A Socialist Survey. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. F. Townsend Martin, a wealthy member of American society, and a brother of Mr. Bradley Martin, the multi-millionaire, has written a book entitled : “The Passing of the Idle Rich,” in which he says : “I know society, I was born in it and have lived in it all my life both here and in the capitals of Europe.” Further on he tells us that:

“Somewhere there is something wrong. I speak as a rich man. I speak as a representative of the class of which I write and to which, in particular I address myself. We can no longer blind ourselves with idle phrases or drug our consciences with the outworn boast that the working man of America is to-day the highest-paid artizan in the world. We know those lying figures well. Many a time I myself in personal argument, have shown that the American workman receives from one and a half to three times as much as his English cousin at the same trade ; but we know now that it means nothing. . . .

We are learning, too, that what we give our workers is wages we take back from them in the higher cost of necessities, in food, in clothing, in medicine, in insurance—in a hundred devious ways, all with one tendency—to keep the living margin down.”

“O most learned judge,” there is something wrong, and the only curious factor in the above is its source. The determined stand made, for a time, by the workers of different parts of the world, has forced upon the notice of others besides our worthy American, the fact that while the great mass of the working class are prepared to suffer in silence, there is yet a little spirit remaining which may burst into a blaze at some inconvenient moment, to the detriment of that superstructure of society which gives to the “idle rich” so good a living for so little exertion.

                                                                            * * *

Dr. Gore, late Bishop of Birmingham, in a letter to the “clergy and laity” of that city, informs us that “the profound sense of unrest and dissatisfaction among the workers” is genuine.

“We are not justified,” he says, “in tolerating the conditions of life and labour under which the vast mass of our population is living. We have no right to say that these conditions are not remediable. Preventible lack of equipment among the young, and later the insecurity of employment and inadequacy of remuneration, and consequent destitution and semi-starvation among so many of our people, ought to inspire in all Christians a profound and passionate determination to devote themselves to the reform of our industrial system.”

That eminently respectable organ, the “Pall Mall Gazette,” tells us that

“Unrest among large bodies of men is not scientifically explained by ascribing it all to the depravity or agitators, and in the case of the railwaymen, as we have repeatedly affirmed, there are deeper causes in the general economic condition of the country which it is futile to ignore. British working men would not surrender themselves to the irrational and discreditable impulses which have had such free play during the last few weeks, unless there were forces at work to throw them off their balance, and those forces can easily be discerned in the rise of prices and the consequent fall in ‘real’ wages.”

and if the testimony of the “democratic” “Star” can add weight to that of so respectable a witness, it tells us (20.9.11) that we have certain facts to face.

“Just as France and Germany, Austria and Spain have got to face them. All over Europe the people are in revolt against the lowness of wages and the dearness of food. It is foolish to imagine that unrest which is caused by permanent and deep-seated economic causes can be allayed by harsh words and stern discipline.

“The Labor problem is a problem of flesh and blood. It is producing riots in France, in Austria, and in Spain. Everywhere the people are in rebellion against the conditions of their existence.”

The “Morning Leader” (same date) says :

“That labor is grossly ill-organised and under-paid ; that the conditions under which great masses of laborers live are a disgrace to our civilisation ; that industrialism, which has opened to the wealthier classes endless sources of pleasure and luxury never dreamt of by their grandfathers, has robbed the worker’s life for the most part even of the little patches of color and brightness it had in slower, easier days, and even where he gets more money has made him pay for it dearly in the drab monotony of his toil—all these things are very well known. No one questions them.”

* * *

The cause of the unrest so candidly admitted is that the wage of the worker does not rise in correspondence to the increased price of necessaries, and the increased cost of production of the worker, who, toiling under high pressure and producing more and more rapidly, requires a greater amount of food, both physical and mental, to maintain him in the requisite condition for the modern wage slave.

To again quote Mr, Martin :

“I cannot go down through the crowded tenement settlement sections of our great cities without having it borne in upon me that we, as a nation, pay a fearful price in human blood and tears for our industrial triumphs. For the grim fact stands out beyond denial that the men who are the workers of the nation, and the women and the children dependent upon them, are not to day given the opportunities that are their proper birthright in free America ; and that, struggle as they will, save as they may, lift their voices in protest as they dare, they cannot obtain from our industrial hierarchy much more than a living wage.”

* * *

When will the workers recognise that they are but merchandise ? When will they see those stubborn facts with which they are faced ? They can but get a bare sufficiency to enable them to produce wealth for the “idle rich,” who, with all their “good intentions,” are impelled by necessity, in order to maintain their supremacy, to keep down wages and to prevent the toiling masses from raising their standard of comfort. In every branch of industry the same effect is being felt: the necessity on the part of the workers to strike and of the masters to resist their demands. That nationalisation is a cure is easily refuted. Mr. Cheesman, Secretary of the Fawcett Association, seen by a representative of the “Daily News,” said :

“The discontent is very general, and arises primarily from the refusal of the Postmaster General to reopen the question of the improvement of the conditions in regard to wages, especially in view of the increased cost of living and the great length of lime that has elapsed since the wages were last adjusted. The National Committee is forced to take action owing to the general discontent, and not from any desire on their part to take advantage of the present unrest in the labour world.”

These men are working in an industry that has been nationalised, and to add force to the argument that conditions there are at least as bad as in any private concern, Mr. Cheesmsn adds :

“The seriousness of the situation i.e. emphasised by the speeding-up that has taken place during recent years in the various departments. Indeed, the conditions in many cases have become almost unbearable, and the great plague of the postal service, consumption, is being replaced by an even greater evil, nervous breakdown.”

So the postman’s reward—bunions and consumption—is increased by the sporting chance of a padded cell as a rest cure.

The “Daily News” (5.9.11) contains “An Interview with a typical Barman,” who, after describing his daily “life” (which is, according to the scribe, a “dismal, soul-destroying round of duty”) says:

“We want to establish a sixty-hour week and one compulsory day’s holiday in seven. We also demand an increase in the rate of pay, since we receive at present about 1½d. per hour for labour.”

* * *

I can fittingly conclude with the final statement of Mr. Martin in the book above mentioned :

“It cannot be for long. The days of the idle rich in America are as a tale that is told. Idleness is doomed as a vocation. We in America are fast moving toward social revolution. Conflicts between labour and capital are assuming the proportions of civil war. The once powerful middle class, which is the safety of every nation, is to day weak, and is every day declining. Soon, politically it will be a memory, and the battle-field will be cleared for conflict. . . . Instead of being the roof and crown of things, the wealthy class in America to-day has sunk to the level of the parasite. The time has come when the producing classes are about to bring it to judgment.”

Let the workers of Great Britain determine that when that day comes they will not be far behind their American cousins.

Twel.

Alberta Calling—and the Socialist Reply (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Most people, I suppose, regard Karl Marx as the prophet of Communism, but that is not really correct. 

“Communism — meaning the common ownership of goods—was known in the world for many years before Karl Marx was even heard of. What Karl Marx preached was Marxism—a form of Communism which relies upon force and oppression.”

This statement, together with many others equally vague or inaccurate, comes all the way from Alberta, broadcast by one Richard J. Needham. Unlike most modern critics of Marx—who usually commence by paying him tribute for the scientific character of his works—Mr. Needham tries to belittle him by referring to him as prophet arid preacher. A good critic should never belittle the object of his criticism at the start, that should emerge as he unfolds his criticism. If Marx had been a mere ranter there would be no special virtue in having exposed him. But what is of even greater importance, Mr. Needham should have made himself acquainted with Marxism before he rushed to the microphone to talk about it.

It is true Communism existed before Marx. It was practised in ancient society, was, in fact, the normal mode of social life, but was obviously not known by that name at the time. The word was first used in the early days of the working-class movement and was derived from the French commune, or village community. The communal way of life prevailed, too, among savage tribes discovered in fairly recent times. It is said to have been practised by the monks in the early days of the Christian era. But none of these examples, as Marx said, is to be compared with the higher communism to come; which is only possible when the working class have come to realise that class ownership of the means of life is inconsistent with the free development of humanity.

