is nonsense then his own sense is of a very doubtful variety, but of course it is also doubtful if he really does believe that.. While resenting the implication that the “union leaders” he refers to have, or for the most part, ever have had, anything to do with Socialism, I am truly delighted to find that the love felt by the capitalist date for those who have so long worked vigorously in their interests is at hat. finding OPEN expression.

*  *  *

Example (Advertisement from “Manchester Evening News,” Nov. 9.16):—

EMPIRE, ARDWICK GREEN, MANCHESTER

16.40 GREAT ATTRACTIONS. 8.50.

MR. BEN TILLETT

in his thrilling oration,

"A Message from the Trenches."

How to Win the War. 

*  *  *

 In its issue for Oct. 31st the “Manchester Guardian" quoted the following from an article by Prof. Erich Jung, in the German paper “Alldeutsche Blatter":

    The Chancellor has chosen for his representative a banker by profession (Dr. Helfferich) and even his second representative, too, comes from a merchant family. Further, all such men as Delbruck and Sewald and others who hold influential positions, such as Rathenau, Ballin, Goldberger, and others, all come from business and commercial families.. Scarcely one of them belongs by origin or tradition to those quarters which have built the Prussian State in a labour of two hundred years. The Chancellor himself springs, both on his father’s and his mother’s side, from families which for many generations have carried on big banking businesses in Frankfort-on-Main and Paris.

What about the feudal Junker land aristocracy who are (we are told) the rulers of Germany?' As we have always maintained, it is Capital, which dominates in Germany, and throughout the rest of the planet also.

*  *  *

  The commercial struggle which would follow the war would be only second in magnitude to that of the war itself. They must make such preparation as would enable the English people to take the lead again among their competitors, and, as this was a matter of life and death to a great industrial people, they mast be ready to pay the premium that would ensure them success in the peaceful rivalry which was almost certain to come. He strongly advocated raising the age of compulsory education to fourteen and seventeen. (Lord Haldane at Leicester. "Manchester Evening News," Nov. 9.)

Capitalism is preparing for its last great struggle to install itself in even every waste place upon the earth, and is about to make us, its slaves, fit tools to carry out the work. We also have our scheme of education for a worldwide purpose. But the purpose is not the increase and spread of a robber system, but is the revolutionary one of annihilating that system. As capitalism enters upon its final phase—that of rampant Imperialism—in which to disgorge its surplusage of wealth into the remaining but gradually extinguishing markets of the world, let us also hurry on with our work of bringing enlightenment, through proletarian science, to our class in every land, so that ere capitalism in its death-rattle hurls us into the abyss of barbarism we may joyfully hail— 

                                                                                                          “THE DAY.”

 R.W Housley, 

Our Message for May Day and Every Day (1934)

From the May 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again May 1st sees the gathering of Labour to march, with banners flying, to the places appointed as centres for speech-making. For over forty years these processions have been an annual Labour event, but the class that lives on Labour still remains solidly entrenched in the seat of power, and, bitter commentary on the periodical display, is kept there with the aid of the votes of the processionists.

It is interesting to recall that at one of these meetings in 1915 Ben Tillett, for long a favourite May-Day orator, addressed the following message to French workers: —

Britain alert, mutually co-operating with France, stands for civilisation, for a spiritual awakening of Europe for the overthrow of Kaiserism, militarism, and the capitalistic vandals whose brutal power is now ravishing Europe, and the world itself.”

("Reynolds,” May 9th, 1915.) 

Nineteen years have passed away, Ben Tillett has gone into a well-deserved oblivion, the “vandals" were overthrown, but armament conferences till give their window dressing performances and newer and more deadly means for murdering are devised. To cap it all Germany, under Hitler, is now staging an official "Labour Day” complete with hammer and sickle, the Communist emblems, alongside the swastika!

Discontent is as strong now as ever it was, but it is still politically ignorant discontent, and while it remains so it will be, as in the past, the sport of flaming orators like Ben Tillett—and Adolf Hitler.

Bands and banners are symbols of emotion and can lead a column equally well to their goal or to destruction. The path to social freedom cannot be cut out by mere emotional outbursts, there are too many entanglements on the way. Those who have enjoyed the emotional uplift of the march and the meetings afterwards relapse into their customary grooves. In the main their revolutionary fervour is just the pastime of a particular day. It will continue to be so until the workers give as serious and thoughtful consideration to their social conditions as they do to the getting of their daily bread. When the mass of the workers adopt this attitude they will lose their admiration for oratorical outbursts and cease to waste their time on fruitless displays.

No great knowledge is needed to understand the workers' social condition. The position is so simple that one is almost astounded to find how much effort is needed to induce workers to examine it seriously. In a few words it may be put as follows:—

The wealth of the world is produced by the workers, but the capitalists, by their ownership of the means of production, own the product of the workers' labour. In return for their productive labour the workers receive in the form of wages only sufficient, as a rule, to keep them living and producing. The wealth remaining enables the capitalists to enjoy their lives of ease. The capitalists are in control of the political machinery and use it to keep the workers in their condition of subjection. The workers by their votes put the capitalists in possession of this political machinery at election times. The problem for the workers is how to get rid of their subject condition. The solution is to abolish the present private ownership of the means of production and substitute for it common ownership. This can be accomplished by the workers sending delegates to Parliament for the purpose, the delegates to act as their servants to carry out their instructions. The workers would then obtain control of the political machinery and be able to break the power of capital.

The position is just as simple as this and does not need a fanfare of trumpets to demonstrate it. It is a message for every day and not only for specially picked occasions. It speaks the same language in every land and to every race. It has neither a religious nor a nationalist outlook. It points out the unity of interest of the workers of the world and their common antagonism to capitalism.

