Revolution. The Problem of the Out of Work. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Strange Inversion.

The free born wage-worker of to-day has a heaven that is peculiar to himself and his age and which speaks volumes for the wretchedness of his position. It is his paradise to be exploited, regularly—to have plenty of work—while his hell is to have none. And, truly, the hell is genuine enough ! Use, however, becomes second nature, and many a worker is so inured to his position that he accepts his lot uncomplainingly, or even with a certain smug satisfaction, so long as he is in work, his “manly” breast swells with pride when he hears the politicians talk of “honest toil,” and he grasps with humble gratitude the few mouldy crumbs that are flung to him out of the heap of good things he has created. So might the chattel slave have been proud of his chains, grateful for the offal thrown to him, and jealously appreciative of the dignity of his toil and his right to do it.

Modern times, however, differ somewhat in that the society of to-day cannot feed its slaves. Its slaves go begging for a master and yet are turned empty away. Thus in a period that is heir to the discoveries of the ages, and that possesses means multiplied a thousand-fold for producing all the good things of life, and wherein labour-saving devices have reached a perfection hitherto undreamed of, there exists, nevertheless, among the very class whose labour made this abundance possible, a mass of poverty and suffering that makes the famines of olden time trivial by comparison.

And this is caused, not by scarcity, as of old, but by sheer plenty ! The producers are but the hirelings of those who own field, factory, and workshop, and these leave no stone unturned in their feverish anxiety to find means, by improved combination and machinery, of reducing the number of wage-slaves they need hire. Hence the unemployed—a permanent and growing feature of capitalist society.

No Hope in the Master Class.

During the coming winter, indeed, the question of unemployment may be expected to reach an acuteness never before equalled. And what will the master class do ? Will they solve the unemployed problem ? Only fools think so, for the master class themselves confess that it is, to them, insoluble. They neither can nor will solve this riddle of the Sphinx. A capitalist system without unemployed would be impossible, and our masters know it.

Economic development under capitalism, however, makes the out-of-work army grow rapidly to huge dimensions and become in fact a serious menace to the security of the class that rules. Indeed, the indifference of the ruling class and the needs of the unemployed make disturbance the only resource of the latter in their endeavour to get an immediate plate of soup or crust of bread to prolong their pitiable existence. Yet, by appealing to the class in power to do something what will they get ? What but promises and then more promises ? What but paltry relief works that do not relieve and votes of sums of money that may not be spent ? Works that can wait no longer for execution will be said to be put in hand to “help the unemployed.” If a City alderman, having worn out seat of his trousers with constant dining, buys a new pair, it will also, presumably, be for the sake of the unemployed, just as tramway works that have been delayed until they can be delayed no longer are started ostensibly “to relieve the unemployed.” And so the fraud goes on.

The Treachery of the ‘Labour’ Members.

Meanwhile the unemployed, as though their misfortunes were not great enough, continue to have their misery exploited by reform organisations and fresh editions and emulators of John Burns. For whatever else the recent Grayson episode may have emphasised, it made once more abundantly clear that the “Labour”, members are prepared—even anxious—to range themselves on the side of Labour’s enemies when it suits their book to do so—although whether this will be apparent to those who pay the piper is, unfortunately, still very dubious. But so many things have happened that it would seem must come to those who have pinned their faith to these Labour misleaders as direct blows, full between the eyes, and yet have been practically unnoticed, that there is little immediate hope that this last instance will have much greater effect. The Parliamentary group rely for their present maintenance upon working-class ignorance, and knowing how abysmal that ignorance is, feel safe in taking action the results of which must overwhelm them and render further misleading impossible directly the working class have anything like an adequate appreciation of their class interests. Just as recent bye-elections have been significant of nothing so much as of the desperate concern of the “Labour” members to hang on to the coat-tails of Liberalism outside the House, lest the security of their seats and their £200 a year be imperilled, so the Grayson incident made it clear that the methods to be pursued inside are those that will not embarrass the Government, and may result in recognition and advancement, if not to the elevation of a seat in the Cabinet, at any rate to the comfort and security of some minor official job that will remove them from the risk of the loss of their £200 a year consequent upon working-class enlightenment.

We Warned the Working Class.

Of course, to us this was apparent from the very inception of the Labour Representation Committee and we said so. The “half-baked” and the semi-enlightened then preferred to call us very much the sort of name some of them are now applying to the opponents of Grayson. If, however, incidents similar to those referred to have the effect of opening a few eyes to the actual and potential power for working-class evil resident in this precious “Labour” Group, it will be some sort of satisfaction. They have now reached a stage where, as we have said, it seems almost incredible that any man could be left who failed to see just what the Parliamentary “Labour” leaders are after and where they are leading. The attitude of the S.P.G.B. is more than vindicated.

Let there be no misunderstanding as to our view of Grayson’s action. Grayson is a man who has no very clear idea of where he stands upon questions of economics, who certainly does not understand the Socialist position, and who cannot, therefore, be accepted as in any adequate sense a representative of Socialism. He is, we should say, a product of Clarionism, Clarionism being compact of sentiment and snobbery, with a strong infusion of capitalist “progressive” ideas and a mild dash of Socialist thought —a queer compound that a staff consisting of little girls and old women serve up for the gratification of the elect weekly.

From a product of this sort of food nothing great can be expected, but Grayson took up a position on the unemployed question in the House that, at any rate, compelled attention and translated into action a protest against the callous indifference of capitalism to the growing volume of misery that capitalism had created, and the flacid, supine, “respectability” and “statesmanship” of the pseudo-Labour Group. With one accord these “Labour” gentlemen ranged themselves on the side of capitalism. Let that be included as a count in the indictment that in the name of the working class we bring against them.

What’s Bred In the Bone.

And now, lest their treachery be too palpable, they hasten to explain that the Government were on the point of saying something, and they wanted to hear what it was before taking action. If the something had been unsatisfactory they proposed etc., etc. The same old story. The same contemptible lie, or the same hopeless, helpless stupidity—whichever they like. First they do not know the forms of the House. We were to wait until they had time to familiarise themselves, and then we should see something. Then—give the Government a chance. Let us wait to see what it would do. If it did not do anything . . . ! Then again, let us see what Burns would make of his opportunity. If nothing came of it we . . . ! And so on.

Not even sufficient originality to invent a new lie or a decent excuse. They either knew that the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party’s jackal, Burns, would not do anything if they waited till the last trump, or the whole record of the Liberal Party was a closed book to them, or they had not even a glimmer of that essential antagonism of interest of which the Liberal Party is a political expression on the side of capitalism. In short, and not to put too fine a point on it, they were either damned fools or doubly damned knaves.

Now we have our Pete Currans who were cursing the forms of the House and praying for something to break them up, our Will Thornes who are forever mouthing “revolution” and the absurdity of awaiting the Government’s convenience, our Jowetts who are always ready to make scenes if necessary, our Phillip Snowdens—the Daily Mail’s fierce and bitter iconoclasts, and the rest of them turning to sneer at the theatricality (it may have been that, of course) of Grayson, and protesting that they could not be led by boys who indulge in expensive suppers and so on—banal puerilities given off in the hope that that which cannot be justified may be obscured.

