S.D.P. Befogged. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

For some weeks past a discussion has been carried on in the columns of our contemporary, “Justice,” a periodical which presumably claims,to be a Socialist journal, on the above question. The mere fact of such a subject being debated is sufficient to prove that the publication referred to is not an organ of Socialist thought, and that the party for which it speaks does not understand the principles of Socialism.

We find in the discussion under consideration, many and various policies advocated ; but even the slightest study of the records of the S.D.P. will reveal the fact that politically they are all at sixes and sevens. And to this the obvious fact that after thirty years of political existence they do not know what to do with the chief weapon for working-class emancipation, and we see that so far are they from being Socialists, that they are still floundering in the morass of Capitalist philosophy.

The use of the vote is no problem to Socialists, because their whole thought and action is based on the recognition of the class struggle. By this term is meant the struggle that must exist when, in society, one section own all the means of wealth production, while the other section, owning nothing but the energy in their bodies, have to sell their energy to obtain a living. Between these two sections—capitalists and workers— a bitter war rages.

The class struggle—of which the foregoing is an explanation—forms a part of the basis of Socialist principles, and anyone rejecting the same either does not understand those principles, or is deliberately misleading the working class. In either case he is of no use to the proletariat.

Of such is the kingdom of the I.L.P. and the S.D.P., with which latter body I am, for the time being, more immediately concerned.

The first significant note in this controversy was struck by Mr. T. Stanley Mercer, in “Justice” (Feb. 5th, 1910); who put the question : “Is there any possible means of finding out definitely the actual policies pursued by the I.L.P. and S.D.P. ?”

He says when he first joined the I.L.P. there was no greater authority than himself on the “ways and objects of the Party” (a large order to start with, as Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, Ramsay MacDonald & Co., must have been lesser lights by comparison), but as months grew into years he felt less and less certain of his position, etc.

The mere possibility of asking the query with which Mr. Mercer opens his letter is sufficient to show that these parties do not act according to Socialist principles, but that their actions are governed by the exigencies of vote and seat capturing at any price.

Mr. Mercer further says “I think the worst shock I have had was . . . when an I.L.P. member, on having his position challenged, retorted, ‘You’re trying to obscure the constitutional issue by dragging the red herring of Socialism before the members of the I.L.P.’ ! ”

These are the people who are going to emancipate the workers some day—perhaps.

No, so far from accomplishing that will they be, that they will only lead the workers into the Desert of Reform, and so make them the more secure victims for capitalist exploitation.

Now for the S.D.P.

Mr. J. Maclean, writing in “Justice” for Feb. 12th, 1910, deals with local affairs at Pollokshaws (Glasgow). He says amongst other things: “If we had no candidate we always issued a manifesto, supplemented by public meetings, to advise the voters which candidate to reject.” He also says : “Encouraged by our success in local elections, we thought it expedient to experiment with the General Election by adopting similar tactics, although not with the unanimous consent of the branch.”

So there are some members, at least, who see the light.

Socialist policy should at no time be governed by expediency for “experiments” or otherwise, “but should at all times be decided by principle and principle alone.

I suppose that Maclean and others like him would say : “Of two evils choose the lesser.” But Liberalism and Toryism both stand for the same thing—Capitalism, and working class exploitation —and voting for one in preference to the other will not alter the fact that they are both the enemy.

But the gem of the whole matter is the contribution by Mr. H. Quelch, editor of the “official organ of the Social-Democracy,” whatever that may mean.

Dealing with a complaint by Maclean in the previous issue, where that gentleman said : “Had a special conference been convened, or had the E.C. given a definitely clear lead, there might have been the possibility of united action,” Quelch says : “there is not yet among the general body of our members, and still less among sympathisers, a clear conception of what political action should mean for Social-Democrats.” (Italics are ours.)

That is, in common parlance, “they dunno where they are.”

Nothing more unkind than this has yet been said of them even by any member of the S.P.G.B.

Socialists, on the other hand, have got that “clear conception,” the lack of which amongst the Social Democrats is so deeply deplored by Mr. Quelch.

“In order to gain that clear conception,” says Mr. Quelch, “it is necessary for it to be understood . First that we mean what we say when we declare that from our point of view there is absolutely nothing, fundamentally, to choose between the two parties—Liberal and Tory” (that, it seems), is why Quelch & Co, are so frequently angling for Liberal—or Tory for that matter—support and votes) ; “second, that politics are not an end, but a means—not a question of principle at all, but of tactics,” etc.

Now bearing in mind the premises laid down at the beginning of this article, I cannot believe that Quelch does not understand the position, therefore in view of this brilliant utterance, I am forced to the conclusion that he is deliberately obscuring the issue in order to confuse the working class.

This idea is further borne out on a perusal of the remainder of Quelch’s illuminating (?) quota to the discussion. He says that to abstain, from voting or to mark or spoil ballot papers “is not political action but inaction. Absolute abstention is simply disfranchisement; it is to withdraw ourselves from the political arena altogether, and leave it entirely free to our capitalist enemies for the continuance of their petty, superficial faction fight. Abstention pure and simple is to make ourselves as a party a negligible quantity, no matter how strong numerically we may become,” and more to the same effect. He also says : “except for tactical purposes, there is absolutely no reason. . . why a Social Democrat should . . . vote for either Liberal or Tory.” Expediency again ! It is not a matter of principle at all, but of seats at any price.

But let us go back a little—where is the need for Socialists to take part in the “faction fights” of their masters, even for “tactical purposes” ?

Mr. Quelch goes on : “Accepting the first principle that I have submitted an essential to a clear understanding of our position in politics —that there is nothing fundamentally to choose between Liberal and Tory—the policy of abstention, where there is no Socialist to vote for, is from the point of view of principle, the only possible policy to adopt.” Yet he negates this by wanting us to abandon “the only possible policy” in order to vote Liberal or Tory “for purely tactical reasons.” However, he shows the mental tangle he has got into by saying “If there really is no fundamental difference for us between the two parties, then obviously we cannot vote for the Liberal as being the lesser of two evils. To do so is to admit that after all there is a difference, and one to the advantage, in our estimation, of the Liberal.”

Mr. Quelch sees the danger of this policy, because “it follows, as naturally as night follows day, that the good ‘practical’ Socialist had much better vote Liberal, even where there is a Socialist candidate, rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

Now let us see where Mr. Quelch has landed himself.

(1) He admits that there is no fundamental difference between Mr. Liberal and Mr. Tory. This means that in voting for either we are supporting our natural and historic enemy. (2) But to abstain means self-effacement, politically, and therefore we must support one section of the enemy against the other, “for purely tactical reasons.” Yet to do so is to admit that there is a difference,” etc., etc. At the same time “this is a most dangerous policy” because it will cause those, “good ‘practical’ Socialists to vote Liberal rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

But we find later on that Quelch is quite willing to enter the capitalist “faction fight”—”to use our organisation in every possible constituency to defeat the Liberal and to destroy the Liberal Party—not because that Party is any worse or any better than the Tory ; but because it is the party which stands in our way, which saps our strength,” and so on.