To Mr. Needham Russia is the embodiment of Marxism. Soviet Russia, for him, is Marxism in practice, hence, for him, to expose the Russian way of life is to smash Marxism. He says :

“This, of course, is what has happened in Russia. Capitalism has been destroyed, but we can scarcely say that Communism has taken its place. What has happened is that a dictatorship has been set up—not exactly a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship acting in the name of the proletariat. Sympathisers with Communism tell us that this dictatorship, as Marx proclaimed, is purely temporary, but it does not seem very temporary. Although it has been in effect thirty years, it still shows no signs of giving way to parliamentary democracy as we understand it.”

Capitalism in Russia destroyed; a temporary state called dictatorship established; and, as yet, no signs of parliamentary democracy as we understand it, Which means: we destroy capitalism, establish dictatorship and progress backwards, or is it forward? to capitalism. What is the truth?

America and Russia are the two greatest capitalist powers in the world, the two greatest powers in the present conflict of power-politics. America with her dollars and her atom bombs, and Russia grabbing oil fields, plutonium and other raw materials in readiness to answer the American challenge for world supremacy.

From this survey of the external facts it would appear that Russian capitalism is very much alive. What about the internal facts? The Supreme Soviet of Russia with all its political and industrial machinery is built on wage labour. The surplus value, over and above the cost of living of Russian workers, now flows into the coffers of the totalitarian state and is divided among officials, political, military and industrial, according to their usefulness in the Soviet schemes for power.

The leaders of the so-called Russian revolution have achieved power over the mass of their fellow countrymen. They lead, or push them into the industrial or military conflict for world domination in a capitalist world, under the dictates of the supreme Soviet. They are as firmly in control of their subjugated millions as the American capitalist class with its control of the political machinery. No Russian worker can escape the efficiency and widely flung tentacles of the Russian Government.

Orders are issued from the top, and they must be obeyed. They are obeyed. What would Wall Street not give to have their wage-slaves under such perfect control? Scared stiff by Hollywood reds and talk of Communists in official positions, they would care little at being dubbed fascist or gestapo, if their power to enforce their orders were equal to that of the Russian leaders.

It is obvious, that there is no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, nor anywhere else, nor at any time, now, or in the future. When the working-class is in a position to dictate they will be democratically organised for the purpose they have agreed upon, and their organisation will be intellectually and technically equal to the task. Until then it is the capitalists that dictate, and the workers’ task is an individual one: to understand and help to organise for the day when deeds of ownership and share certificates in the land and means of wealth production will be abolished; and the working-class will carry on production, in a truly democratic manner, for the satisfaction of their needs. Next Mr. Needham quotes from Marx as follows:

“In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole means at the same time accumulation of misery, toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality and mental degradation at the opposite pole.”

All this is substantially true. With regard to the accumulation of wealth Mr. Needham might have discovered that it was beyond dispute. An American work entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means, gives the information that one half the corporate wealth of the United States is controlled by no more than 200 companies. While 2,500 officers and directors own between them two thousand million dollars of capital; most of it in the hands of about 250 men who occupy the decisive executive positions.

Mr. Needham does not agree that this accumulation of wealth at one pole means poverty at the other, he says :

“The wages paid to factory workers in Canada and the United States are higher than have ever been paid to factory workers anywhere—not only in the money sense, but also in actual purchasing-power. Millions of factory workers in North America own comfortable houses and up-to-date automobiles.”

A higher standard of living is only made possible by the industry of the workers. But enjoyment of that higher standard by the workers is always opposed by the capitalists. The realisation of it can only come through hard bargaining and often strikes. Higher wages are not the result of generosity or fairness. They are paid for special qualifications, or as a compromise against still higher demands.

But ownership of a comfortable house and automobile is not confined to America. In most capitalist countries, there may not be millions, but there are more or less in a comparable position. This was proved in the last depression, when many thousands worsened the crisis because they could not keep up payments for cars, radio sets and refrigerators.

From the millions of factory workers owning houses and cars take a look at the other side of the picture. Of the slums in all the large towns, where millions do actually live in the grip of perpetual poverty. Where the conditions of existence are below any decent civilised standard. An American periodical, “Fortune,” ,says:

“About 31 per cent. of American homes lack running water; more than ten million dwelling units have no modern plumbing facilities. Eighteen million families are without baths. More than eight million families are without electric light, or power.” (Quoted in Daily Worker, August 1st, 1947.)

These figures possibly cover America’s notorious slums, but weighed in the balance against Mr. Needham’s doubtful millions, the misery side of the scale sags definitely. From the mortgaged or slum home to the factory:

“The factories, of course, have vastly improved under capitalism. People do their jobs under conditions strictly laid down by law. The manufacturing plants of Canada and the United States are the roomiest, the best lighted, the safest and most comfortable in the world. The milk and bread, the fruit and meat consumed by Canadian and American workers has to pass the most rigid tests.”

Who makes the factories roomy and keeps them clean? Not the capitalist owners. Neither is it permitted by them out of consideration for their wage-slaves. The housing of the machine must keep pace with its development. Machines are expensive, and must be suitably housed and protected from weather if they are to replace their value with the sale of products before they are worn out. While the workers who keep them running at top speed must work with ease if they are to last out the shift. And the capitalists who rely on these workers will not tolerate any tampering with food that would diminish their workers’ efficiency or constitute a danger to themselves.

According to Mr. Needham Marx made many mistakes. No doubt he did in minor matters, but in the general analysis of the capitalist system, and the part the workers should play to achieve their freedom he was sound. Mr. Needham says :

“Marx made the greatest mistake when he told the workers to rise up, in blood and fury, and destroy their compatriots: He made his greatest mistake when he called upon them to engage in class warfare.”

Is there a class war? Is there class hatred? The Socialist knows that the capitalists in America, as elsewhere, suppress strikes in blood and fury.” He knows that those strikes are evidence of the conflict of interests in. the basis of capitalist society. Evidences of these conflicting interests are present all over the world; in America, the most advanced capitalist country, more so than anywhere else. The workers all over the world to-day struggle blindly on the industrial field to maintain their meagre standard of living. When, they realise that their struggle is inherent in the system because of its class ownership of the means of life, they will organise consciously for control of the machinery of government, in order that they may abolish class ownership and establish Socialism. A truly democratic system of all the people, who will control production and distribution according to their needs.

F. Foan

The Capitalists’ “Directive Ability”. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Lessons from recent happenings.

The Need for the Parasite.

One of the stock arguments of the anti-Socialist is that the worker will be unable to control industry under Socialism, as, in order to enable affairs to run smoothly, men are required with some weird, mysterious and miracle-working power called “directive ability.” The “anties” contend that we could not get along without these powerful individuals, and that (grande finale) these men are the ones who to-day possess wealth and position, i.e., the Rockefellers, Liptons, Devonports, and so on.

Let us just test this contention with a few facts and see how the miracle-workers run this system.

During the last few months a case has been attracting much attention in the courts. In this case certain civilians (past or present employees of Liptons, Ltd.) and some Army officers have been accused under the Bribery and Corruption Acts. In the evidence it transpired that Liptons have been in the habit of giving inducements to Army officers to secure Army canteen contracts. One of the defendants, Col. Whitaker, had received £540 from a firm of brewers, who supplied the beer to Col. Whitaker’s regiment at Malta. The Colonel said that he received the greater part of the money for using his influence to secure a contract from a colonel of a regiment at Crete. It also turned in the evidence that a member of the Government, Lord Saye and Sele, had written advising Col. Whitaker to take a holiday and go to Crete to “smooth a ruffled bird” (Col. Bird) for a consideration !