Well, since the Grayson outbreak the Government has spoken, and the unemployed know that, except for an additional £100,000, they are where they were last year. Burns is to administer the fund as before—a wholly grotesque sum in the hands of a wholly fraudulent (from a working-class point of view) administrator. In addition, the necessity of the unemployed is to be used as a means, if possible, of making up Haldane’s special army reserve that would otherwise, in all probability, have failed to materialise. Indeed, the Liberal Party are full of sympathy for “the honest workman starving through no fault of his own.” We don’t think.

Keir Hardie, on behalf of the “Labour” Group, made certain dark references to what they would do if the Government’s proposal was unsatisfactory. The “Labour” Group’s action (at the time of writing) takes the form of an amendment expressing dissatisfaction !

One other notable thing the present agitation has emphasised that can only be very briefly referred to, viz., the impotence of the “one step at a time” or “something now” “Socialist,” directly his “evolutionary not revolutionary” theory is put to the test. The people, the women and children, are starving. They want something now. What is the use of preaching Socialism to them ?—before they get that they must die of want. And so they proceed to get the “something now” by asking Governments who, by their very nature, cannot prevent starvation and do not even pretend to try, to take action. And the Governments take “action,” and have been taking “action,” and the starving people continue to starve, and the children continue to cry, and the unemployed army grows and grows, until—until we have reached the stage of crisis where the honest adherents to the “something now” policy, in desperation of ever getting their “something now,” throw in their lot with those who advocate riot and pillage as the only means by which food may be obtained immediately ; the only means by which fear may be stricken into the hearts of the capitalist class. Overboard goes “evolution” (their brand), and in its place they preach—anarchy. They break up their stepping-stones to use them as missiles.

Well, to the extent to which this change of attitude represents the demolition of the quasi-intellectual posture, it is good. But we have to point out that to preach pillage is to bring trained, armed, and well fed men against untrained, unarmed, and starving men. The.result harmful to the latter, although not necessarily more disastrous than the process of starvation they are at present undergoing, while the menace of a desperate crowd threatening to, or actually, running amok, invariably has quite a notable effect in stimulating the flow of doles.

While we cannot speak for God, as Cardinal Manning claimed to do, we agree that Manning was quite right in affirming that a starving man was entitled to take food—notwithstanding that, as Curtis Bennet, the magistrate, pointed out to the ferocious Will Thorne, M.P. (who mildly allowed himself to be bound over not to be naughty again), it was bad “law.” If anyone knows of any alternative for a hungry man, woman, or child other than that of getting food by some means or other (any means being justified) or starving, we have still to hear of it.

The point is, then, that only out of fear for their own position and possessions can the “something now” be obtained from the capitalist class. And that fear is struck more surely and far deeper by the fact of a working class, understanding their class interests, consciously organising for the overthrow of the capitalist system in its entirety, than by any conglomeration of unorganised human atoms blindly struggling for food with no idea beyond their immediate requirements. These last can be dealt with and their agitation “scotched” by judicious sops, or, in the last resort, by the use of the police and soldiery. The former cannot be so easily put off the scent. It will have to rain sops like manna before any hope of check can be entertained.

Now, is it not high time that the working class—in work or out of work, realised the futility of expecting those who live by working-class exploitation to seriously grapple with a problem the solution of which would spell their extinction as a class ? Instead of useless parading and futile tinkering with effects, is it not clear that the problem must be attacked at its root ? Its root is in the system of capitalism, and as an evil to the workers it can end only when capitalism ends—when the means of living are owned and used by the democratic community of those who labour.

That, however, will not be accomplished by those whose source of life is profits, but will and can only be brought about by the conquest of the powers of government by the working class for that object. This is the only way to deal with the unemployed problem, for what avails it to waste time on effects if the source of the misery pours unchecked an increasing flood upon us ? The task before us is not to appeal to the capitalist class to do something, but to organise the workers for the overthrow of that class so they (the workers) may do something for themselves. The battle-cry of the workers’ party is not “The Right to Work,” but “The Right to the Product of Our Labour,” and that right waits only upon their might. That is the really revolutionary way.

And you, reader, have a duty as a worker to yourself and to your fellows—it is to join the political party of your class. If unemployment is to cease to be your scourge, if you in common with your fellows are to have your lot made brighter, if you and those dear to you are to have the means of health and happiness secured, you must take your place in the ranks, for the deliverance of the workers from wage-slavery can come from none others than the workers themselves.

The party of the working class is the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which works democratically and consistently for the end of unemployed misery, and declines to exploit the wretchedness of the unemployed by parading them in futile appeal to the robber class. Your duty is to join it, for your only hope lies in the democratic organisation of your class for Socialism, since through working-class victory only can class oppression cease and the toiler come at last by his own.

Blogger's Note:

". . . the recent Grayson episode . . ." is a reference to an incident in the House of Commons, which took place on the 31st October 1908. According to the Victor Grayson page over at Spartacus Educational:

On Tuesday, 31st October, 1908, Grayson stood up in the House of Commons and shouted out: "I wish to move the adjournment of the House so that it can deal with the unemployment question... people are starving in the streets." When he refused to sit down he was escorted from the Commons. As he left he turned to Labour members and shouted: "You are traitors! Traitors to your class."

Editorial: Newcastle. (1908)

Editorial from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hartley’s programme in the Newcastle election had one advantage over Burrows’ in Haggerston. It was rather less windy. But it was not more sensible because of that. Said Hartley, “First, last, and all the time I am a Socialist; knowing that Socialism is the only hope of the workers, and the only escape from your present difficulties.”

That was good enough for us. But Hartley continued, “The first and most important question is that of unemployment. I am in favour of public provision of useful work for the unemployed at not less than trades union rates of wages.” And there the fatuous baffle-headedness of the reformer came in.

The fact is that you cannot have “public provision of useful work for the unemployed “at trade union or any other rate of wages, while the capitalist is in control. The unemployed are an inevitability under capitalism, and a necessity. Socialism alone will solve the unemployed problem, and then the question of wages will not arise.

What, then, was Hartley’s duty if “first, last and all the time” he was a Socialist ? Clearly to emphasise the fact that “the first and most important question” must remain unanswered until the workers answered it themselves by securing control of the means of life ; and that if they wanted something now they simply couldn’t have it, except to the extent that by organisation they gave unequivocal expression to their determination to be after nothing less than Socialism. To that extent they would find the capitalist class prepared to make concessions in the way of work for the unemployed and other forms of doles.

___________

The old, old Folly.

In unimportant matters such as womans' Suffrage, the Quelches and Hartleys and the rest of the “whole hoggers” point out against the “limited” Suffragettes that the measure of the demand for votes will be the measure of the concessions made; that even if the “limited” Bill was a good thing, the best method to secure it was to set up a fight for the complete measure. The governing class was bound to make as large a deduction from the total demand as possible, so that in asking for the lot and backing it up with organised determination, there was far more likelihood of getting approximately the total of the ”limited” measure than if the sum of the demand was no more than the “limited” measure embraces.