Mr. Quelch says that “At the Annual Conference held at Edinburgh in 1898, he proposed a resolution to the effect that the organised vote of the Social-Democratic Party in Great Britain should be directed solidly to the extinction of Liberal candidatures by the vote being cast steadily on the Tory side up to and through the General Election.” The resolution goes on to give instructions as to the means of its being carried out; but with characteristic Social-Democratic duplicity it provides for exceptions “where the candidate belongs to the extreme Radical Left, and is prepared to work with us,” etc., etc.

Mr. Quelch and the average S.D.P.er cannot see that the nearer some other body may appear to be to them, the more dangerous that other body will probably be. But Quelch’s eloquence was not sufficient to carry his resolution, for after considerable opposition the following was carried :

“That this Conference in view of the growing tendency of the capitalists and landlords to unite against the interests of the people, instructs the E.C. to use its influence to throw the Socialist vote against the Liberal and Tory candidates indifferently, as may seem to the greatest advantage of the Socialist cause, except——”

They must have the usual exception.

Now they admit of no fundamental difference between the sections of the political expressions of capitalism. They further recognise that this admission means that it is dangerous to support either political faction, yet they are prepared to support one against the other, except where that other is a representative of those who are prepared “to act with us for the realisation of immediate practical measures,” and so on ad nauseam.

Oh ! but I forget! This course is adopted for “purely tactical reasons.” As if that makes any difference. The tactical advantage—if any—is much more likely to be on the other side than on theirs ; for they stand to gain greater tactical advantage by being in constant opposition to all capitalist parties than by supporting at one time and opposing at another.

This can easily be confirmed by reference to the famous Albert Hall speech of butcher Asquith, in which the Irish party, having adopted a policy of hostility to the Liberal party, are promised Home Rule. The Suffragettes, having consistently opposed the Liberals, are promised votes for women ; but the Labour Party are promised—nothing.

In the recent election we find Social Democrats fishing for Liberal support (vide Northampton). Not getting it, they opposed the Liberals with a second candidate. Elsewhere they had no settled policy. Thus in Battersea we find them supporting the Tory against Burns (just the reverse of what they did in 1900).

Mr. Frank Colebrook, writing in “Justice” for Jan. 22nd, 1910, advocates the claims of the Liberals to S.D.P. support in view of the great constitutional crisis. In the same journal dated Feb. 5th Mr. Stanley Briggs reports a resolution of protest passed by his branch against Colebrook’s letter in the previous issue. In the issue for Feb. 26th Mr. Colebrook made some attempt to defend his action in voting Liberal, pleading the “purely tactical reasons” beloved of Quelch. Neither tactics nor any other consideration would allow members of the S.P.G.B. to use their votes in conflict with the Party’s constitution, for we are governed not by expediency but by principles.

E. W. Spackman puts forward in “Justice” (12.3.10) a novel proposition. That is to “put up candidates in every constituency where a branch of the S.D.P. exists at every election. …Not having the cash to pay the returning officer’s fees, he will not be allowed to go to the poll. Nevertheless, so far as we are concerned, the candidature could be proceeded with.” The writer then goes on to press for payment of Members, etc., so ruining a proposition that had the promise of a sound foundation by introducing the eternal, vote-catching reform.

Mr. Quelch is continually denying any compromise or bargain of any shape or form with the Liberal Party, but “M.G.” puts the position very neatly in “Justice” for March 29th, when he says : “There are, of course, in the English language, other expressions for this than ‘arrangement with one of the orthodox parties,’ as used in my letter (“Justice,” March 5th, 1910), but in such an important question preciseness is very desirable.” That is very true, and it is the hope of some, at least, of that desired preciseness being attained, that has inspired this long article.

To sum up, Socialists should give their votes to none but Socialist candidates, or if there is no such candidate in their constituency, they should mark their ballot papers by writing “Socialism” across them. This is not self-disfranchisement, as Quelch says, but is a practical demand for a candidate to be put up for that constituency.

To do anything else is to support the exploiting class and so enable them to live by the exploitation of the workers. Socialists should be governed by principle alone. Let Quelch and his fellow reformers and job-hunters flounder in the bogs of “tactics” and expediency if they will—they will surely become engulfed.

Hutch.

Blogger's Note:

This may be the first mention of John Maclean in the pages of the Socialist Standard.

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Twenty-eight years ago the S.D.F. advocated national afforestation, not only as possessing great national advantages in preventing what capitalism was and is forcing on the world, namely, a timber famine, but also as a means whereby the labour of men otherwise unemployed could be utilised, and they in turn benefited. And now the members of the Royal Commission (including an ex-member of the S.D.F., who apparently has not forgotten all he learnt while with us) unite not only in blessing the idea of afforestation as many have done before, but produce definite statistics and estimates on the subject.”— Justice, 23.1.09.

There’s progress for you ! Only 28 years of hard, honest, unremitting toil and then a Royal Commission blesses the idea you have been advocating. Surely this is a complete answer to those “young men in a hurry” who sneer at those who devote so much energy to obtaining these “much needed reforms.” Here is a success sufficient to confound all the “unpractical,” “impossibilist” hustlers.

* * *

True, the “unpractical” persons may retort that had the same energy and enthusiasm been devoted to propagating Socialism and making Socialists these “reforms”—for whatever they may be worth—would have been handed out by the capitalist class, not only in a much shorter time, but in far greater quantity ; that the confusion engendered in the minds of the working class by associating these tinkerings with the name of Socialism would have been avoided, and a far more solid—because clearer-minded—organisation of the working class effected, while some of the more extreme might even suggest that the reform, when obtained, was hardly worth spending a day, let alone 28 years, upon. As witnesseth the following :

“Afforestation appears late in the race, and even if undertaken to the fullest extent suggested by the Royal Commission (which they themselves do not appear to expect) it can only absorb some small fraction of the unemployed, and the wave of unemployment will soon overtake the difference caused even by wholesale afforestation.”

No one, of course, but an “unpractical impossibilist” could have written that. Any self-respecting “reformer” would at once denounce it as mere jealousy. But, alas ! it is from the same page of the same paper that was just previously chortling over its success in obtaining so valuable a concession for the workers.

* * *

Surely the rank and file of the S.D.P. might compare such statements as those given above and realise the futility of following the example of the horse purchaser in the ancient story where the horse dealer admitted after the sale that the animal he had sold had two faults. “What are they?” asked the purchaser. “Well,” was the reply, “the first is that he is very difficult to catch.” “Oh, I’ll manage that all right !” confidently asserted the purchaser. “The second little drawback is,” the dealer went on, ” he is no good when you’ve caught him.”

* * *

The moral is obvious.

* * *

The New Age for 14.1.09 contained an article in support of municipal bakeries for the supply of “free bread for everybody.” The point which seemed to appeal most strongly to the writer was that “It would positively pay the State in the long run to provide free bread.”

