S.L.P Anchors Dragging – A Review (1918)

Book Review from the February 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The State: Its Origin and Function,” by Wm. Paul. Socialist Labour Press, Renfrew st., Glasgow. Cloth, 2s 6d.

Historians in the past have made many attempts to discover and state what may be called the driving force or dynamic factor behind the various changes that have taken place in Society. As Larfargue has so well pointed out in his essay on ”Marx’s Historical Method.” Vico, the Neapolitan historian, was one of the first to seek for this factor in man’s material conditions. Guizot was of the opinion that it was the development of man’s intellect that formed this driving force, though he failed to show on what this development was based. Buckle, in his valuable History of Civilisation in England, laid greatest stress on the climatic and geographical conditions of Society as being the factors of social change, failing to see how much more rapidly societies change than do climatic or geographical conditions.

The key to the riddle was supplied by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, who, independently, arrived at the same conclusion—that it was the economic development that formed the driving force behind social development, culminating in the changes in the forms of Society.

A brief summary of their discovery is given in the preface to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, while the famous Communist Manifesto, the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, and the pamphlets on the Civil War in France in 1871 are splendid examples of the application of the theory—or use of the tool, as Lafargue would say—by its discoverers.

In America, apparently without any knowledge of Marx’s and Engels’s work, a famous ethnologist, working from a different standpoint, reached substantially the same conclusion. This scientist was Lewis Henry Morgan, whose great work, Ancient Society, solved the riddle of tribal organisation, throwing a flood of light on the early forms of Society, and tracing the path of social development to the birth of so-called civilisation.

The great theory which was formulated by these three investigators, and which is known as the “Materialist Conception of History,” is more, and more being adopted by modern historians and economists, often without real acknowledgment, as in the case of Loria in his Economic Foundations of Society, or even with sneers at Marx, as in the case of J. A. Hobson.

To take this theory and use it for the purpose of explaining and tracing the development of one of the features of Society is, of course, quite legitimate, provided the work is done with sufficient care to prevent confusion arising in the minds of its readers. The book now under review in an attempt to use the Materialist Conception of History for the purpose of explaining and tracing the development of one social institution called by the author “The State.” Some objection could be taken to the use of this title, but we may let this pass in face of the greater objections which exist to other parts of the book.

Whether due to the present world-war or to other reasons there is a good deal of slip-shod and even slovenly work in the 200 pages of this volume. Thus the method of placing the titles of the books referred to in the text at the end of each chapter is an awkward one and could only be excused if long extracts were being given in the form of an appendix. Worse than this, however, is the author’s practice of quoting a statement from a work, often consisting of 700 or 800 pages, and giving the title only as a reference. There is no excuse for this slip-shod method.

This carelessness or worse is further illustrated in the uncritical recommendations given to certain works referred to in this book. Professor Jenks' statement that “Ancient Society will ultimately be recognised as one of the great scientific products of the Nineteenth Century ” is quoted on page 9, and then Mr. Paul says : “of no less importance is the Origin of the Family by F. Engels” (italics mine).

Engels himself would be the first to deny this absurd claim. Morgan’s work is an original volume, the result of immense research covering 40 years’ labours, and is one of the great epoch-making discoveries of the human race. Engels’ little volume was intended as a summary, with some additional observations, for the use of those to whom Morgan’s work was inaccessible. A partial analogy may be found in the case of another epoch-making work of the 19th century. Far and away the best summary of Marx’s great work Capital is the little volume by Marx himself entitled Value, Price, and Profit. Here the essentials of Capital are stated in simple language which, later, assists the worker to grasp the detailed working out of the larger volume. But here the analogy ceases. Capital is written in rigid scientific language, often in mathematical form, that is difficult for the beginner to follow and understand. Hence the usefulness of Value, Price, and Profit in stating simply the main propositions. Ancient Society, on the other hand, is written in simple language and in a clear and unaffected style that enables the beginner to follow the arguments with a minimum of trouble. The Origin of the Family does not—as indeed it could not—present the case in any simpler way.

Another instance is given on page 16 where we are told “for a detailed history of marriage in the past and present the famous book of Bebel on Woman Under Socialism is indispensable.”

Two editions of this work have appeared in the English language. The first, published many years ago by Reeves and Co., under the title “Women in the Past, Present and Future”, drew an apology from the Avelings for the historical and other errors it contained. This appeared in their pamphlet Woman. The other edition in English is the translation by Mr. De Leon, of America, of the 23rd German edition, and is the one referred to by Mr. Paul. Here some of the old errors are removed, but new ones are incorporated both of historical judgment and social development. The translator himself had to make some corrections to the text in long footnotes. Generally Bebel’s Woman is ill-balanced and far from being scientifically based, and it lends a larger amount of support to the “Suffragette” notion that the position of women is due to the “wickedness” of man than it does to the Marxian position of class oppression.