Yet when it comes to the vastly more important question of the unemployed, we have the same Quelch-Hartleys falling back upon the despised methods of the “limited” suffragists, and for the purposes of their pose as practical politicians, disguising the cold and brutal facts of the unemployed problem lest they lose votes thereby (what other explanation fits the circumstances than this ?) what time they talk of half loaves and other pseudo-remedial piffle, to meet immediate requirements.

They are more preposterous than the “limited” suffragists. The “limited” Bill, even the adult suffrage measure, may easily be obtained under present conditions—a very certain indication of the unimportance of both. But Hartley knows that this half loaf of his for the immediate consumption of the unemployed, cannot be secured at all under present conditions. Either he knows this or it is time he left the platform and did a little reading. Why then does he put this in the forefront of his programme ? The only answer that occurs is that he knows his audience will probably not take the trouble to worry the thing out for themselves, and that while they are content to take his word for it, the thing looks feasible and within the range of “practical” politics. In other words Hartley, like Burrows, trades upon ignorance to capture votes. If he has any other explanation to offer we shall be glad to hear of it.

___________

Another Sale.

The Newcastle election, however, did one good thing. It set in the strongest relief the fact that we have emphasised for years—and been sneered at for our pains. The “Labour” Party has sold itself, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Liberalism it professes to stand absolutely independent of. Even Joseph Burgess, to whose work the present position is admittedly largely due, breaks out in vehement protest against the “unholy compact between Liberalism and Labour” which has resulted in the Star Chamber (consisting of Henderson and MacDonald), which directs the “Labour” Party, frankly declining to contest Newcastle against the Liberal for fear of imperilling Hudson’s seat, and invoking reprisals in other double-barrelled constituencies, from which the “Labour” member obtains his seat by collaboration with the Liberals.

Well, Burgess and the rest of them may howl. The murder was out for us long ago. The particulars we published in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD immediately following the general election left no sort of misapprehension as to the position, in the minds of anyone capable of weighing evidence. To-day the “Labour” Party stands confessed as a pitiable appendage of capitalist Liberalism, worse than useless from a working-class point of view, and only concerned to save the worthless carcasses of the members from being cast into the outer darkness that lies beyond the walls of St. Stephens, where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, because of the lost two hundred dirty pieces of gold (as Burns, the capitalist tout and working-class harpy, once unkindly called them) and all the kudos and the potentialities thereof, that attach to the position of a member of Parliament.

__________

How Long?

Just how long the trade unions will be prepared to find the money to keep this wretched gang in position is a moot point. It will depend, of course, absolutely upon the spread of Socialist thought amongst the union workers. Our part is to propagate the principles of Socialism on every available opportunity, to the end that a Socialist group under the direction and control of Socialist constituencies, shall appear for the first time in the Parliament to displace the alleged Labour group, put an end to the sham divisions between Liberal and Conservative capitalists, force them all into one camp in open antagonism to working-class interests (they will go soon enough when faced with direct issues) and give expression to the proletarian revolt without by ceaseless, irreconcilable struggle within until the capture of political power has been accomplished in the name of the workers of the world.

The guarantee that the shameless sale of working-class interests which it is now obvious to anybody the “Labour” group has been party to, cannot be repeated by a Socialist group, consists in the fact that a Socialist member of Parliament is unthinkable apart from a Socialist constituency. A Socialist constituency instructs its Parliamentary delegate, and removes him incontinently if he departs from his instructions. He is, and must remain, servant, never master, never anything else than delegate. Given a Socialist constituency, therefore, “deals” are impossible. Without the Socialist constituency, the Socialist member is impossible.

Well, comrades, let us get at it. The barometer of our success will be the rise of the storm of indignation which the awakening workers will direct against the Parliamentary “Labour” misleaders who have gone over to the enemy, as well as against that band of hope— the misleaders who are still awaiting the chance of “getting in”—who have aided and abetted the treachery.

___________

The Price of a “Labour” Member.

Arising out of the Newcastle discussion, Mr. Frank Rose (Clarion, Oct 2), replying to the charge that the “Labour” members are more concerned with the safety of their own seats than with the “bigger, bolder, and better policy” which he (Rose) would like to see adopted, says “Why should they not look after their seats ? . . . The critical Simon Pures who have not got seats to lose might act differently if they had seats. On the other hand, they might not. I want a bigger, bolder, and better policy, but I do not expect one for a farthing a week.”

This is as frank as we shall get it. If those who pay the wages of the “Labour” members want better value they must pay a bigger price. You cannot expect a big, bold policy on £200 a year. Presumably, Rose would have taken the exact opposite of the action the Executive of the Labour Party took, but you cannot get big, bold action like that for the present price paid. All you can expect is that the “Labour” members shall look after their seats and their paltry £200 a year. The £200 a year is clearly due to them for the worry and trouble they are caused in keeping those seats !

A very big, bold gospel; a very precious gospel, this. Now if we had said that the “Labour” members were primarily after their salaries and were prepared to sell out their convictions as to the necessity for a big, bold policy, because they only received a paltry £4 a week and required £5 or more before they would move further than they do move, what in the way of base calumniators should we have been according to Rose & Co. ? And yet that is, in effect, precisely what Rose would have us understand in this connection. Well, Frank Rose is in the running for a job at the regulation salary. He holds that a bigger, bolder policy is necessary. He holds that the workers can’t have that policy at the price. So, presumably, he will, if he gets the job, go in for the policy that is useless—even as the other “Labour” members.

What other attitude should he adopt ? It would certainly seem to us as “impossibilists” and “vulgar persons,” that the only action possible to a man holding Rose’s views is to retire from candidature altogether or until such time as the money, upon which alone a big and useful policy can be pursued, is forthcoming. But then Mr. Rose is not a Simon Pure.

However, for the present the workers are to understand that they must raise their members’ screw if they want anything more than a receipt: for the money, or, although the alternative does not seem to strike Mr. Rose, they may sack their present employees and get representatives instead of job-hunters. When they understand they surely will. Meanwhile their leaders do not intend to show them the way to the bigger, bolder and better policy. They are not paid to !

Blogger's Note:

For more background on the aforementioned Haggerston bye-election, the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard covered it in some detail. 

Quote. [voting] (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The only way to guard against throwing your vote away is to vote for the party that stands for what you stand for. To vote for something that you don’t want in order to avoid something else that you don’t is to do worse than throw your vote away."—The Call.

Blogger's Note:

My educated guess is that The Call cited above was The New York Call, which had been launched in May of 1908. There was a British 'socialist' paper with the title of The Call but that dates from 1916-20.

Anybody else think that the quote is reminiscent of the following famous Eugene Debs' quote?:

“I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want, and get it.”

The Bury debate. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Executive Committee have received the following communication from Mr. Allan, who signs himself the General Secretary-Treasurer of the British Advocates of Industrial Unionism, with a request for publication. We have asked our comrade Fitzgerald for his remarks on the matter and append his reply.—ED.