The “State,” to whom the appeal to municipalise anything must be made, consists of the representatives of the capitalist class. This will continue to be the case until such time as the working class, educated to a consciousness of their class position and organised for their own emancipation, possess power to use the machinery of government to their own advantage. When that time arrives the necessity for the working class to appeal to capitalism for anything will be gone.

The power to pass a Free Bread Bill would be sufficient to “socialise” everything. That such a state of affairs is not contemplated by the “New Age” writer (A. O. Orage) is shown by his having written “Private artists would provide it (i.e., fancy bread, cakes, etc.) for the people who choose to pay.”

* * *

A member of the S.D.P. alluding to the “impossibilists” recently, said, “they were like certain early Christians who went about asking people to kill them, so sure were they of going to heaven.” The fact that certain persons hold opinions strongly enough to suffer death rather than give them up, is no proof of the truth or falsity of those opinions. For example, if five or five hundred people die to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5 it will not affect the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Both the professing Christian and the so-called Socialist of to-day stand on different planes to those early Christians alluded to above. The Christian of to-day looks forward to a life hereafter, but if he gets a chance to visit the realms of bliss by passing through the Gate of Death, he will call in the best medical aid obtainable in order that he may continue his penal servitude on earth.

So likewise is it with that contradiction in terms, the “revolutionary reformer” of the S.D.P. He knows, or should know, that Socialism can only be achieved by the complete overthrow of the present system of wealth production, yet he works for this, that and the other reform in order to patch up the very system he is out to abolish.

* * *

Here is an example. After stating that waste was desirable in order that work should be found for persons who would be otherwise unemployed, Mr. H. Quelch (at Eccles, 17.1.09.) in answer to a question, said in effect that, organisation of various concerns under municipal and national management tended towards the elimination of waste and consequently to the more speedy overthrow of the capitalist system.

Whilst he does not hold with one capitalist spending money wastefully upon a “coming out” dinner that found work for some persons,, he, as a member of the Right to Work Executive Council, would approach the capitalist class banded together as “the State,” to find useful work for the unemployed, knowing full well that the problem of production has already been solved, and that anything produced by the present unemployed would only mean the consequent slackness or loss of work to those employed. In the one case “elimination of waste” means the more speedy overthrow of capitalism, and in the other he would advocate waste to overthrow the system sooner than if nothing were granted to the unemployed, by advocating relief works, etc. It would be interesting to know whether he is really of the opinion that waste or the elimination of waste is better for the workers under capitalism.

* * *

Seeing Mr. Quelch admits that the organisation of production under municipal and national control is used to the detriment of the workers whilst the capitalist class are in power, perhaps he can explain how “greater material and moral facilities for the working class to organise itself and carry on the class war” (S.D.P. programme) will be obtained by advocating measures whereby the workers will come more under the sway of capital. When explaining this point he might also prove the following words to be false. “The higher the productiveness of labour the greater is the pressure of the labourers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition of existence, viz, the sale of their own labour-power for the increasing of another’s wealth, or for the expansion of capital.”—”Capital,” Karl Marx, Vol. I p. 660. Should he admit the truth of the above passage, then the reforms advocated by his colleagues of the S.D.P. are not palliations of the system from the working-class point of view at all, and support for the movement gained by their advocacy is falsely gained, because these supporters are led to believe that the lot of the mass of the workers would be bettered while it would not.

* * *

Mr. R. Blatchford as good as says there is no Socialist Party because the posters for a recent issue of the “Clarion” said, “Wanted, a Socialist Party.” If the S.P.G.B. had said the S.D.P., I.L.P., Fabian Society and Clarion Scouts were not Socialist Parties it would have been high treason. Still those persons who were about to join the Clarion Scouts under the impression that it was a Socialist body will reconsider their position, doubtless. Of course, it applies equally to the S.P.G.B., but then we are used to being told that we are “Tories in disguise,” except when we want the platform in opposition, when it is refused to us on the plea that they take opposition only from non-Socialists.

* * *

Mr. J. Hunter Watts has been lecturing on “The Need for a Revision of the S.D.P. Programme.” After 25 years too! We would suggest as his next subject “The S.D.P. : Where is it ?”

* * *

In our January issue it was mentioned that the capitalist class would always out-bid, in the field of charity-doles, such efforts as the “Clarion Bread Fund.” Here is proof. Sir Peter Carlow Walker (of brewery fame) has placed at the disposal of the Liverpool Food and Betterment Association, funds to any amount necessary for the alleviation of dire necessity. Two offices have also been furnished at Sir P. C. Walker’s expense.

Irish stew, currant bread, cocoa and coffee are to be distributed to single, respectable, unemployed women and men, and provisions and probably clothes are to be given to widows having young families. Higher grade artisans and clerks out of employment are to be the chief beneficiares of the fund, those who are hard pressed and have to keep up appearances will, most likely, have clothing supplied them so that they may go respectably dressed to look for the work that does not exist.

Fitz Brough

Correspondence. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor

Dear Comrade,

May I claim the indulgence of a short space in your valuable paper, in order that there may be no error in conception, or wilful misrepresentation, of my conversion to the principles of the Socialist Party cf Great Britain. First of all I recognise that the existence of a Socialist Party, as a revolutionary party, must be consistent with a rigid adoption of its principles, any deviation from that course rendering the party nugatory, and its name a misnomer, as some of our opponents are realising in the humiliating circumstances in which they find themselves when under the cross-fire of criticism that the stalwarts of the S.P.G.B. know so well how to administer. These are circumstances of which, many of your readers and the public will know, I am well able to give from personal experience, as a more trenchant onslaught than I received at the hands of some of the S.P.G.B. members seldom falls to the lot of mankind. No eel in the well sanded fist of a cook, upon the eve of being skinned, ever twisted and writhed as I did, when compelled by the grip of Reason to admit the fatuity of my position. In the political field of this purposely complex system of capitalism, there has been vast scope for the formation of various political parties, societies, and so-called Socialistic bodies,—possessing lugubrious titles, and promoted by political job-hunting rascals,—with a nefarious Press, to circulate their pernicious verbiage—sucking the blood of the country year in and year out, that they may give to their descendants the sop of political power. If the great mass of the workers, environed as they are on every side with poverty, plunder, and oppression, have sufficient strength to repel these political bloodsuckers, to what can it be attributed but to a consciousness of the true inwardness of capitalism ? Given that consciousness and its correct representation by a truly Socialist party, we prove our abhorrence of capitalism by uniting against it all the disciples of a Socialist Commonwealth in Britain.

Yours fraternally,

Quelch

Who are the Impossibilists? (1908)

From the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is obvious that the revolutionary attitude of the S.P.G.B. is making headway within the ranks of the S.D.P. It is recognised by many members of the latter organisation that the advocacy of reforms is not the work of a Socialist.