In summing up the case the judge said : “I am bound to say that the evidence before the Court satisfies me that these defendants, employed by Lipton’s, in so far as they made payments for the bribery of persons capable of influencing contracts in favour of Lipton’s, were acting on a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, after there had been consideration given as to whether to stop that system or not.” (“Times,” 28.5.14.)

Now is this the way the capitalists run the show ? Is this the way they pile up their fortunes ? Is this the line “Directive Ability” takes ? When the capitalists themselves are faced with these facts and called to account, what do they answer ? Just what Lipton would have answered : “We do not know anything about it ; we did not attend to the business. You must blame our managers.'”

Tarred with the Same Brush.

Those who have memories a little longer than the usual working-class memory will recollect that when the directors of the company con­cerned in the Putumayo rubber atrocities were brought before the commission, four of them admitted that they did not even know the lan­guage in which the business at board meetings was conducted !

Let us now turn to another recent instance of “Directive Ability.”

The coalfields of Colorado have lately been drenched with the blood of miners who struck against the conditions obtaining in the mines of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co. A condition of affairs was in operation out there similar to what existed in England before the factory legislation began. The miners were compelled to trade at the company’s store, paying 25 to 50 per cent. more than outside prices, to buy coal off the company, pay the company’s doctor, and live in the company’s shacks.

When the miners struck on September 3rd last wholesale evictions followed, and men, women, and children were turned into the streets with their few belongings, to go where they could in the rain and snow that kept falling through the next two days.

A Heroic (Rocke)feller.

During the strike the mine-owners, following their usual custom, imported as mine guards riff-raff of every description—armed thugs who could be depended upon to commit without hesitation the most cold-blooded of murders. “No authentic account,” says the “New York World” in a candid moment, “of anything that has happened in Mexico compares in cold-blooded brutality with what took place at Ludlow, Colorado. Dr. A. S. Harvey, a physician who testified at the inquest, said that while the “women and children lay in the safety pits which had been dug under the tents, the militiamen applied torches to the canvas and burned the structure over the heads of the terrified refugees. He declared that one ranch-house, in which dozens of women and children had taken refuge, was under fire from the militiamen the whole day.” The militia mounted machine guns and swept the strikers’ quarters with bullets. Over 200 lives were lost in this mine war.

We now come to the “directive ability” side of the matter. As a result of the allegation that the rioting was caused by agents provocateur, and that the troops acted with great brutality in charging and shooting down men, women, and children indiscriminately, a Congressional inquiry into the matter was ordered. When John D. Rockefeller, Jun., who is a director of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co., was questioned he “blandly professed entire ignorance as to the details of the rioting and causes of the strike. He admitted that his father owned 40 per cent. of the company’s stock, but declared that neither of them interfered with the management of affairs, and they knew very little about the matter. ‘We have so many interests that it is impossible for us to supervise personally everything.'”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

An Obliging Conscience.

How they get out of it when anything is brought up against them ! Capitalists, say our opponents, supervise industry, therefore deserve their profits. Charge Rockefeller with the murder of the Colorado miners, however, and he immediately begins to squirm, and says he knows nothing about the matter. He does not “supervise personally” when the butcheries have to be accounted for, but only when the “swag” is divided.

When one of the committee very pertinently pointed out that Rockefeller found plenty of time for “social uplift” work and vice investigation, and asked him why he did not investigate the conditions in his own business, the canting, hypocritical scoundrel at once replied : “My conscience acquits me of any responsibility in the matter.”—(“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Rockefellers, by the way, seem to be rather accomplished hypocrites, and, incidentally, men after God’s own heart. The father of the aforementioned unctuous humbug, John D. Rockefeller, Sen., was referred to last June by Mr. Bustard, the pastor of the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, Cleveland (of the congregation of which Rockefeller is one of the oldest members) as “one of the rose bushes in God’s garden.” The same reverend soft-soap and chloroform dispenser also paid a tribute to those faithful followers in the church who, like Mr. Rockefeller, “have for years lead religious lives and been steadfast in the Lord’s work.” Comment on this is needless.

Before leaving for his father’s Pocantico Hills Estate young Rockefeller “issued a statement, in which he admitted that his investigations into the riots had disclosed conditions more terrible than have yet occurred in that or any other State.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 3.5.14.) In his concluding statement before the commission, however, he disclosed his true capitalistic soul, and showed himself as the advocate of free and unfettered sweating. “He got rather angry when it was pointed out that the newspapers had given plenty of details as to the working conditions in Trinidad, and that a word from his father would have stopped the bloodshed and ended the strike. He declined to agree to submit to arbitration, and declared that the company would rather sacrifice the whole of its property in Colorado than recognize the miners’ union if it hampered the company’s freedom.”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Company’s Freedom.

Well, what about “directive ability” now ? As a matter of fact, about the only directive ability the masters ever exercise is in employing managers, foremen, etc. to run their concerns for them while they are enjoying themselves, and if it large enough dividend is not regularly forthcoming they want to know the reason why ; if a sufficient reason is not given the official gets the sack. Owing to the contradictory nature of present society the workers are compelled to fight each other for jobs. The overlooker and manager are working men like the rest of us, dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and just as likely to get the sack at any moment. Their particular job consists in using every method they can to get the greatest possible amount of work out of their fellow-workers. Thus on the industrial field workers find themselves compelled to fight, not only their masters, but also each other in order to get a living. When the workers take over production then the “directive ability” of our fellow-workers (the absent bond-holding capitalist does no work in production at all), will be employed for the common good instead of, as to-day, for the misery of their fellows.

G. McClatchie

Trade Unionism. A Debate. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard.

[To save repetition and for convenience of reference we have numbered the paragraphs in the reply of the Advocates, and will answer under those numbers.]

Reply of Advocates.

The loose and inaccurate habit of thought of the S.P.G.B. is well typified by the sub-heading of their answer, which attempts to make out that the present debate is with the S.L.P. instead of with the A. of I.U.

(1) When we speak of the S.P.G.B. wandering away from the correct position, it is in the sense that they totally fail to put into practice the principle expressed in their Manifesto, “that the basis of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the worker’s position under capitalism and the class struggle resulting therefrom,” by advocating the formation of such a union in Great Britain. Instead they deliberately attack those who are seeking to establish an industrial union based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the Socialist Republic.

(2) The S.P.G.B., after publishing in its official organ the statement that “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” reject another later article because it asks for the same thing. For the S.P. to contend that a union could not be a class union, that is, based on the class struggle, because it would be organised according to industries, cuts the ground from under their own feet, for if economic grouping in an economic body robs it of its class character, then geographical grouping in a political body must do likewise.

(3) There is no jumble of unions in our organisation. Our object is to organise the workers in a compact body along the same lines in which modern industrial conditions compel them to work together, that is united according to industrial, and not divided along craft lines. The object of our union is the taking over by and for the workers themselves the productive forces they now operate for a boss. Anyone knows that the General Federation of Trade Unions is simply out to federate the existing craft unions, duplicates as well, leaving their internal organisation absolutely intact. What we are out for is to organise one union of the whole working class, divided for administrative and other purposes into industrial departments and local industrial unions, just as an army is divided into regiments or a political party into local branches.

(4) The I.W.W. of America, in spite of the alleged split (a split only in the sense that the fakirs were kicked out) has now over 28,000 fully paying members. Several European countries, France, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Germany, etc., have unions organised on industrial lines, both before and since the I.W.W. was started, and now Australia is starting an industrial union, with the title, preamble and constitution of the I.W.W.—facts which prove the efficiency of revolutionary industrial organisation.

(5) To say that because we wish an economic organisation as being the chief means to overthrow capitalism and to form the foundation of the Socialist Republic, that we are Anarchist as believing in direct action, places the loyal S.P’ite in the same category should he become involved in a strike and should he not attempt to conduct it through the ballot box.