____________

After a debate between the S.P.G.B. and the S.L.P. in Bury on August 2nd, in which the S.P.G.B. representative was Mr. Fitzgerald and the S.L.P. representative was W. Davis, the former gentleman endeavoured to slander the I.W.W. by stating that while the Industrial Unionists made a point against the Trade Unions in that they created their own scabs by expelling members who were out of employment and who allowed their dues to lapse for a period of say one year or so, the I.W.W. did so still the more because it had a rule expelling members out of employment who were sixty days in arrears. In proof of this he read from Article VI., Section 10, of the Constitution :—

“All National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions, Local Unions and individual members of the Industrial Workers of the World that are in arrears for dues and assessments for sixty days, counting from the last day of the month for which reports and remittances are due, shall not be considered in good standing and shall not be entitled to any of the benefits or payments from any fund of this organisation.”

He claimed that the term “shall not be considered in good standing” was an Americanism which involved expulsion, and although the rule does not specifically state that members who are out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he gratuitously assumed this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W., that they shall be kept in the organisation by being excused payment of dues.

However, as I always like to be doubly sure, I wrote to W. E. Trautmann, General Secretary-Treasurer of the I.W.W., and this is a copy of his reply, which should effectually ram the lie back in Mr. Fitzgerald’s teeth if he intended purposely to slander the I.W.W., or gently correct him if he was only mistaken.

____________

COPY OF W. E. TRAUTMANN’S LETTER.

Chicago Ill., U.S.A. 

Aug. 17, 1908.

Comrade and Fellow-Worker,

In reply to yours of August 3rd, I wish to state that there is no occasion for anybody to drop out of the I.W.W. when once a member, as those out of a job are exempt from paying any dues, etc; but if those who work and earn money so that they could pay their regular dues to the organisation, neglect their duty, they thereby suspend themselves, after three months lapse of time, from the organisation (Note, they suspend themselves.—W.G.A.).

The Constitution, of which I enclose a copy, does not state that members out of work are exempt from payment of dues, but that has been the rule since the inception of the organisation, and is especially now of great benefit to the organisation, as those without jobs are allowed to continue the agitation for the I.W.W. as members thereof, although they do not pay dues and are receiving exemption stamps to show it. 

(Signed) W. E. Trautmann.

Further comment is needless, and if Mr. Fitzgerald is honest he will tender his apology and admit he was wrong.

Yours for Industrial Freedom,

W. G. Allan. 

20.9.08.

___________

TO THE EDITOR

5th October, 1908.

Dear Comrade,

Beyond a further point of explanation of the occurrence at Bury I can add no evidence to that so conclusively embodied in Mr. Allan’s own letter as to the truth of my statement.

I stated that the Constitution of the I.W.W. by excluding members for a shorter period of non-payment of dues than the ordinary trade union, helped to make its own blacklegs faster than those they (the I.W.W.) denounced, and pointed to unemployment as the chief cause of this non-payment. Mr. Allan first denied that such a rule existed, and when confronted with a copy of the Constitution, and the rule he quotes in his letter was pointed out to him, he tried to escape by saying that there was another rule exempting those unemployed from payment of dues. He was at once handed the Constitution and challenged to find such rule, and, of course, failed to do so. The letter purporting to come from W. E. Trautmann re-emphasises this fact by stating that “The Constitution does not state that members out of work are exempt”—the only point in dispute. What fancy, unwritten laws may prevail in Chicago—or in Trautmann’s mind—have no bearing on the point, seeing that the I.W.W. was formed in 1905, has had a convention each year since, and is still without such a rule in its Constitution.

Mr. Allan says that “although the rule does not specifically state that members out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he (Fitzgerald) gratuitously assumes this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W.” It is a pity Mr. Allan did not read the rule he himself quotes, as it there states ” ALL. . . . individual members,” etc. This admits of no exception, and therefore I assumed nothing in the matter. As to it being a “well-known principle,” so little is it either a “principle” or “well-known” that it, is embodied in neither the Preamble nor the Rules.

The only lie in the case is Mr. Allan’s assertion that the I.W.W. had a rule in its Constitution exempting unemployed members from payment of dues, the falsity of which is fully proved by his own letter. The only apology due is one owing to your readers for having to go over ground already fully dealt with in our debate with the Advocates published in the August and November, 1907, issues of this journal.

Fraternally yours,

J. Fitzgerald

Another Rod in Pickle. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Constitutional Association being dead and its “Black Marias” scrapped after a few hours of pitiably inglorious life, the Anti-Socialist Union, with Mr. Claude Lowther as President, bobs up with its little lot. “The standard works of Socialism are being studied, and every candidate (for a speakership in the Union) will be subjected to a viva voce examination of a hundred questions before being regarded as qualified. Pamphlets will be published . . and a circle of anti-Socialist writers, speakers, M.P’s and others will he formed, who will meet once a month and exchange ideas.”

So once more we are in for a nice hot time—running round to try and find where the anti-Socialist members of the Union are on the stump. The difficulty with the Constitutional Association was that it took the precaution not to announce where its great public demonstrations against Socialism were to be held, and when we did happen to alight upon one, the anti-Socialist speaker took the very necessary step of refusing opposition. As the Daily Express rather naively pointed out, it was dangerous to allow a Socialist on an anti-Socialist platform because the Socialist was in possession of the facts and the “anti” was not, the result being that the Socialist made Socialists while the “anti” made—well, made rather a fool of himself ! What they had to do, then, according to the Express, was to wait until a certain handbook was published, which would contain information that would simply wipe the Socialist propagandist off the map. We waited patiently and with some interest for our untimely end to overtake us, but that dark, documentary spell-binder never saw the light, and the “Black Marias” out of which our doom was to be pronounced, are probably now doing more useful service as coffee stalls.

The Anti-Socialist Union’s special line, however, is not a book, but a list of 100 questions. When all these have been answered satisfactorily, its speakers take the road, and the Daily Express, unabashed, anticipates that that moment will see the rout of the Socialists commenced.

Well, the Express is welcome to its anticipation, and it had better get all the comfort it can. before the realisation comes. Because if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the Socialists will run when the rout commences—in chase of the “anties,” who will be hot-foot in retreat.

But we fear that, although it is welcome, to it, the Express gets no very satisfactory comfort out of its anticipation. The Express is vastly more knave than fool, and although it may jeer at our confidence, it knows quite well that its anticipation will never be realised. However, our contemporary cannot be expected to admit anything of the sort. Its express purpose in life is to run the gamut between the mild perversion and the downright lie, particularly when dealing with the position of the Socialist. Its business is not to say what it thinks so much as to say what it wishes its readers to think. And as the potential orators of the Anti-Socialist Union will doubtless be amongst its most assiduous devourers, they may, if they are very simple, derive sufficient confidence from the utterances of the organ of the greatest hustler on earth to go on with their work—particularly if, as will doubtless be the case, a decent stipend is attached to the job.