A further instance of this slovenliness on the part of Mr. Paul, and one that would greatly confuse the beginner are the various meanings attributed to the word “State.” On page 1 it is implied that the “State” is a “social institution specially devised to perform some social function.” On page 100 Mr. Paul says “legality means not the interest of Society but rather the interest of the State, i.e., of the dominant class,” while on page 108 we read “the making and administration of Law is an important function of the executive committee of the ruling class—the State.” So the State is first a “social institution,” then it becomes “the dominant class” itself, and afterwards it is “the executive committee” of that class. Such loose and faulty methods, however, become absolutely ridiculous when one reads the bombastic statement made in the introduction : ”Social science, like every branch of science, uses terms which must be clearly defined . . . While, therefore, a clear comprehension of terms is scientifically imperative, it would seem that many dabblers in social science do not realise that grave dangers may arise by confusing the minds of the workers regarding the nature and function of social institutions.” (Page VI.) How completely these latter terms fit their own case is shown by the quotations given.

But the most blatantly idiotic claim in the book appears on page 198, where it is said that Mr. De Leon’s pamphlet, the Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World, is “a work equally epoch-making as the "Communist Manifesto.” To compare De Leon’s anti-political and painfully laboured attempt at a defence of the nonsense of Industrial Unionism with the world-famous work of Marx and Engels shows the shallow ignorance and blind hero-worship of one who could pen such drivel.

Among the minor points requiring correction may be mentioned the ignoring of the work done during the periods of Theseus and Draco (the last of whom is credited with having been the first to establish written laws) in ancient Athens, that made possible the changes brought about under Solon and Kleisthenes. The work done during these periods was of great importance as being initial steps towards the complete change.

A similar criticism applies to the section on Rome, where the necessary preliminary developments were carried through during the period of the reputed reign of Romulus—when the first hereditary aristocracy was founded—and of Numa Pompilius.

In both these cases it would be absurd to suppose that such large and fundamental changes could have taken place as those attributed to Solon and Kleisthenes in the one case and Servius Tullius in the other, without previous stages having been passed through. Moreover, the over-estimate of the work of these men, by ignoring the essential steps of their predecessors, tends to keep alive in the minds of the workers who are beginners in this subject, the false notion that “great men” make history (thereby encouraging the following of leaders) that the work of Vico, Marx, Morgan, and Spencer has done so much to disprove.

Of a different type is the statement in a footnote on page 112 where, referring to Eugene Sue’s The History of a Proletarian Family Across the Ages, it is said : “For rescuing this monumental work from the despoiling hands of the Church and the hireling intellectuals of Capitalism the S.L.P. deserves great credit.”

As Mr. Paul’s book is issued by the S.L.P. of Scotland the reader unacquainted with the facts would naturally assume the S.L.P. in this footnote referred to that organisation. The truth is that the Sue novels referred to were translated by Mr. De Leon of the American S.L.P.

A further instance of slipshod work appears on page 169 when the author is dealing with the invention of the steam engine. He says :

  “This new and powerful driving force was able to drive the tool or machine— a machine being simply a complex tool working at an extraordinary speed” ! (Italics mine.)

The finest explanation and definition of a machine occurs in Marx’s Capital, chapter 15, in the part dealing with “Machinery and Modern Industry.” Section 1 reads almost like a romance, and is packed with information. Only a couple of passages can be quoted here. On page 366 Marx says :

  “Mathematicians and mechanicians, and in this they are followed by a few English economists, call a tool a simple machine” (as Mr. Paul does on page 2) “and a machine a complex tool. They see no essential difference between them and even give the name machine to the simple mechanical powers of the lever, the inclined plane, the screw, the wedge, etc. As a matter of fact every machine is a combination of those simple powers, no matter how they may be disguised. From the economical standpoint this explanation is worth nothing because the historical element is wanting.”

And on page 368 Marx gives his own definition in that masterly fashion of his that shows the whole matter in the clearest light. After describing the parts played by the motor mechanism and the transmitting gear he says :

  “The machine proper is therefore a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same operations that were formerly done by the workman with similar tools. Whether the motive power is derived from man, or from some other machine, makes no difference in this respect. From the moment that the tool proper is taken from the worker’s hand, and fitted into a mechanism, a machine takes the place of a mere implement.”