(6) We claim that were the working class organised in a revolutionary industrial union, we could prevent to a large extent the use of armed forces against the workers. Transport, food, clothing, ammunition, etc., are necessary factors in warfare, and the workers industrially organised could prevent the hired assassins of the capitalist class from using them. In the railway strike in Italy the Government used armed force to compel the men to run certain trains, but the organised workers in Milan and elsewhere called a series of strikes in these towns which made the Government withdraw the troops and grant the workers’ demands.

(7) If the revolution is to be effected by armed force, how are the workers going to get it ? because if the capitalists can prevent the organising of a revolutionary union because of their strict supervision, are we to suppose they will allow an armed force to be got together ? And if they did, how are workers ever to obtain sufficient wealth to purchase “the modern weapons of precision and death-dealing ?”

(8) Although the capitalists could not starve the industrially organised workers into submission, seeing we will have possession of the means of production, what would there be to prevent them starving a “Socialist” government out of power by refusing to give up control of the fighting forces and the means of production to the Socialist M.P.’s ?

(9) To say that the capitalist class laid the foundation of their control by building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax begs the question as to how they got control of this army, which we contend was only by the capitalists having since the time of Henry 8th been developing and getting economic power, thereby being able to purchase the munitions of war, pay their soldiers, etc., when the question of feudal or capitalist supremacy finally became relegated from Parliament to battlefield.

(10) We were wrong in describing the S.P. as “neutral,” for to actively oppose, as they do, those who are attempting to organise a union “based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic,” amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. To say that Allen’s article was allowed in because it asked for a Socialist union when it stated “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” and to reject a second article because it asked for the same thing, is equal to saying that a union “based on the class struggle,” etc., is not a Socialist union.

(11) The statement that Kent’s resolution did not say an industrial organisation “affiliated to and controlled by the S.P.G.B.” is a distinct suggestion of falsification. The facts are that these words were added to Kent’s resolution as an amendment by Anderson. The resolution as amended was carried, and Kent himself voted for it. If the S.P. attitude is not one of “boring from within” when it allows its members to hold office in existing unions that deny the class struggle, thus helping to build them up and extend their influence, we should like to know what is. They have some members who have denied the need for economic organisation at all.

(12) With regard to the I.W.W. excluding men on account of high dues, when first established the Executive Board had power to lower and forgive them if it so wished. The S.P. likewise conveniently overlooks the differences in the money rate of wages in America and here. Since Sherman & Co. were kicked out, the I.W.W. has organised men who were on strike without the payment of initiation fee or dues. The Paterson silk workers had their dues reduced 25 per cent., and they won their strike. In their official organ for July 27th, ’07 they report the winning of the Paterson Locomotive Workers’ strike, and in the same issue report Local 95 as exempted from paying assessments. Bridgeport I.W.W. machinists won their strike. The big strike in the mills of Skowhegan was won by the I.W.W. Case after case can be given proving it a lie to say that the I.W.W. has never won a strike, and also that it makes dues and initiation fees so high as to keep workers out. In Schenectady the I.W.W. had only 3,000 men : the rest of the 12,000 in the Works were in craft unions, and it was these remaining at work blacklegging on the I.W.W. that lost the strike. In Buffalo several new unions have been started. The I.W.W. has won more strikes than it has lost. Even if it had not, it does not prove industrial unionism wrong, because anyone with sense knows a union must have a certain proportion of workers inside to strike successfully ; while young and weak some strikes are sure to be lost. The S.P.G.B. has never won an election, therefore it is a fraud.

(13) With regard to the split, the S.P. should be the last to talk of splits seeing that it is simply the result of a split from the S.D.F. itself, and has since had splits at Islington and elsewhere in its own ranks.

(14) We attend workers political bodies, trade union branches, trades councils, etc., at their invitation just as the S.P.G.B. was prepared to let Lehane go to the Parliament branch U.I.L. when there was a chance to go. To drag in the S.L.P. is quite irrelevant as this is a debate with the A. of I.U. and not the S.L.P. The S.P.G.B. allows its members to hold office in unions that deny the class struggle, that are going to moralise the capitalists like the O.B.S., establish mutual relations between employer and employed, and that are affiliated to the bogus Labour Party which is supposed to be fought by the S.P. If industrial unionism is so bad and against Socialist principles why does the S.P.G.B. fail to tell us the methods on which a union should be organised, and then set about organising it to prove their honesty ?

S.P.G.B. answer to Advocates.

(1) Both on the platform and in our paper we continually point out to the working class the necessity for political and economic action and for building up their organisations from their class basis. To call a new organisation an “industrial” union merely conveys to the average worker the idea of a union similar in most respects to the existing unions and differing only in some details. Call it a “Socialist” union and attention is at once directed to the fundamental differences between that and the present unions. If the Advocates are in favour of a Socialist union why do they attempt to start unions that sectionalise the workers according to industry and then try to hide their stupidity by saying that this sectionalism is on a class basis ?

(2) As people usually live in different localities, geographical subdivision of organisation becomes necessary, and the I.W.W. has been compelled to adopt this form despite their denouncing this method as wrong. The S.P. is an organisation with geographical sub-divisions, but the I.W.W. is composed of Industrial and Local Unions—that is, of complete organisations or entities—not branches of an organisation, and is merely a conglomerate similar to the General Federation of Trade Unions.

(3) This is answered by No. 2 above.

(4) This is so clumsy an evasion of the truth that we can only suppose the Advocates to imagine their opponents know nothing of the facts. When the I.W.W. was formed it claimed 100,000 members. At the next Annual Convention these figures had dropped to 60 or 70,000. Now they are given as 28,000. Nor is this the most important fact. The union that formed the back-bone of the I.W.W., and was lauded in their press and speeches as the most clear-cut revolutionary union in America, is the Western Federation of Miners ; and it is just this union, stated to number 30,000 members, that has withdrawn from the I.W.W. No talk of “alleged splits” can cover the seriousness of these facts and figures.

If the existence of so-called industrial unions on the continent of Europe proves the efficiency of this form of organisation, then the so-called ”craft” unions must be immensely more efficient as they exist with a far greater membership.

But the truth is that these industrial unions are Anarchist unions and fight Socialism at every opportunity. The strongest and most important of them all—the General Federation of Labour of France—has for years bitterly opposed the Socialist party and propaganda there ; while— a curious fact —the Australian S.L.P. has withdrawn from the Socialist Federation in Australia that endorsed (not started) the I.W.W. there.

(5) Utter inability to refute our case showing how the A. of I. U. adopt the Anarchist position is proved by the absurd paragraph in question. To talk of conducting an economic strike through the ballot box is sheer idiocy.

(6) While this paragraph is the first attempt to come to anything like close quarters in the discussion, it carefully evades our previous statement. In the first place they have utterly failed to show how unarmed workers could prevent the armed “hired assassins” from using the immense stores that are under the control of the capitalist class, in the Arsenals, victualing yards, etc. ; and in the second place the only “demands” granted the railway workers in Italy were doses of lead in Milan and Barra Bridge. Far from the men winning they were completely routed by the use of the soldiers in running—and compelling the men to run—the services in question.

(7) This paragraph shows how completely the Anarchist notions have bitten into the Advocatee, as the only alternative to an economic struggle they appear capable of grasping is the Bakunine position of street riots with such arms as the workers can secure by purchase or theft. They fail to see that with the control of the political machinery there is control of the ordering departments, and therefore control of the fighting forces already in existence ; and until this control is obtained by the workers they cannot hold the means of production.

(8) This reiterates the same old fallacy that, “industrially” organised, the workers are invincible, the absurdity of which we have shown above.

(9) The contention that the capitalists in the seventeenth century were only able to control the Army because they had the means to purchase munitions of war and pay soldiers is entirely inaccurate. Leaving out the point, so well established in the Thirty Years’ War, that an Army can support itself while production exists at all, the bourgeois class obtained their army in the first place from the militia existing in England and which was under the control of Parliament. When they had conquered political power in the Commons they were able to use this militia to protect themselves, while the King had to rely upon his courtiers and their retainers for an army to fight them, showing in a striking manner the importance of the working class gaining control of the political machinery to accomplish their emancipation.