The Duty of a Socialist

(in his capacity as propagandist) is to explain briefly and lucidly the position the working class occupy to-day. He must bring the worker to understand that he is a wage slave, compelled by dire necessity to sell his labour-power in return for wages. He must teach the worker to recognise that he belongs to a class who are— and will be—kept in economic bondage until the arrival and institution of the Socialist Republic. This method of propaganda—certainly the correct one—adopted by the S.P.G.B. is growing with such rapidity that the wire-pullers of the S.D.P. can no longer pursue a policy of ignoring methods.

Some time has elapsed since Harry Quelch announced his intention of dealing with “impossibilism,” and of proving the necessity of the advocacy of certain reforms beneficial to the working-class. Behold, now, the long promised article (Justice, June 13/08). The article was a reply to the following letter submitted to “Tattler” :—

“I have also had the following letter handed to me by the Editor :—

“Dear Comrade,—Will you clear up for me the following point—viz., the position of our organisation towards impossibilism ? The controversy between the impossibilists and the S.D.P. I am unable to clear up to my own satisfaction. Socialism teaches that there is an iron law of wages which drags down wages to the level of subsistence. If this is a fact, how can any reform alter the operation of this law ? In other words, is not a poverty-stricken working class a necessity under capitalism ? In reference to unemployment, if unemployment is a necessity of the ruling class, what is the use of appealing to that class for the right to work ? I have heard our comrade Hyndman say that the provision of work for the unemployed would mean the collapse of capitalism. But capitalism being the cause of unemployment, to abolish unemployment is it not necessary to first abolish capitalism ? Dear comrade, if you will solve this problem for me you will earn my gratitude.”

Our organisation is opposed to “impossibilism” because it is impossibilism, and we are Social-Democrats, not impossibilists. The impossibilist position may be summed up as follows: The emancipation of the working-class can only be achieved by the working-class themselves. In order for the working class to achieve its emancipation it is necessary that the workers should be educated, organised and class-conscious. But no reforms of any advantage to the workers are possible under capitalism ; therefore the workers cannot become educated, etc., until they have emancipated themselves; yet they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”

“Tattler’s” summing up of the impossibilist position contains some truth, and we recognise its truth because the italicised passages may be used against the reform-mongering parties like the S.D.P. and the I.L.P., i.e., “We do not preach pure Socialism to the workers because they do not understand it, and they do not understand it because we preach reforms instead,” say these parties.

The argument from our point of view turns upon

What is Meant by Education.

If “Tattler” takes education in its narrowest sense, then the educated class and snobocracy of the universities should be revolutionary to the core. That such is not the case, however, even “Tattler” knows. Does education necessarily mean a knowledge of the higher mathematics, Greek, and chemistry ? No ! Education from the Socialist point of view is a recognition of that class antagonism prevalent in society to-day, and a consciousness that the workers as a class must combine in opposition to the capitalist class and its supporters for the purpose of taking, holding, and controlling the political machine, and subsequently the means of life, in their own interest.

The full recognition of this basic principle of Socialist propaganda and of the uncompromising action necessary to the attainment of the above object is absolutely essential from our point of view, and the moment the individual unit of society recognises this and acts accordingly, he is, from the Socialist view-point, educated.

Unless the workers are educated in this sense all efforts at emancipation will be as futile as those already attempted. And that is why “they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”

The administration of education at present lies in the hands of the capitalist class, who will take care that only those subjects tending to keep the workers in subjection, and to make them

More Efficient Producers

shall be taught. The education in Socialist principles takes place after the worker has had his mind chloriformed by the paid agents of the capitalist class.

But before leaving this we may point out that the S.D.P., whilst believing in the class war, has many prominent members of its organisation who state that, in the struggle for working-class emancipation the workers will be led and guided by members of the middle class. They are, apparently, ignorant of the fact that Socialism will not arrive until the class war has reached its most acute stage. It will then be a struggle between two classes—the working class and the capitalist class. It is difficult to discern where another class comes in.

“Tattler” admits that “as long as capitalism lasts there will be unemployed,” which admission proves the futility and fatuity of approaching the capitalist class for measures of alleviation. Such being the case, it should be the duty of the S.D.P.—instead of advocating the “Right to Work”—to teach the worker that demands a large margin of unemployed in order to keep down wages and the standard of living, and to give an increase in profits. Instead, the S.D.P. have for 25 years marched battalions of unemployed from one end of the country to the other, gulling, defrauding, and deceiving the industrial outcasts by telling them this, that and the other Bill will help them. The S.D.P. know perfectly well that the capitalist class will not, in fact, dare not, tamper with the unemployed problem. That is the rock upon which capitalism rests. Take it away and your whole system is abolished. Do the S.D.P. think the capitalist class are going to interfere, knowingly, with their own interests ?

If remedial measures were of any good, how is it that to-day there are

A Larger Number of Unemployed

than ever. Frederick Engels wrote in 1886 the following : “Meanwhile each succeeding winter brings up afresh the great question ‘what to do with the unemployed ‘; but while the number of the unemployed keep swelling from year to year, there is no answer to that question.” Since that date the number of unemployed has increased. Industrial development and the perfection of machinery grows apace ; with that goes the displacement of human labour arid consequently an increase of the unemployed. Karl Marx states in “Das Capital,” “Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital . . . grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation ; but with this grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.”

Along with the exploitation of the working class grows the increasing intelligence of the workers, who are being organised in order that when the inevitable collapse of the present system takes place, they, the workers, will be competent to deal with the new method and state of society. We, as Socialists, must point out that Socialism is the only hope. That is our aim. That is our sole object. The S.D.P. do not do so, but waste their time deluding the working class into believing that some reforms are good. The “impossibilist” method will not prevent reforms being given by the capitalist class, nor can we avoid accepting reform measures passed by the governing class when it suits their interest to do so. What does matter is the wasting of energies and activities upon the advocacy of reforms, the splitting up of the forces of the workers into opposing factions, each desirous of seeing its own particular pet and paltry palliative pushed persistently and prominently before all others. In these circumstances the workers are necessarily lacking in the one common principle to which all could give allegiance.

The S.D.P. have 48 palliatives down for immediate enactment.

Note the Confusion

existing in that organisation. Harry Quelch’s principle desire is to see a “Citizen Army” in existence. Hyndman says that Payment of Members’ Election Expenses is the most important. Mrs. Bridges Adams and “Comrade” Warwick insist on the agitation for the Feeding of School Children being the first object of S.D.P. propagandists. Some advocate Old Age Pensions at an age when the majority of the workers are dead; others say that an important reform is the Municipalisation of the Pawnshops, while Mr. J. F. Green says the Eight Hour Day is a measure that he “would like to see in the forefront.” We anticipate being told that these are but individual members, but each of them has his own particular coterie of supporters, and further, each, of the reforms advocated by them and their following is on the list of “immediate reforms” wanted by the S.D.P. It must be borne in mind that while these reforms are being advocated Socialism is being neglected and put in the background. If this is not so then reform and Socialism are synonymous terms, according to the S.D.P.