A comparison of the above quotations with Mr. Paul’s confused and inaccurate definition of a machine shows how little either he or the S.L.P., who are responsible for the production of the book, understand even the simpler portions of Marx’s writings, despite their bombastic claim in the introduction quoted above.

As this book is issued by the S.L.P. of Scotland with a special “benediction” in the introduction, it is fair to assume that it represents the views and policy of the Executive Committee of that body. If that is so then we are treated to a complete somersault in the policy that organisation has been advocating, with variations, for about twelve years. In 1905 the Executive Committee of the S.L.P., without in any way consulting the membership of the party, endorsed and adopted as a policy the position of the Industrial Workers of the World, had been formed in Chicago in June, 1905. Since then it has in various, and often contradictory, ways attempted to defend the claims of the I.W.W. that the workers by organising into industrial unions—one for each industry—could “take and hold the means of production.” They claimed that the industrial unions furnished the “might” to carry through the revolution; that it was the economic organisation that supplied “the power” lacking in the political party, and so on.

How an economic organisation could "take and hold the means of production” while the capitalist class had control of the armed forces was a question neither the S L.P. nor the other Industrialists were ever able to answer. They simply wandered from one absurdity to another in the endeavour to dodge this—to them —fatal question. The endless contradictions and quibbles they have been led into by the catch phrases as “The economic is the basis of the political”; “The political is the reflex of the economic”; “The economic organisation will cast its own political shadow,” etc., etc., have been dealt with in the Socialist Standard on numerous occasions.

But now comes this volume which flatly contradicts all these years’ teachings and takes up the position that the working class must seize political power in order to abolish capitalism.

Quite early in the book this position begins to take form, as on page 41 we read :

  “Throughout history the State has slightly changed its form but its role as the weapon of despotism in the hands of the economically and politically dominant class has remained unchanged. It is able to enforce its will upon those who oppose it, because behind its demands it has the organised armed forces of the Society. ” (Italics mine.)

Referring to the Civil War of 1644 it is stated “The revolutionaries by their control of the political machine were able to use the rents of the Royal estates, the levies placed upon the goods secretly bought by the cavaliers, and the taxes gathered up and down the country to defeat the Crown.” (Page 151. Italics mine.)

But it is in the last two chapters that this position—so long sneered at by the S.L.P.— is stated in its most complete form. In the chapter on “Modern Capitalism” we read:

  “The State has behind every mandate it promulgates the armed force of the nation. It is this power which enforces the will of the ruling class.” (P. 190.)

While in the chapter on ”Revolutionary Socialism” occurs the following remarkable statement—remarkable, that is, coming from the S.L.P.:

  “In order to facilitate the work of the industrial organisation, it is absolutely imperative for the workers to disarm the capitalist class by wrenching from it its power over the political State. The State powers include the armed forces of the nation which may be turned against the revolutionary workers. The political weapon of Labour, by destroying the capitalist control of the State makes possible a peaceful social revolution. But in order to tear the State out of the grasp of the ruling class the workers’ political organisation must capture the political machinery of capitalism.” (Page 198.)

This complete reversal of a policy followed for about twelve years is simply staggering. It is a full confession not only that the S.L.P. has been wrong all this time—a fact we have proved over and over again in the pages of the Socialist Standard and in debate—but also that the S.P.G.B. has been right in its attitude and correct in its policy throughout its existence.

When the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904 it laid down one aim—Socialism. It drew up a Declaration of Principles that has solidly withstood all attacks from every quarter. Paragraph 6 of that declaration states :

  “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”

We now have the S.L.P., in the pages of this book, taking up an attitude that corresponds completely with the above clause of our Declaration of Principles. Has it taken this world-war, with its terrific maiming and slaughter, to drive the simple but fundamental fact of their minds that it is control of the political machinery that is the essential factor in the domination of Society? What have the members of the S.L.P. to say to this complete change of policy? Does it represent the considered view of the members? or is it another example of the E.C. of that body laying down its own policy, in exact opposition to one preached for so many years, without any authority or mandate from the membership? Do the members understand and accept this new situation, and if so how can they justify the retention of their membership in the S L.P.?

Nor is this the only change in the policy of the S.L.P., though it is by far the most important. In addition to the claim that the Industrial Union furnished the “might” and “power” to overthrow capitalism, the S.L.P. claimed that these unions were the “embryo” of the Socialist Republic; that they provided the “framework” or “skeleton” of Socialism.