(10) The naive admission made here well shows how the Advocates merely repeat parrot-like phrases and statements used in America even against facts existing here. The American S.L.P. denounces the Socialist Party there for claiming to be “neutral” on the trade union question. Then the Advocates here—formed by, and largely consisting of members of, the Scots S.L.P.—must use the same phrase against the S.P.G.B., although the subject was debated on Peckham Rye with G. Geis in August, 1906 and again at Plumstead in January, 1907, with Allen ; in the latter case the debate was, technically, on the political question, but it was almost wholly taken up with with industrial unionism. This is now the third encounter we have had on the subject, yet the Advocates only discover in their second contribution that we are not “neutral” but in opposition ! This they say amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. The fact that we have lately had to defend ourselves in a libel action, due to our criticism of some of these reactionaries, is by itself a sufficient refutation of the statement; but in truth, from the publication of our Manifesto onwards, we have always opposed all organisations that are non-Socialist, whether political or economic.

The almost pathetic reiteration of one sentence from an article by E. J. B. Allen is best met by further quotation from that article.

“We must carry on an organised agitation and education within the existing unions to which our members belong, so as to form a nucleus of sound Socialists in each. They should proceed with the educational work … so that they can get a sufficient number of sound men within the unions, so that when we are strong enough and conditions are ripe, we can call them out to form the foundation of the Socialist union. . . . Better do this and build a solid foundation by education . . . than pass pious resolutions instructing the E.C. to form Socialist unions at a time when it is a numerical and financial impossibility.”

In an article two months previous to the above the same writer stated :—

“The question therefore arises can the unions be made of service to the working class ? The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

And further on it is said :—

“They (the Socialist trade unionists) should, it seems to me, endeavour to effect the sound economic organisation of the workers by systematic propaganda of Socialism inside existing unions—a work which, it must be remembered, has, hitherto, never been seriously undertaken.”

In face of these quotations it is unnecessary to labour the point further.

(11) It is now admitted that Kent’s resolution did not contain the statement questioned. It is not true that Kent voted for the resolution as amended. The next point is “boring from within.” It is stated that “the S.P. allows its members to hold office in existing unions.” So do the Advocates ! G. Geis, a prominent member of both Advocates and S.L.P., has held office in his trade union as late as last November. Evidently everyone but an “Advocate” holding office is only “helping to build them up and extend their influence.”

(12) The opening statement here is entirely false. Nowhere in the constitution is any provision made for remitting dues, nor is any power given to the Executive Board to do so and where this has occurred, the Executive have acted outside the rules. Every union that entered upon a strike has found itself compelled to organise the non-members without payment of dues, as such payment is obviously impossible then. Local No. 95 were exempted from payment to headquarters because they were supporting an organiser entirely by their own efforts, thus saving the centre a good sum.

In Secretary Trautmann’s Report to the I.W.W. Convention it is stated that the “Paterson Silk Workers’ strike is still pending” and up to time of writing no further report has appeared. In their official organ for June 15th it is pointed out that the blacksmiths, hammermen and helpers of Paterson Locomotive Works all belong to an independent union, and that the I.W.W. helpers worked jointly with them when the strike was called. The above is a sample of the bluff indulged in by the Advocates, but more can be quoted. In the report of July 27th it says a telegram was received saying “Paterson strike won” but neither then nor since have the details of the “victory” been published. The Skowhegan strike was so “big” that in his first report, organiser French described the firm as “a cockroach concern that cannot stand for any long period without going into bankruptcy,” and while it was only claimed that the women in the finishing department were in the I.W.W., the whole of the employes came out on strike and received support from various quarters. But here again no details are given of the “victory,” while in the case of Bridgeport Machinists, not only is there no mention of the strike in the secretary’s report, but it is not claimed anywhere that the strike was won, though it is stated it was “settled.” The significance of this silence as to details is vividly shown by the solitary case where they are given and we cannot do better than quote the secretary :—

“In the strike of the smeltermen of Tacoma, Wash., the workers made a splendid showing. The company settled on the terms of the 8 hour day and 15 per cent. increase of wages, but singled out all officers and active workers of the union for the black list. They had to leave the town, after the spokesman of the company had succeeded in having the organisation dissolved. The concessions of the company, however, will not be lived up to, and the misguided few may soon again see the necessity of organising so as to preserve what was conceded on account of the splendid fight conducted by those who were finally made the victims.”

Did ever “craft” union win such a “victory”? It must be left to the imagination to picture what the “victories” were on the details of which they are silent.

We are then told that it was the craft unions remaining at work that lost the Schenectady strike. Secretary Trautmann says it was due to leading individuals, who afterwards received their rewards in the shape of well-compensated foremen’s positions for having delivered the goods (Ind. Bulletin, Sept. 18th, 1907), and later on it is stated that “It was C. W. Noonan” who sold out the strike. Our readers may take their choice.

But superior to all these petty details, however, is the point made in our last contribution, namely, that attempts to form Socialist unions with non-Socialist material was a stupid farce and merely encouraged further labour faking. The Advocates have entirely ignored this point, while, in addition to the quotation given above, the following, from the same report, clinch the argument:—

“But the unions in Schenectady had hardly gone through the transitory stage of development, unions formerly connected with the American Federation of Labour had joined in full force the Industrial Workers of the World without sufficiently understanding the difference in the basic principles. The change of name did not materially change the structure of the organisation, . . .”

And this section of the report closes as follows:—

“It is essential that in every organisation at least a good minority be fully possessed of the knowledge of the aims and objects of the Industrial Workers of the World, so that in times of conflicts this element can assume control of the situation and rise fully to the occasion required in critical and crucial hours.”

So ! not only are the rank and file in mass not required to know the principles of the organisation they join, but not even a majority need know them. All that is wanted is a minority to control and guide the rest. And this is called a Socialist organisation ! Nothing we have ever said is so strong a refutation of such a claim as the secretary’s own statement given above.

Editorial: The Festive Season. (1908)

Editorial from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Festive Season.

The usual cant is now being uttered concerning the “festive season,” and the conventional phrases are on most people’s lips. To those with the wherewithal to purchase the good things of life it is possible to be merry and joyous, but to these Christmas is no exception to the rule. They can and do eat, drink and be merry, taking no thought of the morrow, even if it be that on the morrow they die. But although the working class may, for the time being, “forget their sorrow and remember their misery no more,” their ever-present poverty and the constant dread of even harder times, makes a “joyous” Christmas impossible.

What is the position to-day ? Says that wordy describer of evils for which he has no remedy, Mr. Geo. R. Sims :

“No one has any money. The cry of an impoverished people rings through the land. The West End weeps and the City sits in sackcloth and ashes. All parties agree that there is “very little money about.”

One is bound to accept the statement when one hears it so plaintively put forward in every direction. Commercial and professional men, dukes and doss-house keepers, traders and toilers, all tell you the same thing, and yet—capitals, please, Mr. Printer, AND YET

Luxury and Extravagance

leap to your eyes everywhere, and the shop windows this Christmas time are making as glorious a show of goods as ever delighted the eyes of a passing public in the palmy days of booming British trade and national well-being.

Magnificent hotels and gorgeous restaurants, such as the capital never possessed before, flourish and pay dividends ; men who used to go to the City in a twopenny ‘bus are now whirled thither in a thousand-guinea motor-car.”

