Perverted History. The “Socialist” Countess’s Twaddle Exposed. (1917)

From the June 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Little more than half a century has passed since in Japan the Samurai surrendered their privileges into the hands of the Mikado, and with their sacrifice the new Japan was born…. Suppose that our aristocracy, as a class, were to emulate the Samurai, that they were to place at the disposal of the State the Mother Earth that belongs to the State by right. They might reasonably accept a moderate recompense, something that would provide for them and their children on the scale of modest living that will become the rule when we begin to meet the price of war . . . How far fairer it would be for us to recognise and accept the truth and go as the Moors went from Spain, where they too had become an anachronism, though the beauty that made their sojourn remarkable lingers to this day. If we would make the supreme sacrifice of our traditions we could trust the common sense of our countrymen to see that no plutocrats stepped into the place we had vacated ; we could make our bargain with the State that it should be the supreme landlord spending the rent to make the lovely countryside at least as valuable to national life as the ugly town. We who came into the high places of Europe with the false halo of conquest would retire from them in the real halo of renunciation, and our act of supreme sacrifice would be a better memorial than the best of us could have hoped to gain.”

The above is from an article by the Countess of Warwick which appeared in the “Daily Chronicle” of April 12th, 1917. The article is entitled “We Must Go.” The “We” is the “hereditary landowners,” to whom the appeal is made to hand over their land to the State, in the interests of greater productivity, and in justice to the workers, who have bled for it.

How the latter can benefit in any way from the proposed surrender of lands is made no clearer by the Countess than by any of the Fabian or I.L.P. treatises on the same subject.

State ownership of land, or, indeed, of any of the means of wealth production, solves no problem for the working class. Only common ownership with democratic control can do that. State ownership, that is, collective ownership by the capitalist class, as with the Post Office, for instance, leaves the workers still wage-slaves. The introduction of labour-saving machinery would therefore have the same effect as it has to-day. The countess, like many another reformer, overlooks this fact, though it should be obvious. She says: “The country has great needs, and if it is to remain solvent the united work of one and all following the latest developments with the most complete equipment will be inevitable.”

This policy in the past has resulted in increased unemployment for the working class ; its extension, therefore, can only result in greater poverty, arising from still further increased unemployment. State ownership of the land excludes the working class from the soil, except in the capacity of wage-workers. They are mere subjects of exploitation to those who provide with their capital the “most complete equipment,” and the rent to be paid to the State for the use of the land.

The fallacy of State ownership, however, has been so often exposed in these columns that we can afford to leave it for the present and deal with the other fallacy contained in the first quotation—that a ruling class has ever in the past renounced, or is likely in the future to renounce, its privileges and power unless compelled to do so by superior force. There is no record in history of a ruling class abdicating in favour of a class weaker than itself. Nor is there any record of a ruling class so imbued with a moral sense of justice and consideration for the class it governed, that it would, knowingly and willingly, sacrifice the meanest of its privileges to assist that class to its emancipation. The ruling class in capitalist society is stronger in its determination to maintain its rule and possesses more powerful weapons than any previous class in history. Its barbarity, as every contest with the workers testifies, equals and its hypocrisy exceeds, that of any previous ruling class.

But, the reader will ask, does not the countess give actual examples from history where a dominant class voluntarily abdicated? Both these examples are misrepresentations of the actual facts. Take the case of Japan. In that country the system of society previous to 1868 was similar in its essential features to the Feudal system of European countries. The Samurai were the military class, composed of territorial nobles, called Daimios, and their vassals or retainers. Strictly speaking, however, the term Samurai applied to these latter only. They and their families were kept by the Daimios, or had lands assigned to them for which they drew the rent, as under the Feudal system in Europe. This applied to the Daimios as well, who numbered about 255, and whose incomes varied between 10,000 and 1,027,000 koku of rice per annum.

The revolution that abolished this system was not of the same sanguinary character as the bourgeois revolution in France in 1689, or the English revolution in the time of Charles the First. “The two parties,” says Arthur Diosy, “were too unevenly matched for the struggle to become a severe one.” Therein lies the secret of its relatively peaceful consummation. The Daimios were between the devil and the deep sea ; they submitted to the inevitable—on the best terms they could obtain. They received from the State an annual income equal to one-tenth of their former income, and were relieved of the responsibility of maintaining the Samurai, who were taken over by the Government to form the nucleus of the Army and Navy. Those who held hereditary incomes were given the opportunity to sell their rights to the Government for half cash and half Government bonds.

Unlike the revolution that broke up the Feudal system in Europe, the Japanese revolution was projected, or rather accelerated, from outside the nation. Attempts to establish trading relations by occidental powers, sometimes, as in the American expedition under Commander Perry, involving a display of naval forces, rudely awakened the ruling class from their feudal sleep. The Mikado and his nobles were forced to recognise that they must establish their rule on Western lines, or they would speedily become a vassal State to one or other of the great Powers that, with increasing impatience, knocked at her gates with wares for sale—and with heavy artillery to batter them down if their admittance was long delayed.

In these circumstances the Mikado and his nobles, after consultation, and not without military opposition from some of them, took the only possible course to maintain their independence as a nation. They proceeded to organise the nation on the model of their capitalist neighbours, their first care being to establish a fighting force on land and sea, capable of warning off belligerent intruders and guaranteeing a share in the world’s markets to Japanese capitalists.

This action, taken in defence of their independence and based on a compromise or bargain between the nobles and their legitimate ruler, is what the countess describes as a sacrifice.

So much for the first example quoted by the Socialist (!) countess ; now for the second. The Moors entered Spain in 711 A.D., and in three years had “conquered the whole country, except the almost inaccessible regions of the North-West.” The Spaniards, according to their historians, waged almost uninterrupted warfare against them for nearly eight centuries. They gained the upper hand late in the fifteenth century, and then commenced a long period of religious persecution against the Moors, who were finally all converted to Christianity by burning, torturing and other methods approved by the Inquisition.

But their religious opinions were suspected by the clergy under Phillip III, who ordered their expulsion from Spain. “How far fairer it would be for us to recognise the truth and go as the Moors went from Spain, where they too had become an anachronism” says the countess, as though their going was a voluntary act of abdication.

They went, “about one million of the most industrious inhabitants of Spain,” says Buckle, “were hunted like wild beasts. Many were slain as they approached the coast, others were beaten and plundered, and the majority, in the most wretched plight, sailed for Africa. During the passage, the crew, in many of the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the women, and threw the children into the sea. Those who escaped this fate landed on the coast of Barbary, where they were attacked by the Bedouins and many of them put to the sword. Others made their way into the desert, and perished from famine.”

The Moors ruled in Spain with the same arrogance that characterises every ruling class. Their rule became “an anachronism” because their power was broken and for no other reason. What childish nonsense, what a wilful perversion of history, to pretend that theirs was a voluntary act of renunciation. Yet it is on statements such as these that capitalist tools, wearing the Phrygian cap and waving the red flag of Socialism, gravely inform the workers that the shuffling, grabbing and hypocritical capitalist class will lead the working class, step by step, to its emancipation.

As in Japan, so in every European country—feudalism succumbed before the revolutionary power of the capitalist class. The fact that a compromise was afterwards effected, by means of which, feudal traditions and lineage were preserved, made no difference to the ultimate nature of society. Capital alone had voice. Was it not by means of capital that the wealth-producing class was exploited, and the national exchequer provided with the funds that maintained the fighting forces ? Lords and Barons might flaunt their heraldry, but the capitalist built his State on physical force and allotted monarchy and aristocracy their places in the capitalist State. The aristocracy were absorbed ; they became capitalists themselves and henceforth their interests were identical with those who had accomplished a revolution against them. For all practical purposes landowners and industrial capitalists form but one class—there is no serious friction between them. They control the executive power in the full determination—rarely expressed because so well understood—to maintain the existing system of society, and neither the prayers of morbid countesses nor the groans of their millions of starving victims will ever shake their resolve.

Only the organised might of the working class can break the power of capitalism and bring emancipation. If the capitalist class were imbued with the moral and sympathetic qualities they profess, the poverty and the toll of lives under their system, even in peace times, should have been sufficient incentive for them to exercise those qualities. Not so, however. Their efforts were always in the opposite direction—how to intensify exploitation.

Even the tragedy and devastation of their latest crime, with all the added misery it brings in its train for the working class, has never once caused the question to be raised—except by the Socialist—”Is not the system itself wrong ?”

And let the workers make no mistake, though every capitalist nation took sides and fought to the last man, till every vestige of civilisation were destroyed, the ruling class would never raise that question.

That question must be asked and answered by the working class. At present they are exploited, dragooned, bluffed, trained and educated to the status of wage-slavery. Thus with their intelligence warped, though the largest in numbers, they are the weakest. Let them strip themselves of the capitalist shroud which envelops their minds and they will at once become the strongest class in society. The capitalist class will then lose the opportunity, which they have never shown the slightest inclination to embrace, to win a “halo of renunciation” because working-class emancipation will be accomplished by the working class itself.

F. Foan

Editorial: Justice or Jaundice. (1906)

Editorial from the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Justice or Jaundice.

Our respected contemporary the organ of the S.D.F. has replied to a correspondent thus :— 

“We have neither the space nor the inclination to reply to the slanders of insignificant creatures who only maintain a temporary and parasitical vitality by venomous attacks on the S.D.F. Such attacks are usually absurd and always beneath notice. The statement in question is absolutely untrue. Lady Warwick has never been to a meeting in Battersea nor been invited to a meeting there, nor sent a telegram to any meeting there.”

Not being in the confidence of the Editor we cannot, of course, say definitely who these slanderers are who maintain a parasitic vitality upon the S.D.F., although there is good evidence for supposing that they are leading members of the I.L.P. who, we notice, are rather given to expressing themselves in terms intended to be hurtful to the feelings of leading S.D.F. men. But if this is to maintain a parasitic vitality on the S.D.F., the I.L.P. may fairly retort that the vitality of the S.D.F. (assuming its existence) has been derived parasitically from the I.L.P., seeing how readily S.D.F. leaders and the S.D.F. organ (which isn’t the S.D.F.’s) fall to giving forcible tongue to their detestation of the I.L.P. But however this may be, and whoever may be the slanderers in question, we suggest in all friendliness that the Justice writer should endeavour to prevent his anger (even the artificially stimulated variety) betraying him into venomous attacks—particularly upon insignificant creatures. Vulgar abuse is no argument, and the slandered one does not strengthen his position by reducing himself to the level of the slanderer. As it is, the language of the paragraph, common as we are afraid we must say it is in our contemporary, impels the idea that there is some peculiar quality in the literary atmosphere of Clerkenwell Green which prevents a man expressing himself—upon certain subjects at any rate in any other than cultured Billingsgate. We confess we know of no other spot in the British Isles so apparently provocative of adjectival splenetics excepting always, of course, Edinburgh !

On misrepresentation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, we have considerable sympathy with Justice in its protest against misrepresentation and abuse the more because we are ourselves heavy sufferers from the same cause. Throughout the whole course of our short history we have been made the subject of as much vilification, misrepresentation, and all the other “ations” of contemptuous and vituperative reference, as any party ever was, or, probably ever will be, with results which must have been detrimental to our progress as a Party seeing that, we are in the nature of things, unable to overtake in order to effectively combat, as we can, every product of the tongue and pen of malice, envy, and uncharitableness. Nevertheless, we can say as Justice with honesty cannot, that we have within the limits of our opportunities, dealt with our slanderers and shown them to be such unmistakably. Justice, on the other hand, has preferred we have observed, to complain of slander without attempting to show wherein the slander consisted. This is, of course, by far the safer method when the alleged slander embodies the inconvenient truth ; but unless Justice can succeed in fooling all its readers all the time, it is a method that will, sooner or later bring the grey hairs of Justice in sorrow to the grave. However,

“While the lamp holds out to burn, 

The vilest sinner may return."

And there is still the chance that Justice will repent.

For the present, as it has been represented to us that the statement respecting Lady Warwick may be regarded as in the nature of a reply to the note on the same matter which appeared in the June number of this journal, we will content ourselves with pointing out,—

(1.) that we never said Lady Warwick was invited to attend a meeting at Battersea:

(2.) that we never said Lady Warwick attended a meeting there : but we did say that

(3.) Lady Warwick sent a telegram to John Burns’ meeting there regretting her inability to be present and we gave our evidence for the statement—evidence that Justice will have to meet if it wants to deal with the point at all.

So that (assuming that the reference was, as suggested, to our statement) Justice has missed three chances of stating the truth upon this particular matter and only escaped missing a fourth by the fact that a fourth was never presented to it !

Still we make no doubt that presently we shall have it laid to our charge that we did deliberately and of malice aforethought malign Our Lady of Warwick and other comrades “who have borne the heat and burden of the day”(!) by bearing false witness against them in this connection.

Editorial: The Countess of Warwick and John Burns. (1906)

Editorial from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A considerable amount of interest appears to have been aroused by a statement which appeared in a recent number of this journal to the effect that the lady who came down from her exalted position to become a member of the lowly S.D.F. (the Countess of Warwick) sent a telegram to the gentleman who left his lowly position as a member of the S.D.F. to ascend to an exalted sphere (the Right Honourable John Burns) regretting her inability to attend one of his election meetings, and wishing him success. We have received quite a number of communications on the subject, and have been requested to state the grounds upon which the statement was made. Our correspondents appear to be astonished that a member of the S.D.F. should have taken a course so entirely opposed to the attitude of that body, and apparently are unable to understand why, if such a telegram was sent, the organisation has taken no steps to repudiate either the member or the action. So far as we are concerned, however, the only cause for surprise lies in the fact that there is evidently still a number of persons who see in the incident something incongruous—persons who, it would seem, are students of, or at any rate interested in, contemporary English politics. We can only commend to them a perusal of back numbers of the Socialist Standard and the pamphlet called the Manifesto of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, wherein they will find a record of many incidents of a similar character. Not only are members of the S.D.F. continually taking public action opposed to the policy for the time being of that organisation, but the organisation itself is continually taking action in flat contradiction to its professed principles. In the matter of John Burns its attitude to-day is one of virulent denunciation, but to-morrow it would not be a surprising thing if it were the complete opposite. On the contrary, it would be strictly in accordance with precedent. In the past it has roundly trounced the Right Honourable gentleman and a week or two afterwards supported him, although his attitude was unchanged, just as in the past it has been engaged in roundly trouncing the capitalist party Burns is a member of, while its members and branches have been actively engaged in assisting the candidatures of representatives of that party. Sufficient evidence to satisfy the most hard-shelled unbeliever can be found in the file of this paper and the Manifesto mentioned.

Therefore we may say that neither the present action of the Countess nor the lack of action of the S.D.F. is ground for incredulity. Indeed, there is less ground in this instance than in many others of a similar nature, because in the other cases the members concerned were just common or garden persons while the Countess is an exceedingly valuable asset. Her personality and associations secure for the S.D.F. most useful advertisement (much to the very pronounced disgust of the I.L.P., which regards itself as the refuge par excellence for all aristocratic and plutocratic persons with bees in their bonnets or democratic yearnings in their hearts, and is naturally incensed that the S.D.F. should have poached upon its preserves to such good purpose). Besides which has it not been told in Gath that “a mere drawerful of jewels” has been at the S.D.F’s disposal ? Very well then ; why should the S.D.F. take action ? Why should it risk a trump card ?

But if our correspondents want the evidence they may have it. We only hope its publication may serve as a further justification for our opposition to the S.D.F. and similar bodies, and by establishing a fact in proof of the supine, vacillating and confusing attitude of that organisation, help to direct the working-class mind to the consideration of the only principles and the only policy upon which a working-class party capable of effecting those social changes which alone will remove poverty and all its concomitant evils from out of working-class experience, can be built up—the principles and policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, as summarised on the front page of this paper.

This is the evidence :—

1. Several members of this Party were present at the meeting and heard the telegram read (names and addresses can be supplied if desired).
2. Our Comrade Fitzgerald, speaking at Battersea on the Sunday following, was challenged by Mr. Archer, a prominent supporter of Burns, who, under the impression that Fitzgerald was a member of the S.D.F., demanded to know why he (Fitzgerald) was opposing Burns when the Countess was supporting him according to the telegram he (Archer) heard read at Burns’ meeting.
3. The written statement of Mr. J. H. Brown, Hon. Sec. of Burns’ Election Committee, who informs us that he received application to reserve seats on the platform of Burns’ meeting for Lady Warwick and friends ; that Lady Warwick was unable to attend and sent a telegram of regret etc.
4. A written communication from Mr. W. Rines (Mayor of Battersea) whose recollection was that some such telegram was received and read.
5. The report of the Battersea Borough News, Jan. 12th, 1906, which concludes “Telegrams expressing regret at their inability to attend were received from Lady Warwick and Lady Collins.”

For our purposes statements 1 and 2 (the reports of our own members of public incidents well within the knowledge of the large audiences of both Burns’ and Fitzgerald’s meetings) are good enough. Statements 3, 4 and 5 only confirm and amplify those reports. Our correspondents may consider all of them in conjunction with the fact that another prominent member of the S.D.F. (its treasurer, Mr. J. F. Green) speaking at Hammersmith on April 22, informed his audience that they had only one “working man” in the Cabinet who could not do much by himself, and that what they wanted was to send another six working men to help him from, which we conclude that, according to Mr. Green, the S.D.F. is all wrong, and that there is nothing deplorable about Mr. Burns’ position except that there is not more of him !

Reflections. (1906)

From the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A letter in Justice from one whose identity is hidden, reads, “I am one of about 12 Socialists who have decided to study Socialism. We all favour the S.D.F. programme and want to start an S.D.F. Branch here.” Twelve “Socialists” who haven’t studied Socialism want to join the S.D.F. When those twelve “Socialists have studied Socialism and have discovered that they are Socialists, they will not want to join the S.D.F. They will want to join a Socialist Party. At present, as they have not studied Socialism, they cannot claim to be Socialists. Nevertheless, they may, without incongruity join the S.D.F., because the S.D.F. isn’t a Socialist organisation.

o o o

In addition to this, “one of twelve,” there appears to be quite a number of other members of the S.D.F. who want to study Socialism. They write asking for economic classes. Evidently they are unaware that conductors of economic classes are far from persona grata with the S.D.F. leaders. At least one conductor has been expelled the organisation for no greater crime.

o o o

Does any one know what has become of the Justice crusade against motor-cars ? There was a time only a few short months ago, when readers of that Journal were urged to walk the roads with loaded pistols in one pocket and bags of calthrops in the other. The calthrops were to spread in the path of the rushing motor. If this did not have the effect of bursting the tyres, the pistol was to be used. If the shot missed the tyre and hit the occupant, so much the better. Since the advent of the red car and her ladyship, however, pistols and calthrops and even tin-tacks are, apparently, taboo ; which may, of course, be only a coincidence, although if political action reflects economic conditions (Socialists who have not studied Socialism may not understand this) there may be something more in it.

o o o

Somebody must have told Justice I was to refer to the foregoing, or it must have been conveyed to Clerkenwell by some telepathic process. Anyhow, it had hardly been written when our contemporary erupted in the same place again. From which it may be inferred that the notorious red motor has followed the “mere drawerful of jewels” to the sale room. If it hasn’t her ladyship must proceed with caution. Otherwise it may occur that she will drive unwittingly into a trap laid by the wily S.D.Fers, out under the inspiration of Mr. Quelch, to treat all motorists in the Swiss fashion (which we understand to be something drastic). Imagine the excitement if, while touring with, say, Bill Thorne, the Countess was to be potted by her own comrades !

o o o

Mention of Bill reminds me that since the day when he achieved fame by making his debut as M.P. at St. Stephens in a very large hat of the uncompromising “Alpine or Trilby” variety, he has dropped almost completely out of sight. This need not necessarily be reckoned against him for unrighteousness. Bill is a big man, and it must have meant a real effort on his part to obscure himself. Moreover, he may have profited by the horrible examples which some of his fellow members of the “Labour” Party in their endeavours to impress their statesmanship upon the House, have succeeded in making of themselves. However that may be, I am sure he has disappointed many of his friends, who expected him to do great things as the only M.P. the S.D.F. can allege connection with. And really the acquisition of a large hat and a readiness to write advertisements for books on the hire purchase system, are not much to show as the result of several months labours.

o o o

This advertisement writing, by the way, does not appear to be regarded favourably by the Labour Leader. The organ of the l.L.P. waxes indignant with those “Labour” members who have lent their photographs and their strong approbation to the firm who are widely advertising the sale of books by easy payments. The Labour Leader does not approve of such action and expresses its disapproval in no mild manner. We fear, however, the Labour Members assailed will not be greatly impressed, seeing that the Labour Leader has itself accepted advertisements from the same firm for the same set of books (as well as from other firms for other commodities), and seeing that its columns have for months contained a puff for a certain musical instrument from Mr. Keir Hardie. The I.L.P. organ should shew cause why the Labour Leader paper may augment its income by advertisements and why the “Labour” leader person may not do the same thing for the same reason. And it must shew wherein a musical instrument puff by Keir Hardie differs from a book puff by Will Thorne. If it does not, Mr. Thorne may fairly dismiss its criticism as, to put it, mildly cant.

o o o

This question of how to raise the financial wind seems, on the surface, to strike “Labour” journals and leaders in different ways. I say on the surface because it is fairly clear that at bottom there is no difference at all. Justice for example is quite frankly unconcerned as to the source of its income. “Get it,” it says, “honestly if you can, of course—but get it.” And Justice is far from satisfied with the success of its endeavours up to the present. The £500 realised by the sale of the Countess’s jewels was very nice and very welcome. But a donation of £1,000 would be better. Justice is sure that the S.D.F. can give better value for the money than any other organisation afloat; which may or may not be true. At any rate, its S.D.F. will have to manage better than they did at Camborne, if they want to inspire persons with thousands of pounds to spare, to donate large sums to its treasury. Large sums are never given without conditions, and when the donor requires those conditions to be kept dark it is unpleasant, to say the least of it, to discover that the recipient of the largess does not possess “political aptitude” sufficient to keep inquisitive noses from scenting the game.

Observer.

Blogger's Notes:

• "Evidently they are unaware that conductors of economic classes are far from persona grata with the S.D.F. leaders. At least one conductor has been expelled the organisation for no greater crime. . . " This is a reference to Jack Fitzgerald, a founder member of the SPGB, who was expelled from the SDF for, amongst others, holding economic classes.
• "Since the advent of the red car and her ladyship . . . " is a reference to the Countess of Warwick who had recently joined the SDF, and was quite the celebrity catch for the SDF at the time.

Editorial: That Blessed Word—Unity! (1906)

Editorial from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard 

With Easter comes the Annual Conferences of those bodies which, with fine contempt for the meaning of words, call themselves Socialist, and with the conferences come also the customary demands, appeals, and entreaties for unity. And, indeed, there is no real reason why these bodies should not unite, seeing that in practice they do not differ. It is true the S.D.F, say they could not join the L.R.C. if it were ever so, because the L.R.C. is a non-Socialist body and an alliance might involve them in non-Socialist action. But as the S.D.F. is continually taking, not only non-Socialist, but anti-Socialist, action, that does not seem an insuperable objection. True again the I.L.P. say that they cannot join with the S.D.F. because the S.D.F will not join the L.R.C.—a sort of argumentative circle which might be vicious were any vital principle involved. True again neither S.D.F. nor I.L.P. will join with the Fabian Society because George Bernard Shaw, who is the Fabian Society, often makes it clear that “he dunno where he are,” nor would they, presumably, join that other “Socialist” organisation called the Clarion Cycling Club, whose many thousands of members may also be members of Liberal or Tory Party, although S.D.F., I.L.P., and F.S. may and do support at their discretion, Liberal or Tory candidates.

Therefore we say these objections are not very strong from our point of view. We only venture to remark that the unity of these bodies would not affect the question of Socialist unity because they are not Socialist organisations. A Socialist organisation is one which, starting from a clear understanding of the position of the working class, and their irremediably antagonistic relationship to the capitalist class, translates that antagonism into clear and consistent action to the end that the unenlightened working class, having a clear issue set and kept before them, may the more readily comprehend that issue and the more rapidly organise themselves for the specific object of the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Socialism. If there are any members of other Parties endorsing that view, their place is clearly with the Party that holds it—the Socialist Party of Great Britain. There is no other Party in Great Britain whose name so unmistakably expresses its position; there is no Party whose principles are more clearly defined or whose actions have always so consistently, logically and unequivocally translated those principles. Socialist unity, therefore, is achieved by membership in the S.P. of G.B. and although it is true, as the Countess of Warwick has so accurately pointed out in a contemporary, that the S.P. of G.B. does not include the S.D.F., the I.L.P., the F.S., the Clarion groups, and the others, there is no reason why, if the members of those organizations desire Socialist unity and not only the unity of non-Socialist Societies, and are prepared to adopt a Socialist attitude, they should not withdraw from their various separate bodies and enrol themselves with us. We only insist that they shall sign a declaration of adherence to the principles set out in column 1 of the first page of this Journal and never depart from the position such adhesion involves, even though the chances of “getting their man in” were never so rosy. Who then is for SOCIALIST unity ?

Election Items. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Northampton Branch of the S.D.F. ran two candidates with the object of securing a solid vote.

* * * *

The Southampton Branch of the S.D.F. complain of “the mean trick of the Liberals in bringing out a second candidate in order to defeat us.”

* * * *

The Southend Branch of the S.D.F. issued a ” No Vote ” manifesto.

* * * *

The Plymouth Branch of the S.D.F. supported the Liberal Candidate (vide Daily News).

* * * *

The Stratford S.D.F. issued an “abstain from voting” manifesto and endeavoured to hold a meeting, but were broken up by Masterman’s supporters.

* * * *

J. J. Terrett held meetings in Stratford Grove in favour of the Liberals and made collections for the S.D.F. war chest.

* * * *

Dan Irving and Geo. Belt both signed the L.R.C. declaration and then the L.R.C. declined to adopt them.

* * * *

The S.D.F. delegates at the Amsterdam Congress gave as their reason for not affiliating to the L.R.C., that the L.R.C. refused to allow its candidates to run as “Socialists.”

* * * *

Geo. Belt, the S.D.F. “Labor” candidate for Hammersmith, issued a leaflet denouncing the Liberals for refusing to “arbitrate” as to who had the greater right to be the candidate, and expressing his willingness and desire to “arbitrate.”

* * * *

“Justice” describes Liberals as “liars” “thieves” etc., and it is with “liars” and “thieves” that they would arbitrate.

* * * *

John Burns is at a loss to decide whether his success was due to the manifesto against him issued by the Battersea S.D.F., or to the telegram wishing him success which the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F. member) sent, and which was read at Burns’s meeting at the Latchmere Baths on Wednesday, January 10th.

* * * *

John Burns returned the Countess’s compliments by telegraphing to the Camborne Liberals, “The Socialist have bitterly opposed me.”

* * * *

The Camborne Liberals got their own back by “taking it out” of Will Thorne.

The Countess then tripped over on her motor car to sympathise with “poor Will,” and stayed at Upton Park “quite twenty minutes.”

* * * *

If the Stratford S.D.F. deserved to be publicly reprimanded and apologised for, as was done by Councillor J. Jones at Stratford Town Hall, for engaging Mr. E. E. Hunter, a once expelled member of the S.D.F. to do “dirty political work” for them, what punishment is deserved by Councillor Jack Jones for engaging Mr. J. J. Terrett, a thrice expelled member of the S.D.F., to do his “dirty political” work at Camborne ?

From Our Branches. (1905)

Party News from the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fulham.

A slight increase of membership, fair sale of manifestoes, and an increase in sales of Socialist Standards are the chief items to report for the month. A Bye-Election is taking place for Sand’s End Ward. The “Labour” Party are running a candidate (I.L.P., Ethicist, well-in-with-Progressives, etc.) Unless his opinions have considerably changed since the local L.R.C. was formed he doesn’t believe in the Second Clause of the Declaration of Principles upon which he is supposed to run.

“Shall refreshments be sold in Fulham Parks on Sundays?” is the burning question, one of very great importance to the workers. The members of my own Union, for example, work such long hours, and the working-class in general, for whose recreation Public Parks are supposed to exist, work so hard that on Sundays they want a nap in the afternoon to recuperate, and if they come out in the evening they can get refreshments elsewhere. Needless to say we shall utilise the occasion to point out the uselessness of such candidates to our class, the contradictions and confusions arising therefrom, and to emphasise the only basis upon which a sound working-class party can be built.

E. J. B. Allen

Tooting.

No great things to report from this district owing to the tremendous amount of confusion that exists, and the limited number of propaganda meetings held. (Only one a week Comrade Lecture Secretary.) And yet with all we are building up a good branch, our membership is steadily increasing, our literature sales are good, thanks to the straight talk we get at our Sunday evening meetings from the speakers who never leave any doubt in the minds of the audience as to the position we occupy in the field of politics, always keeping the line of demarcation broad and clear. We are thus able to prove to the workers that their only hope lies in the application of the principles of the S.P.G.B.

The “alleged” Socialists have been trying to discredit us by telling the workers at one time that there is no difference between them and us, and at another, calling us an organisation of half a dozen discontents who want to have all their own way—Anarchists under another name. In answer we ask the people to read the Socialist Standard and our Manifesto, which they do with such good effect that “The Welcome Hall” no longer holds out a welcome to our traducers, it having been concluded apparently that they no longer deserve the confidence of the working-class.

Unless another Countess or some other novelty comes to their aid their life will probably not be of much longer duration. In any case our success is assured.

A. Barker

Answers to Correspondents. (1905)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

T.H.S. (Redruth).—The reply of Councillor J. Jones at the Meeting in the Camborne Division referred to is entirely misleading. The question put to him appears to have been to this effect: Was Mr. Lee, the secretary of the S.D.F., shown at the Shoreditch Conference of that body to have deliberately deceived the membership in connection with a certain matter of importance (the circumstances attending the withdrawal of Geo, Lansbury as S.D.F. candidate for Bow and Bromley to wit). If Mr. Jones replied “that is a lie,” Mr. Jones is himself only just within the confines of the truth. The actual fact is that Mr. Lee was shown to have been guilty of a fabrication at the 1902 Conference of the S.D.F. and at the Shoreditch Conference in the following year he admitted the truth of the accusation levelled against him and announced that he would be prepared to lie again in the interests of his organization. That is why we asked in the issue of the Socialist Standard quoted from at Mr. Jones’ meeting, whether Mr. Lee’s indignant repudiation of the charge that the officials of his organization had accepted Tory gold on certain terms, was to be regarded as the utterance of strict truth or whether this was another occasion on which he felt himself justified in lying in the interests of his party. Mr. Jones will not be silly enough to deny the accuracy of this statement because Mr. Lee’s confession was made in open Conference within the hearing of several score of delegates and others, including Mr. Jones himself.

R. Walmer (Stepney).—You must not expect too much from “Reynolds.” It is a Liberal newspaper although it angles for working-class support by the somewhat virulent championship of what it calls “Democracy.” Of course it isn’t democracy at all but simply capitalist radicalism or unofficial Liberalism. As you are doubtless aware, a capitalist state can swallow all the political reforms so strenuously advocated by “Reynolds” without discomfort and has done so. Certainly the working-class have not profited and will not. Capitalism has nothing to fear from “Reynolds.” On the contrary, it is all to the advantage of Capitalism that it should continue to exist because the paper is a powerful aid to working-class sectionalism and confusion. Regret we cannot find room for your letter. The S.S. is a small paper at present and we cannot hope to publish all communications received.

Penko Petrov (Tambol).—We have only received one card from you, and replied by letter on March 13 to your queries respecting the Countess of Warwick and the British Socialist Movement. If you have since sent us a letter it has miscarried. We are glad to learn of the successful Five-days Congress of the Bulgarian Socialists.

G. Foster (Stockbridge).—Letter too late for this issue. Sorry you are in difficulties, but that is doubtless due to your endeavour to weigh half-sentences. Only by taking the whole of the article, and considering all the arguments adduced can you get a fair idea of the writer’s meaning. Your random selections can hardly be called fair quotation, we suggest.

Blogger's Notes:

With regards to the business involving Jack Jones and the SDF in Cornwall, please see the article, 'The Truth about Camborne', from the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard. Please check out the editorial, 'A Challenge', from this month's issue of the Socialist Standard.

A Look Round. (1905)

From the April 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

“No doubt,” says a correspondent,” you have readers who are interested in the affairs of Messrs. Kidd, McAllen, Burns, Curran, etc.,but for me they are unimportant.” Well, much depends upon the point of view, and from ours they are very important.

* * *

The Socialist Standard is not issued with the object of providing a livelihood for professional journalists, or to boom certain persons who think, rightly or wrongly, that good will result if, by becoming Councillors or M.P.’s, they can enhance their reputations as “leaders” of the working-class. It would be easier, and doubtless produce better financial results, for the conductors to devote the paper to cycling, theatrical and anti-theological matters, with Socialism as a side-line. But it is the official organ of a militant Socialist Party, not existing to induce folks to believe in Socialism as a “pious opinion” but as a necessary and desirable revolution which they shall organise to accomplish. The Party holds very definite views as to the tactics of the Socialist Army and was founded because these tactics were not being pursued by any existing body.

* * *

In promulgating their views concerning the establishment of the Socialist Republic and the basis of organisation of the Socialist working-class, the members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain are inevitably brought into conflict with other bodies claiming to be Socialist as well as with capitalist politicians. It is necessary to show how not to do it, as well as how to do it. It is claimed that the L.R.C., S.D.F., and I.L.P., are examples of how not to do it, and it is therefore necessary to criticise and to oppose them, quite as much as the orthodox politicians. In this connection, however the aim has always been to be as vigorous and as critical as circumstances demand, but not caustic or abusive.

* * *

A case in point. Class-conscious Socialists must oppose capitalist candidates because the latter stand for Capitalism as against Socialism, for the perpetuation of the class war by the perpetuation of classes, for the interests of the exploiters as against those of the exploited. These reasons should always be stated on the platform and in the press. Yet only last month, at a meeting called to promote the candidature of Major Jameson for South West Ham, Councillor Davis (I.L.P.) moved, and Councillor J. Jones (S.D.F.) seconded an amendment declaring that because Major Jameson had been indifferent to his Parliamentary duties during the present Parliament, and knowing that he was elected for West Clare as an Irish Nationalist and had now changed his politics, he was not a fit and proper person to represent South West Ham. Now the reasons given here might be good ones from the point of view of one set of capitalist politicians opposing another, but they are not Socialist reasons. The policy here pursued was not a “straight” one ; the tactics were those of suppression and confusion.

* * *

It is easy to multiply instances of the contradictory and confusing tactics of the S.D.F. W. C. Steadman is the London Trades Council and Liberal candidate for Central Finsbury, vice-president of the Central Finsbury Liberal Association, president of the Stepney Liberal, Radical, Labour, and Progressive Association, and Progressive member of the L.C.C. for Stepney. At the February meeting of, the London Trades Council, presided over by H. Quelch (editor of Justice) the question of Steadman’s refusal to sign the L.R.C. constitution was raked, and Quelch pointed out that it had been understood all through that Steadman had the support of the L.T.C. His failure to conform to the rules of any other body made no difference to their attitude. They supported him before the L.R.C. was formed. Now, not only the chairman, but the secretary, and also very many of the delegates to the L.T.C. are members of the S.D.F. They are supporting Steadman, although in Justice for May 22nd, 1897, H. Quelch wrote: “The non-Socialist trade-unionist is the type of labour representative which is fashionable in the House of Commons and in other representative assemblies in the kingdom. We had better have none at all. Flunkeys and sycophants, they ape the airs of their masters, while they contemn and misrepresent the class in whose name they claim to speak” ; and in the same paper a fortnight ago Steadman was described as a “Liberal decoy-duck.” Undoubtedly he is, and as such is supported by the S.D.F.

* * *

“Is it true that Lady Warwick has become a Socialist ?” asks a comrade in Bulgaria, on a postcard written in Esperanto. The long reply which has been sent to him in the same language will give him an up-to-date idea of the condition of the Socialist movement in this country. According to her ladyship’s own statement she is now a “proud and convinced member of the S.D.F.,” but it does not follow that she is therefore a Socialist. To a representative of the Daily Chronicle she quoted details of the S.D.F. programme with which she is “wholly in agreement,” but it is not at all necessary to be a Socialist to agree with the items to which she refers. Moreover, she takes exception to the abolition of the monarchy, and it is quite evident that she has still a very great regard for the pomps and vanities connected therewith. To believe in the establishment of the Socialist Republic and object to the abolition of the monarchy is like endeavouring to make the Socialist omelet without breaking the capitalist egg.

* * *

One wonders what is the real significance of the booming of the Countess of Warwick in the capitalist press, especially since the banquet to “Labour” M.P.’s and candidates at which she told of her “little scheme.” “I have been saving up my money” she said “for ever so long, and I have bought a forty h.p. motor car to be at your service. It is to be painted red and some of us are going in it to visit every constituency for which a Labour candidate stands, from John O’Groats to Land’s End. We shall leave no stone unturned, when the great struggle comes, as come it will very soon, to put Labour members into Parliament.” The italics are ours ; so put because of the obvious attempt by “H. W. L.” in Justice to lead us to suppose that this is not the object of the tour.

* * *

Whether she understands Socialism or not, it is apparent that the Countess does not intend to “come out from among” that Society which “either bores or is bored,” “There are few sights more impressive,” says Vanity Fair, “than the entrance of the King and Queen into the House of Lords on the opening day. . . Lady Warwick was in vivid green, with her hair dressed in high Empire curls, which showed above her crown of emeralds and diamonds.” From the same journal we learn that ”the Queen had a great day on Friday. . . The meet was at Melton Mowbray, in the Countess of Wilton’s grounds.” Besides the Countess of Warwick, there were present Dukes and Duchesses, Earls and Countesses, Lords and Ladies, Baronets, and even a Marquess and a Prince. We must confess that the presence of an “avowed Socialist” at such functions as these is distasteful to us because they are outward and visible signs of the domination and degradation of the wealth-creators by the monopolists and their parasites.

* * *

No report of the Countess’s dinner to “labour” candidates appeared in Justice, although the editor himself was present !

* * *

Speaking of motor-cars, what has become of “Tattler’s” crusade against those, “infernal machines invented by the classes for the purpose of maiming and killing the masses” ?

* * *

Some branches of the I.L.P. wish to incorporate the word “Socialist” in its title. London City, diplomatic and probably inspired, wish the N.A.C. to report upon the matter at the 1906 Conference. This is the Royal Commission method. Derby would like the name to be “The Socialist Party.” The Socialist Party of Great Britain would be imitated and ought to feel flattered. With Shakespeare we can say “Who steals my purse steals trash.” As ours is the straight Socialist Party, the man with the bag is not weighed down by its ponderosity. But when it is suggested that the I.L.P. should “annex” our good name, we must protest; although we do not anticipate that the proposal will receive much support. The leaders, at any rate, prefer to keep their Socialism in the background, or to confuse it with references to Christianity and Labourism, or like the S.D.F., to support its enemies. A party must be judged by its actions, and these have proved that the I.L.P. is the enemy of uncompromising Socialism.

* * *

A Walthamstow comrade, who finds it exceedingly interesting and instructive to read back numbers of Justice and compare them with present issues expresses his surprise at the very great change that has taken place. He says that in September, 1894, the leading article declared that the object of the I.L.P., in common with that of other working-class organisations, whether they had accepted collectivist theories or not, was to secure better rations for the wage-slave, but that that was not the object of the S.D.F., which was striving for the abolition of wagedom. Seeing that the energies of the S.D.F. are now devoted to the advocacy of two palliatives, viz., relief works for the unemployed and free meals for the wage-slaves that are to be, he asks what has become of the object of 1894. As we have so often pointed out, the S.D.F. has ceased to be a revolutionary body, and is now a mere reform society, like the I.L.P. and other bodies which it so freely criticises and condemns.

* * *

This comrade calls to mind the condemnation of Tom Mann which appeared in Justice in June, 1896, for allowing a joint committee to delete from his election address the words : “I am a Socialist,” and otherwise modifying and moderating it. He questions the official announcement that the Walthamstow branch of the S.D.F. are running G. Bailey for the District Council, because the Walthamstow Trades and Labour Council are running him with others as pure and simple “Labour” candidates. In support of this he forwards a copy of Bailey’s election address. It is true that on the front page the candidate is described as of the “Navvies’ Union and S.D.F.,” but in much larger type the candidates are referred to on the same page as “the only Labour Candidates selected by the Walthamstow Trades and Labour Council.” The address itself contains no statement of the principles of Socialism and no reference thereto. It speaks of the “need of independent labour representation.” One item of the education section is purely individualistic and the whole of the programme could be subscribed to by any municipal “reformer.” In conclusion it is signed by the candidates for all the wards, and even the letters “S.D.F.” have been omitted from Bailey’s name, who is simply “Secretary, Navvies’ Union.” And our correspondent again refers to Justice of June, 1896, which stated that it was of no consequence at all to get Socialists elected unless they were elected as Socialists. That, of course, was and is the sound position. All that has changed in the policy of the S.D.F. It was because of this change that many of us, convinced that the intransigeant, uncompromising policy is the only sound and honest one, were compelled to resign our many-years’ membership of the S.D.F. “The policy of ‘no compromise’ must necessarily be defeated again and again before it wins. But when it does win it wins unconditionally, and is unhampered by restrictions, arrangements, or intrigues.” That holds good as much to-day as when it was written, in the name of the S.D.F., nearly twelve years ago; and in this country those who, having accepted the principles of Socialism, agree with the policy of “No Compromise,” agree with Wilhelm Liebknecht that “the separation of the Socialists from all other parties, this essential difference which silly opponents take as a reason or pretext for declaring us political outlaws, is our pride and our strength,” should join the only party which is organised upon these lines, The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

J. Kay

50 Years Ago: Rise of Japanese Capitalism (1967)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

[The Countess of Warwick had appealed to the British aristocracy to emulate the Japanese nobility by voluntarily handing over their estates to the government as an act of restitution to the workers].

How the latter can benefit in any way from the proposed surrender of lands is made no clearer by the Countess than by any of the Fabian or I.LP. treatises on the same subject. State ownership of land, or indeed, of any of the means of wealth production, solves no problem for the working class. Only common ownership and democratic control can do that. State ownership, that is collective ownership by the capitalist class, as with the Post Office, for instance, leaves the workers still wage-slaves.

The fallacy of state ownership, however, has been so often dealt with that we can afford to leave it for the present and deal with the fallacy . . . that a ruling class has never in the past renounced, or is likely in the future to renounce its privileges and power unless compelled to do so by superior force. There is no record in history of a ruling class abdicating in favour of a class weaker than itself.

Take the case of Japan. In that country the system of society previous to 1868 was similar in its essential features to the Feudal system of European countries. The Samurai were the military class, composed of territorial nobles, called Daimios, and their vassals and retainers. Strictly speaking, however, the term Samurai applied to these latter only. They and their families were kept by the Daimios, or had lands assigned to them for which they drew the rent, as under the Feudal system in Europe. This applied to the Daimios as well, who numbered about 255, and whose incomes varied between 10,000 and 1,027,000 Koku of rice per annum.

The revolution that abolished this system was not of the same sanguinary revolution character as the bourgeois revolution in France in 1789, or the English revolution in the time of Charles the First. “The Two Parties”, says Arthur Diosy, “were too evenly matched for the struggle to become a severe one”. Therein lies the secret of this relatively peaceful consummation. The Daimios were between the devil and the deep sea; they submitted to the inevitable—on the best terms they could obtain. They received from the State an annual income equal to one-tenth of their former income, and were relieved of the responsibility of maintaining the Samurai, who were taken over by the government to form the nucleus of the Army and Navy. Those who held hereditary incomes were given the opportunity to sell their rights to the government for half cash and half government bonds . . . The Mikardo and his nobles were forced to recognise that they must establish their rule on Western lines or they would speedily become a vassal state to one or other of the great powers who with increasing impatience knocked at her gates.

From the Socialist Standard June 1917.

Remember Belgium! (1930)

Editorial from the May 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1914, hundreds of thousands of workers were duped into enlisting by the appeal to their sympathy on behalf of “poor little Belgium!" It is interesting to learn that confirmation has now been given to the statement that the Allied Governments had themselves prepared for violating Belgian “neutrality.”

Mr. Harold Nicolson has just written a life of his father, Lord Carnock, who as Sir Arthur Nicholson was Permanent Under-secretary at the Foreign Office in the years leading up to the war (“Lord Carnock,” published by Constable, 21/-).

From a review of the book which appeared in the Daily Herald on April 3rd, 1930, we learn that in September, 1911,

“preparations for landing four or six divisions on the Continent have been worked out to the minutest detail"; and in 1913 French military authorities are reported by Sir Arthur Nicolson to be of the view that “it would be far better for France if a conflict were not too long postponed.”

In 1913 Sir Arthur Nicolson wrote to the Minister in Brussels :—

We and France might have to move troops across the Belgian frontier in order to meet the approach of German troops from the other side.

The Herald reviewer says that ‘‘The Minister's reply makes it clear that this action was contemplated before the Germans actually entered Belgium.”

These statements based on Mr. Harold Nicolson's book were promptly confirmed by the Countess of Warwick in an interview which she gave the Daily Herald on April 4th.

She reports a conversation between Lord French and M. Clemenceau which took place in 1910, she being the only other person present, and acting as interpreter. Clemenceau said:—

. . . .  The British landing would be at Dunkirk, and your troops would go through Belgium into Germany.

French was dubious, and raised the question of Belgian neutrality, to which Clemenceau replied:—

Treaties do not matter when it comes to war. 

The Countess of Warwick relates the following further facts :—

 In later conversation Clemenceau stated that while the British pushed through Belgium the French would attack through Lorraine.
 The conversation was private, but I wrote to King Edward, who was my friend, about it. 

The Countess of Warwick then explained why she had kept this secret for so many years. She had intended to publish it in her reminiscences published six months ago, but her publishers refused to include these passages because “it put our country in a bad light.”

She admits that she made no attempt to publish it earlier than 1929.

For years I bottled it up within myself, even at the time when the “poor little Belgium” talk was being used to lure thousands of poor boys to their deaths.

Then, last year, when she was publishing her own book, she “asked one or two friends what they thought, and they said that they thought it would do no harm so long after the war.”

In short, the noble Lady, one of the shining lights of the I.L.P., the Labour Party, and the Social Democratic Federation, kept her mouth shut when “poor little Belgium talk was being used to lure thousands of poor boys to their deaths,” and only disclosed the secret when she thought “it would do no harm.”

The number of British subjects who lost their lives in the Great War was nearly 1,100,000. In addition, thousands have been blinded, crippled or otherwise mutilated. This the Countess could stand. But she could not bear the thought of putting the "country" in a bad light, and therefore did not let the victims share her knowledge until "it would do no harm,” that is, 15 years too late for it to be of use to them.

We wonder what the Countess of Warwick regards as "harm.”