This silly and childish “Utopianism” the absurdity of which we exposed long ago, would hardly require notice here but for the change of attitude that is now adopted. To lay down here and now the details of what the organisation of production will be under Socialism is on a par with Bellamy’s Looking Backward.

In the first place we have no means of knowing at what particular step in the development of capitalist production and methods a sufficient number of the working class will be converted to Socialism to carry through the revolution. The details of the economic organisation must depend upon the particular stage of development at that period. Moreover, the majority of the working class will then be Socialists—otherwise the attempt at revolution will be a fiasco—and they will have the requisite knowledge and ability to construct their economic organisation in conformity with the conditions then prevailing. It is, therefore, easy to see how foolish is the attempt to settle now the details of an organisation that will be called upon to act then. Even when the I.W.W. was first launched we pointed out that capitalism then was outgrowing the “Industrial” sub-division and large combinations of capitalists were controlling whole groups of industries. The increase of this factor that has since taken place—and which looks  as though it will extend still faster under the form of National and Municipal control as a result of the war—adds further strength to this point. In addition it has to be remembered that economic organisations formed now have to fight the battles of wages and conditions of employment now. But to do so with any hope of success they must enrol as many as possible of workers in the particular businesses they are dealing with. This means the enrolment of Socialists (a small number of the workers at present) along with the passive and active anti-Socialists, all in the same union. This fact shows the utter impossibility of forming a Socialist economic organisation until a majority of the workers in a particular occupation have been converted to Socialism. Hence the farcical failure of the various attempts to form “Industrial Unions” before a sufficient number of the workers have accepted these particular teachings.

In the book now under review the question of Industrial Unionism takes so subordinate a place and is so watered down, compared with the former claims of the S.L.P., that if the term “Industrial Unionism” were left out the ordinary reader of the Socialist would fail to recognise this attitude as being the one taken up by the S.L.P. How much has been given up the following quotation will show :

  “We see, therefore, that the function of the future administration of society will be industrial. The constructive element in the social revolution will be the action of the Industrial Union seizing the means of production in order to administer the wants of the community.
  True to the dictum of social science, that the embryo of the future social system must be nourished within the womb of the old system, the revolutionary Socialist movement sets out to build up within capitalism the industrial organisation of the workers which will carry on the administrative work under Socialism on behalf of the community. Thus Industrial Unionism is the constructive weapon in the coming social revolution.” (Pages 197-8.)

This very general and greatly modified position of the S.L.P.’s claims for Industrial Unionism shows how far they have come—implicitly, at any rate—to admit the correctness of our attitude on economic organisation. What the title of the future economic organisation will be is really guess-work now and is only of small importance, though the misleading, anti-Socialist, and Utopian associations covered by the term “Industrial Unionism” will certainly go far to discredit it in the minds of the workers as they become Socialists. Much more educational work requires to be done, however, before such an organisation can be started, for it is only as the workers learn that they are slaves, and clearly grasp that the essential factor in their emancipation is the control of political power, that they will build up the Socialist organisations, political and economic, necessary for the establishment of Socialism.

The nucleus of the political organisation exists now in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The economic organisation cannot be started until numbers fulfilling the conditions laid down above have been converted to Socialism.

Jack Fitzgerald

Strikes for Peace (1918)

Editorial from the February 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Signs are steadily growing that the working class of Europe are becoming weary of the war, with its endless slaughter, its lack of decisions making for peace, and the increased privation and misery that result from its continuance.

Enthusiastic at first for the war, with an enthusiasm inflamed and fed by the Press and the preachers — religious and political — of the master class, the workers of the various belligerent countries rushed to the fray, to the cry of “On to Berlin!” “Paris in a week !” and the like. Three and a half years of appalling slaughter have intervened, with immense improvements and developments in the instruments of torture and destruction, but the belligerents are no nearer a military decision now, on either side, than they were in 1914.

Food is becoming short, not only because millions of men have been called to the armies and navies, but also because millions more have been taken from the production of the necessaries of life and put to making instruments and articles for its destruction. And this second army has to be fed along with the first.

This food shortage is further aggravated by the favouritism that is rampant all round. Working-class women may wait for hours in queues for meat or margarine, and then fail to obtain any, but wealthy novelists, paunchy parsons, triple chinned quondam “white-feather” tricklers, and prosperous “patriots” in general, can easily obtain hundreds of pounds weight of good things to nourish their determination to sacrifice and strengthen their “will to victory.” Shops in working-class neighbourhoods are often shut for days because of the lack of supplies, but there is no shortage of first class meat, genuine butter, choicest tea, and so on at the big hotels and clubs of the West End of London, and of certain fashionable resorts. The wives of the capitalists never stand in queues for anything except a view of the latest extravagance in expensive fashions.