Finally it was, it is, and it will be our message for every day until the last of our chains have parted and we are entering the new free social conditions that one day will be our heritage.

Gilmac.

FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM. (1916)

From the August 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since August 4th, 1914, when this country entered the arena of European slaughter, the ruling class have used every means in their power to force working men into the Army on the pretext that the crushing of Prussian militarism would mean freedom, and therefore that the men (some of them, of course) would return to this country much better off than they were before the war. The reason put forward to support this was that a crushed Germany could no longer hold a place in the world's markets, and the trade lost to her would come to this country, resulting in more work and an improvement in the position of the working class.

We Socialists have shown this argument to be false from beginning to end. One has only to enquire into the economics of capitalism and the history of the capitalists themselves to see that they have no more regard for the welfare of the workers than the torpedo has for the ship it is about to destroy. To those workers who think that all will be well when Germany is defeated this article is addressed.

First we must go to the rock-bottom facts that the present system of society is based upon the private ownership of the means of living; that a comparatively few people own and control the means of production and distribution, with the result that the great mass of mankind are enslaved to the owners of these means, which they have to operate in their masters' interests.

It is not for the purpose of providing people with material for heating purposes that miners are allowed to go down into the mines, but simply to make profit for the mine-owners. Houses are not constructed for human habitation, but because the owner knows that there is profit in the business. These examples are typical of the whole capitalist system; profit is the be-all and end-all of it the world over, so much so, in fact, that if some improvement is recommended in the working conditions of the employees which is likely to interfere with the output the improvement is not adopted, though the lives of workers are endangered as a consequence. When the toilers ask for an increase of wages to meet the increase in the cost of living, they are in the main met with a blunt refusal, and should they strike and during the strike dare to touch one particle of their masters; property, even for the purpose of feeding themselves and their dependents, the military are brought out to shoot them at their masters' bidding.

Briefly, then, that is the position of the workers in modern Christo-bourgeois society: divorced from the means of production, working for a subsistence wage, their life is one perpetual fight against starvation from the cradle to the grave.

Politicians at election times talk glibly of the poverty of the workers and hold up some pet nostrum as a cure for the disease. But the poverty-stricken find after they have elected the thieves to power and the so-called remedies are placed on the statute book, their position is not improved one iota.

Small wonder that the position of the workers has not improved, for by returning to Parliament men of the Liberal, Tory, or so-called Labour type  they have voted for the perpetuation of the present system of society, and so long as capitalism lasts poverty, misery, and degradation must be their lot.

Now just as the capitalist politician is prepared to dangle before the eyes of the workers these various reforms in order that he shall be returned to Parliament, so they have been prepared since the war broke out to gull their victims into thinking that by fighting the Germans they would be fighting for freedom, and that none of the evil consequences that have attended other wars would attend this one.

Equally guilty of leading the workers up this blind alley are the so-called representatives of Labour. Most of them have assisted the masters to run the war by using the same dirty, underhand tactics that characterised them in times of peace. Ben Tillett, for instance, who once wasted his breath calling upon God to strike Lord Devonport dead, has been going up and down the country as recruiting sergeant, telling the workers some tales of his experiences on the front and holding up the bogey of "German tyranny" in order to induce men to go and fight the Germans in the interests of the very class of which Lord Devonport is a member. But there are times—although it is not often—when these gentry speak the truth, and having done all he could to get workingmen into the Army, Ben actually has settled himself down to thinking of the position of the workers after the war.

In an article in "Reynolds's" of June 18th Tillett tells us, among other things, that "the eternal struggle between capital and labour is bound to be more acute than ever it has been in the past." With this view we Socialists agree, but what then of the freedom the workers have been fighting for? Where is it? An answer is needed, but a logical answer will not be forthcoming from Ben Tillett and the crowd that, like him, live upon the backs of the toilers. They know their game too well, and a logical reply from them would open the eyes of the workers to such an extent that their occupation would be gone.

We have been told by scores of people that we should no longer see old soldiers selling bootlaces or turning organs. But since when has the attitude of the masters changed so favourably towards our class. Ever since the war broke out the ruling class have taken advantage of the crisis to rob and exploit the workers more than ever. At this very moment there is an agitation to burst up the food rings, smash the milk and other combines and trusts which have shown how much the capitalists are concerned with the welfare of their slaves. So make no mistake about it, fellow workers; the antagonism of interests between you and your masters will no more be wiped away by killing Germans than it was by voting Liberal or Tory after having a ride in a motor car.

And just as you will find the after-the-war conditions against you in this country, so also will the Germans, Austrian, Hungarian, French, Belgian, Italian, and Russian workers find conditions worse than ever after the slaughter is over. Then perhaps you will sit yourselves down and ask in your saner moments what have we been fighting for. We still depend on a boss for a job, still are subject to unemployment and the visit of the bailiff.

Surely, with the existing knowledge and power to produce wealth in abundance, there must be a way out of the difficulty. No human being need suffer poverty and starve in the midst of such prodigious resources as are at mankind's disposal to-day. Society can be so organised that the needs of all can be satisfied. The present system of society must be abolished by the working class, organised in a Socialist Party, capturing the means by which the masters hold supremacy to-day. namely, the political machinery, and using it to take control of the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution. In a state of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of these means and instruments there can be no conflicting interests to promote war or to breed poverty, because the common interest will bind each member to work for the common good.

Moreover, when you fight for this you fight for something more in conformity with the terms of fighting for freedom; it is, in fact, the only thing worth fighting for.

R. Reynolds