And yet from all the industrial centres, not those of England alone, but of all parts of the world, come accounts of the distress among the working class. In London the starving condition of the school children has forced leading members of the exploiting class to issue an urgent appeal for funds, fearful lest the supply of efficient wage slaves may be impaired, or that this starvation, in the midst of plenty, if allowed to continue, may goad people into action that may threaten the supremacy of the master class. In the North of England special appeals have been issued for funds to help the unemployed and their starving dependents. As the Newcastle Journal of Dec. 10th said :

“The cry for Relief of Distress is in evidence that the contrivances invented to prevent so many people falling into poverty and to ease the lot of such as might fall have been a dead failure—a most lamentable failure. For, as the means of relief have gone on increasing, the number demanding to be relieved goes on increasing in still greater proportion. . . . Our country abounds with orphan asylums, houses of refuge, training ships for outcasts, hospitals for every kind of disease, convalescent homes, alms-houses, and charity organisations of one sort and another—each and all of which were designed to play their part in reducing the mass of poverty, and in elevating the condition of those dwelling on the borders of pauperism, in social and moral respects. But their failure to attain such end is dismal. Never was the mass of poverty in our country greater than it is to-day—never was the cry of the distressful louder than it is to-day. . . The Distress Committee in every town is proclaiming that the state of things is worse than it was before.”

We agree with the writer that all these benevolent contrivances have failed lamentably “because they do not get near to the root of the evil—because they do not even aim at touching the root of the evil.” And in endeavouring to earn his money as a capitalist hack he, as might be expected, charges the working class with improvidence, thriftlessness, and wastefulness ! He accuses them of being reckless of future needs, and given to living from hand to mouth. As if the wage slaves of capitalism could do other than live from hand to mouth ! He suggests that the distress in Sunderland is largely due to the workers’ extravagance and self-indulgence when the day was long and work was plentiful. Other writers state that these Sunderland mechanics have been receiving £7 or £8 per week in wages, and they have spent it all as they received it. We do not believe these amounts have been paid in wages, but even if they have, and the receivers have spent all their takings each week, what has been the effect? They have found employment in other departments of industry which would not have been provided had they refrained from spending their wages. Tailors, shoemakers, producers and purveyors of food and drink, employees of transit companies, etc., have had work as the result of the “thriftlessness” of these Sunderland shipwrights. Had they “hoarded,” had they put by for a rainy day, it would have been necessary long before this to make appeals to relieve the distress of unemployed workers who have been kept going by the “extravagance” of their fellows.

Under capitalism, it is in the interests of the working class that wealth should be destroyed as quickly as possible after it is produced, and the Newcastle Journal’s claptrap no more suggests a solution of the problem than any of the “contrivances” it writes down.

In the “Empire Beyond the Seas” thousands of good workmen are workless and hungry. From Canada comes the news that every industry is overcrowded. In Toronto there are 10,000 out of work, 4,000 in Winnipeg, and similar numbers in other large centres. Even Lord Strathcona, the High Commissioner, whilst not confirming (nor disputing) these figures, admits that “the general conditions of labour and business are not so brisk as at this time last year, but everything is reasonably satisfactory.” “Reasonably satisfactory” means, of course, that the unemployed are quiet, that they are not making themselves a nuisance. Let it be remembered that these unemployed workmen in Canada are not of “the idle, loafing, profligate class” : they are men who have been mainly selected for their physical fitness and mechanical skill, as only those who can pass a very severe test in these respects are allowed to join the parties of emigrants “assisted” by various capitalist agencies, open or disguised, to “start afresh.” And although it is admitted that there is an acute unemployed problem in Canada, “General” Booth is advertising for 600 men and women to join a party going there, under government auspices, on Feb. 20th !

From America, the “land of the free,” the paradise that the Tariff Reformer points to, but (like the Christian and his paradise) is in no hurry to go to, we learn, on the authority of the Daily Mail, that

“Distressing stories of a vain struggle for existence in America are told by crowds of sad-faced emigrants streaming from the steerage decks of every arriving trans-Atlantic liner. The vast majority, according to competent assurance I have received, are arriving only with money for the barest immediate necessities. I have interviewed a number of distracted wanderers—broad-shouldered, industrious-looking Galicians, Bohemians, Poles, and Italians—who, in broken English, picked up during brief sojourns in America, declared that they were willing to do any kind of work, they had not earned a dollar for three months” 

(Daily Mail’s Bremen Correspondent, Dec. 5)

These workers out of European countries left their homes (capitalism having broken them up long before the advent of Socialism) because conditions of livelihood were productive of poverty and unhappiness, and they are now leaving Protection-ridden America for the same reason.

Let us take another phase of the workers’ existence.

Early on the morning of the 18th December, an explosion occurred at a mine belonging to the Pittsburg (U.S.A.) Coat Company at Jacob’s Creek, some eighteen miles from Connellsville. Two hundred and fifty miners lost their lives, and we are told that the women relatives of the men gathered around the pitmouth frenzied with grief. What a merry Christmas ! What a prospect of a happy New Year for these women and children deprived of bread-winner by this sudden “act of God” !

This is the third great coal-mine explosion that has occurred in the United States in less than a fortnight. On December 6th between four and five hundred miners lost their lives at the Monongah Mine, and on the 16th another seventy met their doom in the Yolande Mine, Alabama. On the day of the Jacob’s Creek explosion the Commission appointed by Mr. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, issued a pamphlet showing that 22,840 persons have lost their lives in coal-mine accidents in America in the last seventeen years. Half of these deaths were caused during the last six years. In 1906 alone 6,861 persons were involved in accidents, 2,061 of whom perished. In 1906 there were 1,116 lives lost in British mines. It is well that the accidents and diseases of occupations should be borne in mind when our opponents are telling us of the “reward” to which the capitalist is entitled because of the risks he takes. He never risks his life for a paltry wage insufficient at the best of times to keep one decently.

When one takes into consideration, then, the conditions of the working class all over the wide world ; when one remembers that, no matter what political, fiscal, or religious systems are in vogue, all over the world the working class is poor and the master class is rich ; when one knows that their exploitatation must continue, what a farce it is to talk to the wage slaves of “A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !” There is no festive season for them. There cannot be until capitalism is abolished. When the workers, organised as a class-conscious party, not only in opposition to those political factions which are avowedly capitalist, but also to those which, while professing to be anti-capitalist are yet pro-capitalist, by reason of their efforts at “reforming” this system and their support of capitalist candidates and parties, shall be preparing to take over the means of wealth production and thus end working-class exploitation, they will be able to indulge in good wishes and encouragement. When, however, their historic mission is fulfilled it will not be a case of wishing each other a good time once in 365 days, but life for all, young and old, will be a festive season all the time. To hasten that good day is the work which the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been doing and which it hopes to do even more vigorously in the year now before it.

Peace amongst the Nations. War between the Classes. (1907)

From the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The months of July and August were full of interesting events.

The Daily News of July 31st referred to one of these in its leading article, headed “The Palace of Peace.” Its language was sublime. “The foundation stone of Mr. Carnegie’s Palace of Peace was laid yesterday at the Hague to an accompaniment of oratory which does credit to the optimism of the great” and the poster it issued on the same day bore remarkable evidences of the peaceful intentions of British capitalists, who were represented at the Hague. As the events which that Contents Bill had reference to will one day play as important a part in working-class politics as, one day, the Featherstone massacres will, let us reproduce it:

MILITARY

& MAXIMS

POURING INTO

BELFAST

____________

RAILWAY CRISIS

Since then, the power of the master class has been demonstrated in the usual manner. Controlling “the machinery of Government, including the armed forces of the nation” those armed forces have been used, as they must always be, “to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers,” and at time of writing, the hospitals are filled with wounded wage-slaves while preparations are being made for the interment of the killed. 

Two days previously, this same organ of British Nonconformity admitted, in its leader on the Idaho trial, that—

“The trial . . . more and more became a class struggle between capital and labour,”

and that—

“From the beginning the question has been complicated by the fierce prejudices of a kind of smoulder-class war. . . . The whole movement , . . has illustrated the insecurity of authority in America, and the profound scepticism concerning the identity of law and justice”.