Although the news published here of things that are happening on the Continent has to be taken with a certain amount of caution, as we must remember that the Censor will only allow the publication of items that suit the interest of the master class, it seems fairly certain that disaffection is growing there and strikes are increasing. In many cases the avowed object of the strikes in Germany and Austria is the securing of food, but nearly always accompanying this demand, and in some cases forming the sole object, is the call upon the governments to declare an armistice and enter into negotiations for peace.

In this country a similar movement is spreading and strikes are not only in progress, but more are threatened. This movement has received a great impetus from the introduction by the Government of a measure for extending the power of Conscription by the military authorities, usually referred to under the misleading but catchy title of the “Man Power Bill.” In the Press the greatest prominence has been given to the attitude taken up by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, though this society is not the only, or even the most important, section affected by the Bill. The reason for singling out the A.S.E. has been the refusal of the Executive of that body to take part in a joint conference with the other trades and Sir Auckland Geddes, on the details of applying the Bill. The A.S.E. Executive claim that as they have a separate agreement with the Government on this question, they should be consulted separately on the withdrawal of that agreement.

While the Government have a complete answer to this objection, it is significant that, so far, they have not attempted to bring that answer forward. Sir Auckland Geddes or Mr. Lloyd George (whose title will no doubt arrive later on) could easily have answered the A.S.E. Executive somewhat as follows :

   “It is true we made that agreement with you, but what of it ? Did we not point out at the time that there was no guarantee that we would keep it ? Did not Mr. Henderson answer your question on this point by telling you point-blank that no such guarantee would be given ? And, far more important than this, is it not a fact that we have made various promises, pledges, and agreements, several of them embodied in Acts of Parliament, not only to sections, but to the whole working class. Even now your protest is not on behalf of the working class, but a claim that a small section—the members of the A.S.E.—should not be placed in the Army until the “dilutees” have been taken. Surely if you did not complain when we smashed agreements and pledges given to the whole working class it is illogical to complain now when a section of that class is being similarly treated.”

This latter fact is the fatally weak point in the A.S.E. case, and is being used effectively by the capitalist Press and spokesmen against them.

While such narrow, short-sighted views are held by sections of the working class the master class have an easy task in keeping alive the jealousies and divisions that are so useful to them in their fights with the workers.

Sir Auckland Geddes was quite successful in urging the other trade union leaders whom he met in conference to accept his proposals and to promise to persuade their followers to accept them without trouble or friction. One reason why the A.S.E. officials were not so ready to follow their old methods on this occasion is the growth of the “Shop Stewards” movement up and down the country. This movement has helped to undermine the influence of the “official” cliques in the trade unions, as shown by the numerous “unauthorised” strikes, and with the loss of this influence over the rank and file the officials realised that their chance of bargaining for jobs with the master class would be gone.

Apparently some of the Shop Stewards, however, are merely rivals for the “official” positions and refuse to move far outside the beaten track. According to the “Daily Telegraph” for Jan. 30th, 1918, the “National Administrative Council of Shop Stewards” passed the following resolution :

  “That they are not the body to deal with the technical grievances arising out of the cancellation of occupational exemptions from military service embodied in the Man Power Bill, and must, therefore, leave such grievances to be dealt with by the official organisations concerned.”

Most of the “official organisations” are swallowing the “grievances” whole.

It would be a big mistake to suppose that these strikes and threats to strike indicate an acceptance of the principles of Socialism, or even a general awakening to the fact that they are slaves to the master class, on the part of those engaged in this movement. In some cases there may be some suspicion as to the good faith of certain Ministers and the War Cabinet, but even this suspicion is only of a faint type, as is shown by several of the resolutions passed at various meetings. According to Press reports resolutions of similar character have been passed (up to the time of writing) at meetings held at, Woolwich, Albert Hall (London), Barrow, etc., in the following terms :

   “That the British Government should enter into immediate negotiations with the other belligerent Powers for an armistice on all fronts, with a. view to a general peace on the basis of self-determination of all nations and no annexations and no indemnities. Should such action demonstrate that German Imperialism was the only obstacle to peace they would co-operate in the prosecution of the war until the objects mentioned in the first part of the resolution were achieved, failing this they would continue their opposition to the man-power proposals.—"Daily News,” 28.1.1918)

These resolutions show the confused mental condition of the workers concerned. Does their claim for “self-determination” apply to Ireland, India, and Egypt ? If so do they really imagine the British capitalist Government will agree to such application ? Certainly they must be simple if they believe a threat to strike would bring such a result.