We only wish that it were possible for us to be present at some of the meetings of the circle whereat “ideas” will be exchanged. Might we suggest to the Anti-Socialist Union that the public be admitted at a small charge. We at any rate would get full value for our outlay—in merriment.

However, let them all come, and the sooner the better—for us. But we hope the two first questions on that hundred list will not be, say, “Is there any remedy for the poverty problem that will stand the test of examination other than Socialism ?” and, “Is there one single useful or necessary thing performed by the capitalist to-day that the workers, properly organised, could not perform for themselves ?” Because in that case there is a very good chance that the other 98 questions will never be reached and therefore the compleat anti-Socialist propagandist never be fashioned and let loose to add to the gaiety of life. And that would be a pity indeed.

Dynamite. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jeering at the claims of the Tariff Reformer as the possessor of a nostrum that will alleviate poverty, Burns, at Tynemouth, 14.10,08 (Daily News report) said “I am not a prophet, but I suggest this : If Protection were in existence, it would never see one hard summer because the people would perish.” So. The people who under Free Trade have so great an advantage over the miserable wretches who are forced to exist under Protection, are so strong, so virile, so well nourished after their generations of prosperity, that they would perish in one summer of Protection that the miserable weaklings of Protection manage, somehow, to pull through years of. No, we should not describe Burns as a prophet. A much shorter word will suffice. He doesn’t seem to have sense enough to know when he is giving the game away. Verily, if his salary is to be preserved to him the Lord must make quick and violent incision in him, for he is indeed raw.

* * *

“In Newcastle Mr. Hudson (Labour) was hand in glove with the Liberal candidate at the last (general) election. He was entertained at the Liberal Club less than 36 hours before the election, and he urged his supporters to split their votes between the Liberal and himself, which was very loyally done.” 

Sunday Chronicle, 13.9.08.

* * *

“Mr. Hudson says that he is not going to take a hand in the contest and his attitude is the outcome of his loyalty to the Labour Party. Newcastle is a strong one-man seat for Labour. Two Labour candidates mean that both would be defeated at the next general election.” 

Sunday Chronicle, 20.9.08.

* * *

“The Independent Parliamentary Labour Party which boasts of its independence of either of the old political parties, has refrained from putting up a candidate at Newcastle because Mr. Hudson, the “Labour” member for the double-seated constituency, believes he cannot be independent of the Liberal vote at the next election ; or, at any rate, the leaders of his party believe that . . . Conservatives can afford to smile at the sight of Labour kow-towing to the Liberals who make helots of some state servants.” — Evening Chronicle, 18.9.08.

* * *

“Forty-six deaths from starvation in the county of London for 1907.” 

Home Office White Paper.

* * *

The Registrar General’s analysis of the 1901 census recently published shows that general labourers in industrial centres have an average mortality more than twice as high as the average for all workers, while the mortality among clergymen is less than half the average.

* * *

“The time is fast approaching when the real struggle will be between the man who wields hammer and chisel and the man who holds the cash-box—Capital versus Labour, if you like. Whig and Tory must give place to these.” 

The Business Man’s Magazine.

Whig and Tory know this already. The Business Man’s Magazine’s writer’s point is merely that Whig and Tory will soon be forced to drop the present pretence of political partizanship in the general interest and come out in what the draper would call “fast colours.”

* * *

Since the law came into operation that closed public houses in Scotland all day on Sunday and early on Saturday, the proportion of charges of drunkenness and disorderliness per 1,000 of the population of Glasgow has increased from 17.7 in 1904 to 27.7 in 1907 according to the official figures supplied by the Chief Constable of Glasgow. In 1904 there were 13,850 charges; 1905, 15,263 charges ; 1906, 20,458 charges ; and in 1907, 22,314. This is how the facts support the argument of the temperance crank that the absense of facilities for drinking prevents drinking being indulged in.

* * *

From 1896 to 1905 the total deaths from all classes of accidents in connection with mines in the United Kingdom was 10,202. (Blue Book.)

* * *

The latest report of the General Board of Commissioners states that since 1858 lunacy in Scotland has increased by 202 per cent. as against a population increase of 58 per cent. On the 1st January last the total number of insane person in Scotland was 17,908.

* * *

“According to the Board of Trade ‘Labour Gazette,’ returns from 268 trade unions, having a net membership of 648,585, showed 8.9 per cent. of the net membership as unemployed. According to the report of the New York State Labor Department, out of a total of 387,450 trade unionists reported on, 138,131, or 35.7 per cent., were unemployed on 31 March. The New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph stated, on 27 April, on the authority of Mr. Herman Robinson, general organiser of the American Federation of Labor, that at least 40 per cent. of the trade unionists of the city of New York were unemployed on 1 April.” 

Morning Leader, 5.10.08.

The Pillory. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. John Burns at Tynemouth, 14.10.08 (Daily News report) said in reference to the Tariff Reformer’s allegation that under Free Trade England was a country of vanishing trades, “If that was true (which he denied) it was unpatriotic to allege it.” Burns’s conception of patriotism is, then, a readiness to lie with all the heart, and soul, and strength, when circumstances require it. Burns is a patriot—for £2,000 a year!

* * *

David Cummings, of the Boilermakers, has gone the way of Isaac Mitchell, of the General Federation. They both have jobs under the Board of Trade, and the capitalist class will doubtless find them eager to justify their salaries. It is better so. In the ranks of the workers they were worse than useless. The workers know now where they are—and why. George Barnes is said to be in the running for a similar job. He also will be better there—if he goes. At present he denies it. But these denials are generally to be taken cum grano salis. If George doesn’t go it will probably be due to the fact that he hasn’t a biblical name. Men with biblical names seem in much greater request, witness John, Isaac, and David. Now if George had been named Barrabas——

* * *

A. S. Headingly, of the S.D.P., is advertised in the St. Louis Labor (3.10.08) as open to speak in the large cities of America at 15 dollars a time. It is not stated whether his address will consist of exhortations to the workers to keep their finger-nails clean and see that the crease in their pants is always in perfect alignment, or whether he will take as his subject “the application of soap below the collar line and its relation to the Revolution.” These grave questions will doubtless be duly considered as usual, notwithstanding that the lecturer’s fee is so low.

* * *

We have been requested to announce that “on Oct. 12th the Rev. Ernest J. B. Kirtlan, B.A., B.D., late chaplain of H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubs, member of Fabian Society, and lecturer for the S.D.P., will speak in connection with the anniversary of the South London Wesleyan Mission. Subject: ‘Fag-Ends.'” The combination of qualifications and the occasion, not less than the importance of the subject, have impelled us to comply. We are sorry that the address will have been delivered some weeks before we can publish the news to the world, but we have done what we could.

* * *

Act 1. Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., introduces a Bill to provide for a citizen army.

Act 2. The S.D.P. issue a pamphlet explaining what Mr. Thorne means. (This was laudable and eminently necessary.)

Act 3. Has not yet been constructed. It might properly take the form of an explanatory pamphlet on the S.D.P. explanation of Mr. Thorne’s Bill.