The American Commercial Appeal said in the course of an editorial reviewing the Idaho trial:—

“Now, however much we may dislike disorder, we are bound as fair-minded citizens to abide by the evidence adduced in a case. Much disorder was started on both sides. The mine owners were guilty of more infamous crimes than were ever charged against the miners. They had judges and other officers driven from their posts. They had merchants who leaned toward the miners’ side deported from their homes. They bought up the legislature to overturn the will of the people. Peabody stole the governship of Colorado, and then, his nerve weakening, he turned the office over to the lieutenant-governor. The supreme court of Colorado, in league with the mine owners, took charge of the state election and helped to steal the state for the Republican party.

Colorado and some other Western states have been in recent years about as bad as Russia. The source of the trouble has, of course, been the defiance of all law and order by the mine owners. Very few people realise just what these people have done and just what provocation to violence they have given the miners. They corrupted the legislature to kill the eight-hour law that the people had voted for by a large majority. They established the bull-pen, in which hundreds of innocent people were herded like cattle. They had the writ of habeas corpus abolished. They had men driven from their homes and business not only because they were union miners but because they were merchants who sympathised with miners. They threatened to hang judges and other officers if they did not resign. They violated all the prerogatives of American citizens.”

A week later the Daily Telegraph’s Amsterdam correspondent wrote :

“Another war between capital and labour . . . is on the tapis . . . Organised labour is being met by organised capital, and the lesson which Sir George Livesey taught many years ago, when the gasworkers of South London went out on strike, has evidently not been lost upon the Shipping Federation, who seem to be adopting a similar course . . . by drawing free labour from England to replace the strikers if necessary. . . . The Labourers’ Union claims to be a powerful body, but the Shipping Federation is still more powerful, having the support of capital as well as the law of the land !”

International Peace is in the air, but War, the Class War, the inevitable war between capitalist and labourer is on the Earth. And the capitalists are prepared to use any means, like Carnegie, to crush their wage-slaves, and the capitalist governments who are most ready to send troops to shoot down workers in revolt like America, and France, and Russia, and last but not least, Great Britain, play the foremost parts in the farce of international peace “doing credit to the optimism of the great.” Even before the peace conference closed its doors, and as a commentary on the Liberal Premier’s famous peace oration, Great Britain has decided to lay down “almost immediately” three more battleships of the Dreadnought type with improvements.

Without entering into the details of the Belfast dispute, one or two matters may be noted. It is “loyal Ulster” that is the scene of this seething discontent, the portion of the Emerald Isle which has always been held up as a shining example to the remainder. Agrarian outrages are not prevalent and although a feud exists between the Protestants and the Catholics the present struggle is not between these. Christian no longer hurls bricks at Christian as such ; Loyalist no longer pursues Nationalist, or vice versa. No, all these minor differences are forgotten in the greater struggle, that between Capital and Labour. “The line of division,” says the Daily News Parliamentary representative, “is not Catholic and Protestant or Nationalist and Orangeman, but, simply, Labour and Capital.” And here, before the echoes of the oratory at the foundation stone laying of the Palace of Peace have died away, (dimmed somewhat by the noise of the French bombardment of the Moorish towns), the new short rifle of the British Army has been tested in real earnest—in the interests of Capital as against Labour, just as the first Lee-Metford bullets found their human billets at Featherstone in 1893. And a Liberal Government is in office now, as then. Here at home, then, with a “wise and good” monarch, with a Liberal Government, with Free Trade, with a Labour Party in Parliament, with working-men magistrates and working men knights, the class war exists and until the cause of it has been removed no peace is possible. In “protectionist and prosperous America,” then, and in “loyal” Ulster, the “smouldering class war” breaks out into open conflict, as in all other parts of the world.

The ordinary wars for the extension of markets, or for taking away the attention of the people at home from social evils, (the present “military operations” of the French against the Moors have probably been undertaken with both objects in view, considering the recent trouble in the Midi), pale into insignificance beside the War of the Classes which has yet to be prosecuted in grim earnest by the workers all over the world. The mouthers at the Hague Conference may discuss their arrangements for the struggles for the “swag” in which they from time to time engage, with members of the working class as the active participators and sufferers, but the time is rapidly approaching when they will sink their petty differences and unite as the forces of International Capital opposed to International Labour. There can be only one end to the War of the Classes—the abolition of the classes. As the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. points out: “In the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, therefore the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.”

Speed the day.

Adolph Kohn

A Socialist Survey. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lloyd George’s Budget certainly got the welcome he knew it would get from the “Labour” movement. The only feature to be regretted, from their point of view, is the forgetfulness of the Chancellor to acknowledge its source. Apart from that, it is hailed as being “on the right lines,” “a step on the way,” etc. Although Mr. Lloyd George doesn’t see his way clear to “relieve the working classes of the amount of taxation which they were called upon to bear” (vide Mr. Philip Snowden), it yet was comforting to know that a beginning was to be made in the way of doing something to relieve the heavy burden on local rates!.

* * *

On somewhat similar lines is the election manifesto of Mr. Jas. Martin, Labour candidate for N.E. Derbyshire. He goes “straight for the abolition of food taxes.” He favours also the “nationalisation of the mines and railways, which would not only cheapen coal and travel, but [mark this] provide revenue for the Exchequer” !

As if that was not enough to stamp Mr. Martin as a full-blown Liberal, he proceeds to give us the full Liberal programme with all its trimmings. He believes in Free Trade, Home Rule, and Land Reform—in fact, all that a respectable Liberal stands for. Strangely enough, he is opposed by another Liberal candidate. This, I believe, is due to some misunderstanding which has caused a split in the “Progressive forces.” Mr. Martin’s candidature is endorsed by the Miners’ Federation and the Labour Party. Though he was standing with the assent of the Derbyshire Miners’ Association, yet a large proportion of delegates at the adoption of the orthodox Liberal were members of that body. I don’t blame them : they couldn’t tell t’other from which.

The Labour election agent, Mr. A. Peters, declares that the miners have spent £10,000 within the last few years in order to maintain their position in the county. Can you wonder ?

* * *

One thing stands out clear in the diverse reports that reach us concerning the trouble in Mexico. That is that both General Huerta and General Carranza have given assurances that oil wells shall be protected during the fighting. Why ? Because these wells are chiefly the cause of the trouble. Ask Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust. Ask any of the greedy sharks in this country whose eyes are glued on Mexico. Huerta, representing Mexican interests, wants to preserve the oil wells for Mexico; Carranza, representing British and American capitalists, wants them for his masters.

Mexico is one of the richest mineral countries in the world—that is why all the world wants it. When oil was discovered during the Diaz regime, it was not long before the far-off nostrils of the capitalist wolves scented it. Then commenced the trouble. Diaz wouldn’t “sell out,” so means were adopted to make him “get out.” His successor looks like traversing the same road. Thus are the “rights” of capital vindicated.

Smug respectability, sitting at home in England, wonders what it is all about. “Why the devil don’t these fellows set to work instead of fighting each other, and let us earn our dividends ? This sort of thing lowers the rate, don’t you know !”

* * *

Yes, we know. In Colorado, for instance, it is lowering the rate—of the population. They call it “Rockefeller’s war.” It is a typical industrial war—all one-sided. The capitalists have the full forces of the country at their disposal. The miners—only dogged determination and what few arms they are able to get hold of. Men, women, and children have been shot or sabred that shareholders may have their dividends. Women and children, have had to tramp the streets because their homes had been burned over their heads, in order that investors should have a “fair return” on their capital. And we are told there is no class war !

* * *

May Day in this country seems to have resolved itself into a sort of rounding-up of recalcitrant and other sheep, into the Labour fold. As usual, the Labour Party were out in full force. Everywhere the same note was struck—emphasis on the importance of joining a trade union, electing leaders, sending them to Parliament, but, above all, being “loyal” to them. You see, the more members the bigger the unions ; the bigger the unions the more “leaders” required, and incidentally, the more soft jobs for the professional spongers.