A resolution moved at Glasgow at a meeting where Sir A. Geddes was present struck a firmer note in the following terms :

  That having heard the case of the Government, as stated by Sir Auckland Geddes, this meeting pledges itself to oppose to the very uttermost the Government in its call for more men. We insist and pledge ourselves to take action to enforce the declaration of an immediate armistice on all fronts ; and that the expressed opinion of the workers of Glasgow is that from now on, and so far as this business is concerned, our attitude all the time and every time is to do nothing in support of carrying on the war, but to bring the war to a conclusion.

The supporter of the war could, of course, point out that, as far as the workers are concerned, there is as much—and as little—reason for carrying on the war now as ever there was. Better late than never, however, and if the Clyde workers realise even at this late date that they have nothing to gain but a good deal to lose by the continuance of the war it is a point to the good.

Of course the Government soon arranged for a counterblast to these resolutions, and the Press gives somewhat vague and rather circumstantial accounts of meetings where resolutions of support, of the Government were supposed to be passed. But this action in itself is a proof of how widespread, if not deep, is the movement.

It would be folly, or worse, for the workers to fail to recognise the forces that can be employed against them by the Government if it chooses. Already in certain cases where men have refused to work in a particular factory or on a particular job the protection cards have been withdrawn, the men called to the colours, and then ordered back to the factory or job at ordinary soldier’s pay. With its present powers and without troubling to pass the “Man Power” Bill at all the Government could withdraw the protection cards and exemption certificates of the engineers and others concerned, call these men to the colours, and then draft them back into the shops and shipyards under military orders and discipline and on army pay.

The messages, more or less reliable, purporting to show that this action is also taking place in Germany against certain of the strikers there may merely be the newspaper preparation for an extension of such action here.

It is true that, to the outsider, signs of another sort are not wanting. The sudden calling of the Labour Party Conference to formulate what it called its “Peace Aims” without even taking time to consult its constituent bodies was undoubtedly the work of the Government to prepare for a “climb down” on their previous bombastic claims. The contemptuous treatment of Mr. Havelock Wilson at that Conference shows how readily the capitalists throw aside their tools when they have served their purpose. Mr. Lloyd George’s speech a few days later was practically a withdrawal of almost every claim, from Constantinople to Alsace-Lorraine, previously put forward. Of course the game of bluff will not be dropped all at once ; but how transparent it is becoming is shown by the official statement of the Inter-Allied War Conference published on 4th February, 1918 :

  The Allies are united in heart and will, not, by any hidden designs, but by their open resolve to defend civilisation against an unscrupulous and brutal attempt at domination.” — “Daily Telegraph.”

To draw up such a statement during the very week that the question as to whether the war was to be continued till the objects of the Secret treaty with Italy were attained was being raised in the British Parliament was certainly an exhibition of irony.

Rumours have been floating round that the Bill was introduced with the object of raising disturbances so as to give grounds for a further abatement of claims on the part of the Government, and whether these rumours have any foundation in fact or not, it is certainly curious that a Bill should be introduced to give the Army authorities power they already possess in substance if not in method. The excuse that the matter is too pressing to allow the time necessary for the present procedure, while valid, hardly seems strong enough for the introduction of such a trouble-raising measure.

By far the greatest danger to the workers lies in another direction. The ablest representative of the master class to-day on the public Press is Mr. A. G. Gardiner, of, the “Daily News.” Not only has he a firm grasp of the situation from the masters’ side, but he is easily the cleverest of their agents at the game of misleading the workers by using a style of seeming honesty and openness to cover up a substance of slimy deceit. A good example of this was his “Open Letter to the Clyde Workers” (“Daily News,” 19.1.1918′. His articles, while appearing to condemn the Government, are strenuous attempts to defend the existence and maintenance of capitalism. Another instance of danger from this direction is the employment of Mr. Henderson as a decoy duck to lure the workers into dangerous waters. Despite his unceremonious and contemptuous dismissal at a moment’s notice from his position in the Cabinet, he is again engaged on dirty work for the masters in the statement he issued to the Press on 1st Feb. In that screed he urges the workers to realise the gravity of their threatened action because it—

   . . . may precipitate a crisis which in the interests of the whole international working-class movement we must do all in our power to avert.”—(“Daily Telegraph,” 1.2.1918.)