But then “Tattler” again disagrees and says “There are two directions in which reforms at the present moment could materially benefit the worker,” viz., by a reduction of the hours of labour and, the better housing of the poor. With reference to the first of these it must be remembered that the shorter working day generally means a greater intensity of labour during the time the worker is employed, the

Increased Strain

being met by the greater period for recuperation.

Many instances have been cited in the Socialist Standard where a reduction in the hours of labour has led to an increase of unemployed in the particular trade affected. Such increase of production with fewer working hours causes the market to become overstocked owing to the non-effective demand for the commodities produced to excess. During these periods of glutted markets the workers who were employed producing the goods are either placed on short time or cease work until those stocks are depleted.

“Tattler” tells us that it is because the hours of labour devoted to the production of surplus-value are decreased that capitalists always fight against any reduction of the working day. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but very few capitalists revert to a ten hour day after trying one of eight hours. Messrs. Lever Bros., Mather & Platts, Allaij & Co., Brunner Mond, and other firms have not built up their great businesses on a system detrimental to their own interests.

Says “Tattler” (same article) :—

“Granted that a certain proportion of the day’s labour is necessary labour, it is quite clear that the amount of exploitation and of surplus value is in direct proportion to the prolongation of the working day. Thus, given a day of ten hours, four of which represent necessary labour, there are six hours devoted to the production of surplus value. The worker works, then, four hours for himself and six for the capitalist. If the hours are reduced to eight, everything else remaining equal, the worker then only works four hours for the capitalist instead of six. That is certainly a material advantage, and it is quite easy to understand, therefore, the vehemence with which the capitalists always fight against any reduction of the working-day.”

“Everything else remaining equal” Mr. Quelch (or “Tattler,” or the Editor of Justice— they are all the same chap) may have a case. It is precisely because everything else doesn’t remain equal that he has none. It must be recognised that if the workers obtain any

Material Advantage

it can only be taken from the capitalist class, who lose thereby. All statistics in connection with the production of wealth prove conclusively that, in spite of the reduction of the hours of labour, the workers (who produce all the wealth) are becoming poorer and poorer, whilst the idle and luxurious capitalist class get richer. Marx has pointed out that, in connection with the reduction of the hours from 12 to 10 per day, “The denser hour of the 10 hours working-day contains more labour—i.e., expended labour power, than the more porous hour of the 12 hour working day. The product, therefore, of one of the former hours has as much or more value than the product of one and one-fifth of the latter hours. Apart from the increased yield of relative surplus-value through the heightened productiveness of labour, the same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist say by three and one-third hours of surplus labour and six and two thirds of necessary labour, as was previously produced by four hours of surplus labour and eight hours of necessary labour.”

The worthy “Tattler” has manufactured a premis not of fact in order to justify a specious argument. Knock away the premis and the bottom is out of the case. By the “Tattler” method anything can be proven. From the Socialist point of view his position on Housing is also wrong. Houses to-day are erected, not for living in, but for the purpose of making profit. If the habitations in the “garden cities” produce more profit than those in the slums, it is reasonable to assume the gradual disappearance and demolition of Slumdom. The wages in Bournville, Port Sunlight, Ancoats and Whitechapel are in each case determined by the cost of subsistence. The “garden cities” mentioned naturally produce better and more efficient wage slaves than those in the slums.

No matter how we turn, no matter what reform is instituted, there the capitalist class, controlling political power and holding the wires of the administrative machinery, are able to use the same to their own advantage.

“Tattler” then concludes :

“At the same time it must be borne in mind that the tendency is always, not only to keep wages down to the subsistence level, but also to lower the level by reducing the standard of comfort.”

These remarks prove

The Logical Position

of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Because the tendency is always on the downward grade, notwithstanding the remedial measures advocated by the S.D.P. and other reform organisations, reform is absolutely useless, as it cannot, on “Tattler’s” own admission, prevent the downward grade. It is evident, then, that the education of the working class must proceed on lines identical with the policy of the S.P.G.B. Whatever the party, the workers can only achieve their emancipation on such lines. Socialism itself implies a scientific organisation of industry, and this can only be realised by class-conscious Socialists.

—CONCILIO ET LABORE

Comments and Critiques. (1908)

From the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article “Who are the Impossibilists?” which appears in another column, deals at length with the statement Mr. Quelch, Editor of Justice, has permitted himself to make recently. I may, however, here be permitted, as the matter is of importance, to supplement that article by a few remarks of my own upon a point that it does not cover.

***

Seldom can Mr. Quelch be drawn into explanations of the S.D.P. attitude upon what he is pleased to call “impossibilism.” He knows too well the danger of that. Consequently, most of his references have been but very ill-natured ebulitions of vinegary vituperation directed against the personal of the S.P.G.B. And as Mr. Quelch is something of an expert in the language of the literary hooligan, he has, doubtless, often had occasion to congratulate himself upon the effectiveness of his efforts in this direction. Readily conceding him pre-eminence in a department we prefer not to enter, we persistently emphasize the unassailable position we occupy as a working-class party, and continually point out how, because they do not occupy our position, the other parties and the individuals composing them have been driven by the pressure of circumstances into taking illogical action with pitiably futile results.

***

However, Mr. Quelch has recently allowed himself to be drawn into something like a serious criticism of “impossibilism,” and has again demonstrated, not only the folly of his own party’s attitude, but the extent to which he is obliged to follow the line of suppresis veri, suggestis falsi in his endeavours to bolster his own case. Possibly his apology for an argument will have the effect of impressing a few, but it is certain that the man or woman who has taken the trouble to analyse the statement will at once perceive that it is a rather clumsy attempt to mislead. Take the paragraph which follows and dissect it with me.

***

That is from Justice for June 13th, and the italics are Mr. Quelch’s own.

[“Our organisation is opposed to “impossibilism” because it is impossibilism, and we are Social-Democrats, not impossibilists. The impossibilist position may be summed up as follows: The emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class themselves. In order for the working class to achieve its emancipation it is necessary that the workers should be educated, organised and class-conscious. But no reforms of any advantage to the workers are possible under capitalism ; therefore the workers cannot become educated, etc., until they have emancipated themselves ; yet they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”]

***

Now Mr. Quelch has, quite unintentionally, divided his paragraph into two parts just where I should myself have cut it. A distinct break comes immediately before the italicised portion. Something has been left out there that destroys completely the continuity of the argument. What is that something and why has it been omitted ?

***

The omitted sentence following the words “In order for the working class to achieve its emancipation it is necessary that the workers should be educated, organised, and class conscious,” would read something like this : “The education and organisation of the workers can only come through reforms.” The rest of the paragraph could then follow on coherently.

***

The point Mr. Quelch wishes to emphasise is clear in the words he himself italicises, viz., the contradictory contention of the “impossibilists” that reforms are useless and yet without them the workers cannot become educated. But if he had put in the sentence I claim he should have put in for coherent reasoning, everyone with any knowledge of our position would have seen that he was stating the opposite of the fact in order to justify a conclusion that reflected upon our sense of logic ; in plain, blunt English, that he was lying his way to a conclusion damaging to us. So he drops the essential connecting link from its proper place, and suggests it in his final sentence.

