Editorial: Peace on Earth. (1905)

Editorial from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

While from thousands of pulpits Christian preachers are asking for “peace on earth, goodwill toward men” we find war between classes and war between nations everywhere manifest. If we take but a short period of ten years we shall find that every civilised country has been engaged either in war or in oppressing subject races. America with Spain and with the Philipinos ; France in Madagascar and in Algeria; Russia with Japan and with the Manchus; Germany with the Hereros ; Holland with the Javanese ; Britain everywhere : thus the tale of war is told.

We who are Socialists are all in favour of peace, at the same time we recognise that so long as men live in societies based upon class opposition, in societies in which the modes of producing the material sustenance of man are monopolised by a class, so long will war be rife as a means of satisfying national disputes.

The fact that one class monopolises all that is best in life because of its owning the means of production, while another class possesses nothing but its power of labour, has to sell that power in order to gain a mere livelihood, is the primary cause of the war of classes. Each class seeks to better its condition. And this is only possible at the expense of the other class. A rise in wages for the worker is a fall in the profits of the employer. A reduction of hours for the worker beyond certain limits is at the expense oi the employer’s surplus-value. This opposition between employer and employed manifests itself not only in the striving for better wages and reduced hours, but throughout the whole of the ramifications of modern industrial, society.

The production of commodities is to-day production for the market. During periods of prosperity production is carried on by all manufacturers with great intensity. This production is furthered by means of the “credit” system, which allows of capital being borrowed and material being bought on credit. When, as the result of all the rival manufacturers turning out their goods as quickly as possible, the market becomes glutted, it becomes necessary to somehow convert these goods into money in order to discharge their liabilities. The usual markets being glutted, it is ever more necessary to extend the limits of the market, to secure fresh outlets, and the ordinary method of arriving at this end is to annex new territory and develope its resources.

Thus arising from the very course of commerce itself comes the necessity of carrying on wars of aggression. War to-day is essentially commercial, and at all times has been at base economic. Whether it is the ancient commercial feud of Athens and AEgina, the jealousy of Rome of its commercial rival, Cathage; the desire of Rome to conquer the lands adjoining the Mediterranean and thereby possess a monopoly of that sea which was then the world’s commercial highway; peasant wars, servile wars, feudal wars, or modern wars of aggression like the recent Boer War ; whichever of these they be, they are fundamentally economic, and in the interests, not of the whole people, but of the ruling class.

And when such wars do arise they always receive the support of the Church within their own nation, which is so ready at other times to prate of “peace on earth.” While having no quarrel with religion as such, we cannot but recognise that the official church in any country is the worthy bulwark of the ruling class in that country, and that towards that most reactionary of churches, the Roman Catholic, the propertied class are drifting more and more.

When the Church is prepared to advocate and to hasten the downfall of the present industrial system—the cause of modern wars—and to substitute therefor a society based upon social equality from which no wars can possibly spring, we shall be the more willing to believe in their protestations in favour of peace. But to-day they cry peace ! peace ! where there is and can be no peace.

Each of the forms of war—the outcome of the existing capitalist system—carries in its train results both dire and disastrous for the working people. Whether national or industrial warfare is the more distressing and far-reaching in its results may be difficult to determine from actual tabulated statistics, but after a minute examination of both we have no hesitation in saying that industrial warfare has far the greater number of victims.

Enormous as have been the victims of battles like Borodino, Sedan, or the Sha-ho ; great as is the estimate of 2,000,000 men killed in battles between fairly civilised powers in the 25 years from 1855 to 1880, greater still has been the sacrifice to industrialism. Let us calculate the number of children dying in their first year from remediable causes, the number of accidents on the railway or in the mine, the early deaths of the workers from living in insanitary dwellings and working in insanitary factories and workshops with insufficient nourishment for their daily fare, and we shall see that the industrial warfare is as severe as the national. When we remember that the number of those killed and injured on American railways during the past year exceeded the 45,000 casualties of the Sha-ho battle we shall see that it is as necessary to consider means for the removal of the warfare of peace as of that of war.

We may be excused if we give two extracts, one showing the horrors of the battle-field, the other the terrors of the factory.

The first is from Dr. Russell, of the “Times,” who wrote the following account of the battle of Sedan:

“Let your readers fancy masses of coloured rags glued together with blood and brains, and pinned into strange shapes by fragments of bones ; let them conceive mens’ bodies without heads, legs without bodies, heaps of human entrails attached to red and blue cloth, and disembowelled corpses in uniform, bodies lying about in all attitudes with skulls shattered, faces blown off, hips smashed, bones, flesh, and gay clothing all pounded together, as if brayed in a mortar, extending for miles, not very thick in any one place, but recurring perpetually for weary hours, and then they cannot, with the most vivid imagination, come up to the sickening reality of that butchery.”

Thus of war ! and now of peace ! Our extract is from Dr. Tatham’s Report on “The Mortality of Occupations.” He pays :

“At the last census (1891) male cotton and flax operatives above the age of 15 numbered 179,359 in the aggregate having increased since 1881 by 11 per cent. At ages below 45 years the mortality of cotton operatives scarcely differs from the average among textile workers, but at each group of ages above 45 the rates are considerably in excess of the average. Compared with the standard for occupied males the death-rates are excessive at all ages over 25 years and under 45 years. The comparative mortality figure of these workers from all causes at ages 25—65 is 1,141, considerably exceeding that of textile workers generally; while compared with that of occupied males it is in excess by 20 per cent. Cotton operatives die half as fast again as the standard from diseases of the respiratory system; their mortality also shows an excess of two-fifths from diseases of the nervous system, and of the digestive organs other than the liver, and an excess of one-fifth from circulatory diseases. They also suffer more than the average from phthisis, influenza, diabetes, and suicide, whilst, in common with textile workers generally, their mortality from alcoholism and liver disease is below, but that from rheumatic fever is above the average.”

True, the first of these pictures is far more horrible than the second, but we have a Sedan only once in thirty years or more, while we have the remediable terrors of factory life with us day by day.

By all means let us have peace, but let us work for it by trying to remove the cause of war—our present industrial system. When society is no longer a crystallised selfishness, when the condition of man’s living is no longer at the expense of his neighbour, when anarchy is no longer the phase of production of commodities, when, instead of all these, men live, owning the material means of subsistence in common, and men and women can obtain the satisfaction of their needs without having to sell their labour force for a bare subsistence, then it will no longer be necessary to speak of peace, for peace will then be a living reality.

Those who really desire that peace should reign over all the earth, who see peace between men as a condition of healthy industrial and social development should join with us of The Socialist Party of Great Britain in organising that party which shall preach those principles of industrial harmony based upon the abrogation of class privilege and the holding of all means of production and of distribution in common, which shall be the basis upon which shall be built up a peace which shall endure and which shall extend throughout the world-wide co-operative Commonwealth.

Party Notes. (1905)

Party Notes from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the month of January there will be two meetings of the Executive Committee, viz., Saturday 7th at 3 p.m., and Tuesday 17th at 7 p.m.

* * *

Since the election of the present Executive Committee, there have been three vacancies created by the resignation of Comrades E. Allen, H. Hawkins, and Woodhouse. The latter is now in the United States in pursuit of a livelihood and has, I am sure, the beat wishes of every member of the Party. The following members have been elected to the Executive to fill the vacancies: T. A. Jackson, A. Barker and F. S. Leigh.

* * *

A Branch has been formed in Tottenham. The Secretary is Leslie Boyne, 17, Etherley Road, South Tottenham, N., who will be glad to hear of anyone desirous of joining.