* * *

Mr. A. E. Wachter is, I understand, a well-known Clarion Scout in his own neighbourhood. He writes to the Sunday Chronicle to enlighten a “middle-class father of eight,” who seems to have alleged that the working “classes” do not pay rates. Mr. Wachter says the working “classes” do pay rates. Mr. Wachter should read THE SOCIALIST STANDARD regularly. It would save him making exhibitions of ignorance. The working class does not pay rates; and there is only one working class. To refer to working classes is absurd.

* * *

“He did not care tuppence ior the abstract opinion of any man who did not come into his trade union and plant down his little bit of money and do his little bit of work.” (G. N. Barnes, M.P., Salford, 4.9.08.) The value of a man’s views is in proportion to the regularity with which he planks down his little bit of money in the union. Mr. Barnes is refreshingly frank.

* * *

At the Sanitary Inspectors’ Conference at Liverpool on the 9th, Sir J. Crichton-Browne said that if Mrs. Hemans were alive she would have to add another verse to her well-known poem in eulogy of tenement buildings. It would probably run, he said, thus—

The tenements of England, piled tier on tier on high.

Stand not by brooks, in verdant nooks, that rest and glad the eye,

But they rest fair, in sun and air, are clean and free from croup,

And safely there the weary sleep, and the sickly cease to droop.

If this is humour it is of the type that requires labelling. If it is not perhaps the least unkind remark one could make would be that Sir J. C. Browne’s poetry is at least as good as his facts; to which might be added that while the poet may properly claim licence for his fanciful figments, the scientist must make his appeal on more solid ground.

Socialism V. Religion. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr H. M. Hyndman, having been badly mangled (by his brother Rothstein and others) on the German war scare issue which, in conjunction with brother Blatchford, he was good enough to offer the general Press as an excellent subject for a silly season discussion, has broken out in a fresh place. We have now to beware of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism has been played out “by the growth of popular science and freethought,” but apparently the same growth is playing in the power of the Pope, or the religious organisation the Pope is the figurehead of. Really, H. M. H. has mistaken his vocation. He should be where positive genius for “scare heads” would be appreciated. He is the silly season writer par excellence. He can provide an acceptable substitute for the great gooseberry every time.

Clericalism, high church, low church, Roman church, “Labour” church, and tin Bethelism of any calibre, are all in the ruck of reaction. Their power for evil depends, so far as we are concerned, upon the measure of working-class ignorance prevailing. Given that change in social conditions that will free men economically, the religious forms and influences which have been built up and maintained upon economic subjection, must go. Our business, therefore, is to direct the working-class mind toward that change of social conditions.

But does not the influence of the churches tell against our efforts ? It does where it can, of course, but its effect is not one to be troubled about, and very far indeed from being strong enough to warrant our departure from the course mapped out for us. The forces that affect the stomach are on our side. The armies of mankind move upon their stomachs. A starving man, offered the bread that perishes or the water of life, grabs at the bread every time—naturally.

The evolution of industry creates the starving man. We show him the way by which alone he may find the full satisfaction of his needs. The churches pretend to show him the way to heaven. The hollowness of the pretence may not appeal to him. The emptiness of the offer does. Hence the dilemma of the churches and their efforts to compromise on blankets and coal tickets. But it won’t do. The futility of charitable schemes and the offence of charitable schemes are alike too palpable. The Socialist alone holds the field. He alone can show the reason for the starving man. He alone can show the starving man the road to the ever full dinner pail.

Therefore we need not trouble about the churches. If they get too near our path we may give them a passing thump with the club of our argument. We can do that in our stride. As for concentrating upon the iniquity of “the Holy Catholic Church,” or turning out of our path to engage it, that is sheer Hyndmaniacal nonsense. The Holy Catholic Church may go hang. When we have nothing more important to do it might well be possible to amuse ourselves by crumpling it up. But we have a long way to go before we can afford the time.

Alegra.

The Forum. Some Open Discussions. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

Some common objections to the S.P.G.B.

Rufus (Isleworth) writes to suggest that we should cease from “vilifying the S.D.P. or I.L.P.” If these are wrong he thinks they should be let go their own way. The main difference, he submits, between the S.P.G.B. and the other parties is one of method. He asks if it is not possible for some common ground of action for all “progressive forces” to be found, and hopes that THE SOCIALIST STANDARD will be “kept for Socialism, the one grand hope of us workmen. The policy of washing one’s dirty linen in public is very questionable.” “Rufus” will find in back numbers of this paper, answers to all his points. In the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (one penny) he will find our attitude completely erudicated. “Rufus” and anyone else concerned is heartily recommended to read that pamphlet. No one has been able to touch its argument so far. No one can dispute its evidence. However, we will briefly reply to his points here. Where have we “vilified” the said Parties? Is it vilification to criticise and denounce their wrong-doing, if that wrong-doing is calculated to mislead the working class, and to that extent delay the organisation of the workers on class-conscious lines— the necessary preliminary to Socialism ? That is the limit of our vilification—if that is what “Rufus” means by the word. We should be traitors to our class if we failed to do that. We would “let them go their own way” quite readily if they did not take a section of the working class with them. Because they do, and because their way is the wrong way, and does not lead to their professed objective (only sometimes professed, by the way) viz., Socialism, we must, being Socialists, endeavour to arrest them. The difference between our Party and those other parties is a difference of principle. THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, says “Rufus” should be kept for Socialism. Agreed. As also must the Socialist Party, or it ceases to be the Socialist Party. If the Socialist Party occupied nine-tenths of its time in the advocacy of something which was not Socialism, could it be a Socialist party—particularly when the nine-tenths of its work had no necessary connection with Socialism, and consisted of proposals that capitalist parties were largely prepared, when necessary, to endorse ? Would a capitalist party endorse a proposal that materially affected its interests ? If not, can any of those proposals be seriously regarded as of material benefit to the working class, seeing that the interests of the capitalist class are always in direct opposition to the interests of the working class? If “Rufus” answers these questions in the negative, as we think upon careful reflection he must, he has the key to the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The principle of the differences between us and the other parties consists in our recognition of the necessity firstly, secondly, and lastly, of organising the working class upon the basis of their class interests—of preaching and explaining Socialism, and that alone, to them as “the one grand hope,” and of pointing out that nothing else matters. To the extent to which the other parties press upon the attention of the workers the things that do not matter, they are diverting their attention from Socialism—the only thing that does matter. They are dividing the working-class forces. They are not organising the working class upon the basis of class interests. They are asking the workers to concentrate upon demands that the capitalist class is quite prepared to concede under pressure—demands that in large measure the capitalist class of other countries have conceded with no material advantage to the workers. Hyndman himself, no less, has admitted the futility of these demands—obviously futile when the capitalist class are ready to give them ; for if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the capitalist class will not give anything that cuts into their profits.

That is the principle. All the other parties are reform parties. They advocate the things that are futile. Therefore we denounce their futilities and urge the workers to rally to the Socialist Party.