We, on the other hand, don’t believe in making a hullaballoo once every twelve months. Instead, we engage in a steady, persistent propaganda of Socialist principles on every day in the year. One can understand these job-hunters not liking us and our work. Whereas they believe in the retention of the capitalist system, we work for its abolition. Its abolition would put them out of business.

* * *

Old Age Pensions have proved a grand thing—for the capitalists. Recent returns relating to pauperism in England and Wales issued by the Local Government Board show that since 1909 there has been a decrease of more than 200,000. That this is due in a large measure to the introduction of Old Age Pensions is proved by the fact that in 1906 the number of paupers over 70 years of age was 229,474, whereas at the beginning of 1913 the number had fallen to 56,770.

This means that whilst formerly it just about 13s. 8d. per head to keep paupers inside a workhouse, they can now get them completely off their hands for the modest sum of five shillings. On this the pensioners have to subsist as best they can—usually with assistance from friends and relations, thus contributing directly to the further impoverishment of those who are already poor.

Old Age Pensions having fulfilled their mission of getting the aged people off the hands of the capitalists, the Poor Law authorities are now looking round for some device to rid themselves of those under 70. The Lambeth Board of Guardians have, so far, been the most successful. The experiment they tried was to send the inmates to look for work ! All they had to do was to go out and get a job, come back for the missus and kids, and—there you are ! Goodbye ! Simple, isn’t it ? At this rate there soon won’t be any Poor Law for Mr. Sidney Webb to worry about.

* * *

Here is an example of the effect the above system has upon people who try to remain outside the Poor Law. It was brought to light at a Westminster inquest recently, and showed the hopeless struggle of an aged couple who tried to live on 12s. a week, of which 4s. 6d. had to go for rent. The victim of this hellish system was Mary Ann Russell, aged 72, of Pimlico, who was found with her throat cut.

Her husband, a grey-haired labourer of 67, said he had been out of work for thirteen weeks, and his wife had been much depressed in consequence. Their income consisted of 7s. from his National Insurance payments (which expired the week after the inquest) and 5s. her Old Age Pension. They owed rent, and it was more than the old lady could face. “We lived very happily together, sir,” said the old man, with tears streaming down his face, “but it’s too much to bear.”

Tom Sala

Carnegie and—Cant? (1905)

From the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Andrew Carnegie, Croesus and library vendor, has recently delivered himself of several lectures upon the horrors of War—Carnegie, the head of the great American Capitalist Corporation which raised an army in opposition to the steel-workers of Pittsburg struggling to prevent a further hardening of their already hard enough conditions; Carnegie, the head of the mighty firm that conducted a bitter and bloody war to vindicate the right of Capital to wring out of the labour of the workers a larger and ever larger profit; Carnegie, the multi-millionaire, every penny of whose stupendous wealth is stained with the blood of his workmen, slaughtered by armed Pinkertons to make Carnegie’s holiday and to help build him a reputation as a great philanthropist—this Carnegie comes to say :—”There still remains the foulest blot that ever disgraced the earth, the killing of civilised men by men like wild beasts as a permissible mode of settling international disputes, although, in Rousseau’s words, ‘War is the foulest fiend ever vomited forth from the mouth of hell.’ ”

So, “the foulest blot,” when used to settle international disputes. And yet, in international wars, the contestants meet, not infrequently, on fairly level terms. Then, what sort of blot is it when one of the parties engaged in war is without arms, without food and with no means of effective retaliation, while the other is armed with the latest and surest implements of destruction, well victualled and protected ? How Mr. Carnegie’s righteous indignation would find expression in thunderous declamation at such a case. How he would—if he has not already done so— exhaust the descriptive possibilities of the most lurid adjectives in the English language if it was an international war. And yet when it occurs at Homestead, the hell that sweats for Mr. Carnegie the millions that Mr. Carnegie’s labour never produced, Mr. Carnegie expresses his horror in—loud silence ! It is wonderful the great difference a little change in the geographical situation of the seat of war will make.

If Mr. Carnegie thinks it his business, during the few moments that he can snatch from the arduous labours involved in the distribution of Free Libraries, to ventilate his views upon the horrors of war, let him at least be consistent and include all wars. It is not wisdom to select a particular war or class of wars to fulminate against. Such a course conveys an impression that might be unjust. If wars are dreadful, then the war between classes is dreadful, not less than the war between nations. The conflict between classes, between Capital and Labour—the industrial struggle—is indeed fought out on a far bloodier and a far wider field than any upon which the armies of nations ever fought. And the disutilities are all on the Labour side. For Labour to-day is unarmed. Labour is dependent upon the enemy he is fighting for his food. He may not eat except by the leave of Capital. Capital commands every avenue of approach to the sources of wealth out of which Labour must win his sustenance. And no man traverses those avenues except by the pleasure and on the terms of Capital. And the terms are that Labour shall create wealth for Capital in return for just the sufficiency for the preservation of life. The difference between the total wealth produced and the amount consumed by Labour in maintaining his strength is the share of Capital, a share that grows larger and larger as the possibilities of machinery increase, while the number of men required to produce the wealth for which there is effective demand, grows relatively smaller. And as Labour is displaced by the incessant demands of Capital forever increased profits, he goes to join his fellows already struggling without against starvation and death to form the miserable reserve who, clamouring for permission to work upon any terms, make for C’apital an irresistable weapon of offence and defence. Incidentally too, they form that pitiable mass of humanity into which the great-hearted philanthropist, over-running with loving kindness and tender mercy for the distress that as a capitalist he has himself produced, ostentatiously pours his ridiculously impotent driblet of charity amid the plaudits of a sycophantic Press.

And so the tale will run until Labour understands and translates his understanding into action. Fain would the philantrophist believe that that time will never come. But he may not. He knows and none better that the continued pressure of bitter adversity will not for much longer be held in check by the fortuitous distribution of blankets and coke tickets. And he knows that men exist who know the whole truth of the matter—the why of the misery and the how of the remedy—and who will show the poverty-stricken the way out.

There is a potent saying of one who hailed from the land that Mr. Carnegie has left, which runs thus:—

You may fool all the people some of the time.

You may fool some of the people all the time.

But you can’t fool all the people all the time.

Mr. Carnegie will have heard the saying before. It is rather old. But it is one of those sayings that are not of an age but for all time. We commend it again to Mr. Carnegie. It will be a good inscription for a prominent position in the hall in which Mr. Carnegie delivers his next address upon the foul blot of war as a method of settling international disputes. Unless before then Mr. Carnegie includes the class war in his denunciation and expresses and gives evidence of his determination to work for its abolition. But then its abolition involves the abolition of Mr. Carnegie, Millionaire.

It’s an awkward situation !

A. J. M. Gray

The Backwaters of History series (1953-54)

Whilst scanning in the last of the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard, I noticed that one of the earliest articles from that issue on the blog was from Bill Waters' Backwaters of History series of articles which appeared in the Socialist Standard over the course of 1953 and 1954. In eleven self-contained pieces, Waters' surveyed class struggle through via key historical events. From the Peasant Rebellion of 1381 through to Barcelona in the midst of the Spanish Civil War, and a lot more in-between..

Anyway, I thought it would be a good excuse to list them again on the blog in case people missed them first time round:

• Sep 1953: The Diggers' (English Civil War)
• Oct 1953: The Babeuf Conspiracy
• Dec 1953: The German Spartacists
• Jan 1954: Civil War in Austria
• Feb 1954: Peasant Rebellion 1381
• Mar 1954: English Naval Mutinies 1797
• Apr 1954: The Paris Commune
• Jun 1954: Münzer and the Thuringian Revolt
• Jul 1954: The Knights of Labour
• Aug 1954: Barcelona 1937
• Oct 1954: The Tolpuddle Martyrs