The cant and humbug of talking about an “international working-class movement,” that has no existence, while the capitalist governments refuse to allow even a meeting of international delegates, is characteristic of one who has done all in his power to urge the workers to slaughter each other for the national interests of the capitalist class.

But these statements, along with those of Mr. Gardiner, sound plausible. Their purpose is to persuade the workers to still leave in the hands of the masters’ agents the manipulation and direction of affairs. And there is a great danger that the workers, so long used to following this course, so long in the habit of following “leaders,” will succumb once more to this influence. Some of them not daring to trust themselves to manage affairs, will believe it better to leave the management to these “experts.” If only half of the blunders and appalling crimes of this war should be brought into the light of day, these timid workers will have a rude shock concerning the ability of those “experts.” Even such reports as have leaked through up to now show what a gigantic hypocrisy is their claim. The revelations that have been published in regard to Mesopotamia should convince every worker that they simply could not themselves manage matters worse, while the contempt they are held in by both the master class and its agents may be illustrated by a small incident from one of the war fronts.

A certain road on a portion of the line is used to bring up munitions and food to the men in the trenches. The “enemy” knows the position—and use—of this road quite well. It is therefore watched during the light hours, and swept with shell and machine-gun fire during the night. The transport vans are stepped just outside the area of fire to save the mules (four-legged ones) and the supplies are then carried through the shot-swept zone by the men.

As the working class begin to understand the position they occupy in modern society ; as they begin to take a hand in settling affairs of social importance, they will make many blunders and mistakes. In the main, however, these will be easily recognised and corrected. But the biggest danger that confronts them—the biggest mistake they can make—is to place power in the hands of “leaders” under any pretext whatever. It is at once putting those “leaders” in a position to bargain with the master class for the purpose of selling out the workers. It allows the master class to retain control of the political machinery which is the essential instrument for governing Society. All the other blunders and mistakes the workers may make will be as dust in the balance compared with this one, and not until they realise this fact will they be on the road to Socialism.

Letter: Caught Napping (1918)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

To  The  Editor.

I notice in the current issue of our Party Organ a “Letter to Irish Workers,” by Mr. Thos. Brown. Although there is nothing to lead one to suppose that that letter was written by a member of the Party, and bears evidence (to the initiated), in the absence of the usual comradely salutations, that it was not, I think that some more definite disclaimer should have accompanied the letter, provided, of course, I am right in my surmise as to its authorship.

While it is difficult to place the finger on any definitely unsound phrases, it is nevertheless a fact that the “atmosphere” of Mr. Brown’s letter suggests the nationalist rather than the Socialist. The references to “suffering, bleeding Ireland,” “loving service to living Irishmen,” “profound sympathy with all the struggles of his countrymen,” “No true Irishman who has any real regard for his country,” and so on, do not ring true to the Socialist hammer, while such phrases as ‘”Ireland a nation’ . . .  is not a first-class Socialist issue” gives a Socialist the creeps.

A Socialist does not have profound sympathy with the struggles of his countrymen but with, his fellow workers; he does not demand “loving service to living Irishmen,” or Englishmen, or Frenchmen, but intelligent service in the cause of his class.

I have no desire to make a long criticism on Mr. Brown’s letter, but there are two other points that need attention before I close. The first is his reference to the “Clarion” as a “prominent Socialist organ.” No Socialist could think of that paper as anything but the most insidious of anti-Socialist journals, which its war record alone is sufficient to prove it to be. Then the constant use of the term “international Socialist—as if one can be a Socialist without being an internationalist.

Fraternally yours,

MacC.

Reply:

We humbly accept the gentle chiding administered by Comrade MacC. All that he says is quite true, and as a matter of fact instructions were issued to the effect that Mr. Brown’s letter was to be inserted under such a safeguard as our comrade suggests, but—” somebody blundered,” and Comrade MacC. gets the chance to immortalise himself.—Ed. Com.

The Waste of War (1918)

From the February 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

A point often overlooked by the man-in-the-street is the connection of war with waste. A list of figures covering the cost of the war day by day conveys little to the layman's mind. Parliamentarians give you these statistics freely, that you may be beguiled into sacrificing your mite on the altar of War. Not that the combined savings of all the working class would maintain the war for a single day, but it tends to instil into their minds the illusion that they are doing something for "their country.”

War is absolute waste of men, material, and brain power. The question is not concerned with any supposed “rights.” The fact is—just allow this point to sink into your mind—war is absolute waste.