***

The fact is that we have never contended that the education of the workers is effected through palliatives. We have urged, urged strongly, the very reverse, viz., that the effect of palliative mongering must be the utter confusion of the mind of the workers, and to that extent delay their effective organisation. That being so, Mr. Quelch’s argument becomes at once absurd.

***

Among other reasons advanced for the “Daylight Saving Bill” are (1) that it would benefit the physique, general health, and welfare of all classes of the community, and (2) reduce the industrial, commercial, and domestic expenditure on artificial light. From which it appears that if the unemployed rose with the sun their general health would improve. I wonder they have not tried this method of improving their physique, instead of working for wages.

***

The second reason explains why chambers of commerce, borough councils, and railway companies supported the measure. Reduction of industrial, commercial, and domestic expenditure would be to their advantage. The advantages to the workers are not nearly so obvious.

***

Mr. James Billington, vice-president of the Amal. Assn. of Operative Cotton Spinners, speaking at a dinner given to Mr. Thos. Ashton, President, said “Instead of having driven trade out of the country the unions have made the British workman what he is to-day—the best workman on the face of the earth. That even the employers admit. By our existence what have we prevented the employers taking from us? . . . Taken all round the spinners are the best paid body of workmen in the kingdom.”

***

I have before me extracts from the half-yearly reports of 26 cotton-spinning concerns. One each paid a dividend equal to 18½, 11⅔, and 10½ per cent. per annum respectively, 17 paid equal to 10, 1 to 7, 2 to 5 and 1 equal to 4 per cent. per annum. The remaining one paid no dividend.

***

These figures are enough to make any operative spinner proud. Dividends being the proceeds of the robbery of the workers, it looks as if we are to understand from Mr. Billington’s remark that the more the workers are robbed the better for them.

***

“Quartus,” writing in the Manchester Guardian, 2nd July, 1908, gives an example of what a young curate in a working-class district has to contend with in the way of slums, sweating, slack trade, and their attendant evils. “He (the curate) reflects on the little that legislation has effected in removing obvious evils and making it easier to do right.” Recognising this, in our typical case the curate ultimately becomes a vigorous reformer, turns agitator, and perhaps joins the I.L.P. !

***

Our curate then would be in the same sad case as the “Socialist” who, recognising the futility of reform from the working-class standpoint, persists in agitating for them, “because we cannot let the children starve whilst Socialism is coming.” Yet Mr. Quartus does not see he has written anything funny.

***

The Editor of the Christ Church Monthly Visitor, Burton-on-Trent, thinks that the reply of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the question “Can a Christian be a Socialist?” “will not commend itself to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ah well! we must take the consequences.

***

A member of the Chorlton-cum-Hardy Socialist Society (affiliated to the I.L.P.), speaking in criticism of the S.P.G.B., said he had no fault to find with our Socialism, it was absolutely correct; so also was the Socialism of his society, the I.L.P., S.D.P., and the Fabian Society. He was working with others to alter the I.L.P. Altering it to what ? Why is he concerned to change that which is “absolutely correct” ? If, as he says, our position, based as it is on a recognition of the class antagonism now prevailing, is correct, the position of the I.L.P., which denies the existence of the class struggle, is wrong. If our argument as to the futility of palliatives is sound, then the S.D.P. policy of reform propaganda is unsound.

***

“Economist,” in The Grocer (4.7.08), deals succinctly with the development of the system that has ruthlessly crushed out the little shopkeeper and established the large capitalist and the trustified form of production and distribution on top. If the writer is not a member of the S.P.G.B. he ought to be.

***

For the quarter ending March 31st the directors of Brunner Mond & Co. declared a dividend at the rate of 30 per cent. for the year on ordinary shares, and 7 per cent. on preference shares. £100,000 was placed to reserve fund, £2,500 to the writing off of the patent account, and £35,000 was carried forward !

***

Small wonder that the Brunners and Monds are such enthusiastic supporters of the eight hours day.

***

“The arrangements for the International Peace Congress, which opens in London on Sunday, July 26, are nearly completed. The President of the Congress is Lord Courtney of Penwith, and the Hon. Treasurer Lord Avebury. A special fund is being raised in connection with the Congress, among the latest donors to which is Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who has given the sum of £100. A meeting for adults will take place in Queen’s Hall on July 28, the speakers being Lord Courtney, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., and Dr. Clifford. The United Labour Peace Demonstration in Trafalgar Square, fixed for the last day of the Congress, Saturday, August 1, is being officially supported by the following important bodies :—The Trade Unions Congress Parliamentary Committee, the London Trades Council, the Metropolitan Radical Federation, the Labour Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Independent Labour Part, and the General Federation of Trade Unions.”—Manchester Guardian, 2.7.08.

***

A notable combination. “Which way blows tie wind ? ”

The damn’d grotesques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.D.P. annual Conference laboured mightily and brought forth several gems. I hasten to rescue some of them from an unhonoured and unsung obscurity, and give them the benefit of our rapidly increasing circulation.

o o o

First Mr. Quelch presents his compliments and begs to say there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain. He wishes there was. And yet “Fighting Carmichael,” “Camborne Jones,” and a host of other young bloods out of the camp of the Quelches were largely occupied at Manchester with appealing to their comrades to hold them back in case they (the young bloods) should “go for” certain members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain who insisted upon preaching Socialism as against Danirvinism—the name given to the queerest lot of rant, cant, and fustian extant.

o o o

Quite apart from the reports the young bloods undoubtedly gave him, Mr. Quelch has many excellent reasons for knowing of the existence of the S.P.G.B. So excellent that Mr. Quelch is probably mortally anxious to escape the necessity for dealing with us other than in the dark and devious ways that seem to delight him.

o o o

But if there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain, what have the “old gang” got to say about it? They have “borne the heat and burden of the day,” as Quelch would phrase it, for thirty years, in an endeavour to build up the Socialist Party that Harry Quelch laments does not exist. Harry will not admit us as the S.P.G.B., and yet there is no other ! For he himself has said it. But it’s a most depressing admission—for him and the “old gang.” However, we refuse—it’s most ungracious of us—but we refuse to consider ourselves dead, even to please Mr. Quelch. We ought to have died within a few weeks of our birth, but somehow or other we’ve hung on, increasing our membership and the sales of our literature for four years. And so far as I can see we shall have to keep on going on.

o o o

For example, it took a member of the S.P.G.B. to polish off Lawler Wilson of the Tariff Reform crowd. Wilson had met the champions of several of the parties misrepresenting themselves as Socialists, and as he is a fairly ‘cute chap, and his opponents’ parties had records that will never come out of the wash with credit, Wilson had a gorgeous time. He came to Battersea Town Hall, therefore, rather cock-a-hoop, and—a packed audience saw him die.

o o o

This isn’t bounce, it’s truth. Ever heard of truth, Harry ?