* * *

The Quarterly Delegate Meeting to receive and deal with the report of the Executive Committee will be held at the Communist Club at 6.30 p.m. on Saturday, 21st January. Each Branch is entitled to send two delegates. Credential forms have been sent to the Branches, and Branch Secretaries should see that each Credential issued is properly filled up.

* * *

In order that the Quarterly Report of the Executive Committee may be completed, will Branch Secretaries please note that the Reports of Branches (form C) should be forwarded so as to reach the.Central Office by Saturday, 7th inst. if possible.

* * *

Membership Cards for 1905 are now ready. Each Branch Secretary should send at once to : Comrade J. McNicol, Assistant Secretary, 179, Isledon Road, Finsbury Park, London, N., a list containing the registered numbers of those members for whom new cards are required. The member’s full name and address may be given in each case, but the registered number is all that is necessary.

* * *

All remittances from Branches to the Party Funds should be sent to Comrade McNicol, who transacts the Secretarial work as far as Party Finances are concerned. All remittances ia connection with payment for copies of the Socialist Standard, advertisements therein, etc., should be sent to Comrade Anderson, 24, Belmont Avenue, Edmonton, N.

* * *

Articles, Branch Reports, and all other matter intended for insertion in the columns of the Socialist Standard should be forwarded to 5, Arvon Road, Highbury, N. If members and other readers would follow out these instructions considerable trouble and delay will be obviated.

* * *

Ill health has compelled our Comrade Dowdeswell to cease his work in connection with the Lecture List. For the present the duties have been taken up by Comrade T. A. Jackson, 408, St. Anne’s Road, Harringay, N. It is to be hoped that with the advent of more genial weather, Comrade Dowdeswell will again be in form and at his old post.

* * *

Members should use their best endeavours to secure.subscribers to the Socialist Standard. Subscription forms can be had on application to Comrade Anderson. A subscription form enclosed in each letter to friends likely to be interested would bring good results.

A Look Round. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to a memorandum prepared by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, there were in existence at the end of 1903, 1,166 trade unions, with a total membership of 1,902,308, as compared with 1,190 unions with 1,924,809 members at the end of 1902, a decrease in membership of 22,501. The number of women and girls included as members in 1903 was 119,416, as compared with 122,210 at the end of 1902, a decrease of 2.3 per cent. The decline was chiefly in the cotton trade unions and followed upon a period of unsettled employment in the cotton trade.

The total funds in hand for the 100 principal trade unions were £4,550,000, about £4 per member. The amount paid in unemployed benefit shewed an increase of £80,000.

* * *

The acuteness of the unemployed problem in West Ham has caused much discussion in the Press, and a few days before Xmas various “Relief” funds were opened. Vague references to “revolutions” and “riots” have been indulged in, but surely no one expects that starving men or physical deteriorates could sustain any organised revolutionary effort. The advice of Will Thorne, who “asked the men to behave themselves as they walked through the borough, and so show the governing classes that they knew how to conduct themselves although they were poor,” has been followed, although what on earth men who have already lost what little they ever had, including, in many cases, the franchise (through accepting Poor Law Relief) have to gain by “behaving themselves,” is very difficult to understand!

* * *

In this connection the letter of Councillor McAllen (S.D.F.) which appeared in the morning papers is interesting. He said “Alarm is felt by the local authorities that the seriousness of the distress may precipitate a crisis, which would be attended with deplorable results. This must be avoided at all hazards!” We again ask what have the unemployed to lose, and what results could be more deplorable to them than those which have already overtaken them ? One would imagine that these Revolutionary Social-Democrats, who preach peace where there is no peace, hold a brief for the propertied class.

* * *

During the agitation, various leaders of the capitalist political party have been deputised by Jack Jones, A. Hayday, Salmon and others. As we have already pointed out, we do not agree with holding any parleys with either section of the workers’ enemies. In the first place, the issue is confused and the workers are led to believe that the social problem can be dealt with otherwise than by the overthrow of capitalist domination, and in the second place, if the capitalist politicians are asked to do certain things, and they reply favorably, those who ask them are morally bound to support them in their efforts. As Herbert Gladstone retorted, in reply to interruptions by J. J. Terrett and others, as to why the Liberals do not do this, that, or the other,

“If you want the Liberal Party to do these things, then help them to win elections and thus place them in a position to do them.”

* * *

Herein lies one of the chief causes of the disagreement between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and others claiming to be Socialists. We would just as soon expect that burglars and pickpockets would organise themselves for the purpose of devising and carrying out means for the protection of the public against burglary and pocket-picking as we would expect the capitalist-class to carry measures for dealing with the unemployed problem. We tell the workers that there can be no solution except by the establishment of the Socialist Republic; that the capitalist politicians, whether labelled Liberal or Conservative, desire to maintain the capitalist State, in which a reserve army of unemployed is a necessity, and under no circumstances will we beg and pray them, or appeal to them—our class enemies—to do something which we know they will not do. The workers must accomplish their own emancipation, organised as a Socialist Party, independent of and hostile to all other parties. That emancipation will never be obtained otherwise.

* * *

What can be said of professing Socialists, claiming to believe in the class-war and all that that belief involves, delivering speeches like the following:

“Perhaps it was best to have a friend in both parties. If they succeeded in getting one Liberal leader and one Tory to do something in the matter they would have succeeded in making the guestion a national one, and probably from both sides of the House they would get sufficient support to carry out some scheme.” ? The most charitable view is that the speaker (Jack Jones) allowed his feelings to get the better of his Socialist convictions, owing to the extraordinary amount of distress existing in the district.

* * *

As is usual just previous to a General Election, the Liberal papers are endeavouring to show how much superior would be the government by that capitalist faction to that of the Conservatives. But in doing so they have to give away their own case so far as the alleged prosperity of the country, due to Free Trade, is concerned. In a recent speech Mr. Birrell declared

“We long to see the energy of our party directed towards an honest attempt to do, at all events, something to solve the problems of poverty and suffering. This world will never be a Utopia, but we want to make it a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.”

And in commenting on this, a Liberal writer adds:

“And who is there of human instincts, whatever his political leanings, that does not sympathise with those millions whose life is a dreary struggle, whose steps are dogged by chronic want, whose children cry for food and warmth, and cry in vain. England, the richest country in the world, counts millions of these. Poor, struggling millions! Surely the social and economic system is out of joint that allows the few to amass unmeasured wealth while the very bread of life is wanting to thousands who would earn it if they could. We speak not of the idle, improvident and intemperate, but of the honest, industrious and independent poor; these latter even are counted by millions, and their lot is hard indeed.”

* * *

Observe ! After fifty years of Free Trade, at the end of “a century of amazing progress” during which our wealth has increased from £140 to £303 per head of the population, our “honest, industrious and independent poor are counted by millions.” “Here is an opportunity for Liberalism” proceeds the scribe. Yes, an opportunity to make this world “a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.” Only that and nothing more ! Capitalism is Hell for the workers. There is only one way by which they can get out of it, and that is by organising for the Revolution, by joining the Party of the Revolution, The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

* * *

In our last issue we dealt with the S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. members being induced to support the Liberal faction of the Capitalist Party at “Free Trade” meetings and we notice that H. Kirby deals with the same matter in “Justice.” He describes Mr. Masterman, the Liberal candidate for North West Ham, as “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses.” But we would remind Mr. Kirby that when Masterman contested Dulwich, one of the best-known members of the S.D.F., J. Hunter Watts, voted for him and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise. Now, if Masterman was advanced enough for such a leading revolutionary Social-Democrat as Hunter Watts, surely smaller fry should follow such a good example ? Perhaps one of these days the S.D.F. will endeavour to pursue a consistent policy, but we are afraid it will then be too late for them to regain the public confidence.