Since August 1914 practically all advances in science have been in connection with war. Eminent men have devoted their faculties to the solving of the problem of defeating the submarine menace. Others have given their time and energies to the production of new chemical compounds for the greater slaughter of the “enemy.” Inventors concentrate upon means of destruction. A huge man-of-war, involving the labour of thousands of men and women for many months, is sunk in a few minutes. A gun of large calibre, again the product of months of toil, reaches the slaughter-ground, and a shell from the “enemy” reduces it to scrap-iron. And so with all the material produced for war.

And then the men. Men covering every branch of science have been sacrificed. Torn from their laboratories and studies, they have been thrown into the Army like so much meat a sausage machine. And in addition the finest men of half the world, the very flower of every advanced race under the sun, are flung like so much garbage into the pit, from which few indeed will come out as sound in mind and body as they were when their masters claimed them to be wasted in the war for commercial supremacy.

Only by one method can you eliminate this tragic waste. That method is by realising your position as wage-slaves and emancipating yourselves therefrom. The science of Socialism will teach you how to do this. Read our literature. Ask us questions on any point you do not agree with or do not understand. We are ever willing, nay, eager, to assist our fellow workers--men and women—along the road to liberty.

Harry Grattan

The Strong Man. (A Study.) (1918)

From the February 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following study of the character of a personal friend (recently dead) of the writer is, in a way, rather outside the scope of strict Socialist propaganda. It does, however, open up the question as to how far a powerful personality—even though used beneficially—should be allowed to dominate its weaker brethren. In practically all men there is but one thing as great as, or greater than, the desire to live, and that is the desire to dominate; and this “Will to Power” is one of the greatest dangers that Socialism has to face. It is the progenitor of “leaders” and the forerunner of a cleavage between a few more richly endowed intellects and the rank and file, which must stifle free expression, and lead to a sullen acquiescence or a sheeplike docility on the part of the rank and file, either of which is calculated to wreck the whole organisation. Such is the writer’s apology for the following:

A dominating personality at all times, his influence over the immature and untrained mind was, perhaps, his greatest attribute for good or ill. For be it understood, any power—whether of wealth, position, character, or intellect matters very little—can be used in one of two ways. It can be—but seldom is—used in what the wielder of it considers is solely in the interests and for the benefit of those it dominates, or it can be used to their detriment. One thing assuredly can be said. In either case the exercise of such excessive power will be found on analysis and in the ultimate to be necessary to the maintenance and development of the master-mind whose function it is to wield such power. Disuse brings atrophy and power without the opportunity for its exercise very soon deteriorates, and eventually dies of innutrition or degenerates and, turning inwards, rends to pieces its possessor. A dangerous weapon at all times, whether held by saint or sinner, by king or peasant!

No one who knew him would dare assert that his influence over others was ever used for an ignoble or sordid purpose. He had erected for himself a noble and inspiring philosophy of life, had a clear conception of the ideal he wished to attain, and had the desire for others to reach his philosophy and his ideal. In other words, he saw life in a certain way, had hopes and ambitions of a certain kind, and, naturally, wished others to see life as he saw it and hold hopes and ambitions similar to his. Having a clear self-knowledge, knowing exactly what he wanted, and always convinced that his own way of life was the best way, he desired that others should hold the same view-point and considered himself justified in using his dominating and subtle personality to impose his opinions on on whomsoever he thought plastic enough for his purpose. He was able to inspire his intimates with a sense of the truth of what be held to he true, with a sense of the infallibility of his intellectual judgment. He gave all he possessed to these who were willing to receive, hut the acceptance of what he gave meant the elimination of whatever the mind of the accepter had hitherto held. To be of the elect, one had to think his thoughts, struggle toward his ideals, see with his eyes.

But now comes the crux of the problem, in the blank that bas been left in the lives of the young and ardent followers who were most under his influence. And this is the danger that goes inevitably with the excessive exercise of intellectual power. When such power is withdrawn, are the ideas that have previously been implanted and held in their place by the strength of a strong personality sufficiently strong in themselves to stand alone? Or when the stronger personality is withdrawn does the personality find itself at a loose end, vacillating, gradually deteriorating and dying ?

If the latter, it would seem that the intellectual domination of a weaker by a stronger personality is decidedly injurious. Better to allow the weaker intellect to blunder along into the mental life’s various cul-de-sacs and blunder out again. Or better still, to guide the immature and timid intellect towards the path that will lead to its own free expression and development. In the end it comes to this— no man is fit to be another man’s master intellectually, any more than he is fit to be another man’s master economically.

F. J. Webb