o o o

Apparently Harry is not prepared to recognise any organisation until it is as big as his own. That is an excellent reason for the I.L.P. ignoring the S.D.F., for the “Labour Party” ignoring the I.L.P., and so on. But then Harry would call the I.L.P. names, among which “cowards” would be the mildest, and something with several B’s in it among the stronger !

o o o

Harry is fond of “langwidge” and big things—particularly S.D.P. big things. That’s why Jack Jones finds favour in his sight. Happy Jack!

o o o

And that reminds me. Jack Jones at the Conference gave off this: “Correspondence is the curse of democracy.” A delegate had attacked the S.D.P. Executive for not doing what the Conference had instructed it to do, and had read the letter (“unwisely,” says Justice) the Executive had sent in reply. “Unwisely ” is a good word, but it barely meets the case.

o o o

The purport of that letter has already appeared in this journal. It was to the effect that the S.D.P. opposition to “Lulu” Harcourt in the Rossendale Valley had been withdrawn partly, at any rate, for the reason that Harcourt was a better chap than many of his colleagues ! As if from a Socialist standpoint there were degrees of goodness among capitalist politicians.

o o o

Undoubtedly the letter was read “unwisely.” It isn’t wise to let the rank and file of the Party know that such views are held by their executive officers. They may begin to have doubts. And Happy Jack was right in the circumstances when he said correspondence was a curse—not a curse in itself, of course, but the very devil of a curse when it is read to others for whose ears it is not intended.

o o o

But this method of secret diplomacy is, of course, vide H. M. Hyndman (same Conference), “wholly undemocratic and dangerous, tending to the support of despotism and the maintenance of corruption and intrigue.” But in the conduct of a supposedly far more democratic organisation it is very good and very necessary, while the publication of correspondence is a curse. We are lovely democrats in the S.D.P. !

o o o

Still, one can understand Happy Jack’s disgust. He is doubtless still painfully aware that Camborne is standing on the map. And I wonder whether it was his experiences in that delectable district that led him to the conclusion that it was desirable to get somebody—”a good cadger” was Hyndman’s felicitous term—”to get down into other people’s pockets without them knowing it.” Nice anti-secret-diplomacy chap, Jack,

o o o

On this matter of the Rossendale Valley contest, it is of some little interest to observe that “there is no folly in striking a blow for Social-Democracy wherever it can be done as effectively as it was at North-West Manchester, with the result of demonstrating to our enemies that there is no position too strong for us to assail.” (Justice, 2/5/08.) Apparently it can’t be done effectively at Rossendale, although they have more branches in that division than they have members in N.W. Manchester !

o o o

It would, in the circumstances, be nice to know what the sapient editor of Justice regards as an effective strike at capitalism. And I wonder what, if any, correspondence, that “curse of democracy,” has passed between the anti-secret-diplomatists at Chandos Hall, and the “good capitalist” party in Rossendale.

o o o

Also I should like to know what F. Davey, of Paddington, and others interested, now think of the reply of the editor of Justice to the statement published by us on the reasons for the withdrawal of the S.D.F. Rossendale candidate.

o o o

This reply characterised our report as misleading and untrue. According to the Justice report of the S.D.P. Conference, however, it was quite true. Oh, the curse of this unwise correspondence !

o o o

And how does this square with the S.D.P. Executive’s statement that “Lulu” Harcourt had improved his position—become more democratic, more sympathetic to Labour, and so on ? “Harcourt had certainly a greater grip on the capitalist parties and would get more Tory votes than before.” (Fred Knee, S.D.P. Executive representative at Conference.)

o o o

That either means that Harcourt is getting more into favour with the capitalist class, or it means nothing. And that’s the way Harcourt is improving his position and finding favour in the S.D.P.’s sight !

o o o

Another matter. I cannot fill the paper with S.D.P. Conference absurdities, lies, and contortions, although it would be the easiest matter in the world. We are for ever being asked why we continually attack the S.D.P., I.L.P., and other parties “who are coming along to the same goal as ourselves.” Our reply is contained in the foregoing—a fair sample of the pitiable, if ludicrous, position the strenuous endeavours of the S.D. and I.L. Parties to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are for ever landing them into.

o o o

These parties are appealing to the working class for support. The working class does not know what it is letting itself in for if it responds to the appeal. Therefore we do what we can to open its eyes ; or at any rate we have taken the precaution of repudiating any responsibility for S.D.-I.L.P. action. When, therefore, the storm breaks and swamps the time-servers in a deluge of the wrath of the once deluded working class, we shall be in the ark with the blessed.

o o o

Ever heard of the Ark, Harry ? No, you’re wrong. It isn’t a public-house.

o o o

Which again reminds me. The S.D.P. are “agin” the Licensing Bill. The l.L.P. are largely for it—most enthusiastically. Another case of unity of idea among the forces of progress.

o o o

What is our view of the Licensing Bill ? It leaves us unmoved. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. It’s part of the great game of political “coddem”—if that’s how the word is spelled.

o o o

I was going to refer to the repudiation by the S.D.P. Conference of Gott, of Bradford, a S.D.P. member suspected of the intention of issuing an agnostic pamphlet about Christ, the enemy of the human race. This might injure Danirvinism in North-East Manchester. Wherefore the S.D.P. solemnly repudiated the pamphlet and worked off its stock cant resolution about religion being a private and personal affair,

o o o

Now perhaps they will repudiate Blatchford and his anti-Christian books. Because Blatchford holds the anti-Christian propaganda of such importance that he would put it in the forefront of the battle.

o o o

Will the S.D.P. repudiate him ? Not much. You see Blatchford is a sort of important person and Gott is not. And the S.D.P. Executive are keen on important persons.

o o o

Sometimes, however, the important person, having been roped in, fails to exhibit becoming respect towards his loving parent organisation. There’s the.unhappy case of H. G. Wells, who burst upon North-West Manchester with two columns of advice to the elector to vote against Danirvinism and S.D.P.-ism.

o o o

Of course Wells is merely an insufferable person whose hat is too small for him, and the present Justice estimate of his Socialist knowledge is fair enough. “Nobody but himself takes Mr. Wells seriously.” A novelist of the Jules Verne school who “thinks he knows something about Socialism” but doesn’t, and so on. But readers of Justice will clearly remember the great chortle with which Justice welcomed the addition to the ranks of the S.D.P. of the great thinker, the literary genius, Wells.

o o o

It's the same Wells. But the S.D.P. view has changed a little—that's all !

Alegra.

Blogger's Notes:

By 1908 the Social Democratic Federation were now known as the Social Democratic Party. They had changed their name in 1907. They were to relaunch (with others) to become the British Socialist Party in 1911.

'Danirvinism' is a cheeky play on words. It's a reference to Dan Irving, who was a leading member of the SDF/SDP in Lancashire. Lancashire was one of the few places outside London where the SDF had been able to secure a significant base, and in some parts of Lancashire  - especially Burnley - were on an equal footing with the ILP. Dan Irving would later become a Labour MP after the first world war.

Here and There. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

J. B.

Blogger's Note:

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

Party Notes. (1907)

Party News from the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The second edition of our Manifesto is selling splendidly.