* * *

There comes into force this year an agreement between the Lancashire and Yorkshire and the London and North Western Railway Companies, which they have entered into for fifty years. It is hoped that the co-operation which will give place to the competition hitherto existing between the two companies will result in a large reduction of expenses. Many trains will cease to run but there will be no inconvenience either to passengers or traders.

There will also be a general reorganisation in the goods departments, from which in some towns in Yorkshire a saving of £2,000 a year is expected.

* * *

This arrangement will no doubt throw a number of workers out of employment and the financial advantages will be secured by the shareholders. Such is capitalist co-operation—a step towards trustification. Under Socialism the more efficient organisation of any public service would benefit the whole community.

* * *

The Ups and Downs of a Poor Palliative would make an interesting article, if one had time to write up all the material connected with the S.D.F. proposal, which starting with the “One good meal a day free” advocated by H. Quelch, E. Sansom and others at the 1888 London School Board Election, gradually developed into Complete State Maintenance for all children. But recently many members of the S.D.F., so possessed have they become by the spirit of mere reform and the desire to win elections, have even gone back upon the crude proposals of 1888. At recent elections, Martin Judge (West Ham) advocated “Free Food for Starving Children,” and A. C. Bannington (Coventry) running under the auspices of the Trades and Labour Council, advocated “Free wholesome meals for all school children who need them.” And at the recent meeting at Canning Town, presided over by Will Thorne, the resolution moved by the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F.) was not in favour of State Maintenance, but merely

“That, with the view of checking the physical deterioration amongst our population, the Government should, in accordance with the demands of the Trade Union Congress, grant to the education authorities the power necessary to provide food for children attending State-supported schools.”

Ex-Alderman Hayday seconded this resolution and other members of the S.D.F. present included Jack Jones. Thus we see Trade Union officials watering down the S.D.F. proposals to meet the wishes of the Unions.

* * *

At a recent meeting of the Reading Debating Society, J. F. Hodgson (S.D.F) moved

“That this House would welcome the introduction by Government of a measure providing funds for the supply of free meals to school children.”

This was supported by Messrs. Mackay, Leaver and Quelch, and carried. There’s progress for you !

* * *

In looking through the programme of A. C. Bannington, referred to above, we find the following:

“Unskilled men to receive not less than 25s. per week,”

and in looking through the programme and rules of the Organisation to which we believe Bannington still belongs, we find that a minimum wage of 30s. is demanded as an immediate reform, and that a candidate’s programme must be previously sanctioned (together with his election address) by the local Branch and by the Executive Council. But when some folks get the election fever, programmes and rules go by the board.

Jack Kent

The Prospects of the Workers' Children. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class antagonism between exploiter and exploited, arising, as it does, out of the fundamental contradiction in the capitalist system of production, viz., the appropriation of the social product by the individual capitalist, naturally permeates the entire social organisation under Capitalism. Hence the children of the workers do not fare an iota better than their parents. There is but one difference, namely, that the parents could collectively take action with the view to their emancipation, while the children are powerless so far as securing their own welfare is concerned.

The capitalist-class naturally look upon the children of the working-class merely as the rising generation of wage-slaves, whose only justification for existence is sustained by the fact that they are the prospective producers of all wealth and luxury for the idle and useless master-class. The portion of wealth that under present conditions falls to the workers barely suffices for their miserable subsistence and the propagation of their kind. It therefore goes without saying that the conditions regulating the working-class standard of “vegetation” (to call it “standard of comfort” would be the most biting satire) apply in equal measure to the growing generation of the toilmg-class.

Men and women who live in slums and hovels, who, when at work, are under-fed and over-worked, when out of work (nowadays of only too frequent occurrence) are literally starved; who, by their vile environment and conditions are thrown into vice and disease, cannot possibly reproduce children with strong, healthy physique, brilliant intellect, firm moral backbone and sense for the pure and beautiful.

The whole process of reproducing the wage-slave is evidently in full accord with the object of his future existence. It is not only when capable of wielding the instruments of production and exchange that the life of the worker is, at its best, deplorable; already while he is being prepared (“dragged up,” would be a more fitting term to use) for his miserable task of wage-slavery, he experiences the bitter foretaste of adversities, to which, unfortunately, he grows accustomed in after-life.

During the period of pregnancy the average working-class woman is often over-worked and unable to obtain fresh air, sufficient and wholesome food and a healthy, decent environment. Were we but in a position to compile correct statistics with regard to the prenatal sufferings of the worker’s child, the cruelty and the injustice of the present system would, if possible, become more disgusting and revolting to us. Born in surroundings of squalor and wretchedness, the child of the toiler is frequently from its birth ill-fed and neglected. The working-class mother being often a wage-slave, has, in cases out of number, to entrust the care of her infant to a person running a day-nursery on commercial lines. Further comment is superfluous. Being sent to school at three years of age the worker’s child is soon compelled to forego romping and playing in favour of zealous attention to the study of the 3 R’s, indispensable accomplishments for a sturdy producer of surplus-value.

To the child habitually under-fed, badly housed and insufficiently clothed, the knowledge imparted in the modern elementary school is indeed far too liberal an education, because in numerous cases it is absolutely wasted. Seeing that the child of the worker commences its career as a responsible wage-slave at the age of twelve, thirteen, or fourteen, it cannot be a matter for surprise to find that nearly one-third of the number of children attending public elementary schools are between three and seven years of age. The total number attending such schools in England and Wales were at the end of the school year of 1902-3, 5,967,868, of which number 1,858,590 were between the ages of three and seven.

Considering that at the present time the number of unemployed workers throughout the country is nearly approaching a million, which number is increasing daily, it is not difficult to guage the number of starving and under-fed children in and out of school. The capitalist employer who, prompted by sheer “patriotic zeal,” is setting the workers of one country against those of another, has not the least compunction in employing—no doubt also for “patriotic reasons”—women and children of his native country in place of men of native birth. What wonder then, that, as the Blue Books of the Board of Education show, over a million of school children from 5 years upwards are engaged in laborious work in order to augment the earnings of their parents; at least, that is what the Government Inspectors say. The most recent Report of the Board of Education contains the information that of the 5,975,127 children who in 1902-1903 attended the public elementary schools of England and Wales, 937,629 stayed away every day throughout the year. Besides there were in that year 80,758 half-timers. These wretched children rise at five or six in the morning, tramp in all weathers to the factory and work there till noon, by which time their puny emaciated bodies are pretty well exhausted. Regardless of their being absolutely unfit for any brain work they are compelled to attend school in the afternoon. How peculiar that the kind-hearted capitalists should not prefer those half-timers working at the mills in the afternoon, so as to give them the opportunity of attending school in the morning, when their little brains are more fit for work than in the afternoon. But the ways that real kindness of heart pursues are as numerous as they are mysterious.

According to Blue Book statistics there are further about 200,000 children between 5 and 13 years of age who, attending school regularly, work after school hours from 15 to 40 hours per week, that is to say, in all from 45 to 75 hours per week.

Here I must remind you that Mr. Shackleton, M.P., the Chairman of the so-called British section of the recent International Socialist Congress, has until now persistently defended the necessity of child labour.

Comprehending as we do, that the children of the workers are compelled by a Capitalist Government to attend school for the purpose of being trained for their future vocation in life, viz., to be victims of capitalist exploitation, we fully realize that the whole system of education for the workers’ children is based upon the principle of “Little science with reactionary deductions, heaps of superstition encouraging servility.”

It is evident that teachers for the training of capable wage-slaves need not be particularly accomplished. Again, the Blue Book informs us that of the 157,281 teachers engaged in the elementary schools of England and Wales, 86,375 are not even certificated and consist of pupil teachers, probationers and article 68 (any female over 18 years of age, who has been vaccinated). 4,645 teachers are trained in colleges every year. Of 47 colleges, 32 belong to the Church of England, 12 to the Nonconformists and Catholics, and only 3 with 356 scholars are undenominational. It being impossible for the average child of the worker to take up teaching as its calling, owing to the expense and time involved in a course of training, the majority of elementary teachers spring from the lower middle-class, who naturally carry into their work the snobbery, jingoism and reaction so rampant among their class.

As to the school books used, history and science, in fact all subjects, more or less, are interpreted with a view to convincing the prospective toilers of the necessity for the existence of competition, class distinction and the struggle for a paltry sustenance for ever and ever.

Holding, as we of The Socialist Party of Great Britain do, that the social evils produced by Capitalism have reached a stage where peddling reforms enacted by a Capitalist Parliament can only have the effect of retarding working-class emancipation, it is our bounden duty to be up in arms against all those who, posing as champions of working-class interests, help to bolster up the capitalist system by assisting the capitalists in throwing a bone to the under-dog—the proletariat—in order to prevent him from attacking his tormentor—the capitalist-class.

Having existed now over 20 years, the Social-Democratic Federation has in recent years seen fit to abandon the propaganda of Socialism and to devote its energies to promoting “Liberal-Labour” candidatures, to an attempt to solve the unemployed problem under Capitalism by demanding from a Capitalist Government the calling of a special Session of a Capitalist Parliament, and last but not least, to the agitation of “a meal a day for the children in public schools” (I assume it means breakfast). The capitalist-cum-labour “political machine” produces most staggering effects. Here a palliative which, enforced on Socialist lines (the only possible for Socialists), would start the “Social Revolution,” is put into the aforesaid machine and, lo and behold ! out comes a measure : “a meal a day for the children,” promoted by Claude Hay, Sir John Gorst, “The S.D.F. Countess,” and Co., which is received with wild rejoicing by the Social-Democratic Federation, for now at last their few “Labour seats” for Parliament appear absolutely safe. What matters that Socialism once more is dragged into the mire, so long as ambition for place and distinction is satisfied and the capitalist-class has been assisted in gulling the unwary workers.

It was until a year or two ago that the S.D.F. agitated for “Free Maintenance,” which was always interpreted to mean that the children of the workers were to be adequately fed, clothed, and housed with the view to becoming sturdy citizens of a free and happy commonwealth. To-day, this “Reform” organisation stands (see “Justice” of December 17th last) for ”a meal a day,” that is an extension of the Poor Law system, which the capitalist-class is compelled to introduce in view of the growing unemployment among the workers. That a presumably Socialist organisation has, owing to the “distinguished” intervention by a “Knight” and a “Countess” consented to stand sponsor to a “capitalist offspring” is undoubtedly a feather in the cap of the “capitalist-cum-labour” caucus, which exists for arranging the diplomatic relations between capital and labour.

With regard to the prospects of the children of the working-class, we of The Socialist Party of Great Britain have, as respecting all other social evils endured by the toiling-class, no illusions whatever. Fully recognising the rottenness of the entire capitalist system, we regard it as a betrayal of the true interests of the working-class to encourage, let alone assist, any “patching up,” which, after all, only means prolonging the agony.

The capitalist-class will, as we know, only concede what it is impossible to withold from the workers. Hence the assistance by so-called Socialists in the granting of these concessions tends to throw the working-class completely off the path of class antagonism.

So soon as we fully understand that under such conditions and in such surroundings as described above it is impossible to give the child of the worker the scope of a full physical and mental development, we necessarily recognise that all measures promoted to improve present conditions only tend to further delay the advent of the economic freedom of the toiler and to prolong the suffering of his offspring. Surely it is not the business of the Socialist to assist in applying the brake to the wheel of human emancipation. But those would-be Socialists who join hands with the capitalist politicians in procuring a paltry meal for the little standings of the working-class now conveniently ignore the fact that they flatly contradict the deductions they drew in the past from the economic causes and effects presented by the Capitalist System.

If the capitalists make a concession with one hand they recoup themselves with the other. They may provide a little food for the children in school, but as they will on no account suffer a reduction in the amount of their surplus value—seeing that they completely own and control the economic and political power of the State—the wages of the workers will go down and most likely to such degree that the little food the children will obtain at school will probably be all the food they will get. Besides, the class-unconscious workers are sure to take this concession on the part of the capitalist-class as a pure act of grace and not—as in reality it is—an economic necessity, especially when they see that an organisation posing as a Socialist Body has been amiably working with the capitalist to attain that end.

Now, it may be argued that even if the capitalists recoup themselves and the workers and their children consequently do not gain materially, and even become less class-antagonistic, yet the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted and the small concession will lead to full-fledged free maintenance of the children and hence to the Social Revolution. One may as well argue, as the “advanced Reformers” contend, that the workhouse system, if fully taken advantage of by the workers, would eventually abolish poverty, misery, and degradation. In fact, the once revolutionary S.D.F. to-day argues that providing you put a sufficient number of patches on a pair of old boots you will produce a new pair. But in order to be politically successful in the capitalist sense it is impossible to proceed on strictly logical and uncompromising lines.

We may further get reminded that Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto held that it was the duty of the proletariat, while working for the revolution, to endeavour to obtain every amelioration possible for their class. Our reply is that this pronouncement was made over fifty years ago and that since then Capitalism has developed to such an extent that, if Marx and Engels were alive to-day, they would fully agree with us that at the present time there is only one way of obtaining amelioration for the proletariat and that is to usher in the Socialist Republic as quickly as possible.

Further, if amelioration were possible, surely it could not be obtained by joining the capitalists in promoting measures prompted by economic necessity and the desire to stave off the collapse of Capitalism. How amelioration could at all be achieved unless enforced by the antagonism of the class struggle is for a Socialist impossible to comprehend.

It was such men as Marx, Engels, Lassalle and Liebknecht who wrought the enlightenment and knowledge that led to the elevation of Socialism to the powerful science and the political creed of the International proletariat. But apart from the great services these men rendered to mankind, we must not forget the devotion and faithfulness they at all times bore to the suffering proletariat, never flinching, never yielding, although at times bowed down by their own personal suffering, by their own individual misery.

Seeing in their teachings our guide, our refuge, and our hope for human emancipation, endeavouring to emulate their moral strength, their uncompromising revolutionary attitude, we invite all men and women of a similar mind to ours to rally and thus help us to keep aloft our banner: “No Reform, no Compromise—but complete, unconditional surrender of the existing capitalist forces in favour of the free and happy Socialist Republic.”

Hans Neumann

The Dignity of Labour, at Home and Abroad. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the chief complaints of the capitalist-class and its parasites is that the native at home and abroad does not fully appreciate the ”dignity of labour.” It is in vain that so mild and popular a reformer as John Ruskin has pointed out that to labour with the hands all day is degrading, for the capitalist maintains that labour is dignified—if it is performed by someone else.

Labour, manual labour, is good, wholesome, and above all, necessary; but whatever of dignity it may have possessed in the days of handicraft has been lost amidst the whirr of machinery. To labour hour after hour, day after day, year after year, at some mechanical work is wholly degrading, nor can any amount of education awaken the power of thought in minds dulled by the excess of purely mechanical labour.

That useful machine called the worker, whose engine, the mind, is stoked with the rubbish and lies of newspapers and politicians, can work only along the lines laid down for him by the master-class. That, at least, is the intention of the capitalist, and not until the worker realises that his interests are entirely antagonistic to those of his owner will he make any real progress. He will then cease to cry for “work” as the remedy for the evils of unemployment; he will not demand the expulsion of alien labour from England, nor will he work himself into a passion because Chinese labour is introduced into South Africa. He will rather find in all such troubles the natural results of the modern system of production for profit instead of for use.

The South African Labour question is a typical case. The possible employment of white men is not to be considered: the white worker is too apt to demand a fair wage and a vote; he does not realise the dignity of cheap labour; he forms trade unions and other unpleasant societies. The white labour market is already over-stocked and unemployment is rife in South African towns. The question is whether the Kaffir, Indian, or Chinaman is to appreciate the “dignity of labour” in the mines, and the “Bloemfontein Weekly Post” explains why alien labour is necessary. The attitude of the native is the cause of the trouble. To begin with, he is better off than his fellow in England. In our country the English native has no possessions, is divorced from, and not permitted to cultivate, the soil, and is forced, therefore, to sell himself in the labour market for the mere cost of subsistence. In “our” colony, however, the native is allowed to squat on the land, paying little or nothing to the farmer. He can cultivate the soil without becoming the farmer’s servant, and sometimes the farmer even enters into an alliance with the native and they work the land on the “half” system, which is unsparingly condemned by those in want of cheap labour, and who urge that the native should be nothing but a servant.

This custom among many of the farmers has made cheap labour scarce, and the “Bloemfontein Weekly Post” suggests the remedy for this “bad state of things.” It is found that the “dignity of labour” is lost on the native, for “he does not want work, and prefers revelling in the pleasures of sun and shade, and waxing fat on mealies and Kaffir beer.” When we remember how in England the master-class urges the workers to lead this simple, thrifty life, we may well be amused to find the same class falling foul of the native for that very reason, and it shows how little reliance is to be placed in the Christian ethics of capitalism.

So the native’s “life of ease” is a source of annoyance to his would-be employers, and the “Bloemfontein Weekly Post” suggests that the farmers in Orange River Colony—no longer a free state —should be forced to employ the natives as servants or else turn them off their farms, for “the native must work.” “There need be no forcing” says this paper, only he must he taxed so heavily that he is compelled to sell himself and live laborious days in order to exist. In fact, he must occupy the same position in his country as we English workers do in our country. Otherwise, it is suggested, “Indians should be imported on the same system of indenture as is adopted in Natal.” That is to say, if the native cares naught for the “dignity of labour,” he must be compelled to enslave himself or else alien labour must be imported.

It is absurd and useless for the English wage-slave to complain that his masters told him that the Boer War would open up a new market for his labour; it is, and always has been, evident that the capitalist is indifferent whether yellow, white, or black labour is used—cheapest is best. Socialists continually warn the wage-slave that when he fights he is not fighting for the benefit of himself, but of his master. If, instead of crying over spilt milk, he begins to study his own affairs from the point of view of his own class-interests, he will realise that every catch phrase, “dignity of labour,” “glory of England,” etc., is a species of bait to lure him on to his own destruction.

A real “dignity of labour” may be found if belabours for the “glory of England,” and of all other countries, in the ranks of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, for the overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of that Socialist Republic which is the aim and ideal of the International working-class.

Sydney Chase

An die Sozialistische Arbeiterschaft. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Genossen !

Der Socialistischen Partei von Grossbritanien ist vom Sekretaer der britischen Sektion des Amsterdamer Kongresses eine Zuschrift zugegangen, worin unsere Partei unter anderem befragt wird, ob sie geneigt waere, an einer gerneinschaftlichen Beratung teilzunehmen, da beabsichtigt waere, ein Nationales Comité einzusetzen, welches sich mit der Erledigung von Kongress Angelegenheiten beschaeftigen soll. Wir haben uns gegen das Abhalten einer solchen Beratung ausgesprochen, und zwar hauptsaechlich aus dem Grunde, dass nach der Zusammensetzung der britischem Sektion des Amsteidamer Kongresses, auf welchem unsere Partei vertreten war, zu schliessen, das in Vorschlag gebrachte Comité zweifellos aus Personen bestehen wurde, welche in keinem Sinne des Wortes Sozialisten sind. In einen anderen Teile dieses Blattes veroeffentlichen wir die volle hierauf bezflgliche Correspondenz. Wir benutzen diese Gelegenheit, uns betreffs der wichtigen Eroerterungen, welche darin zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, an die Socialistische Arbeiterschaft zu wenden.

Ein sorgfaeltiger, verstaendnissvoller Beobachter der Verhandlungen frueherer Internationaler Kongresse muss die Ueberzeugung gewonnen haben, dass diese Kongresse besonders durch dass unentschiedene Wesen ihrer Organisation gekenntzeithnet waren und dass demzufolge nochjetzt viel Verwirrung hinsichtlich der wahren Absichten der auf diesen Kongressen gefassten Beschluesse besteht.

Man muss wohl gestehen, dass bei Internationalen Kongressen gewisse Gefahren und Schwierigkeiten unabwendbar sind, doch behaupten wir, dass die von uns erwaehnten bedauernswerten Resultate im grossen Masse dem Umstande zuzufuehren sind, dass an diesen Kongressen Koerperschaften und Personen teilnehmen, welche weder dass Wissen noch die Berechtigung besitzen, die Interessen des Proletariats zu vertreten.

Die Socialistische Partei von Grossbritanien wird in dieser Ueberzeugung durch hier wohl bekannte Tatsachen bestaerkt, Tatsachen, welche die Prinzipien vieler Teilnehmer am Amsterdamer Kongresse deutlich an den Tag legen. Unsere Delegirten auf diesem Kongresse sahen zu ihrem Leidwesen, dass Körperschaften wie die Independent Labour Party, das Labour Representation Committee, die Social-Democratic Federation und die Fabian Society als Sozialistische Vereinigungen Einlass zum Kongresse begehrten und fanden.

Und daher kam es, dass Beschuetzer des Kapitalismus, Verteidiger der Kindersklaverei, Freunde der Verstaendigungs-und Reformpolitik und Werkzeuge der Bourgeois Reaktion im Allgemeinen sich als Revolutionaere aufspielten, den Namen und das Ideal des Sozialismus schaendeten und die arbeitende Klasse in ihren Anschauungen betreffs der wichtigsten Fragen in elender Weise verwirrten.

Die Independent Labour Party und die Social-Democratic Federation lassen sich beide herbei, Vertretern der kapitalistischen Klasse Huelfe zu leisten; die Fuehrer der Independent Labour Party nehmen in ihrem offiziellen Organe entschieden gegen den Klassenkampf Stellung, waehrend die Social-Democratic Federation in ihrem Organe “Justice” sich deutlich dahin ausspricht, dass es Gelegenheiten gaebe, bei welchen das Bestehen des Klassenkampfes zum Vorteile des Emanzipation erstrebenden Proletariats vergessen werden duerfe. Die Fabian Society ist keine Vereinigung der arbeitenden Klasse und erstrebt in der Tat nur den Staats-Kapitalismus. Das Labour Representation Committee ist nichts anderes als der linke Fluegel der Liberalen Partei und weigert sich, Sozialistische Kandidaten anzuerkennen.

Die Sozialistische Partei von Grossbritanien weist daher die Aufforderung zurueck, an das Proletariat Verrat zu ueben und sich selbst zu entkraeftigen, dadurch dass sie sich an der in Vorschlag gebrachten Beratung beteiligt, weil sie durch solche Teilnahme den besagten Koerperschaften das Recht zugestehen wuerde sich mit der Durchfuehrung der Beschluesse des Kongresses, welcher die Interressen des Internationalen Proletariats vertritt, zu beschaeftigen.

In der Absicht dahin zu wirken, dass den kuenftigen Internationalen Kongressen eine entschieden Sozialistische Richtung und Basis gegeben wird und dass jeder wahren Sozialistischen Partei die gebuehrende verhaeltnissmaessige Vertretung auf solshen Kongressen gesichert wird, hat die Sozialistische Partei von Grossbritanien beschlossen, dem Internationalen Bureau und den Sozialistischen Parteien, welche sich demselben angeschlossen haben, eine Vorlage zu unterbreiten in der Erwartung dass fuer die Zukunft soweit als moeglich Massnahmen getroffen werden, welche die bestehende Verwirrung aus der Welt schaffen und der internationalen Arbeiterbewegung eine einheitliche und revolutionaere Richtung verleihen werden.

DER VORSTAND

Der Sozialistischen Partei von Grossbritanien.

London, Januar, 1905.

SPGB Lectures. (1905)

Party News from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The SPGB for most of its history has been skint, and it was especially skint in its early days, so it was a bit of a big deal to have indoor meetings. Indoor meetings cost money. Money that they did not have.

The Law-Loving Capitalist. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "Hardly any infringement of the Factory Acts is more difficult to discover or proceed against than the employment of a woman within four weeks of her confinement, chiefly owing to the burden of proof resting with the inspector as to the employer's knowledge of the facts. Although we have good reason to believe that such employment occurs frequently in certain districts, only one clear case, namely, this one, has yet occurred within our knowledge as suitable for proceedings, and in this case it was owing to the fact that the woman was sent for by the foreman, who was pressed for workers, on the ninth day after her confinement, although he had been informed of the reason of her absence on the day she left the mill. This unfortunate woman, although she made some attempt to screen her employers when called as a witness by Miss Squire (the factory inspector), was nevertheless dismissed from her employment after the result of the case (conviction and small penalty) was known. She obtained employment from one of the magistrates who heard her case soon afterwards, and thus removed her personal difficulties; it would do little or nothing, however, to counteract the effect on the workers' minds of the conduct of the employer, who, by dismissing her, showed his contempt for the law and the kind of course he was likely to pursue with any worker who admitted facts as to infringements of the law to one of H.M. Inspectors."—Extract from Annual Report of Inspectors of Factories.

The Social Problem and Its Solution by Jules Guesde (1905)

Jules Guesde

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

I—Problem

The problem that Socialism sets itself to solve is to be found in a fact, of which it can be said as of the sun: he is blind who does not see it. It is the divorce between the means of production and the producers.

Neither are the mines in the hands of the workers underground who give them value at the daily peril of their lives; nor do the railroads belong to those who have been called the slaves of the iron-way; nor do the weavers who work the looms, the spinners who toil at the spinning machine, the smiths of the blast furnaces, etc, possess the smallest title to call their own that which they create and which occupies the greater and best portion of their lives—lives spent in barriers and useless sacrifice; and, the economic development of Society tends to generalise this state of things by destroying naturally and necessarily the small industries, founded on the ownership of the means of production by the producer.

Next to industry, properly so-called, we find commerce and agriculture, on the expropriation of the little tradesman and peasant proprietor, organised on a large scale and monopolised by the non-producers.

Labour is, on the one hand, more and more furnished by a class; Property or Capital, on the other, held and controlled by another class. Here you have workers without property—the proletariat. There you have property without work—or capital.

It is this separation between the two factors of production which produces all the evils, all the disorders which afflict not only wage-workers but Society as a whole.

The workers without property are excluded from their products, from the riches they create—which accumulate in the hands of the property holders, capitalists and large land-owners.

Labour, which is inseparable from the workman, is in effect nothing more than a commodity—like old bags, bicycles, bones or biscuits—submitted to the laws which rule the prices of commodities and drag it down through the ups and downs of supply and demand to the mere expenses of living and reproduction of the species—food and maintenance; and, these expenses tend constantly to further reduction, because, to derive an advantage from the markets, capitalists, whatever their personal sentiment—had they the heart of a Saint Vincent de Paul or a Louise Michel—are obliged to reduce to a minimum their net cost which includes all labour, material and mental.

There is then a universal and forced tendency to reduce to the lowest the workers’ wages, and this law is sufficient to crush all the best intentions of employers, prisoners of the social order, by which, however, they benefit.

Another cause by virtue of which wages cannot rise—whatever may be the productivity of human labour—above the immediate wants of the working class is that the supply of labourers tends ever more and more to outrun the demand.

The increase of supply results from the forcing into the ranks of the proletariat of the expropriated small industries, little tradesmen, shopkeepers, all reduced, in their turn, to selling their power of doing work—their labour-power—in order to eat.

The decrease in the demand for labour results from the introduction of machinery and its extension. The non-human labour power (steam, electricity, etc) replaces and renders more and more useless human labour power. Here is what we call progress in the economic system: the never ceasing reduction of the sum of labour necessary to a given production.

The economists pretend, it is true, that this reduction in the field of human labour-power (the only means of existence of a class) is but temporary. Following a better market, the produce, more in demand, would bring in its train an increasing flow of production and a new demand for labour-power. But the economists might just as well say that the mechanical manufacture of coffins would multiply the need for coffins. Is not the mechanical production of bottles and casks dependent on the production of wine, beer, etc., and is not the output of rails or boilers limited by the number of factories and the development of the means of communication? On the other hand, neither the agricultural machinery (steam ploughs, sowers, mowers, binders and thrashers) nor the cranes on the quays multiply the products; they simply displace manual labour. But even in the industries where the machine has resulted in an extraordinary increase of manufactured articles, the demand for labour has diminished. Example: The cotton industry in England, in which the productivity has increased 1231 per cent from 1819-22 to 1880-82, while for the same period the number of those employed fell from 1/37th of the population (445,000 out of a population of 16,500,000) to 1/50th (686,000 out of a population of 34,000,000). Another example: The boot and shoe trade of the United States carried from 70 million pairs in 1845 to 448 millions in 1875, while the workers employed have fallen from 1/414 (45,900 out of 19 millions population) to 1/1145th (48,000 out of 55 millions).

Under the system of non-possession of the working class of the instruments with which they work, all progress, no matter what its nature, is turned against them, making greater their misery, their slavery; accentuating the insecurity of their existence; in a word: making unavoidable their exploitation – their robbery.

I spoke just now of the machine. Can it be possible that it could not have released suffering humanity from over-toil, troubles; could not have given us liberty? On the contrary, it has aggravated man’s hard labour by setting up in competition with him women, transformed into toilers, and children. From the very moment that it permitted the employment of feminine and infantile arms, it was necessary that the woman should enter the factory, leaving behind her health, her dignity; compromising even the very race itself, attacked by the foul virus of capitalism while yet a foetus in its mother’s womb. The effect of this competition let loose between the different members of the worker’s family has been still a further lowering of labour. Thus the legend of the well-being of the family enforced by more bread-winners does not hold good even before a Jules Simon. When the woman and the child were not industrialised, the wages of the husband had to suffice for the maintenance of all. To-day, for the same price which the single labour-power of the man was bought, the employer buys the threefold labour-power of the man, the woman, and the child.

The discovery of gas, this creation of human industry, of a midnight sun to prolong and complete that of day, has not been less fatal than the machine for the working-class. It has given place to night work; the slaughter-house of the night.

And the instruction that is being extended – and which we are the first to applaud as a new element for the destruction of existing Society – what consequences do you think it is going to introduce for the proletariat as long as this Society exists? In perfecting the human tool, which produces more and better, it will create new stoppages, longer slack seasons. One instructed workman will be sufficient where formerly two ignorant workmen were necessary — and occupied.

We hear “profit sharing” much spoken of as a remedy to heal all social sores, to reconcile labour and capital. If the cure were applicable, profit sharing would only remove the field of battle to a conflict over the profits to be shared. But without insisting on this point, in urging the worker to produce the most possible, it would only oblige him to do in two days the work of three, concluding consequently in the multiplication of the already too numerous days of no pay or stoppages. From the hell in which the dispossessed productive class struggles and writhes there is no redemption – “abandon all hope ye who enter here!”

The social consequences of the rupture, ever more complete, between labour and capital are no less terrible. First, we have the struggle of all against all.

It is the fashion amongst the adversaries of Socialism—through ignorance or enmity—to charge us with fomenting the class war. Just as though we had invented it! We do nothing but state it and make it serve, which is better, to its own ends. We know that the first condition which imposes itself on a doctor who is called to combat a disease is to examine it in order to understand it. It is not by shutting our eyes to the war which divides and exhausts humanity that we shall arrive at the desired peace. The war of every moment is threefold:

War between the proletariat and the capitalist for their respective shares in the produce; on one side, wages, on the other, profits; each side exerting itself to carry off a maximum. Man becomes a wolf for his fellow-man. It is a question of eating one’s brother or being eaten by him.

War between workers and workers for the sharing of wages.

War between capitalists and capitalists for the sharing of profits.

On the other hand, all the marvels of human genius, all the conquests over nature, of which I have pointed out already the homicidal results to the working-class, do not strike less mortally at the other classes of Society. The colours of aniline, coal extracts, so extensively used in the dyeing industry, have ruined whole districts which lived on the cultivation of the madder root formerly employed in this industry before the discovery of chemical dyes. Tomorrow, as has been recently foreshadowed, means may be discovered for the direct manufacture by electricity of metal-castings, and then the blast-furnaces, their fires extinguished, will leave to the millionaire of yesterday nothing but eyes to weep. All discoveries are condemned to operate only through revolutions, leaving behind them victims by the million, at the top as well as at the bottom of the social ladder.

It is, according to the admirable expression found in the programme of the German Social-Democracy: General insecurity becomes the normal condition of society.

What shall we say, in conclusion, of the overproduction which goes on increasing and multiplying and which nothing can stop? When industry was yet confined to one or two countries, in order to reduce the frequency of these crises born of the ever growing division between the unbounded productivity of human labour and the limit put to the reward of the workers, outlets were furnished by exportation to those parts of Europe remaining agricultural (Italy, Germany, etc.). To-day, having become in their turn industrial, these same nations are confronted with over-production, and Africa and Asia are “opened up”– civilized – to supply markets for this too great store of commodities. Here you have an explanation also of the crimes of Colonial policy, Colonial wars, etc. which are the order of the day with Capitalist Governments. But after? They will only have stepped back in order to jump the better.

Thus more and more has Capitalist Society proved its horrible failure to produce anything from a superabundance of riches; of means of consumption and happiness, but misery, suffering, ruin and death!

Translated from the French of  Jules Guesde by P. J. Tobin

Link To Part 2

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Extract from a speech by Mr. R. T. Manson, delivered at the Liverpool Church Congress, Oct 5th, 1904.

(From the official report, p. 249.)

---------------

And now it is pertinent to ask: What part are the clergy playing in this gruesome drama? The severest critic should not deny the numerous kindly offices in smaller matters which they constantly perform, all should unite in crediting the rectory and the vicarage with being the centres to which the weary and heavy-laden instinctively turn, there to receive not only the creature comforts of an hour, but consolations in the sorrows and assuagings of the griefs against which no material wealth is a barrier, nor robust health a guard. Of almsgiving and charity organisations there is no end, but the roots of the evil are too deep to permit of charity being a cure. There would be little need for charity if all had justice. The wealth of the mansion is the product of the dweller in the cottage, and the labourer is not only worthy of his hire but of all that he earns, and if that were paid to him there would be nought left for the landlord, and no occasion for the dole.

It is imperative, therefore, that it be asked in this assembly: Are the clergy on the side of the poor and lowly against the mighty and the rich ? Do they advocate as they should the causes of the people who cry for better houses, and better wages, and better opportunities of living Christian and moral lives? Do they preach contentment to those who are wronged, and who should not be content? Is mediation sufficient where the disputants are so unequal as are the toiler of the hut and the lord of the castle ? Do they palliate evils which they might assist to destroy, or condone with the wealth-getting which they should denounce ? How many have the temerity to reprove a rich parishioner who has treated his labourer badly, as he would reprove the labourer who has served his master badly? The present social and commercial system would not allow of the interference, and willing martyrs are none too common; and so we have to face the question : Is that system based on justice and right ? Is it moral and Christian that one man should seek toilsomely a bare, miserable subsistence, while another enjoys, with never an effort to produce it, extremest luxury ? If it be not right, let us seek a peaceful and constitutional remedy.

In every country in the world today there is rapidly growing a movement consisting of those who say that production should be for use and not for profit; that it is competition and the absence of mutual interests which make the millionaire on the one hand and the thousands of casual labourers on the other; that it is possible and desirable to abolish both by the introduction of national co-operation ; and by the placing of all industries under governmental control. For if it be worthy of the attention of great departments of state to devote their abilities to the organising of armies and navies or post-offices, how much more desirable is it that similarly powerful departments of state should direct and control the unceasing and imperative production and distribution of the necessaries of life ? With the national control of labour, every able man would be sure of the opportunity of being employed, and those who were not employed would be known to be by nature and inclination idlers.

And that system will surely come when the people have been taught to say "We will it;" and in that time the Churches and the teachers may work with more hope of fulfilling their exalted mission, and prepare the world for that more ideal time, when it shall be said in the newer England, as it was to those old-time casual labourers in distant Gallilee, We "will give unto this last, even as unto thee."

Support The Socialist Party. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Smart. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class struggle having been satisfactorily disposed of by Messrs. Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier who have now proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the interests of the capitalist-class and the working-class are (more or less) identical and cannot by any chance breed conflict (except now and again), Mr. Russell Smart also of the I.L.P., not to be outdone, rushes into print to show how very easy of solution the unemployed problem really is when tackled by a member of the "practical" school of political economy. All that is required is to round up the existing unemployed and put them back to work on the land. As the machine in the factory turns out more, put them, back on the land also. When they have acquired that degree of efficiency necessary to enable them to enter into effective competition with the established agricultural worker, then take the men displaced and put them back on the land! Put. 'em all back! and then the problem will be solved and everybody will have work, and there shall be no more sighing and all tears shall be wiped away ! It is all so simple that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not make a mistake. No wonder Russell Smart raises an indignant voice of protest against the absurdity of the contention of illogical, irresponsible, not to say ill-informed Socialists who with purblind fatuity hold that nothing short of Socialism will dispose of the problem adequately and finally. They are bringing discredit upon the movement. They have forgotten "the land." They talk as if the capitalist system were based upon profit; as if profits were affected by the existence or otherwise of a surplus of labour on the market; as if the elimination of competition for work would mean the diminution, of profit; whereas it is well known that the very reverse is the case. It is well known that the capitalist system is not concerned with profit; that if it were the profit has no relation to the amount of competition for work; that as a matter of actual fact if the demand for labour were greater than the available supply—if, for example, there were 2 jobs for every one man—if the profits were affected at all they would he greater for the simple reason that worker, seeing the difficulty of the capitalist to get the work covered ; knowing that if the work was not done there could be no return on the capital, which would mean that the capitalist would commence to consume his reserve of wealth and would presently be entirely without means; knowing further that Capital and Labour are brothers (vide Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier): knowing all this the worker would, for the good of trade, the glory of the flag, and the honour of the empire, gladly enough do the work of two men for the price of one (or one and a half), finding sufficient happiness in the unwonted possession of plenty of work to recompense him for all the extra expenditure of energy involved.

Obviously, therefore, the extremists who hold that unemployment is inevitable under capitalism are quite out of court in the eyes of all practical and fair-minded men. Luckily, they (the extremists, not the practical and fair-minded) are but few, otherwise it would be necessary to take steps to combat their imbecile heresies.

A. J. M. Gray

Correspondence. (1905)

Party News from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Correspondence between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Secretary to the British Section at Amsterdam Congress, 1904.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

40, Outer Temple, Strand, London, W.C. 

Nov., 1904. 

C. Lehane,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

107, Charlotte St., London, W.

Dear Comrade,

In accordance with the decision of the British Section at the International Socialist Congress at Amsterdam, I am sending you herewith a precis of the minutes of the Section, signed by the Chairman and myself.

I shall be glad if you will bring the same before your organisation, and take the opinion of its members on the following questions arising thereout:—

1.—Are you in favour of a Conference being held with a view to the formation of a National Committee to deal with matters arising out of the Congress ?

2.—Are you in favour of the rules for the conduct of business at future Congresses as proposed by Mr. John Hodge and agreed to by the British Section ?

3.—Will you contribute annually to the funds of the International Socialist Bureau at Brussels, which consists of representatives of the various nationalities taking part in the Congress, and takes what action may seem necessary in the name of international socialism, including the organisation of the International Congresses? 

Hoping to receive favourable replies to these questions at an early date.

I am, yours fraternally

(signed) J. F. Green. 

(Secretary to British Section at Amsterdam Congress, 1904.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

Central Office

Communist Club, 

107, Charlotte Street,

Fitzroy Square,

London, W.

Jan.3, 1905

J.F. Green

(Secretary to British Section at Amsterdam Congress, 1904.)

40, Outer Temple, Strand, W.C.

Comrade,

Your communication, covering precis of the minutes of the British Section at Amsterdam Congress 1904, has been received, and in reply I am instructed to state —

l. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is not in favour of holding the proposed conference, and will decline to take part therein if held. As the International Congress is presumably a Socialist Congress, the matters arising from out its decisions should be the task of the Socialist Party existing in the various countries to deal with. Judging from the composition of the British Section, according to the precis of the minutes you sent, the Committee that apparently you propose would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialist. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, cannot see that any good purpose would be served by a Committee of men who are not agreed on basic principles tampering with these matters.

2. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is not in favour of the rules for the conduct of business at future Congresses as proposed by Mr. John Hodge as it fails to see that any improvement would result from their adoption. 

3.—The Socialist Party of Great Britain is, of course, perfectly willing to bear its fair share of the expenses of international organisation, but considers that it should communicate direct with the International Socialist Bureau regarding this matter. 

I am, 

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane, 

General Secretary.

Quotes. (1905)

Quotes from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Early issues of the Socialist Standard would be peppered with brief quotes which would serve as inspirational, informative and, most importantly, as space fillers. Here are the quotes from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard:

The object of true education is not merely to make people do the right things, but enjoy the right things; not merely pure but to love purity; not merely just, but to hunger and thirst after justice.  — Goethe.

In the huge mass of evil, as it rolls and swells, there is ever some Good working imprisoned; working towards deliverance and triumph.  — T. Carlyle. "French Revolution."

The plain message physical science has for the world at large is this, that were our political and social and moral devices only as well contrived to their ends as a linotype machine, an antiseptic operating plant, or an electric tramcar, there need now at the present moment be no appreciable toil in the world, and only the smallest fraction of the pain, the fear, and the anxiety that now make human life so doubtful in its value. There is more than enough for everyone alive. Science stands, a too competent servant, behind her wrangling, underbred masters, holding out resources, devices, an remedies they are too stupid to use.  — H. G. Wells in "Fortnightly" for December.

To the Socialist Working-Class. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has received a communication from the Secretary of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, asking, among other things, whether the Party favoured the holding of a Conference with a view to forming in England a National Committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress. We have declined to take part in any such Conference on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that judging by the composition of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, at which the Party was represented, the proposed Committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialist. Elsewhere in this number we publish the correspondence at length, and take the opportunity of addressing the Socialist working-class concerning the grave issues therein raised. To those who have followed intelligently the deliberations of past International Congresses, it is apparent that these Assemblies have been characterised by a lack of definiteness in their organisation with the result that considerable confusion still exists as to the real nature of the decisions arrived at.

It is of course true that certain dangers and difficulties are inseparable from International Congresses, but we contend that these regrettable results are in a great measure due to the participation in them of organisations and men possessing neither the knowledge nor the right to voice the cause of the working-class.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is strengthened in this opinion by facts well known here which show clearly the principles animating many who took part in the recent Congress at Amsterdam. Our delegates thereto found such organisations as the Independent Labour Party, the Labour Representation Committee, the Social-Democratic Federation, and the Fabian Society claiming and obtaining admission as Socialist organisations. Thus were seen the defenders of Capitalism, the upholders of Child-slavery, the friends of Compromise and Reform, and the cats paw of the Bourgeois reaction generally, masquerading as Revolutionists, prostituting the name and spirit of Socialism, and confusing the workers on questions of vital importance.

The I.L.P. and S.D.F. both support representatives of the Capitalist Class in the political field. The I.L.P. in its official organ definitely repudiate the class-war, while it is admitted in "Justice" by the S.D.F, that there are occasions when the existence of the struggle maybe forgotten with advantage by the workers for the emancipation of their class. The Fabian Society is not a working-class organisation and stands for State Capitalism. The L.R.C. is but the left wing of the Liberal Party and declines to recognise any Socialist Candidate.

The S.P.G.B. declines, therefore, to betray the working-class or to stultify itself by taking part in the proposed Conference when to do so would be to admit the right of those organisations to deal with the findings of the Congress of the International Socialist working-class.

With the object of placing future International Congresses on a definite Socialist, basis, and securing proper and proportionate representation of all bona fide Socialist Parties thereat, the S.P.G.B. is preparing a memorandum for the consideration of the International Bureau and the Socialist Parties affiliated in the hope that measures will be adopted to as far as possible prevent the recurrence of past confusions and place the working-class of the world on a united and revolutionary platform.

The Executive Committee,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

London, January, 1905.