Editorial: Lloyd George on Pledges. (1916)

Editorial from the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent wriggling of the War Minister on the subject of pledges was rather amusing to those who do not take life, even in these serious times, too seriously. He told us (according to the “Daily Chronicle,” Oct. 25th.) that : “He did not mind saying that if the pledge had been given he thought the first consideration was the exigencies of the war” and talked about giving “a rational interpretation of the pledge.” These are very statesmanlike utterances ; for statesmanship, after all, is simply the art of using the State in the interest of the class whose instrument it is, without consideration for anything but that one end.

However, cunning as the wriggle is, it is in effect an admission that a capitalist politician’s pledge is nothing when it has served its purpose. For if those pledges are to be revised and “interpreted” in the light of their needs—and this is exactly what Lloyd George’s statement amounts to—then the pledge is nothing but a lie and a trick to defraud its victims into acquiescing in action detrimental to their interests, which they might otherwise oppose.

How closely this “interpretation” of Lloyd George’s statement fits the case is easily seen by simply reviewing the lengthy series of pledges By means of which the workers have been pledged into the Army. The “widow’s son” pledge, the “one man business” pledge, the “conscientious objector” pledge, are a few in the list of “unredeemed pledges” which occur to the mind. Even more glaring cases can be found. The Registration Bill was passed under the pledge that it was not to be used for the purpose of conscription, yet upon what other register has conscription been carried into effect ? The support of the married was obtained for conscription for the single by means of Asquith’s pledge that not while he held his office would conscription be extended—the married have reaped what they sowed, but Asquith is still busy pawning his conscience.

The part played by pledges in breaking down working-class resistance to capitalist encroachments, in industrial matters no less than in military, is destined to take an important place among the agents of working-class enlightenment, and we thank Mr. Lloyd George for his statement that capitalist politicians’ pledges are of the pie-crust order—given for the purpose of securing certain ends, but subject a “radical interpretation” to meet capitalist needs. We shall find it useful in the fight that is to come.

Detestable years. (1916)

From the November 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Earth is sick

And heaven is weary of the hollow words

Which states and kingdoms utter when they talk

Of truth and justice.

—Wordsworth.

The rough, black years tower over the nations and no man can escape their might. Whatever our work or inclinations we cannot be free of the net of this war. The old man shut in his house is caught in the mesh, just as the young man who battles for a noble cause in public. Old occupations are away, old impulses are put to sleep, old schemes, wishes are battered and injured ; good sentiments are rare and broken. Malice, fraud, cruelty and ambition are feeding fat, while misery follows misery close as thunder clouds when there’s rain and lightning,

Yet it seemed as though the transition from quietness to bloodiness was only a matter of hours. It seemed scarcely an hour before this shadow fell on Europe that the lands were sparkling with new hopes : from end to end of this kingdom the workers listened in contentment to the sweetness of the parliamentarians, to the masses of clerics, and to the sovereign officials of trade unions. For there had come a leader among men, one above all, one with a gentle, sorrow-sodden heart in which he kept ancestral Celtic fire. I have heard that he was a Welshman. We were told that every fibre of his body thrilled with the misery of the poor, whose mourning was as an everlasting dirge in his sympathetic ear ; we learned that a sweeter heart, more in unison with the poor, never beat in old England. Over the land there was hope, and, despite the fact that his Celtic wit looked stale and cold in print, that acres of corn were too largely introduced into his speeches, that there was a superabundance of stars and too many unnecessary rainbows in his answers to questions, he must be given credit for a most astonishing thing. It is this. Although on the introduction of his Health Insurance Bill the vast bulk of the heavenly angels were indifferent to it, he did manage to interest in his proposals one Angel of Light with a less stern heart than his or his companions in Paradise. Forthwith this celestial spirit, on the invitation of the Cabinet Minister, arrived on a sudden at Kings X, incognito, and was about to start on a tour of the slums, when the world shook in the fever of war and the traffic in metals and men started. Ever since the election of the Liberals we had awaited the coming of this luminous visitor, so it was a pity that, when the diplomats let slip the dogs of war and the clownish thwacking of the drums commenced, the burning guest should spend the night, among old friends, in a rent-collector’s office. The angel’s host, the gentle Welshman, has become War Minister.

The war seemed to happen in a moment of noble indignation against the crimes of Germany. It seemed so, yet it was not so. Long before the war’s outbreak stealthy preparations were being made for the carrying on of the war with Competitor Germany. The first thing to be done was to inspire the people with confidence in the politicians. So certain gentry were boomed and praised in all ways so they might use their inflated prestige, on behalf of the masters, during any crisis. Principally through the means of sneaking newspapers virtuous reputations were gained, and are at this moment proving of value to the capitalists. It would seem that so long as a man is a reactionary with influence it does not matter what his other characteristics are. If he is ignorant then he is named sound and democratic ; witness Will Thorne. If he is cruel and unflinching then he is praised as unbending in the people’s cause ; witness Kitchener. If he is a chatterer then he is an orator ; witness the Welshman. If he is silent then it is the quietness of strength ; witness the Prime Minister. With several newspapers at his back, with a thousand lies ready at hand, the most foggy idiot, the worst shivering coward may gain a reputation for soberness, dignity, wisdom, truth, and courage.

The virtues of the hierarchy having been, planted, nourished, and a false impression of them established in the minds of the people, the politicians could turn their attention to other items of preparation. Before this war the Socialist enlightened the workers as to the worst which capitalism can do. It was not the worst to deal you out shillings from the pounds you earned, or to defraud you in the workshop or domineer over you there, or to tire your body, or to exhaust your brain. The level of life was bad but the level of life was not the worst. While you took your shillings contentedly, and derided the Socialist for fighting phantoms of evil of his own creation, other forces were sleeplessly and silently working towards this volcanic carnage on the Continent. Middling folk with power were forming treaty on treaty which have now contributed to this wreck of the nations, this modern mockery of civilisation. The worst Russians were unearthed to do vile business abroad, the most sugary Japanese too. Greedy eyes were wandering over the mines of the world : they were listed in secret catalogues. Constantinople has been secretly valued ; the riches of Morocco have been estimated ; Albania and Montenegro figure in the hidden sheets ; the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine are totalled in the chronicles ; Finland and Persia have wealth which cannot be overlooked by the avaricious. There are diamonds here, salt there, mines elsewhere. Ports, coasts, mountains, rivers and valleys of value to the masters of one land are exploited, guarded, and locked by the ships and guns of alien authorities. All the lands concerned in this war were filled with growth and rush, avarice, hate, and rotting commodities. That is the natural result of the principles of competition in modern societies, and they are the reasons for the present clash of arms. All this chatter of liberty and honour, of which we are sick, is like fat wrapped over the old skeleton of profit.

Each of the fighting nations prepared for the inevitable conflict by a combination of forces similar to that of England’s. Each erected barriers of soldiers and floated nets of ships, and in each country the workers have been cunningly engulfed to effect an interchange of vineyards and mines, cities and seas, which will in no way change their condition of wage slavery.

These then were the martial circumstances and commercial facts with which the war opened. During the early days of the campaign we might have expected that the avarice of the masters would have been redeemed by some show of skill, and their scoundrelism equalled by their judgment. It was not so. They were bigoted in their ideas and stuck to their hum-drum, traditions. In the more noble occupations of life men of genius are not trammelled by tradition. Shakespeare disregarded almost all the laws of Athenian Drama and sang his own mighty plays to perfection. In France, rough Francois Millet was unworried by any remembrance of the smooth Italian Primitives. Walt Whitman was not troubled in his mind over the metres of the past poets. Neither is the Socialist to-day deceived by the conclusions of Ricardo, or Mill, or Ruskin. In all such work vast ideas, find new vast expression. It is always so with true genius. It has not been so with the main men in this war, for they have not even the evil spark of military genius, but are prompted, solely by ambition, which mimics talent and is separable from it. Their strategy has been as befogged as their motives are villainous. It is sufficient for such contemptible folk that the Sea of Mamora is held by the opposition forces, that its waters lead to the rich markets of Constantinople, in order to send hostile vessels into it. The peaks and dells of Gallipoli are similarly owned so they must be scaled and stormed. Every effort where prudence was needed has been marked by stupidity ; every hostility where, from their point of view, vigour was required has been marked by idleness and waste.

None of our eyes are closed to the terrible things around us and yet we remain hopeful. We proceed with our work and hope in it. The masters may imprison and murder our comrades but they can never destroy our principles ; for the principles of Socialism are not the fruit of our lives but are the fruit of those forces of capitalism to which they are eternally opposed. No matter how many of our comrades are shot, no matter how many Welshmen speak, no matter how many wars are waged, our principles remain indestructible. For the Socialist at least, then, despair does not exist apart from hope ; though suffering is here it is not separated from joy. For the Socialist there is one hope, one joy, and one annihilation. None of us will suffer a miserable death till our immortal principles are dragged to an impossible grave. Meanwhile we look with hope and joy to the time when the workers will acknowledge and establish the principles of Socialism ; to the time when nation on nation will be rescued from the littleness of nationalism ; to the time when manliness, womanliness and brotherhood will develop and this painful wilderness of war, of cold faiths, and watery charities be destroyed. Then every waggon which knits the hamlets together will carry other messages than those of sadness ; every centre of throbbing looms, every acre of corn, every accumulation of houses, will help in our fight against cold and hunger. We shall be free of the profiteers, so every ship which sails will elsewhere deliver happiness, while each new ship which visits us will deepen our wealth. These, then, are some of the beauties and benefits of international co-operation, upon which we look and know well. Yet the deeper we penetrate into our philosophy the more the loveliness of our prospect increases. What we know of Socialism is worthy of our life-long devotion, but depending from such principles of Liberty must be great comradeship and calm which we know not of, of which we may sit and dream, and before which the visions of Bunyan seem garish and Milton’s golden dreams grow pale.

H. M. M.

Ninepence for Fourpence. (1912)

From the October 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Everyone does not appreciate deep economic arguments, but every workman can appreciate between getting 9d. and 4d.”

Thus spake Mr. Lloyd George—beg pardon, Lord Limehouse, the (rare and refreshing) fruit merchant, addressing a “Labour” deputation on June 20, 1911.

Mr. McKenna, not to be outdone by the load-line raiser, said : “The fundamental fact is that the workman contributes 4d. and gets 9d.”

* * *

 

You are to get 9d. But turn from the official report of the aforementioned deputation (Cd. 5869.) to leaflet 2393 of the National Liberal Federation, which says :—

“Of course, this does not mean that for every 4d. paid the insured person always gets 9d. Back.”

I hope every workman “can appreciate” that. You get 9d.—but not always. A kind of three card trick. Find, the 9d. among Lloyd George’s knaves.

* * *

 

It isn’t an employers’ Bill, oh, no ! Look, however, at Lloyd George’s speech to the deputation from the Chambers of Commerce (30.6.11), introduced by Lord Brassey :—

“Under the Compensation Act the workmen malinger at the expense of the employer, but under this Bill they will malinger at their own expense. If a man malingers he cannot draw more money from the State, he cannot draw more from the employer. He will have to find the deficiency out of his own pocket.” (Same report.)

* * *

 

“That is a very important point for the protection of the employer which I am surprised you have overlooked. … I quite agree with Mr. Parkes [Tory M.P. for Birmingham] that the doctor is perhaps the most important and essential person in this connection, and it is also very important that he should be put in an independent position, and that is why, as far as I am concerned, I should be very glad if the House of Commons took the responsibility of placing the doctors under the local Health Committees, because, after all, the local Health Committees will be independent bodies. I have no doubt there will be employers there because there are far more employers than workmen on the county councils of the country ; the proportion of workmen is not very high.”

The workmen cannot malinger—Lloyd George has seen to that. But what about the employers ? Ever heard of masters malingering, David ? Announce that grouse shooting commences on August 12th and see how they run ! The Liberals won’t stop them malingering. A lot depends upon the doctor, says David. Workingmen with experience of the London County Council doctor in compensation cases, for instance, will agree with him. Therefore Lloyd George urged employers to get upon the Councils “because membership of the Council means lower rates.” And he went on, “he would, if he gave the benefit of his business administration to the local authority, cut down the rates and lighten enormously the charges which fell upon himself.”

To a “Labour” deputation the Chancellor preaches one tale, but to this deputation from the employers and merchants he preaches another. Listen to this :—

“I would invite the attention of employers to the way in which, we have framed this Bill, because it is framed in a way to completely protect them.” (Cd. 5869.)

This appeal to Property is equal to the one in the National Liberal Federation’s leaflet (No. 2422), which says of the employer :—

“He will be repaid partly in the increased efficiency of his workers. In good health and with a mind freed from financial worry, a man will do better work though working no harder than now. Then, again, men will be saved from the workhouse and the relieving officer, and so tho employer will have less to pay in Poor Rates.”

The “Manchester Evening News” (Liberal) of 7.8.12 reported the Clerk to the South Manchester Guardians thus :—

“The National Insurance Act will do more to prevent and eventually to eradicate pauperism than all the Poor Law Acts on the Statute Book.”

Being notified of this Mr. Lloyd George wrote:—

“I have always felt confident that its operation must have the effect of relieving the rates. . . . I was informed the other day by the Local Government Board that consumption alone costs the rates about a million and a half per annum. . . . Mr. Bloomfield is therefore perfectly right in assuming that the operation of this Act must necessarily have the direct effect of relieving taxpayers of a large proportion of the burdens which sickness now casts on their shoulders. . . . The maintenance provided in days of sickness by the Insurance Act and the institutions set up and subsidised out of its funds will be offered to the workingman as substitutes for the workhouse and workhouse infirmary—substitutes which will be consistent with ‘the honour and dignity of Labour.'”

* * *

 

When this glorious Bill was introduced, Liberals pointed jubilantly to Clause 51. “There is the worker’s clause,” they declared. “Under it no landlord can levy distress for the whole period any person receives sickness benefit.” But—”there’s many a dip twixt the cup and the lip.” The Employers’ Parliamentary Council waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a spokesman of the Farmers’ Federation said :—

“The great bulk of our workmen are housed in cottages belonging to us, and if those cottages are not at our disposal when the workman leaves off work the whole work of the farm is stopped at once.”

To this Mr. Lloyd George replied :

“If the clause were confined to cases where life would be imperilled by the process would that satisfy you ?”

Farmers’ Representative: “Yes, I should say so.”

Mr. Lloyd George : “Then I propose doing it. I am with you entirely. I think the clause as it stands is far too wide and malingerers might take advantage of it.”

So at the behest of landlords he altered the clause, which now states that if in the opinion of a doctor the person receiving sick benefit is likely to die if distress is levied, it shall not be done. The doctor’s certificate is to be issued for a week only, but may be renewed each week up to a month by the doctor, unless the landlord has applied to the Registrar of a County Court, whose decision must be accepted without appeal.

On this point we had an item in “Reynolds’s Newspaper” (2.7.11) headed “Master of Elibank Reassures Landlords re Clause 51.” It ran as follows :—

“The Master of Elibank has written to Sir Robert Aske at Hull with reference to the Insurance Bill. In the course of his remarks he says : ‘it should not be overlooked that the provision of sick pay is likely to make the payment of rent by the working classes during sickness very much more regular than it has hitherto been, and Mr. Lloyd George has no doubt that this will far more than compensate the owners of small houses for any loss that may be suffered in the rare cases where Clause 51 becomes operative.'”

This is “rare and refreshing fruit,” indeed— for the landlords. In fact, the striking unanimity of Liberal and Tory, landlord and factory-lord, over this Bill, should convince the toiler of its fraud, The “wicked House of Lords” passed it without a murmur. The Tory party largely supported its Second Reading, and refused to vote against the Third Reading. Mr. Lloyd George eulogised prominent Tories for their support of the Bill—Mr, Charles Bathurst, Lord Henry Bentinck, and Mr. William Waldorf Astor ! The latter, a large property owner, objected to postponing the operation of the Act, and explained the large saving of rates that would result, remarking, “We must make the ratepayer realise it.”

“We are going,” said Mr. Lloyd George at Queen’s Hall, on December 31,1909, “to provide adequate insurance against unemployment to prevent the starvation of the wife and children of the man who is out of work perforce.” Under the Insurance Act the “adequate” insurance becomes seven whole bob a week. But should he be unemployed “perforce” because his Liberal or Tory employer has locked him out, then the starvation will take place through the deliberate provisions of the Insurance Act, which say that in case of a lock-out no money shall be paid to the men. if the toilers should be goaded into striking by a Liberal Devonport or a Tory Penrhyn, then, also, they get—nothing. They may have paid in pounds, but they can starve. If, also, a toiler fails to make application for benefit “in the proper form,” if he fails to come at the “required time” to the “required place” to sign on, he draws—nothing. Should he, in the eyes of the Jacks-in-office, leave work “without sufficient cause,” or lose his job through what his boss calls “misconduct,” then he gets the figure which multiplied by itself is the same. Again, should he be in arrears in his contributions through lack of work, he may look in vain for the Welsh rarebit’s “rare and refreshing fruit.”

* * *

 

This idea of what is “adequate” provision seems to vary with the recipient. Baron Robson, late Sir William Robson, applied in July to the Ministry for “adequate” assistance as he waa retiring. He had been Solicitor-General at £6,000 per annum, and after a year or two became Attorney-General at £7.000 a year. Both these jobs carried with them “fees” which would be a good deal more than the salary itself. The next job Robby got was Judge of the High Court at £10,000 per annum. He stuck that for a year or two, without “malingering” more than half the time, and then retired—of course, with “just cause.” So David’s Government presented him with a pension “for the term of his natural life,” of a dollar a week—no, beg pardon, three thousand, seven hundred arid fifty pounds a year. £72 a week is “adequate” for this lawyer to malinger upon, but the sick working man is adequately provided for with seven bob.

* * *

 

Every Insurance Commissioner draws twenty pounds a week, while the Chairman of Commissions gets twice that sum. Where do these huge salaries come from ?

Mr. Lloyd George won’t say. But talking to the Merchants and Bankers of the City of London just after the Bill was brought in (July, 1911; he said :

“It would be a great satisfaction to them to know that in his judgment the Insurance Bill would not add a single farthing to the taxation which had already been imposed in this country.”

They don’t come out of taxes, so where are they coming from ? The employers say they won’t come from them in any other way.

Listen to Sir Adolph Tuck, presiding at a meeting of Raphael Tuck & Sons (23.7.12) :

“I am of the firm opinion that this expenditure (on Insurance contributions) will, in the long run, prove one of the best investments which the company has been called upon to make.”

A few days previous to this Lord Ashton, the employer of 6,000 men at his Lancaster carpet and other works, said : “It is one of the grandest Acts ever passed.” On July 7th Mr. F. D. Acland (a member of the Government) told the people of St. Albans that “in Germany they could not find a big employer who would go back to the days before the Insurance Act there.” 

* * *

 

As a last quotation let me give Mr. Lloyd George’s speech to the deputation from the National Farmers’ Union of England on July 4 1911 (Cd. 5869) : —

“I want the farmers to remember this, that this is going to be a tremendous relief to the Poor Law, and the casual labourer is the man who gets on the rates. It would be an enormous relief to the poor rates. Our real economic trouble is the casual labourer. We want, somehow or other, to make provision for him, and I think it is worth our while, and it is certainly worth the farmers’ while, to do so ; because the poor rate is their heavy burden, and to get the casual labourer off the rates would be a benefit to you, if you could get him off. I am very loth to keep the casual out if I can possibly help it. That is the most helpless class in the country and they become a burden on the community. IT IS FAR BETTER TO GET FOURPENCE OUT OF HIM, BECAUSE NOW YOU ARE BEARING THE WHOLE OF THE EXPENSE.”

Does this, set alongside his emphatic statement that the workers are to get “9d. for 4d.,” sufficiently prove how much of the liar and the cheat lies hidden in the unblushing hide of this little Welsh lawyer ?

Adolph Kohn

Editorial: Lloyd George’s permit to murder. (1912)

Editorial from the October 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Titanic” horror turned attention for a moment to the ocean passenger trade. It threw up in bold relief the profit-hunger of the shipping companies and the small chance the workers had of being rescued when danger came. After the “Titanic” white-washing job—known to lawyers as the “Titanic” Commission’—was over, some meagre alterations in rescue apparatus were foreshadowed, and the world nodded—and slept.

A month before the “Titanic” disaster, however, occurred another of which the world has scarcely heard. Nevertheless it is full of frightful significance, just as terrible, and with even a greater lesson for the working class than that the “Titanic” disaster bore. It showed the fiendish greed of the modern shipowners, and illustrated the murderous methods of the masters of the world. It proved the treachery of all the political parties of our masters, who used the power entrusted to them to drive brave and hardy toilers to their death.

On February 29th last the Cardiff steamship “North Briton” left Sunderland bound for Sulina with a cargo of coal. When the vessel was within twenty-five miles of Ushant she foundered, and every one of her crew except the boatswain was drowned. The black story of the cause of this tragedy of the sea. we will leave to the Ministerial organ, “The Daily News and Leader,” which printed the following in its issue of September 24th :—

“PLIMSOLL LINE AND SAFETY AT SEA.”

“LESSON OF WRECK WITH LOSS OF TWENTY LIVES.”

“The foundering of the steamship ‘North Briton’ off Ushant last March with the loss of all hands but the boatswain should be the means of compelling the Board of Trade—if sufficient public interest can be aroused—to reconsider the question of the Plimsoll mark.

“Under new rules for assigning a ship’s freeboard—the distance between the main deck and the water line—the Plimsoll line was heightened in March 1906 for ships under the red ensign. . . . Almost unanimously captains, officers, engineers and seamen have declared that the new load line converted a ‘dry’ ship into a ‘wet’ ship, because it destroyed a ship’s reserve buoyancy, and so endangered life and property ; and at last a Court of Enquiry has found in the case of one steamer that the primary cause of her loss and the deaths of 20 of her men was excessive deadweight and an insufficient freeboard.”

The “Daily News” man was informed by the National Union of Masters and Mates that the replacing of the Plimsoll Mark was one of their chief objects.

“When the new rules came into force a large steamer belonging to one of the greatest of our British lines, loaded railway iron and coal for Bombay down to her new mark. On her arrival it was found that she was structurally strained—her beams and bulkheads had given. Within six months she and her two sister ships had to be stiffened to allow for the extra loads. But do you think that the owners of all the tramp steamers did the same when their vessels sagged through too much cargo ?”

A master mariner told a “Daily News and Leader” representative that he himself had nearly lost a steamer from the same cause that sunk the “North Briton.” He said : —

“My ship was usually a ‘dry’ ship in bad weather, but after her load line was altered she had to carry 200 tons more, and she became lifeless in heavy seas and her deck was always full up. Only on a recent voyage the continual breaking inboard of heavy seas because of her want of life and buoyancy got her hatches adrift before we were clear of the Channel. Something of that sort happened in the case of the ‘North Briton.’ We were two hours getting her watertight again, and but for sheer good luck—for this business happened at night—we should have become a missing ship.”

On Saturday, September 21st, the Board of Trade enquiry into the loss of the “North Briton” was held at Cardiff. The magistrate who presided over it summed up thus :

“For some time before the vessel foundered, and when her condition was hopeless, the crew—those 20 brave men of that brave class, the British Mercantile Marine—stood together on the deck with their pipes in their mouths, silently, calmly, dauntlessly facing death. Without a murmur or a cry they perished in the sea. THEIR LIVES WERE SACRIFICED TO THE 130 TONS OF ADDITIONAL FREIGHT.”

He pointed out that “according to law she was not overladen, but the Court is satisfied that consistent with safety the loading was excessive,” and “the primary cause of her loss.”

The Court put the Board of Trade the following question for urgent consideration :

“Do the disasters of vessels that have occurred since March 1906, when the rules for assigning a ship’s freeboard were revised, and whereby numerous vessels had their freeboard reduced, call for further immediate revision of such rules ?”

Those who expect real action to be taken will soon have their hopes quenched if they read the record of the Liberal Party in this matter.

The name of Plimsoll is known wherever the tale of the sea is told. Samuel Plimsoll was struck by the cold-blooded murder of seamen on the high seas, and the records of their butchery by Liberal and Tory shipowners made him take up the battle on their behalf. He carried on an active mission in the seaport towns of England, where he told the terrible story of the dangers of the men sent to sea in “coffin ships,” in ships overloaded but insured up to the hilt, so that if they went down the owners were at no loss.

In 1871 he entered the House of Commons, and in his fight to lessen the death-roll among seamen he was jeered at and mocked by the Liberals and Tories gathered there. He brought in Bills but found no backers. In “Gladstone’s greatest administration,” 1868-74, he was ejected from the House for daring to describe the shipowners as “cold-blooded murderers.” After his four years of bitter struggle the Tory Party were returned, and they seized upon the popular outcry Plimsoll had aroused, and passed the Load Line Bill of 1875, lowering the load line and increasing the freeboard. They did this to dish the Liberals.

Samuel Plimsoll hated Toryism, but the depth of his hatred of Liberal Governments was shown when he said in the House of Commons on May 14 1873 :

“I am a Liberal of the Liberals. I have supported Liberal measures ever since I came into this House, but it has been borne into my mind that the interest of the working classes, when at issue between themselves and capitalists, are safer with the Conservatives than with the Liberals.”

Thirty one years after the load line was lowered ; thirty-one years after the Plimsoll Mark was established, David Lloyd George became President of the Board of Trade, and he wiped out the labours of Plimsoll by issuing new regulations raising the load line. The Plimsoll line—the charter of the seamen—was dead. In its place was substituted the Lloyd George load line. And ever since the sorry story has been told of human life destroyed to increase the profits of the shipowners.

The case of the “North Briton” was no isolated one. In January this year the “Wistow Hall” foundered off the Aberdeenshire coast from the same cause. Fifty-three of our fellow workers went down in her, paying with their lives for their masters’ greed. Last year 1254 of our seamen lost their lives. Already this year this number has been left far behind—an army “sacrificed to additional freight.”

Nor is the murder of the seamen the only evil result of the raising of the line of lading. Mr. Havelock Wilson, the Liberal Secretary of the Seamen’s Union, told the South Shields seamen on Oct. 20, 1910, that thousands of them were out of work because of that very alteration of the load line, for “at one stroke of the pen, by the alteration of the freeboard of ships, we have added to the tonnage of our vessels nearly one million tons of shipping.”

The Board of Trade have issued (L.L. 11) a reprint of the revised load line rules altered in March 1906, and they have been eulogised by the Shipowners’ Parliamentary Council. The reason for the alteration was briefly to save the shipowners building extra vessels. On the same day as they published the matter before quoted the “Daily News” published the shipping returns with the bold headline : “Our Shipping Supremacy.” They told us that in the past year our tonnage had increased by 2½ million. England carried 37 million tons of cargo against 22 millions carried by the combined other nations of the world. Therein is the secret. When in 1906 the Liberal Government was returned, you found in its ranks and among its leading supporters, most of the great shipowners of the world. Lord Pirrie, director of Harland and Wolff’s, the White Star and other shipping companies ; Lord Furness, director of six shipping concerns ; men like Sir Owen Phillips,. Mark Palmer, Lord Joicey, Lord Rendel, Sir Walter Runciman, Sir Willian Bowring, R. D. Holt, Lord Munburnholme and other members of the Wilson family, Russell Ben, Hon. J. A.. Pease, etc., etc. They were amongst the greatest backers of the 1906 campaign, and hence they dictated Liberal policy.

David Lloyd George very kindly looked after their welfare then as he looked after the railway magnates’ interests later on. Hence these tragedies, these murders on the high seas, this sacrafice of brave, useful men to the greed of Capital.

The villainies of Liberalism stand out as a criminal record as black and bloody as ever Tory policy was or could be. The Labour Party, too, have silently watched these atrocities, and organised its members to save the Government from destruction !

Down with capitalism ! Down with Labourism ! Up with Socialism !

Blog Note:

22,000 posts now on the blog.

Editorial: The True Meaning of the "Labour Unrest." (1910)

Editorial from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Across the deadly dull controversey dragging through the columns of the capitalist Press, as to whether “Free Trade” or “Tariff Reform” is best for the workers to starve under, have flashed two intense rays of light exposing the bed-rock position of the working class in modern society.

In two different places, under different external conditions, but in essentials remarkably alike, we have seen two sections of the working class facing the same alternatives of either accepting conditions imposed by the masters—their employers—or trying how long their slender resources and desperate fortitude can stand against the masters’ piled-up wealth.

At Cradley Heath the chainmakers described by a Liberal newspaper as forming “the classic sweated industry,” have been locked out because they declined to accept the conditions their employers put forward, i.e., to work for another three months at the old rate of wages. In other words the chainmakers are deliberately deprived of the means of living unless they accept the master’s terms.

It is sometimes urged that if the chainmakers were organised into a trade union they could effectively resist the employers’ attempt to starve them. But leaving out of consideration for the moment the fact that they are unable to pay any subscription, however small, to an ordinary trade union, the statement is fully refuted by the experience of the boilermakers.

Here is one of the strongest unions, containing a large proportion of the men working at the trade, yet faced with the same position as the chainmakers—starvation or submission to the masters’ terms.

When to these cases are added the signs of trouble in the Welsh coalfields and the Lancashire cotton towns, the fact continually insisted upon by the Socialist—that the means of life are owned by the master class—is brought into clear light.

Whether the workers are organised on the economic field or not ; whether belonging to the (so-called) skilled or unskilled division of labour ; whether the employer calls himself Liberal or Tory ; whether it is under Free Trade or Protection, in every case and in every circumstance the worker is the slave of the employer, and must remain so while capitalism exists. And it is just this slave position that it is all important for the worker to study, while it is, on the other hand, just the one the employers and their agents seek to hide.

The Daily Express shrieks about the sacredness of the employers’ “contracts” when the men go on strike against a lowering of wages, though this “sacredness” has a curious knack of disappearing when the masters tear the contracts to shreds, from one end of the country to the other, by locking the men out.

The Daily News wails for a “public” arbitrator, as though the “public” were something apart from employers and employed, and in nonchalant evasion of the fact that the chainmakers’ trouble flows out of a Board of Trade arbitration.

Explanations of the “unrest,” as it is termed, abound on all sides, each differing from the others, but all having the one common quality of revealing nothing beyond their writers’ ignorance of the facts, or their feverish anxiety to conceal them. The significant vote of the boilermakers points clearly to the proximate cause of the trouble in that trade. The Edinburgh agreement, that “triumph of arbitration,” has been found to act completely in the masters’ interests and against the men. The clause stating that under no conditions shall the men go on strike has been taken full advantage of by the masters, who have reduced actual wages, increased the “speeding up,” and generally worsened conditions all round. When the men have protested long-drawn-out conferences have enabled the masters, as the Daily News puts it, to “turn an awkward corner.”

A series of such arbitrations has at last convinced large numbers of the men that it is hopeless to expect any settlement of disputed points in their favour under such a scheme. Hence the taking of matters into their own hands, and the “sectional” strikes in the various works and yards.

More important still is the fact that, at present at any rate, the men are refusing to place the power of extending such an agreement in the hands of their officials and leaders, who are so ready to once again act on the employers’ behalf and against the men. The unity of the capitalist Press—Liberal and Tory alike—with the officials in condemning this action of the men is sufficient evidence of how well those officials consider the interests of the masters, and of the masters alone.

But, as if this were not sufficient, those leaders have gone out of their way, in another place, to give further proof of their duplicity in these matters. At the Trades Union Congress held in Sheffield a stranger to their little ways would have imagined that this fundamental question of the slavery of the working class would have formed the chief topic of discussion. So far, however, from this being the case, we find that the greatest attention was given to the question “How shall we save our salaries ?” Nay, more than this, one of the first questions discussed was whether the Congress should have its opening ceremony presided over by a large employer whose workpeople were at that very moment on strike against his conditions of employment. Certainly a protest was raised by a few delegates, but the fact that an employer was asked to preside at all shows how completely these “representatives” are the agents of the masters.

The surprising vote of the boilermakers however, warned them not to play the game too openly. So a little farce was arranged and Earl Fitzwilliam, the employer referred to, while not abating one jot from his position, agreed to the matter being placed before an arbitrator. After this “victory” the delegates sit down to listen meekly to the platitudes of this “representative” employer.

It fell to Mr. Shackleton to give the premier illustration of “how to do ’em down.” A delegate had asked the awkward question how it was that the Parliamentary Committee were opposed to the premium bonus system, while a member of the Committee took the chair at a meeting in favour of the system at which Mr. Balfour and Sir Christopher Furness spoke. The member referred to was Mr. Shackleton. The chairman, asked when this happened, but the delegate was unable to tell him, and then Mr. Shackleton brazenly denied having taken the chair in such circumstances.

Had the delegate who raised the point been able to carry his memory back to Dec. 1908 he might have refuted the lie with the following from the Daily Telegraph (2.12.1908).

“In the chair was Mr. Shackleton, M.P., one of the most conspicuous Labour members in the present House of Commons; the chief address was delivered by Mr. A. J. Balfour, in his capacity as president ; and the vote of thanks was presented by three gentlemen representative of widely apart walks of life, namely, Sir Christopher Furness, one of the great captains of industry . . Professor A. C. Pigou . . and Mr. Amos Mann.”

The occasion was a gathering of the so-called “Labour” Co-partnership Movement, whose fraudulent character was clearly shown in the Socialist Standard of Feb. 1909.

As if to add further evidence to our case against the “Labour” M.P.s, Mr. Shackleton also stated that “they had done as much as was possible to keep in the front the fact that the payment of members and of returning officers’ expenses would not meet the case.” (Reynolds’ Newspaper, 18.9.10.)

But the cloven hoof was fully exposed when discussing the question of “bringing pressure to bear on the Government.” Shackleton’s hysterical defence of the Liberal Government could not have been surpassed by Lloyd George. And it is just at this point that the Socialist statement applies.

The master class are able to dictate life and death to the workers because, through their control of political power, they have control of the armed forces that are used to preserve the property of the master class against the workers. Hence the supreme importance to the master class of keeping the latter ignorant upon this matter. This accounts for the treachery of those who, posing as “leaders” of the working class, use all their influence to keep that political power in the masters’ hands, and fight against the Socialist propaganda, that shows to the workers the reasons they must capture that power.

The vote of the boilermakers, even if only a temporary phase with them, is a good sign as showing the decline of the “leaders’ “power to mislead. Let every working man and woman study Socialism and the way to their emancipation will be clear.

Surprising indeed! (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

OFFICIAL CONFESSION THAT THE LABOUR EXCHANGE IS A BLACK-LEGGING INSTITUTION.

The following from the Daily News of Sept. 10 so completely substantiates the worst we have said of the Labour Exchanges that we are constrained to publish the whole item.

 

“SURPRISING LETTER.”

 

“Bradford Labour Exchange and trade disputes. 

(From Our Own Correspondent)

Bradford, Thursday Night

“At to-day’s meeting of the Bradford Trades Council the following letter, issued to employers in Bradford and marked ‘Private and confidential,’ was read :

“‘Dear Sir,— Since the Labour Exchange opened on Feb. 1st, 1910, there have been two disputes in the woolcombing industry. During the progress of both unfortunate occurrences some employers applied to the Labour Exchange for men, and in both instances we were prepared to help them all we could in accordance with the regulations of the Labour Exchanges Act. May I appeal to you that, as matters have now resumed their normal course, that I may be favoured with your orders for men, women, boys and girls ?

“It seems to me there will be work-people whom it will be beneficial for you to get from us, and seeing that we are prepared to help your trade during troublesome times, I believe some reciprocation of our efforts may be shown by you giving instructions to your foremen to apply to us for labour now that trade has resumed the normal course. I may state that we have all kinds of textile workers registered here, and many other classes of workers. If you care to avail yourself of this genuine offer to help you, I should be glad to place the entire services of the Labour Exchanges at your disposal.—Secretary.’

“The letter was not discussed.”

————————————–

It seems the good I.L.P’ers and trade unionists of Bradford were too dumbfounded to even talk about it. These much-lauded institutions that (through the enumeration and classification of the unemployed) were laying the foundations of the Socialist Commonwealth, according to the very practical statesmen of the I.L.P., turn out to be what we have always said they were. “One of the measures that may engage the attention of Parliament is that concerning Labour Bureaux—which again is typical of the true Liberal policy of serving the masters. Labour exchanges, when controlled by the Government, directly or indirectly, become recruiting offices for blacklegs.” So ran the warning to the working class in our issue of March, 1909. No gift of prophesy was required to perceive what would be the upshot of this “palliative.” Merely a little of the much despised “Socialist theorising” based upon the facts of capitalist society—that was all.

What then, were the facts bearing upon the creation of and administration of Labour Ex­changes ? Are they not that working folks in order to live are compelled to sell themselves piecemeal ; and may only do this when non-workers—capitalists—can make a profit on the deal ? That further, the workers seek the highest possible wages and their employers the highest possible profits, and as a consequence, share a relation of now subdued, now open hostility ? That through the Liberal and Tory parties, and their general control of Government, the employers effectively control these agencies for the sale and purchase of labour-power ?

Our bit of theorising, the correctness of which is amply proved by the above cited news item (without detailing the cases we have previously published), simply consists, then, of the “one and one make two” calculation that, with the purchasers of labour-power in control, the Exchanges must inevitably be used in the interest of these and against the interest of the sellers—the wage-workers. The whole thing is simple enough, and one must be blinded indeed by the love of popularity or by capitalist claptrap, if one does not see through it. Here are a staff of managers and clerks anxious to keep their jobs and consequently forced to do the bidding of and seek to ingratiate themselves with the powerful ones of the earth—with those who have the dispensing or withholding of jobs and favours. What wonder, then, that they do all that they can to assist the employer when he is abandoned by his workpeople ? What wonder then that they hunt up blacklegs and strike-smashers and act as procurers for the masters ? 

The employers make their little calculation too. Say they to themselves, “If hands register at the Labour Exchanges it is because they have a difficulty in getting employment. These people are in a bad way and only too glad of a job below the rate of wages prevalent. We’ll pay these people accordingly.” And they do, too ! as many poor, struggling working men and women have found to their cost.

True, as Mr. D. J. Shackleton pointed out at the Trades Union Congress, you can’t expect the Exchanges to be run to deal with 11 million workers as though they were seeking the best possible conditions for 2 million trade unionists. Well, hardly ! no more than you can expect the average labour (mis)leader to explain honestly the workman’s position when he is virtually pleading for strike-breaking agencies founded by and administered for the exploiting class—when he is defending his place and pelf.

For remember that Mr. Shackleton, like the rest of the Labour M.P.s, “Socialist” or otherwise, owes his seat in Parliament to the Liberal support he gets—and earns and pays for by-leading the workers to slaughter.

Fellow workers, how much more of this devilish game are you going to stand ?

J. H.

By the Way. (1913)

The By The Way Column from the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Daily News” (28.8.13) once again tells us how old people taking their 5s. portion of “rare and refreshing fruit,” reduce the wages of those with whom they live. It says :

“A family of seven . . . five of whom are in receipt of old age pensions, are living near Redhill. . . . With the 25s. a week received from the State, supplemented by the earnings of the younger men, the family are able to lead a happy and comfortable life.”

So the cunningly schemed old age pensions relieve the rates at the expense of the “earnings of the younger men.”

* * *

Whilst the anti-Socialist is fond of mouthing the old drivel that Socialism will break up the family life, the following is worthy of notice. Perhaps it is because of the frequency of the smashing of homes and breaking up of families under capitalism that the anti-Socialist prophesies it for the future :

“John Littlewood, 59, was charged with begging. He was standing in the gutter playing a whistle. Addressing the magistrate he declared that wherever he applied for employment he was always met with the reply : “You are too old.”

“I have a very good certificate here from Chatham Dockyard. I was 18 years there. . . I had a good little home, but I had to part with it bit by bit.” (“Reynolds’s,” 31.8.13.)

Too old at 58, says the employer ; too young by eleven years, says Mr. Lloyd George. This was evidently a case for the magistrate—or the undertaker.

The one, you see, can restore his “family life” for a month in the stone jug, while the other can put him into the way of having a nice little wooden hut all to himself, which he would be allowed to hold in peaceful possession until landlords are no more and bum-bailiffs cease from troubling.

* * *

The Right Hon. David Lloyd George made a speech a short time since dealing with the arma­ment question. Of course he had to refer to “social reform,” and then he informed the capitalists how they would benefit by it.

“When they came to social reform and improved the conditions of the people they improved their health and their efficiency, purely as means for the production of wealth. . . It was no good saying they were spending 20 millions on insurance and old age pensions. They had got to look at the other side of the ledger, and that was worth a good deal more than 20 millions a year.”

It is interesting to note the utterances of this oily-tongued hypocrite, for when he is addressing his paymasters he specially emphasises the benefit that will accrue to the capitalist class as a result of Liberal “social reform”—”purely as means for the production of wealth.” Yet this is the man who, a few years ago, told us that “No one can really honestly defend the present system.”

* * *

In a leading article in “Reynolds’s” (24.8.13) devoted to the increase in the prices of food and and other commodities, the writer showed the hopelessness and futility of the workers clinging to the gospel of Liberalism as a medium for their salvation. Let me quote two passages.

“In no other country has there been the same press of social reform measures ; in no other country has there been the same effort made to grapple with poverty.”

And again :

“In spite of all our social reform agitation, in spite of Compensation Acts, Wages Boards, Old-Age Pensions, and National Insurance, powerful forces have been at work to keep a vast mass of our people from getting away from the edge of the precipice of starvation.”

What an admission of failure ! Could any indictment of mine be stronger ? After seven years of Liberal rule and unparalleled trade boom, a large mass are on the verge of starvation ! Were we not told by a leading light of the Liberal party 1908 that they were going to “strike starvation for ever from the dark category of evils with which honest men and women are beset” ? Liberalism has been tried and found wanting. Socialism alone contains the remedy.

* * *

The ”Christian Commonwealth” for August 27th contains an article from the pen of Philip Snowden, M.P., dealing with the Chesterfield election, and once more is the attitude taken up by the Socialist Party justified. Under a subheading “A Myth Exploded,” he tells us that :

“The result of the election has shown that the late member was in no sense an independent Labour member. It has shown that the claim that the Labour Party in the House of Commons represents electors who have been alienated from Liberalism and Toryism, and who believe in a Labour Party independent of both, is a myth. To try to keep that myth alive is neither possible nor honest. It is perfectly true that there is in the constituencies a very great volume of opinion which is in favour of independent Labour representation. In the industrial constituencies it probably represents 25 per cent of the voters. But the Labour Party in the House of Commons has not been returned solely by that section of the electorate. Its members sit in Parliament because in four-fifths of the cases some understanding or arrangement has been made with the Liberals. Under such circumstances it is ridiculous to expect that Labour members will quarrel seriously with the party by whose goodwill they hold their seats.”

Mr. Snowden goes on :

“Over anxiety to get its nominees into Parliament has led to compromise and bargaining in the constituencies, and anxiety to keep in Parliament has prevented the carrying out of a fighting policy.”

Such is the confession of this leading light of the “Independent” Labour Party. It shows once more that these fakirs are nothing more than office seekers, trading on the ignorance and mal-education of the workers,

* * *

It would be interesting to know the object of the visit paid by the Rev. C. F. Blyth to the flat kept by a young woman. Was he desirous of seeing her about her “spiritual welfare” ?

* * *

“Birds of a feather flock together.” Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, now that he is temporarily released from his arduous labours in Parliament and India, has been enjoying a game of golf with Mr. Asquith, of Featherstone fame.

* * *

In view of the recent railway disaster at Ais Gill, all new readers of this journal should procure the issues from June and read the articles “Public Safety v. Railway Profits.” It will be seen from these that such accidents are bound to result from the cheeseparing policy of the companies, and that the only object of the Board of Trade enquiries is to blind the public to the fact that their lives are placed in the keeping of overworked and underpaid men, operating rotten engines, and supplied with bad coal.

The Scout

Legal Murder. (1913)

From the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not so long ago that section of the Press that professes to be democratic and which is generally engaged in whitewashing the Liberal Government, was pretending to be horrified because once again the troops had been used in defence of the sacred property of the bosses on the Rand, Their leader writers were “astounded” that a Liberal Government could countenance the massacre of working men. They “demanded” an “impartial” enquiry into affairs “which caused every decent Britisher to blush with shame at the deeds perpetrated under the British flag.”

And now we have the diabolical outrage repeated—this time nearer home. Not quite so near as Featherstone or Llanelli, Liverpool or London—all of which have been the scenes of events that have no doubt conveniently slipped from the memories of the leader writers—but at Dublin, the green city.

 

* * *

It is not proposed here to reprint the tales of horror which have found such wide publicity through other channels and which must still be fresh in the public mind—the tales of brutal bludgeoning of women and children, and of the murder of unarmed men. Suffice it to say, in the words of a Government supporter :

”Hundreds of people were injured by the police and two men died as a result of injuries received. Women returning from Mass with prayer books in their hands were grossly assaulted by the police; little girls were thrashed by the police; one girl in her teens was dragged through the streets by the hair of her head and beaten by the police; women were dragged out of their beds and beaten while lying nearly naked, by the police. All these charges have been made and repeated by reliable people.”

The “Times” says: “The police deliberately waited for runaways and clubbed them as they ran,” and that “the whole proceedings were monstrous and unnecessary.”

 

* * *

Reliable witnesses testify that no violence was offered by the crowd and that Nolan, one of the murdered men, was trying to get away when he was struck to the ground by a policeman. “As he fell five Dublin Metropolitan police and two Royal Irish Constabulary struck him. When he tried to get on his knees he was beaten again.” A supporter of “law and order”—one who rushed to defend H. H. Asquith, the assassin of Featherstone—Mr. Handel Booth, M.P., says that the police, with pitiless brutality, charged the crowd, which was a perfectly peaceful one.

 

* * *

Radical, ragtime “Reynolds’s” is horrified. “Someone should be charged with murder for this,” it screeched. How innocent! Someone should have been charged with murder on the Rand, and at Featherstone! At Mitchelstown in 1887 the coroner’s jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the county inspector and three constables. But what happened? The same as will happen in Dublin and at St. Austell in Cornwall; the same as happened at Featherstone.

An enquiry was held into the affair which has made the last mentioned place notorious, which whitewashed all concerned, and—nothing was done. No action was taken by the Government to attach blame to any of its officers.

 

* * *

The explanation is simple. Those in charge are quite prepared to admit that a mistake has been made, but the mistake is not that the people have been slaughtered. Oh, no!—that happens every day in the pursuit of profit. The blunder is that the workers have been suppressed in such a way as to arouse suspicion and distrust.

The workers have been told that the police are out to “keep the ring,” and that the law is for rich and poor alike; but these “incidents” tend to show that the police are maintained to protect private property and the interests of the shareholders of private concerns.

If all that is said is true, those in charge of affairs in Dublin have something to answer for besides which the Marconi ministers’ little deal pales into insignificance. Yet we are still waiting to hear a denial of the statements made by a trade union official, Mr. P. T. Daly, that the magistrate, E. G. Swifte, and chief prosecutor, Sir Patrick Coll, are shareholders in the Dublin United Tramways Company, and are therefore directly concerned in smashing the strike.

 

* * *

These narrow-minded tradesmen and petty officials are always as putty in the hands of the lords and masters of the land, but when their own petty interests are directly at stake, there is nothing too degrading and brutal for them to do. If it be true that the magistrate who proclaimed the meeting and who tried Larkin, together with the Chief Prosecutor for the Crown and the wife of the Under Secretary for Ireland, to say nothing of certain of the Irish Constabulary, are shareholders in the Dublin United Tramway Company; if it be true that any or all of these were directly concerned in the company against which the men were striking, then the “blunder” is easily understood. Their precious dividends were at stake, and they would risk all their hopes of a front seat in heaven for a few dirty pieces of gold.

In any case the position is clear. As in Africa the workers, struggling against adverse circumstances, faced with worsening conditions, strike for some improvement in their miserable lot, and call a public meeting to discuss these matters. “Under the British flag” both these courses are supposed to be legal. The “right” of free speech is, of course, well known. Yet in Dublin as in Africa, these meetings are proclaimed, in the one case by an interested party, and in the other case by a government under the control of the Randlords. Upon the workers attempting to exercise the right they are popularly supposed to possess, a gang of hooligans, trained to murder, are let loose upon them with baton and bullet.

 

* * *

“The proceedings were monstrous and unnecessary.” What a confession! Is it true that they could be monstrous and necessary?

The capitalists exist to exploit. Their only concern with the worker is to rob them. They dabble in company shares to get dividends and dividends they must have at all costs; the toilers are not looked upon as aught else than wealth producers, and immediately they threaten to stop producing profit they must be coerced. Why dodge the fact?

 

* * *

We are in the midst of a class war, of a bitter struggle that can know no cessation until the master class are overthrown. Brute force is the last resort, and to brute force the capitalists turn, knowing full well that they hold the master card in the game. The Socialist did not make the struggle, neither does he desire it. But he does appeal to the toilers to take a lesson from these facts and to remember Dublin and Johannesburg, Peterloo and Mitchelstown, Tonypandy and Featherstone, when next they invited to throw up their caps for the Liberals or any other such murderous crew.

Twel.

Editorial: Liberalism’s Last Ditch. (1909)

Editorial from the September 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Even from the point of view of the orthodox Liberal manufacturer, the present Budget, with its innumerable exemptions and concessions, can hardly be described otherwise than as “Much cry and little wool”; but that the “Labour” members should hail it as a great, democratic, working class Budget would be astounding were it not remembered that they owe their seats in Parliament to compacts with the Liberals, and hope to retain them at the next elections by Liberal aid. “One good turn deserves another” is their motto, and the workers should, realise this also—by turning them out.

The Government, indeed, often allows the real nature of the Finance Bill to peep through. Mr. Asquith, speaking at the City meeting on the Budget, in reference to Tory opposition said:

“Our critics and ourselves start from one common and unavoidable admission. The growing requirements of national defence, with the simultaneous increase in expenditure demanded both by the conscience and by the interests of the community for purposes of social reform, have brought about a gap in the exchequer of almost all the great nations which is beyond precedent. How that gap is to be filled is the question which at this moment is presenting itself with insistency and with urgency to the Finance Ministers of all the richest and most progressive nations of the world.”

The increase in armaments to protect the property and interests of our masters, together with the increasing cost of domestic legislation rendered inevitable by economic development and by the growing intensity of exploitation—these are the excuses for the Budget. The cost of “Dreadnoughts” is palpable and enormous ; it hits the capitalist where he lives. But the cost of social reform is humbug, for the capitalists, as a class, make a profit on it. Moreover the amount of reform is microscopic, demanded though it be by “the interests of the community”—that is, by the interests of the ruling class. Social reform, even when at what “Labour leaders” call an unprecedented rate, utterly and entirely fails to keep up with the increase of human wreckage created by capitalist industry, as the increasing misery of the workers testifies. Under the progressive exploitation of to-day, and with all the reforms passed or likely to be passed by the master class, the wage worker finds, and will continue to find, that instead of becoming happier or better off, his progress is only the more rapidly downward, in the direction of greater toil and poverty. Reforms are, in part, the inevitable counterpart of economic development, and, for the rest, an endeavour to stave off revolution. But however inevitable they may be under capitalism, they cannot, from their very nature, and from the nature of the class that enacts and administers them, retard the increasing exploitation of the working class; their aim and tendency is, indeed, to still further increase the security or profits of the capitalists. Hence it is folly in the workers to fight over reforms, for in revolution—in the capture of political power—lies their only hope. From this standpoint it is seen how great is the crime of the Labour misleaders in endeavouring to round up the workers in support of a capitalist Budget. All that there is in the much lauded taxes on “land-values” is a basis for the future raising of revenue for purely capitalist purposes. It is an alternative scheme of taxation to Tariff Reform—it is Liberalism’s last ditch. Carried out to their logical extreme, the new taxes would merely relieve the industrial capitalist at the expense of the ground landlord, leaving the worker exactly where he was. It is in fact, surprising how little the whole question of taxation affects the wage workers as a class, and the present sham fight between manufacturer and landowner again emphasises this fact. The Budget, indeed, only feebly caricatures the old hereditary conflict between the industrial capitalist and the landed interest. It hurts nobody, but it makes a lot of noise ; and although the new taxes on “values” are little more than names, they are sufficient to serve the Liberals as an effective election cry. The Liberal Party knows that the public dearly love to be humbugged, and it is giving the public a treat.

But apart from this, can there bo any doubt regarding the anti-Socialist (and consequently anti-working-class) nature of the present Finance Bill ? The leaders of Liberalism are falling over each other in their eagerness to reassure vested interests on this score. Mr. Churchill, who, to use an Irishism, often opens his mouth only to put his foot in it, nevertheless made several statements in that speech of his on July 17th, which did not need to be re-interpretated by his chief. He insisted that there was a vital distinction between Liberalism and Socialism in that the latter attacked capital. He also said:

“It was true to say that nearly three out of four persons paying income-tax would be taxed after this budget—this penal budget, this wicked, monstrous, despoilatory budget,—for income at a lower rate than they were by the late Conservative Government. (Cheers.)”

Rejoice ! ye wage slaves.

The Daily Chronicle for July 24th also indicated the anti-Socialist character of the Budget “Land Tax” by saying that

“the principle of it has been accepted by a Tory House of Commons, and by the Conservative party in the German Reichstag ; and it has been put into practice by Continental cities and British Colonies.”

Of course it has ; and wherein have the workers benefited ?

In a speech on July 22nd Mr. Asquith said that Liberalism was opposed to Conservatism, but

“On the other hand, it is equally far removed from and strongly opposed to Socialism, which would do away with the institution of property, which would cripple the individual power of initiative, which would sacrifice to a superficial equality the reality and the essence of freedom. (Cheers.)”

And speaking of the Budget in general the Premier said “prove any injustice, any inconvenience even, to the business world, and we will set it right.” While in respect to the reversion taxes in particular he asserted that “no party and no government had shown greater consideration to vested interests” than had his Government in the matter of this new taxation.

There can, therefore, be no further doubt regarding the anti-Socialist and anti-working-class policy of the so-called Labour Party and pseudo-Socialist reform organisations, when they work with the Liberal Party and actively support a class Budget which would not improve the position of the worker one jot or tittle. Thus when speaking at the Hyde Park Liberal Demonstration in support of the Budget, Mr. Keir Hardie said (we quote from Reynolds’s of July 25th last) :

“The aristocrats called the Budget a Bill of robbery and spoliation, but the proposed taxes were simply measures for compelling owners to make a restitution to the working classes whom they had robbed for ages.”

So does he and his kind deliberately attempt to mislead the workers by pretending that the masters govern for the benefit of their slaves ! Unfortunately it is the ignorance among the workers of the fundamental truths of their position that allows them to become the dupes of these political charlatans. Nevertheless economic development and Socialist propaganda are doing their work, and when the toilers grasp the essentials of the Socialist position the “Labour leader,” like Othello, will wake up to find his occupation gone. For the present it is our duty in our task of working-class enlightenment to expose the political and trade union job-hunters battening, or endeavouring to batten, on working-class ignorance. It is, moreover, no accident that so frequently brings together Labour members, Liberal manufacturers, teetotal fanatics, Suffragettes, cranks, and Bible-bangers of all sorts—they are birds of a feather. A man may be known by the company he keeps, so Asquith, Hardie and Co., associated now in their endeavours to pilot the workers on to the shoals of Liberal humbug, will find themselves associated also in the shipwreck of Liberalism that will occur in the wake of the growing Socialist consciousness of the working class.

Editorial: Raising the Wind. (1909)

Editorial from the June 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

As expected, the Budget bids fair to take up most of the time of Parliament; but given the make-up of the “representatives of the people,” one way of killing time would seem to be as good as another. The Liberal Party, with Mr. Lloyd George’s land taxation, has taken one timid little step in the direction of the purely capitalist form of taxation. Were it not that Liberal manufacturer and Tory landlord are so very much akin one could conceive even of such an “extreme” budget as would so heavily tax land as to bring Nationalisation within reach. This reform so much advocated by your pseudo-Socialist of the I.L.P. and S.D.P., were it achieved, would, however, still leave the land at the disposal of the capitalist manufacturer and capitalist farmer, because of their power to outbid the workers in the payment of State rentals, so that the pretence of “land reform” we have heard so much of lately from the Liberal Press might well go much further without changing the relative positions of capitalists and wage-workers, and consequently the proposals, after all the fuss, resolve themselves simply into the question of how to pay for Dreadnoughts and other means of destruction and of class domination.

The taxation proposals, generally, are rather cutely drawn up, and much ostentatious “fairness to all classes” is paraded. Your average non-Socialist workman, if he has for the time being to pay a bit more for his smokes, has the satisfaction of feeling that he is not robbing his master, at least, and of course duly appreciates Mr. Lloyd George’s kind consideration in not overlooking him when presenting his little bill. Judging from the protestations of the Liberal Press one must conclude that the Liberal Party is, after all, the real best friend of the brewers. Are not they to reap many millions in additional profits as a result of the new taxation ? The Daily News and the rest of them provide complicated calculations demonstrating as much and these good people should know.

Meanwhile be it noted that the Labour Party is, as might be expected, duly helping to vote the capitalist class, through the Liberal Government, the means (upkeep of armed forces, judiciary, etc.) with which to maintain its class domination. Keir Hardie and his colleagues support this “Socialistic budget” of their friends the Liberals. They would not be enjoying the opportunity and fulfilling their obligations were it not for the Liberal votes and often organised Liberal support with which they were elected to Parliament.

The Liberal Party Condemned. Lloyd-George’s Three-Year Old Judgment. (1909)

From the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

We Beg to Remind You.

In the issue of the Socialist Standard for Dec. 1906, we printed a criticism of a speech—a remarkable speech— made in Birmingham on Oct. ’22nd 1906 by Mr. Lloyd-George. He said that in returning the Liberal Government to power, the people had, in effect, declared :

“We are going to give you a chance, but it is only a chance. . . . Here you have been tinkering for generations with reform, and the end of it all is slums, pauperism, and great want in the land of plenty.”

Lloyd-George declared that if the conditions which gave rise to this complaint of the people were not removed in three years, the Great Liberal Party would deserve to go, and a new movement would grew up to displace the Liberal “bunglers or rogues.” We have not quite reached the three year limit, but are within easy sight of that end, and may justifiably remind “the people” of Mr. Lloyd-George’s opinion and prophecy. The Liberal Government, the “strongest government of modern times,” has had more than three years to show their hand and to commence their endeavour to remove the “great want in the land of plenty” if they intend to do so. The political memory of “the people” is proverbially short and they may have forgotten that in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he and his colleagues deserve to be turned out if they do not accomplish in three years what we at the time declared to be impossible.

As governments go they have been strenuous, with autumn sessions (things of such working-class importance that some working-class organisations conduct special campaigns for them) and all-night sittings. They have passed countless bills and reshaped administration in many departments ; but after all they have done we have to apply the Lloyd-George test: have they abolished the “great want in the land of plenty” ?

The item in the programme of their accomplishments we are pointed to by exultant Liberals is the one of Old Age Pensions. The criticisms of this are too numerous, and have been laboured in these columns too often, to receive a detailed examination now, but that it is calculated to save the rates by inducing old veterans of labour to keep out of the workhouse, where their maintenance will average 11s. a week, is sufficient to show the hollowness of its blessing.

A Rainbow to Chew.

The particular item in which our prophet is interested, and which comes so near the end of the three year limit, is the Budget. The flagging interest and enthusiasm of its supporters is now being lashed into renewed vigour by Ministerialists, but whether the effects of the stimulus will last, assisted though it is by the political bankruptcy of the official opposition, remains to be seen. The Budget has been labelled “Democratic” and “working man’s,” although the reason for this is not very obvious. True, the Labour Party are among its supporters, and a recent demonstration in its favour was backed by certain branches of the I.L.P. and several trade unions, but there are probably other than working-class interests involved here. The whole of the pother is about the raising of the money, but the capitalist class must pay, for the simple but sufficient reason that they cannot get blood out of a stone. We are not concerned how it is raised so much as with the way it is spent; and when we look at the factors which have necessitated the extra revenue, we are amazed at the coolness that calls the Budget “democratic.” The bulk of the extra money is for the Navy and the Army. Dreadnoughts and Territorial Armies do nothing, surely, to remedy the “great want in a land of plenty.” Soldiers are handy on cccassions such as the one at Belfast; and though Dreadnoughts might not be able to be effective at Hull or at Grimsby when the workmen become disaffected, there is no question that smaller naval fry are useful. But even this hardly justifies the term “democratic,” nor affords a reason for working-class enthusiasm.

Purely a Thieves’ Wrangle.

The most subtle political factor in the carefully simulated campaign in favour of the Budget, the item upon which it is intended to focus working-class attention, is the introdiiction of the tax upon the increase of value of urban land. The landlord, doing nothing, is able, under existing fiscal arrangements to draw a proportion of the value given to land by the accumulation of population or the erection of factories, houses, etc. The proposal of the Government which has been designated “revolutionary” is a levy on this increased value. I am not opposed to the land tax, so much as to the private possession of the land entirely ; but the position for us is simply that the disadvantages of the present arrangement falls on the industrial capitalist, while the position of the workman remains ever the same—that of “great want in the land of plenty.” While the process of the ground landlord bleeding the capitalist does not affect the working-class, for the reason that the capitalist pays the smallest wages possible all the time, so the similar process of the ground landlord bleeding the houseowner does not affect the worker, for the reason that the houseowner gets the highest rent possible all the time. But, as has been the case throughout that period of history that has seen the capitalist class question the supremacy of the landed aristocrats, the capitalists are once more prepared to use the working class for their own political ends. It is a matter of comparative ease to illustrate the injustice of the privilege enjoyed by the owners of the land, while the privilege of the ownership of capital is more completely obscured by complicated processes of exchange.

Short and Codling.

Nevertheless, there is a complete essential identity in both privileges, and while either remains, the workman is the under-dog, suffering “great want in the land of plenty.” To emphasise the idleness and the hollowness of land taxes as a solution of that poverty, it is but necessary in the first place to point to our Australasian Colonies which enjoy such taxation, but where, notwithstanding, the same social inequality prevails: in the second place it is sufficient to indicate that such inequality, arising from the distribution of wealth, the ownership of the direct processes of such production and distribution have a far greater effect than the more indirect ownership of the land ; and as between the landlord and the capitalist, the direct despoiler of the workman is the capitalist, however he, in his turn, may be despoiled of his plunder by the landlord.

The distinction sought to be urged by Liberals generally between land and capital, and more particularly with regard to the conditions of ownership, do not hold water for one moment. The perfection of the processes and the instruments of production is in no way due to the capitalist class, but is the outcome of countless ages of evolution, and represents the co-ordinated experience of the race in the methods of maintaining its existence. That development is due to the workers who operate and fashion, rather than to the idlers who merely own. The instruments of production are essentially as social and as necessary as land, and the private ownership of one can be maintained no more logically than the other. The Liberal Party in using the social necessity argument to combat the claims of the landlords, is preparing a rod for its own back when it maintains the claims of the capitalists.

The Issue Clearly Put.

The question immediately remaining to be solved is whether the workers are sufficiently conscious of their position as a class, against both the landlord and capitalist factions, to see through the latest attempt of their masters, and keep the issue to the broader, simpler one so excellently phrased by the very man who is now busy organising the new side-track, viz., why is there, after three years of Liberal Government, no diminution, of that “great want in the land of plenty ?” Once the true answer to this pregnant question, an answer which only the untrammelled voice and pen of enlightened Labour dare formulate, is understood by the workers, the new movement predicted by Lloyd-George will make short work of both Liberal and Tory “bunglers or rogues.”

R. H. Kent