* * *

Our speakers are often asked : What is the attitude of the S.P.G.B. to the S.D.F. ? to the I.L.P.? to the Labour Party? to the S.L.P. ? All these parties are dealt with in our Manifesto. If you have not yet had it send 1½d. to Head Office for a copy.

* * *

A further edition of “From Handicraft to Capitalism” is now on sale (post free, 1½d.) It should be recollected that the S.P.G.B. alone have been authorised to translate into English “Das Erfurter Program,” by Karl Kautsky, of which “From Handicraft to Capitalism” forms the first part.

* * *

The second part, “The Proletariat,” will be issued as a penny pamphlet very shortly.

* * *

A new pamphlet will also be issued in the course of a few weeks, viz, “Art, Labour, and Socialism,” by Wm. Morris, price 1d., post free,

* * *

Mr. Geo. W. Daw, Conservative Agent for Wandsworth Division, has accepted a challenge to debate with a member of our Tooting Branch. He afterwards received a challenge from the Tooting Branch of the I.L.P. In the course of his reply to them he said-: “Before giving your invitation final consideration I should like to know something more definite about the Socialism of the I.L.P. I think I am justified in making this request, because it is definitely stated in the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B., a body which should be competent to form an accurate opinion on the subject, that ‘the I.L.P. is in reality run by a set of job hunters, whose only apparent political principle is to catch votes on varying pretexts and by still more varying means.’ . . . If, however, your branch is really anxious for a debate, why not accept the repeated challenge of Mr. Barker on. behalf of the S.P.G.B. to prove your claim to be a Socialist Party ?”

* * *

The answer of the local branch of the I.L.P. will be interesting, if not instructive. Perhaps amusing also.

* * *

Our comrade Marsh, of Manchester, informs us that he recently attended an I.L.P. lecture by a Mr. Yardly, who claimed to be a Socialist, and told the audience that Christ was his typical Socialist. He advocated Co-operation, a living wage, and the municipalisation of everything. Our comrade asked a question, but the chairman immediately told the lecturer whom he was, and the lecturer said : “I want no bloody revolution, only evolution !” Our comrade asked him to explain the difference to the meeting, he replied: “You are only fencing.” He was then challenged to debate, but the chairman arose and said they could not accept questions from our comrade !

* * *

Is it a fact that in consequence of the references thereto in the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B., the N.E.C. of the I.L.P. are seriously thinking of publishing the names of the anonymous persons who presented the Party with a cheque for £1,000 last January ?

* * *

An advertisement of the tour of Comrades Dawkins and Kent thro’ the Midlands was sent to Justice. Mr. Quelch returned it and the remittance, declining to insert. Is he afraid that if the rank and file of the S.D.F. became aware of the truth concerning the leaders of the S.D.F. and of the T.C.P., his occupation, like Othello’s, would be gone ?

Adolph Kohn

Notes and Clippings. (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

HUSTLE !

* * *

Word of dire import to the wage-slave. Yet not without its use, persistently, pitilessly reminding him that increased toll on brain and sinew must be demanded from him to meet the conditions that the ever-increasing mad whirl of competition creates.

* * *

The Daily Chronicle, year of grace 1908: “Wanted, in progress department with some experience of motor-car components, to hustle: THE WORK THROUGH THE SHOPS.”

* * *

“Some experience” only of the inanimate machine, of tank and sparking plug, of valve and tire, but a firm grip of the possibilities of the human mechanism ; its thew and sinew, its mental capacity, its fears and its hopes, its breaking-point, expressed in terms of surplus-value units.

* * *

A correspondent of Justice (12.12.08) cries aloud for “more capital,” in order that the work of the Twentieth Century Press (T.C.P.) may grow and still further flourish.

* * *

Whew ! This in the “Organ of Social Democracy.” Oh Harry Quelch ! Oh Father of British “Socialism,” behold your pupil !!

* * *

“Capital means wealth which is employed by its owners for the purpose of profit by the labour of others,” (Catechism of Socialism, issued by T.O.P., authors, Bax and Quelch).

* * *

“Profits . . . are derived from the surplus-value wrung from the unpaid labour of the workers” (same work, same authors, same bedrock truth).

* * *

Anent this precious piece of correspondence, a Peckham comrade writes “A certain W. A. Woodroffe, in response to an appeal to Social Democratic Party members to take up shares in the T.C.P., sends for two more shares on behalf of the Camberwell Branch, of which he is a member.

* * *

“Is this the W. A. Woodroffe who is employed by the T.C.P., and who played such an ignoble part with the Executive Council of that body when the straight members came out ?

* * *

“If so, the fear he has of many members of the S.D.P. being wholly ignorant of the ‘important’ part played by the T.C.P. in the movement can be dispelled by a true account of the events which led to the formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

* * *

“The question would then resolve itself into an enquiry as to whether the enlightened and disillusioned rank and file of the S.D.P. would find their view coincide with those of W. A. Woidroffe as to what could, or should be done with ‘more capital.’ ”

* * *

The inner history of that historic movement shall be told to readers of The Socialist Standard at an early date. We guarantee that nothing which has hitherto appeared in our organ will be more replete with interest, more illustrative of the dirty method of an organisation dominated by “middle-class quacks,” and bound hand and foot to a concern which demands “more capital,” than such a recountal.

* * *

Meanwhile, I would ask my enquiring comrade whether this same worthy was the individual who spoke at some length at the Old Kent Rd. Baths when Hyndman, “the great Socialist Orator,”—so the handbills read—denied, in answer to a question, that he or the S.D.P. had ever supported Burns after his secession from the ranks of the S.D.P. ?

* * *

Further, whether it was the same W. A. Woodroffe who declared his gratitude to the said “Great Socialist Orator” for his great and surpassing condescension in emptying himself of his glory and stepping out from the ranks of the upper class to patronise and beam on the working classes ?

* * *

Pah ! Its offence is rank. It smells to Heaven. A draught of Marx (translated by Harry Quelch.)

* * *

“The petty bourgeois, always speaks of one side, and the other side. Two opposing, contradictory currents dominate his material interests, and in consequence his religious, scientific, and artistic views, his morality, in fact, his whole being.

* * *

“If he is besides, a man of intellect, he will very soon be able to juggle with his own contradictions, and to elaborate them in striking, noisy, if sometimes brilliant paradoxes. Scientific charlatanism and political compromises are inseparable from such a point of view.”

* * *

“There is in such case, only a single motive, individual vanity, and, as with all vain people, there is no question of anything beyond the mere effect of the moment, the success of the hour.”

* * *

Could Genius go further in limning the psychological outlines of the Hyndmans and Blatchfords ? Through the mental features of the latter, especially, leers out the baneful figure of the Anarchist Prondhon, of whom the above (in “Misère de la Philosophie”) was written.

* * *

And—Que le diable faites-vous dans cette galère, Harry ?

* * *

Is it a place within the meaning of the—no, not the Act, pardon—of Socialism ?

A. Reginald.