And that answers the question as to the common ground for all “progressive” parties to work upon. If Socialism, as “Rufus” admits, is the only hope, then the only common ground for “progressive parties” is the ground occupied by the Socialist Party. Ergo the only progressive party is the Socialist Party. The only Socialist Party is the S.P.G.B.

As to the objection to the washing of dirty linen in public, “Rufus” does not seem to see that the objection implies the existence of the dirty linen. “Rufus” thinks that anyhow it should be washed in private. That might be all right if the working class knew it for dirty linen. They do not—unfortunately. Therefore by cleansing it in public we show it is dirty.

Forum: The Relation of Princes to Pauperism. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

The following is suggested as a suitable

Open Letter to Prince Arthur of Connaught.

Dear Arthur,—Has it not occurred to you that your visit to Glasgow to feast at the expense of the ratepayers displayed the worst possible taste, seeing that thousands of people were without bare necessities of life, owing to the fact that the parasite class to which you belong own and control the means by which the working-class live? Had a brick-bat been hurled at your royal nose you would only have had yourself to blame. You must not think that you will be allowed to insult the people’s poverty with impunity. You who have so much leisure time ought to begin to understand the trend of events. The people are gradually awakening from their long sleep, and the day is coming when a nod from a lord will cease to be a breakfast to a fool. When the working class understand their economic servitude to the master class, they will set about taking over the means of producing and distributing wealth in their own interest. At such time the gilded puppets who now mock the people’s woe will be found some useful job at which there will be some possibility of them growing into men.

—Yours fraternally, J. H. K.

#    #    #    #

What princes of the blood, or princes without blood, may do at the expense of the ratepayers does not affect the working class, who are not ratepayers, tuppence. Whether Prince Arthur is an amiable or callous fool, a gentleman of polish or a vulgar snob, doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. From a working-class point of view he is no more than a portion of the frilling of the capitalist system. When Socialism supplants the capitalist system out go princes of the blood. The only point in the visit of Connaught minor to the high priced junketting of the city fathers of Glasgow at a time when thousands of men women, and children in that “municipal Mecca” were (and are) literally on the verge of starvation, consists in the callous indifference of capitalism to the sufferings of the working class and the utter hypocrisy of the pretence of monetary shortage. If this assists in bringing home to the workers of Glasgow the futility of expecting the employing class to do anything more than they are absolutely scared into doing to ameliorate the sufferings of the unemployed it will have served its turn. The workers must however, always remember that, although the capitalists under pressure are prepared to give out of their hoard, derived from the robbery of Labour, some comparatively small percentage in doles, they are not, prepared to relinquish their powers to rob. They will fight to retain these to the last ditch. And as this accentuated poverty problem will always recur while the capitalist class hold to their powers, the workers’ only hope is to consciously organise themselves for the fight that must precede such an alteration in the present system as will secure for the wealth producing class the wealth that class produces. That way—by organisation on Socialist lines for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism, they will scare the doles out of the capitalists to-day, and at the same time forward their ultimate object. Organisation for the Revolution, therefore, will get that “something now” for which the one-step-at-a-time reformer pleads in support of his method, without setting back the revolutionary movement. Invariably this set back results from the adoption of the reformers’ idea of concentrating upon a particular immediate reform, for the obvious reason that the reform when realised is painfully limited in its operations—as all reforms must necessarily be—and not having the ameliorative effect that the workers in their ignorance may have expected, disappointment is bred, and out of that apathy, and that stagnating indifference that is almost the despair of the propagandist of Socialism.

Forum: Free Maintenance. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

1. Does poverty prevent class consciousness ?

2. On state maintenance of children.

A.P. (Walworth.) writes a “friendly criticism” of our position extending to three folios, urging that although he recognises Socialism to be the only remedy, the working class are too unintelligent and ignorant in their present poverty-stricken condition to be able to achieve it. Free maintenance, he argues, is a necessary preliminary. He does not deny that it will bolster up capitalism, but says “the very process of patching up would play no small part in its downfall.” In the first place A.P. errs in confusing ignorance with a lack of intelligence : intelligence meaning a capacity for knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. We deny that the working class are not sufficiently intelligent to understand Socialism, one of the reasons being that we are workers ourselves. What prevents the workers accepting Socialism is the confusion introduced into its propaganda by persons calling themselves Socialists, preaching and doing that which is inconsistent with Socialism. Poverty by itself does not incapacitate a person from understanding anything—many of the intellectual geniuses of all times having struggled with poverty ; nor does poverty prevent a class from being revolutionary. Although the Peasants’ Revolt in this country was undertaken when the peasants were in a condition of comparative prosperity, the revolt of the continental peasants—the Jacquerie of France, in particular—was undertaken at about the same time, when at the lowest ebb of degradation and poverty. To-day, the revolutionary spirit is certainly as manifest in the East End as in respectable Suburbia.

Regarding free maintenance of the children, the very necessity of this as being the necessary outcome of capitalism is an indictment of capitalism, and the only remedy is Socialism. The working-class effort needed to agitate for and administer an adequate measure of state maintenance is about equal to that needed for the Social Revolution, and the working class capable of conducting the one is certainly equal to conducting the other—while Socialism would render the former unnecessary. And seeing also that while the capitalists rule they can only be persuaded to grant anything in that direction, apart from that which suits their own interests, by fear of something worse to follow, we know of nothing more calculated to impress the capitalist class with fear than the concentration of the workers on Socialism. It is quite a mistake to suppose that it is a tenet of this Party that reforms, sops, palliatives, and ameliorative measures generally would be refused. In the first place we cannot refuse them if we would, not having the power ; in the second place we know that the danger lies not in having these things offered as a substitute for Socialism—that would not lessen one class-consciousness—but in stultifying our Socialism by advocating that which is not Socialism. To talk of the patching being necessary to its downfall is simply a contradiction in terms and in fact. The illustration used seems most unhappy. If an eloquent S.P.G.B’er were to convert Haggerston to Socialism, the next week a nice, kind gentleman with a cheque book would be able to convert it back again to Tariff Reform. If the eloquence of the former were successful in converting the working class ia any constituency, that working class would be proof against the cheque book of the Tariff Reformer or any other agent of the master class, The cheque book is only powerful to-day because the workers are not converted and are not class-conscious.

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

ADMIRER (Manchester). Your letter splashes gay colour upon the drab of things. T’would be chur­lish not to be grateful. But be not unduly depressed. For the student of Copernicus, Darwin and Newton there is always hope.

Forum: Trade Unionism. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

 H. A. Barker (Longton) asks : A trade unionist, convinced of the necessity of Socialism, and knowing that capitalist government will as soon submit to the socialisation of the means of production and distribution as grant palliatives against their will, would the fact of him belonging to a trade union debar him from joining the S.P.G.B? If not what is his attitude toward the trade union?

Membership of a trade union is not a disqualification for membership in the Party. The attitude of a member of our organisation in a trade union is the attitude of a Socialist among non-Socialists, that is, the position of a propagandist. Every time he comes into contact with his union and its members he takes the opportunity to emphasise the inefficacy of trade unionism to do anything towards achieving the emancipation of his class, and their lessening power in steadying the downward tendency of wages. To such propaganda some unions lend themselves more than others, in many it is only possible; but while it is necessary, and in some cases, essential, that a man shall belong to his union in order to live by his craft, we cannot debar unionists; and when the members of unions are converted to Socialism the nature of the organisation will change, their “leaders” will lose their power, and they will fall into line with the revolutionary movement so far as is necessary to that movement, or cease to exist altogether.

At random. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“May I say there is a good deal of nonsense talked about capital ?” Thus Lloyd-George at Swansea. And at once adds more “nonsense.” As thus: “The greatest capitalist in this country is Nature.” The implication that all wealth is capital should commend itself to Clarion Vanner (by the grace of Blatchford) Hick.

* * *

This product of what he himself described as the “stately cloisters of Oxford,” told a motley gathering of I.L.P’ers, S.D.P’ers, etc. in Peckham that capital was “wealth used to produce more wealth.” He affected to be much concerned when a member of the S.P.G.B. referred to him as a “catspaw of the capitalist class,” and cried aloud for proof of the charge, hastily adding, at the same time, that no Socialist would be allowed on the platform in opposition.

* * *

Cumulative and damnatory evidence could be given until further orders, that this brand of political quack is effectually doing the work of the master class in several directions, but the mere fact that one of the high-priests of Capital and the Vanner should be engaged in confusing the mind of the worker on vital points is sufficiently significant of itself.

* * *

Nothing suits the game of the capitalist class better than to point to the worker’s pick, his shovel, his dinner-pail, to apostrophise his mental qualities, his endurance, his etc., etc., and call them “capital.” For why ? It BLURS THE CLASS STRUGGLE.

* * *

“Capital does not consist in the fact that stored-up labour is used by living labour as a means to further production. Capitalism presupposes the existence of a class which possesses nothing but labour-power. It is the lordship of realised labour over living labour that transforms stored-up labour into capital”—Author of pamphlet, “Karl Marx.”

* * *

Kautsky, in the second section of his brilliant work, “Das Erfurter Programm,” (issued by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in pamphlet form as “The Working Class,” price one penny, honestly and correctly translated into English.) has pointed out that modern capitalism has developed a sorry type of proletarian—-the educated wage-slave. The death of Churton Collins, a distinguished scholar and acknowledged authority on Shakesperian lore, is one of frequently occurring incidents which emphasises his miserable position who must prostitute his intellect to make a living, and hire out his commodity—education—to the highest bidder. The professor, dying by his own hand, was fearful as to the future maintenance of his children.

* * *

Meantime, a correspondent of the Daily News is suggesting that, to meet unemployment of teachers in London, the L.C.C. shall “reduce present salaries,” and prevent teachers doing both day and evening work !

* * *

The Review of Reviews is concerned about “The Winter Feeding of Starving Children.” (It is not going to let the S.D.P. monopolise that pitch.) In the September issue, p. 295, it says “It would be well if other firms were to follow Messrs. Allen & Hanbury’s example by a systematic endeavour to educate the public in the general principles of the scientific feeding of children.” On p. 303 is a long advertisement crying up the wares of the above named firm. The Review of Reviews “invites the aid of ‘helpers.'” Helpers for what? Who said “alliances” ?

* * *

From the same source we learn that it has been ascertained that the children “could be fed excellently well at a penny a meal, with a extra halfpenny for dinner.”

* * *

Crouch low, you discontented dogs ! Listen to the I.L.P. “Socialist,” Liberal Stead at elbow, telling you the master class can provide sumptious meals for your poor little kiddies at a penny a head, with a extra half-penny chucked in for dinner. Then, begone ! run to your houses, fall upon your knees, pray to the tuppenny gods to intermit the plague that needs must light on “your” country for the ingratitude displayed by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in denouncing such a sorry combination of mouthing knaves and tricksters.

* * *

F. H. Rose, in the Clarion of 18.9.08 writes, with regard to the cotton dispute, “The masters bribe away the best and most knowing of the operators’ officials by giving them better jobs and bigger salaries. It is a ghastly business. Yet if I were to say what every employer knows, I should be charged with ‘giving the game away.'”

* * *

Judged by his own words, F. H. Rose is a traitor to his own class. A deliberate charge is made against unions’ officials which, unfortunately, is no doubt only too true. What plea can he bring forward to justify his silence or the matter ? If fears for endangering his own chances as union official and “Labour” member, why take the pains to emblazon abroad his cowardice ?

* * *

A significant cutting from John Bull. We pray you, note, aye, nota bene ! “Just as the franchise is the political specific for revolution, nationalisation of the public services is the antidote to Socialism.” Instead of which, that egregious political combination which is neither “independent” in action, nor “labour” in spirit, and which exists as a “party” only by grace of anonymous donors (see Manifesto p. 3) and middle-class “sympathisers,” at its last Annual Conference passed the following resolution : “That in the opinion of this Conference the time is ripe for the nationalisation of railways, and that our representatives be asked to urge forward a measure to that effect in Parliament.”

* * *

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that pensions in Germany had not only raised the standard of life, but had had “the important result of improving the quality of the workman.” Exactly. Read “Bountiful Bournville” in last month’s issue of this paper in connection with this statement. Further comment would be what the Book of Common Prayer simply and beautifully calls “supererogatory.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian recently wrote “Mr. Hudson repudiated any alliance with the Liberals, but he had heard the good news which Manchester sent on the first night of the election in the not uncongenial atmosphere of the Liberal Club. Being called on for a speech, he said he most earnestly desired to see Mr. Cairns (Liberal) in as well as himself.”

* * *

Mr. Hudson is a “Labour” M.P. The “Constitution and Organisation” section of the Manifesto of the “Labour” Party contains the following : “Candidates and members must abstain strictly from promoting the interests of any Party not eligible for affiliation.” Is the Liberal Party ”eligible for affiliation” ? Verily, in the words of their own Chairman at the Belfast Conference, “The Labour Party were a queer party and they are a queer party.”

* * *

At a “Socialist” demonstration recently, J. R. Clynes, another “Labour” M.P., and I.L.P’er to boot, said “The unemployed are a waste to the country. Would it not be better to enable a man to work for his maintenance and something over for the country.”

* * *

“Something over” = profit.

“The country” = the capitalist class.

* * *

In spite of protestations to the contrary, the “Labour” Group is out to maintain the present system. Its actions speak louder than its words, which, Heaven knows, should be loud enough to wake the somnolent wage-slave to a recognition of the real position.

* * *

“Radical Socialism,” “I.L.P. Socialism,” “Labour Socialism”—in short “Bourgeois Socialism”—all were summed up fifty years ago in the most luminous little working-class work ever penned (the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”).

“Free Trade—for the benefit of the working class, Protective duties—for the benefit of the working class, Prison reform—for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism. It can be summed up in a phrase the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.”

Augustus Snellgrove

SPGB Meetings (1908)

Party News from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard