Unemployment – profits first! (1972)

From the November 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first thing to note about unemployment is that it is a working class problem. A problem which only afflicts those who normally function as wage workers or employees.

The permanent non-producing existence of the capitalist class is not regarded as unemployment. They are a class which either privately, or through the State, function as an exploiting class. Their dominance over the means of production gives them a privileged position as wealth controllers, they have access to surplus value, and since as a class they are employers they never suffer from unemployment.

For unemployment to arise and be regarded as a dire social problem, a class must exist in society whose condition of life is mean and degrading. To be able to sell their working abilities for wages, to find an employer who will harness them like beasts of burden to his machinery of production, so that their lives may be spent producing wealth they do not own, is far preferable to being unused in a state of forced idleness.

Further, this alienated and dehumanised mode of existence must be their only means of gaining a livelihood. Such a class must depend on its income from wages or salaries, must have no property that would relieve them of the need to toil—no means of living save through prostituting their physical and mental energies on the labour market as employees.

Such a class exists all over the world. They are the working class.

Ideally they should be so conditioned to their slave position in life as to aspire only to demanding “the right to work”. To deny the slave his toil and his pittance is the last straw, the final insult. Capitalism for all its ills and woes can be tolerated with the occasional groan so long as there is work. Deny him his humanity. Deny him his personality. Deny him his freedom. This he can accept. But to deny him work is to affront him. He will produce all the wonders of modern science and technology. He will fashion and erect the most lavish hotels and luxury mansions, design and produce the most expensive jewellery and beautiful yachts, fine clothing and costly furs, wonderful ocean liners and a vast variety of delicate foods, and he will be content to live in squalid slums, wear inferior clothing, and eat adulterated food while “bargaining” only over the price at which he sells himself.

He will make do with the sham, the shoddy and the make-believe, so long as he is permitted to work. Work itself comes to equate with employment. And employment comes to equate with life.

This is the background against which unemployment must be understood. If unemployment means hardship, misery and deprivation, it is because poverty and insecurity are always with the worker.

Work is vital to the class of employees, not because they are docile, but because they depend upon wages to live. Their behaviour is determined by their position in the private property relationships of capitalism. They accept this position from want of an understanding of any alternative.

With this in mind, let us look at the current situation.

Shaking Out

Just a year ago the Sunday Times Business News published a report from Nicholas Faith. Unemployment was then 929,000 and it was thought “the gloom is not a temporary one”. It was pointed out that the present decline started in the mid-1960s, under the Labour government. The present government hoped for another upward turn, but it was feared that the investments boom of the 1960s was not sufficient to produce a big enough growth rate, i.e. more than 3 per cent, to take up the slack. The report blamed decades of neglect of capital stock for the low productivity rise, not (be it noted) the laziness of the workers. Capitalism is a system full of contradictions. Not least of its absurdities is the fact that those who run this system are forever screaming about insufficient growth rate, while at the same time nearly a million workers (in Britain alone) are thrown on the scrap heap and industrial resources grossly underused. All this while millions live in slums and many more millions in other countries starve.

In September 1971 Coventry had over 4 per cent unemployed; the figure still stood at 4.4 per cent in July 1972. For forty years Coventry was a boom town, with unemployment below the national average. The average for Great Britain in July was 3.6 per cent. The actual figure for the whole of Britain (early September 1972) was 930,123. Over a thousand more than a year ago, and the highest August figure for 33 years.

In Faith’s report the great “shake out” of 1966/67 is referred to. It is stated that the whole geography of post-war unemployment altered from that period and that “the whole of England outside the South East is now, by historic standards, a depressed area”. The Labour government was of course in power when the “shake out” began. It was in fact Wilson as Prime Minister who coined the phrase “shake out” in arguing that 400,000 was an “acceptable level” of unemployment.

The nationalised industries have been among the worst casualties. It will be recalled that the Labour Party sold nationalisation to the working class as a cure for various social problems, among them profiteering and unemployment.

Now, those mines and rail services which are unprofitable are ruthlessly closed. The process of “shaking out” many tens of thousands of miners and railway workers was at full tilt during Wilson’s Labour government. In Durham for example, miners have been redundant for ten years or more and “retired” whilst still unemployed, and therefore no longer figure in the unemployment statistics.

The changing pattern seems to indicate, according to the Sunday Times, a long-term change in the actual number employed, with unskilled workers over 40 years of age remaining virtually unemployable until they retire. There are 120,000 in this category.

Hopes Deferred

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research was said to be vaguely looking to 1973 and entry into the Common Market, for an investment boom. How vaguely might be seen from the fact that all the major European countries have unemployment problems of their own, with figures up on last year. They too could do with an “investment boom”. Unemployment is also up in the United States over last year, standing at 4,697,000 in April 1972, an increase of 203,000. Russia discreetly refrains from publishing any figures.

Those workers who trusted capitalism and thought they had secure jobs for life, among them the Upper Clyde shipworkers, those at Rolls Royce and in the mining and railway industries, not to mention the docks and many others, have been sadly disillusioned. Capitalism defies all attempts to control it. The Keyensian disciples of the Labour and Tory parties have had to stand powerlessly aside while the tidal wave of depression rises. All they are able to do is advocate more of the same futile policies and hope for the best.

Ramsey MacDonald in 1929/31 had his “economic blizzard”. Attlee did not plan the half-million unemployed of 1947. Wilson was “blown off course” with unemployment averaging over 600,000 during his last year of power.

The so called extreme “left” can demand nothing better than more work, better leadership, reforms and nationalisation. All the same old fallacies they were trotting out forty years ago. The Trotskyists and the “Communist” Party have helped spread the lie that the Labour Party is better for the workers than the Tories, and fostered the illusion that State capitalism can solve unemployment and other working-class problems.

Unemployment has always been a feature of capitalism. An industrial reserve army is the capitalists’ ultimate weapon against wage demands.

When wages reach a level where machinery becomes a better investment, the composition of capital will tend to favour the machine over the worker. Also, intensified world competition for markets produces the same result, namely relatively fewer workers to increasing technology. No major capitalist country can afford to lag too far behind the techniques employed by the fastest. This is the significance of what the Sunday Times calls “decades of neglect” of capital stock.

That’s What it’s All About

Capitalism inevitably creates situations where it chokes on its own surplus products, simply because of its market economy. Expanding industry means that ever wider markets must be found as profitable outlets for the sale of goods. As the whole world is drawn more and more into the orbit of capitalism, so the number of rivals grows and a stage is reached where it is no longer profitable to maintain production of goods which cannot be sold. The costly plant of modern industry demands the mass market. When markets begin to contract or fall to rivals, then unemployment starts to reappear.

The Daily Telegraph (1 October 1971) put it in a nutshell:

“Industry does not function, as some seem to think, to provide jobs. It functions to make profits. And if profits are unduly low as they have been now for at least five years the inevitable result is low investment. New finance becomes hard to get, adaptation and renewal slow down and the decline of jobs in the old industries remains unmatched by a growth of jobs in new industries. No priority, therefore, should rank higher than the restoration of British industry to a proper level of profitability.”

Capitalism can have no higher priority than profits.

The recurring cycle of boom and depression, at ever higher levels of technology, demonstrates more than anything the total inability of capitalism to harness its productive resources to the satisfaction of human needs. It further proves the complete obsolescence of the market economy.

What is really redundant, in terms of social welfare and human happiness, is the private and state ownership of the means of production.

Harry Baldwin

The real state we’re in: a response to the iPaper’s jobs fair propaganda (2026)

From the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Vicky Spratt’s glazing dispatch from the Youth Guarantee Jobs Fair at Boxpark Camden reads like a press release from the Department for Work and Pensions (In Camden, I saw the antidote to Gen Z’s endless job rejections). She describes a ‘buzzing’ event where recruiters from Arsenal Football Club to the NHS handed out chocolate bars and baseball caps to smiling young jobseekers. Secretary of State Pat McFadden who was also present waxes lyrical about ‘welfare reform’ that puts ‘work and opportunity at its heart’. It is, by her account, ‘the antidote to Gen Z’s endless job rejections’.

I was there too. And I saw something very different.

I am not a young person. I am in my late 40s, a former events manager who once worked across Europe (bringing revenue into the UK economy), until Brexit devastated the industry I loved. My case manager at the DWP, aware of my age and experience, sent me to this ‘youth’ jobs fair anyway. What I witnessed was not an antidote. It was a symptom.

The fiasco of the ‘Fair’

Let us begin with the basics of event management, a profession I practised for years before this government destroyed my livelihood. A jobs fair is, at minimum, a professional event requiring adequate space, accessibility, and basic dignity for attendees. Boxpark Camden, a street food market, offered none of these.

The DWP, symptomatic of its ‘The Thick Of It’ style corporate culture, decided to go cheap and secure the food hall’s grubby, rickety beer hall tables and bench seating on the second and third levels. There was no space to move. If you used a wheelchair, crutches, or had any mobility impairment, you could not have navigated the space at all. Access was via narrow staircases only. There were no accessible toilets. The noise was overwhelming, a cacophony that made conversation, let alone professional networking, nearly impossible. The food vendors I met weren’t very happy that their tables were occupied all day by companies (and consuming outside food) and the place packed with unemployed youth.

My case manager knows I have ASD and auditory processing difficulties so added a note on my file to say that a quiet space is required for my meetings. This environment was not merely unsuitable; it was actively hostile. I travelled over an hour and a half on two buses to reach it, despite my job coach’s insistence that the journey was shorter. DWP are notorious for this sort of support for disabled jobseekers: sending us to inaccessible, sensory-overloading spaces in the name of ‘opportunity’. I suppose my job coach has quotas to meet lest he end up back in the electronic dole queue behind me.

For a former event manager, the incompetence was staggering. The UK events industry, worth £68.7 billion in 2024, has been battered by Brexit with 82 percent of industry respondents reporting that leaving the EU negatively affected their business, and 67 percent experiencing significant or minor losses.

The damage is documented and severe. A Stanford study estimates that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6-8 percent, investment by 12-18 percent, and employment by 3-4 percent. The events sector saw losses of up to £1 million for individual companies. A major exhibition that drew 45,000 visitors annually moved from London to Barcelona. UK musicians have seen a 27 percent decline in small and medium-sized EU festival bookings, with 95 percent of affected artists experiencing decreased earnings.

The government’s own policies have helped hollow out a sector that once employed people like me. And yet when the DWP needs to organise an event, this is the best it can manage: a chaotic scramble in a food court which they probably got for free on a mid-week day in Camden.

Vicky Spratt writes warmly of hospitality roles ‘with training,’ care work, and paid experience on offer at this ramshackle event. What she does not interrogate is the quality of these jobs.

I spoke to the recruiters. Many of the ‘opportunities’ were barely really jobs at all, just the dregs of the labour market. Dishwashing in basement hotel kitchens. Zero-hour contracts in care. Jobs with such high turnover that employers attend fairs like this not out of social responsibility, but to factory farm disenfranchised young people and process them through. The symptom of an economy that has failed to provide meaningful work.

This is the ‘Youth Guarantee’ in practice: an £823 million scheme that offers employers £3,000 per hire, incentivising them to cycle through the cheapest possible labour rather than invest in genuine skills development. McFadden praises Marks & Spencer for creating 1,000 ‘training roles.’ He does not say what those roles pay, how long they last, or whether they lead anywhere. The structure of the scheme itself, paying employers to take on the long-term unemployed, creates a perverse incentive to treat young workers as subsidised, disposable inputs rather than human beings with futures.

Pat McFadden continues his spiel that ‘the narrative that says young people are shirkers and snowflakes … is wrong’. This is clever positioning. Rejecting the most overtly cruel rhetoric, he presents himself as the compassionate reformer and saviour. Actual policy direction reveals the same old coercion dressed in snake oil language.

McFadden describes hiring incentives and work experience placements as ‘welfare reform.’ He says the ‘best way into welfare reform’ is to ‘put work and opportunity at its heart’. This is not reform. This is the ideological enforcement of wage labour as the only legitimate form of existence.

But the Labour Party and the unions that founded it have always been occupied in trying to solve wages problems within capitalism, never questioning capitalism itself. The result? The problems multiply and become more complex and the armies of ‘solvers’ become larger and larger. There is not the slightest prospect that these people will solve the problems, because it is the very nature of wage-labour itself that causes the problems in the first place.

McFadden’s reform talks of cliff edges where people lose housing benefit if they enter work but his solution is not to question why housing should be contingent on employment at all. He speaks of ‘talking to people and working out how the government can help them to change their lives’ but the only change on offer is insertion into the labour market, on capital’s terms, at wages that do not cover the cost of living.

The right exam question, as McFadden puts it, is not how to assess what benefits people are entitled to. It is whether a system that forces millions to sell their labour power to survive while a tiny minority accumulates wealth from their subsequent labour is worth preserving at all.

Abolition of work

The young people Spratt interviews are not ‘snowflakes’. They are victims of a system that demands their labour while offering them precarity in return. Amina, the law graduate relying on Universal Credit who told the iPaper that ‘nobody replies’ to her applications, is not failing the labour market. The labour market is failing her. Brendan, who calls online applications a ‘black hole,’ is not lazy. He is alienated from a process that treats him as an input rather than a person.

The ‘black hole’ Brendan describes is not a glitch in the system. It is the system functioning as designed. Capitalism requires a reserve army of the unemployed applying for dozens, hundreds of jobs, hearing nothing back, to keep wages low and workers desperate. The DWP’s job fairs, with their chocolate bars and branded pens, are not an alternative to the black hole, they are it. To discipline the unemployed, making them visible, countable, and grateful for whatever scraps are offered

A genuine alternative would begin with the recognition that work as currently organised, serves capital not human need. What would society look like where housing, healthcare, education, or sustenance were not dependent on employment? Where the means of production were collectively owned and managed? Where the purpose of economic activity was the satisfaction of human needs rather than the accumulation of profit?

McFadden will never ask these questions. The Labour Party, committed to managing capitalism rather than transcending it, cannot ask them. But over a million young people classed as NEET, the highest figure since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, are to be herded through food courts and told that their problem is a lack of ‘opportunity’.

What Spratt won’t ask

Spratt’s article is not dishonest, but it is narrow. She does not ask why a jobs fair for young people was sending an experienced professional approaching her 40s to a youth event. She does not ask why the DWP chose a filthy Camden street food market over an accessible conference venue. She does not ask why the jobs on offer weren’t skilled careers but, overwhelmingly, low-wage, high-turnover positions where you’ll still be visiting food banks rather than skilled careers. She does not ask why a law graduate is on Universal Credit after six months of silence from employers. She does not ask why the ‘solution’ to youth unemployment is always more work, never less capitalism.

Spratt does not ask Pat McFadden whether the welfare system he oversees is designed to support people or to discipline them. Whether ‘work and opportunity at its heart’ is a promise or a threat.

In the end, McFadden’s ‘welfare reform’ is nothing more than an attempt to make wage-working seem more palatable, to dress coercion in the language of opportunity.

A.T.

Editorial: Much Ado About Nothing. (1909)

Editorial from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

We refer, of course, to Mr. Asquith’s speech of the eleventh of December, at a dinner given in commemoration of a Liberal defeat. “We are met,” said the Premier on that auspicious occasion, “to celebrate a failure.” The Lords had inconsiderately slaughtered a Liberal licensing bill, and sour-faced Nonconformity had in consequence been cheated of its sop. Weeks had been spent by the Commons in dreary talk in the passing of that measure, and tons of unreadable printed matter had been issued, but this had not prevented it going the way it had been expected it would, and perhaps intended it should, go—apparently to the relief of the majority outside. The bill, indeed, was utterly worthless to the workers, and quite hopeless in the promotion of temperance : its only function seems to have been to square the electoral account for nonconformist and teetotal support.

The collapse of the so-called Education Bill, added to the violent death of the licensing measure, had depressed the Liberal party and made many of its supporters discontented, and it became incumbent on Mr. Asquith to give a rallying cry to decaying Liberalism, and revive the drooping fortunes of his party. And to the accompaniment of loud and prolonged cheering the anxiously awaited pronouncement was made public. “I invite the Liberal Party from tonight,” said the hero of Featherstone, “to treat the veto of the House of Lords as the dominating issue in politics.” Hardly inspiring, this, as a rallying cry, even if it were not mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. Indeed, what did the Premier propose to do to make his dominating issue a reality ? Was the party to go to the country forthwith upon the issue and fight the Lords ? No, quoth Mr. Asquith, that would be to admit the right of the Lords “to dictate both the occassion and the date of a dissolution.” So the Liberals were going to be brave—and to submit. The hollowness of Liberalism hardly needed further demonstration. “Down with the Lords” is again to be its empty rallying cry ; and although the House of Lords, has not yet gone to Jericho, still its walls are expected to crumble at a shout, for certainly the Liberals are prepared to do nothing more.

It cannot be denied that there exist powerful constitutional weapons against the Lords which the Liberals could use were they sincere, but wherever capitalist interests are endangered Liberal and Tory have two minds with but a single thought, two hearts that beat as one. In view of working-class unrest, does not the second chamber offer a possible barrier to working-class advance should other obstacles not suffice ? And does not this account for the tenderness with which the Lords are treated by the Liberals, and partly, also, for the enormous number of peers which the latter create ? Not, however, that we are enamoured of a reform of the House of Lords, for the reform of a rotten institution simply serves to perpetuate that institution, and a House of Lords reformed would undoubtedly be a House of Lords strengthened as a weapon against the workers. Nevertheless the fatuity of Liberalism in this respect, as in regard to their projected Land Tax, cannot escape recognition. The fiscal reform of the Liberals, indeed, is at least as futile as the fiscal reform of the Tories, as far as working-class interests are concerned. So, also, with that other measure which collapsed of its own weakness—the “Education” Bill. There, also, we have an example of Liberal futility. Though called an Education Bill, this measure had nothing whatever to do with the improvement of education, but was solely a faction squabble between sections of the capitalist interest as to which particular brand of Christianity should be forced down the throats of the children. In other words, since the particular form of superstition to be taught is but the outward and visible sign of the interests of one section or other of the ruling class, so the squabble over religious education was really to decide which section of the ruling class the children were to be taught to look to for guidance. To capitalist parties this religious squabble may be vital. Mr. Hill, “Labour” M.P., may claim that “the Bible is still his best book,” and that he believes “in simple Bible teaching.” But from the working-class point of view the fact remains that the worker’s interest is foreign to all this Labour cum-Liberal twaddle.

Moreover, the Liberal-Labour bankruptcy on the question of unemployment could hardly be made clearer. Along with the boasted avalanche of Liberal measures—all conceived in the interest of the ruling class —the position of the worker has been steadily growing worse. Statistics convey a quite inadequate idea of the extent of dumb suffering and poverty that exists among the workers from this cause. Mr. William Redmond, M.P., is moved to remark in Reynold’s that “there is no part of the world where the contrasts between luxurious wealth and miserable poverty are so marked as in England, and particularly in London.” And he further adds,

“We have in Ireland suffering and unemployment enough. But the humblest labourer in his cottage in the country is to be envied in comparison with the workman in the great cities who finds himself without employment. Bit by bit the little articles of the home are sacrificed. The pawnshop stretches forth the only hand of assistance often to be found. The home goes, and there is nothing left but the streets. Far preferable is the lot of the poorest dweller is the countryside to this.

England has been glorified because of her great industrial progress, her mighty factories, and her great hives of industry. But when the depression of trade brings with it the discharge of workmen and the hopelessness which that entails, it is futile to talk of the glory of England’s progress. She then presents a spectacle which is unparalleled in the history of the world, of the most boundless wealth on the one hand, and the direst poverty on the other.”

But to these sufferings of the working class the Liberals, like the Tories, are cynically indifferent, and are, in fact, only likely to move when the workers start acting for themselves. So bad is the state of affairs, indeed, that the Labour Party, that docile tail of the Liberal bow-wow, is even moved by the callousness of the Government to murmur a faint protest. We quote from the daily paper of December 12th.

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., secretary of the Labour Party, speaking at Coventry last night, said deliberately (according to the Central News Agency) that unless the Government turned over a new leaf and observed more sympathy, initiative, and determination in dealing with the serious problems of unemployment it would find the Labour Party before long in violent conflict with it.”

Things must be bad indeed, when the Labour Party threatens to be in conflict with the Government ! In fact, we cannot believe that it will ever come to that. The faithfulness to the Government that has hitherto characterised the “Labour” members is not likely to be disturbed. As we have been reminded on more than one occasion, they find their seats too comfortable.

For the working class, however, groaning under their increasing burden of misery, only the policy of hostility can be of use. They must, as distinct from the Labour Party, find themselves all the time in violent opposition to the capitalist Government. They must democratically champion their own interests against all sections of the capitalist party, and realise to the full that the rallying cries and faction fights of Liberals versus Tories are in very truth rightly said to be “much ado about nothing.” Indeed, if the workers are not prepared to take a stand with their comrades in the Socialist Party and fight their own battles, then there is no power can save them from the deepening misery that threatens.

Jottings. (1909)

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

“The Liverpool Education Committee have completed arrangements for establishing technical evening classes for the female employes of the Ogden Branch of the Imperial Tobacco Company. The classes have been arranged at the request of the Company, who are providing rooms, lighting, heating, and cleaning free of charge to the Education Committee.” Manchester Guardian, 24.11.08.

The public spirit of the Imperial Tobacco Company is, of course, quite disinterested.

* * *

A conference was recently held at Bradford with regard to the system of employing children half-time in mills. Mr. Jonathan Peate reported on the conference to the Council of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. In the course of his report are the following items. “Some firms employed a large number of half-timers, and if the abolition of this class of labour took place, or if the age limit was increased, it would be a great hardship to those firms.” Again: “In many cases, also, half-timers were earning an income which, if the system was abolished, would make a serious difference to, and cause great hardship to, the families to which they belonged.” And further : “These children were receiving training in the practical work of a mill which must be of the utmost value to them in later years, when they had to earn their own livelihood.”

* * *

Funny, isn’t it ? Thus are the interests of capital and labour identical. The half-timers are charitably employed because of the hardship to their families if deprived of their small wages ; the employer will also suffer hardship if he cannot employ them, and has to employ some adult (perhaps the half-timer’s father) to do the same work at higher wages.

* * *

And when the little beggars cease to eat in idleness the bread of charity, and are compelled to take life seriously and begin “to earn their own livelihood,” such training really might be of “the utmost value to them,” if they are not unemployed owing to a new generation of half-timers having supplanted them. In this case it would seem that their only hope lies in the direction of begetting baby breadwinners (did anyone say “Socialism” ?) as soon as possible.

* * *

The cry of the parents driven by economic pressure to send their children to work in order that subsistence level may be reached by the aid of their wages, is on a par with the cry of the “We cannot see them starve” sufferer from sentimental diarrhoea, who wants to do something for the unemployed under capitalism. He does something for them by blinding them to the only solution, in urging them to look for help to the class whose existence depends on a continuance of a reserve of unemployed labour.

* * *

A delegate to a deputation of teachers who visited Mr. McKenna on November 5th, 1907, showed how reforms may be made of no avail towards combatting the evils they are, ostensibly, directed against. Mr. Sykes (N.U.T.), speaking of half-timers, said that in 24 years experience he ”had never known a child rejected as physically unfit, although some of them were not robust enough to be allowed in the playground.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian (6.11.07), dealing with this matter, said in effect, the half-timer keeps down the wages of adults by the competition of his cheaper labour, and is in turn forced, by entering unskilled employment, to a lifetime of low wages, and is flung into the industrial system whilst he should be playing.

* * *

“There has never been a Socialist speech delivered in the House; no Conference (of the Labour Party) has ever accepted Socialism except as a pious opinion. In some form the House of Commons would accept a Socialist resolution, provided there were no committal, but even that step has never been ventured.”

Ben Tillett in Justice, 5.12.08.

* * *

This is hard on our S.D.P. M.P., Will Thorne; but so far as one can see, if Ben Tillett is elected for the Eccles Division he will be on the same basis as Thorne. He will be elected as the “labour” candidate for Eccles, and not as an avowed Social-Democrat, vide S.D.P. rule 41, and rule 42 cannot be enforced by the E.C. of the S.D.P. any more than in the case of Mr. Thorne. We are not likely to hear a Socialist speech from Mr. Tillett, however, because on July 20th, 1907, he “was adopted by the Eccles Division Labour Party as Labour candidate, with the distinct understanding from the Dockers’ Union that his title should be ‘Labour Candidate.'” So wrote the General Secretary of the Eccles Division Labour Party, on October 8th, 1908, to the Manchester Evening News, correcting a statement that Mr. Tillett was “the adopted Social-Democratic candidate for Eccles.” I have seen no repudiation of this statement so far. Mr. J. R. MacDonald, also, in a published letter to Mr. Tillett, tells him he is “one of our candidates.”

* * *

“Referring to the unemployed, Mr. Grayson said that Mr. Blatchford was at present organising a scheme for feeding the hungry. If they ran short of funds they would appeal to Rothschild, the Duke of Portland, and the like, to put down a bit of their surplus cash, and if that appeal failed, all they could then say to the unemployed was ‘use your own savage discretion.’ If they could not get work and could not get food, then, without inciting, they would gently indicate that it was their indefeasible right to have bread.”—Manchester Guardian, 9.11.08. Report of speech at Greenfield, 7.11.08.

* * *

Poverty is rife under capitalist society to-day, so we will beg of the capitalist class to relieve our needs, not by disbursing all their surplus wealth, but just a bit of it. If we were to ask too much “that appeal” might fail. And when it comes to standing the hungry up “all in a row” before the rifles of the military, you won’t catch us inciting. Oh, no ! That’s risky. They might not accept our humble apologies so readily as they did Bill Thorne’s. And the “stone jug !”—they say you have to be quiet there !

* * *

If the workers cannot afford enough to keep the unemployed fed, we will ask the Rothschilds and others to be charitable. We will leave it to their generosity—we want no semblance of compelling them to disgorge by the strength of our class-conscious organisation. Not at all ! We’ll ask them “to put down a bit of their surplus cash,” and only when that appeal fails will we tell the workers that theirs is the indefeasible right to have, not only bread, but all else they require.

* * *

Even as a vote-catching dodge, this is pitiable, for the other axe-grinders can out-bribe them every time. If the Blatchford brigade give soup, the Liberal party will offer soup and pudding, and the Tory party will come along with soup, pudding, blanket, a suit of clothes and an overcoat to wrap them up in, and will scoop the lot. The race is to the rich, votes to the highest bidder, until the workers are taught what Socialism is; then they will no longer be bought and sold for a mess of pottage or a drink at the bar, will no longer be exploited in “charity,” either for the benefit of Liberal or Tory politician, noisy mumper on the “labour” movement, or the circulation of the “smart” journal of a “smart” set—much too smart for anything deeper than flirtation with Socialism.

Blogger's Note:

This was an unsigned Jottings column, but during this period of the Standard the regular writer of the column was Jim Brough of Manchester Branch, and as the unsigned author quotes from the Manchester Evening News in relation to Ben Tillett being selected as the Labour Party candidate in Eccles, I can't help but think that Brough penned this month's Jottings column.

P.S. Tillett did contest Eccles as the Labour Representative Committee candidate at the 1906 General Election but, by the time that the January 1910 election came around, he'd been replaced by G. H. Stuart-Bunning as the Labour Party candidate.

Dynamite. (1908)

From the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

WAS GOING TO SMASH SOCIALISM

At a sitting, before Mr. Registrar Brougham, for the public examination of E. W. Mockler, of Hungerford Road, Holloway, works manager, it appeared that he had interested himself in politics, and that about June, 1907, he became treasurer of the Constitutional Speakers’ League, which was to send vans round the country and supply speakers at meetings to be held on the subject of tariff reform. In respect of that league the debtor stated that he had personally incurred sundry liabilities, and he estimated that, including money advanced to the chairman (about £300 now appearing as a bad debt) and other expenses, he had lost about £750 in connection therewith. The horses and vans were eventually seized and sold for the payment of keep and storage. To his losses and liabilities on behalf of the league the debtor attributed his failure,—”Morning Advertiser,” 7.11.08.

__________

LETTING THE CAT OUT

Sir,—I beg to assure you that there is nothing of revolt against the Government in my letter stating I would not again contest Walworth. I wish to give the Prime Minister, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Haldane every support. What I do revolt against is any pandering to Socialism by less experienced and less wise Ministers, and entirely because their doing so helps reaction and blocks the way of the urgent reforms to which I am pledged. REFORM AND SOCIALISM ARE LIKE WATER AND FIRE—MUTUALLY DESTRUCTIVE.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

C. J. O’Donnell,

House of Commons, Oct. 26.

—” Standard.”

__________

HOW ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN?

When you go back to the early years of the nineteenth century, and read the accounts of children’s sufferings due to the cruelty of slave-drivers, your hearts are apt to cry out in anguish. Just think of today. Think of today in these great United States, children five and six years old, working from six in the morning until six in the evening, and at the hardest and most trying kind of labour. These children are being ruined by thousands by the manufacturers. It is killing the whole white race of the South.

It may be surprising, but it is the absolute truth, that things just as bad are going on right here in New York City. Child slavery thrives here in greater proportion than in the South.

There are parts of this city where little children are driven to work early in the morning for two hours and then sent to our American schools, and after school are forced into sweatshops, where they are obliged to work from three in the afternoon until eleven o’clock at night.—William H. Maxwell, Superintendent of Schools of New York City.

—”St. Louis Labour,” Oct. 17, 1908.

Who said ” Tariff Reform” ?

__________

CANDOR

Asked at a mass meeting last January, “What do you advise a conscientious working man to do who is out of a job and whose family is starving because he can’t get work ?” Mr. Taft, who weighs over twenty stone, flung his hands above his head in a gesture of despair as he answered, “God knows, I don’t.”

That pregnant ejaculation has travelled from New York to San Francisco and its echo has been heard from New Orleans to Minnesota. It is characteristic of its author—as honest an American as the United States ever produced.

“Star,” 8.11.08.

For the first time a mountain in travail has brought forth something that may pass for the truth. Taft may know God knows what a starving man should do, but certainly Taft, the capitalist doesn’t.

__________

WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

Much amusement was caused in the Lobby of the House of Commons last night by the circulation of a portrait in a New York newspaper. The words underneath were “England’s Bulwark Against Socialism—Mr. John Burns,” but the portrait, by some mischance, was that of Mr. Keir Hardie.

—” Daily Mail,” Guy Fawkes Day.

__________

No one, surely, can be so unkind to John Burns as his friends.

“Mr. Burns has seen one relevant fact of great importance. He has realised that if municipalities distribute their work with more regularity over the year and give out as much of it as possible during the winter months a good deal of unemployment can be prevented, and for some of it a resource will always be available.” “Daily News,” 26.10.08.

How can unemployment be affected by starving men in summer to feed them in winter ?

__________

We do get the truth, sometimes.

“The pretence that the existing distress is merely a transient phase due to financial disturbance in the United States and so forth is absurd.”—”Standard,” 26.10.08.

__________

This is interesting.

“One remedy for unemployment would be to double the wages of every working man. If that could be done to-morrow the spending power of the people would be doubled, and work would be provided, for every man and woman in Great Britain in providing for their needs.”-(Keir Hardie at Merthyr, 24,10.08.)

It is as difficult to mitigate unemployment by doubling wages as it would be to remove unemployment by abolishing wages.

__________

What d’ye say, Henderson ? What’s the good of it if it don’t find work for every child as well ?

__________

Oh ! these “Socialists.” Here is another specimen. Author, Philip Snowden.

“He wanted to assure all temperance workers of his sympathy and of the sympathy of his colleagues, who were working in other fields of reform—reforms which were no less temperance reforms … As one who deeply appreciates the very great injury and the very great obstacle which the drinking habits of the people present to the progress of every movement of a social reform character, I want to assure you that we are heart and soul with you, and we wish you God-speed. … In connection with the Trade Unions Congress there was always held a temperance fellowship meeting. Mr. Steadman, M.P., the secretary, had told him that he could remember the time when a temperance resolution was struck out of the agenda on the ground that temperance had nothing to do with labour. 

“There was at the present moment another question besides that of temperance touching the hearts of the people—the wide-spread suffering and privation from want of employment.”—(“Manchester Guardian,” 10.10.08.)

The quotations are quite in their proper order. Observe the great question of “temperance reform” comes first, then the secondary matter of “unemployment,” while as for Socialism, that seems to have been “struck out of the agenda on the ground that it has nothing to do with labour.”

Jottings. (1908)

The Jottings Column from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

D. J. Shackleton, M.P., speaking at Leeds on Oct. 24th, ’08, on unemployment, said of the Labour Party, “It should always be remembered that they were the smaller party, and what they could get out of the ‘House’ would be by persuasion and force of argument.” And yet later in the same speech he stated “I take it that Mr. Asquith means help apart from the Poor Law. If he does not we are not going to have it” (“it” being Asquith’s remedy for unemployment). Fancy the party of persuasion having or not having as it chooses ! “If we can only get Parliament to see the reasonableness of our demand, I, for one, will be quite pleased to see the Government get on doing the good work with regard to temperance reform and other matters that they are doing.” Mr. Shackleton doesn’t seem to realise that what appears reasonable to profit-mongers in Parliament will not be to the workers’ interest. Further, were it in the workers’ interest and there was no force behind the demand they can ignore it. Mr. Guy Wilson, at West Hull, quoted Mr. Shackleton as showing that the Liberal Party were favourable to Labour, and now he has given one of the parties whose interests he is to strictly abstain from promoting, another testimonial. He is reported as saying “We are not anxious to do anything to hamper the Government, but they are not doing all we could expect of them.” There’s where he makes a mistake. If he viewed these matters from a class conscious stand-point he would see that they do all one can expect of them from the workers’ point of view, and that is “nothing.”

_____________

Messrs. Brunner, Mond, & Co., Northwich, have not, according to Mr. F. W. Brock, a director, considered the financial effect of putting their employees on short time (and short wages) in order that work may be found for some of the unemployed in and around Northwich.

The scheme is on similar lines to one mentioned by J. T. McPherson, M.P., in the Eight Hours Bill debate, 18.3.08. The members of the union this gentleman is connected with alleged to be getting so much in wages for a twelve hour day on the North-East Coast and West of Scotland that a proposal had been made to the employers to allow three shifts of eight hours each instead of two shifts of twelve hours each per day. By this method it was hoped to employ 1,200 additional men, and, even though the steel smelters were willing to sacrifice one third of the wages they received the employers declined to entertain the proposal. It would be interesting to know what the wages were at the time the suggestion was made. I should have thought that so many unemployed in an industry would tend to lower wages. In the Northwich arrangement it is calculated that work will be found for 250 additional men, while the same wages bill as at present will be paid. This means speeding up. And as work is to go on day and night, it is obvious that the financial side has not been considered at all. It never is ! The dividend is 5 per cent. below the corresponding period last year. Possibly this has something to do with the new move.

_____________

If open confession be good for the soul, Councillor J. E. Sutton, a Manchester “labour” leader, must now sleep easy o’nights. Speaking in support of “Labour” Councillor Billam at Bradford, Manchester, during the municipal contests, he stated, “The Labour Party are willing to compromise if the other parties would allow them one representative in every ward. That would give them thirty representatives instead of the eleven which it had taken them fourteen years of hard work to secure.”

There are about, 124 representatives on the Manchester City Council, therefore, Councillor J. E. Sutton thinks Labour’s share is about one-fourth the total. Any attempt to break through such an arrangement by endeavouring to secure more seats on the council would mean the loss of some of the original thirty. The workers of Bradford, Manchester would do well to read tho following.

“An honest man may take a knave’s advice,

But idiots only may be cozened twice :

Once warned is well bewared.”

                                Dryden. “The Cock and the Fox.”

_____________

At the Hull Conference of the Labour Party Mr. Grayson stated that he believed in palliatives with all his heart; now he tells us that “war has been declared. The decks are cleared. The people know their friends and I am hopeful. I am out for Socialism, and will be content with nothing less.” (Daily Dispatch, 17.10.08.) At a meeting held at the Huddersfield Town Hall on 31.10.08, Mr. Grayson said, “Robert Blatchford and I have been considering, and we have come to the conclusion that while the squabble goes on the people must be fed. There is nobody else will feed them, and we in the Socialist movement must. We are going to say to the classes who say it cannot be done, ‘put down as much as you can and we will feed them.’ If they refuse to put it down we shall be able to turn round on them and say, ‘You contemptible cads, we applied constitutional and peaceful means—we shall now resort to other means.’ You must be ready for the other means.” —Manchester Guardian, 2.11.08.

Socialism, to Mr. Grayson, would appear to mean charity ; failing charity being forthcoming he would resort to other means, presumably Anarchy, not Socialism, surely, because that might well be brought about by constitutional methods, via the ballot box, that is given voters educated to a sense of their class mission. Belfort Bax in “Socialism: What it is and what it is not,” tells us “No! emphatically, alms giving, whether good or bad, right or wrong, under existing conditions, not only is not Socialism, but has nothing to do with Socialism.

But, of course, Bax is an “esoteric rambler” vide Grayson, in his debate with Hicks.

_____________

The Liberal politicians are as much at sea as the Labour misleaders. This possibly arises from their actions in Parliament being similar. C. F. G. Masterman (whom J. Hunter Watts supported), speaking at Tottenham on October 29th said that “If the Right to Work Bill had been passed, however, in the crude form in which it was presented to Parliament, it would have been as difficult for them to provide work as at the present time.” And yet he “voted some time ago for the Right to Work Bill.”

_____________

W. Thorne, in backing the Unemployed Bill of the Labour Party whilst knowing it was of no use as a solution of the problem, was in the same position as Masterman in voting for a measure he knew was of no use.

JAYBEE.

Blogger's Note:

My educated guess is that 'JAYBEE.' was the pen-name for Manchester Branch's Jim Brough, who had written other Jottings columns under his own name.

Letter: Second Labour Government (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

In the September issue of the Socialist Standard, the Editorial Statement called "Break the Link with Labour" says that the second Labour government cut Unemployment Pay. I have always understood that the Labour Cabinet voted for the cuts (although by a small majority) but the cuts were never made, as the Labour government resigned before implementation. It was the incoming National Government that cut Unemployment Benefit.

Bert Mayes, 

London SW18

Reply:

We should have said "when the Second Labour Government agreed to cut unemployment benefit". On 23 August 1931 the Labour Cabinet voted by 12 or 11 votes to 8 or 9 (the size of the majority is disputed) to cut unemployment benefit by 10 percent, but fell from power before they could implement this - Editors.

Unemployment in the 30s and the 80s (1982)

From the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every one of the political parties in this country (except the SPGB) claims that it has a policy which, if the government applied it. would reduce capitalism's unemployment to a very low level and keep it there. It was the late Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, who wrote in 1959:

The great ideal of jobs for all first became a peacetime reality under the 1945 Labour government . . . The first objective of the Labour Government will be to restore full employment and preserve full employment. 

They had to wait five years, until October 1964, to see a Labour government in office again. At first it had some luck, in a small decline of unemployment in 1965. Emboldened by this. John (now Lord) Diamond, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, explained to the House of Commons on 1 March 1966 how this fall had been the result of government policy, and “that is how we propose to continue doing it". Then the government's luck ran out. Instead of unemployment remaining at 371,000, as instructed by Diamond, it jumped in 12 months to 631,000. and when the Labour government left office in June 1970 the Tories were able to show that unemployment was 200,000 higher when it took office.

But the Heath government which followed was equally unlucky. They, too, were pledged to “full employment" but saw the total rise from 582,000 in June 1970 to nearly a million in 1971 and 1972. Then came the Labour government of 1974-79, during which unemployment more than doubled, followed by the Thatcher government under which it has more than doubled again. All four governments from 1964 to the present time have been sailing on a rising tide of unemployment and there was nothing any of them could do about it except wait for it to subside in capitalism's own time.

However, though the governments cannot do anything about the amount of unemployment, the party politicians can indulge in an old game of challenging the official figures. This needs two teams, the opposition and the government, though anyone can join in. An accepted rule of the game is that the opposition, whether Tory or Labour, is on the attack, and the government, whether Tory or Labour, is on the defensive. Points are scored by the opposition when it can plausibly argue that the real number of unemployed is higher than the official figures; and by the government when it can counter the charge or claim that unemployment is really a blessing in disguise.

There was a splendid match in the winter of 1971. It was then that the official figure nearly reached a million and the Heath government had to meet the charge that the proper figure was higher. But how much higher? The Financial Times (11 December 1971) suggested that it was perhaps 1,250,000! The Observer (23 January 1972) quoted an estimate of 1,500,000. but in a later issue (23 February 1972) thought it might be 2,000,000. Not to be outdone Harold Wilson (Financial Times, 8 April 1972) put it at "nearly 3.000,000", and Peter Jay (The Times. 9 March) reckoned that it was "over 3 million”. An official estimate was that there might perhaps be 400,000 out of work who were not on the register, which would have given a total of 1,367,000.

Basically the official figures of unemployed on the register were, and are, disputed on the ground that a lot of unemployed workers do not trouble to register — including, in recent years, some redundant workers who do not seek work while they are spending their redundancy pay. The official figures are arrived at in the monthly count of the number of people available for, and genuinely seeking, work. The more extravagant estimates of a higher figure include guesses at the number of people, particularly married women, who are not seeking work but might perhaps do so if they could see that vacant jobs were available at sufficiently attractive rates of pay.

Faced with these embarrassing estimates of much higher unemployment the government at the time thought up some counter arguments to show that real unemployment was actually less that the official figures. They said that the large number of people they described as "unemployable” ought to be taken out, as should those registered unemployed who were only in the process of changing jobs, with a gap of a few weeks in between. And what about the people improperly included in the register who were secretly doing jobs on the side?

The most ingenious government defence came from John Eden, Minister for Industry, who said that the large number of unemployed on the register "reflect in part the redeployment that is under way"; meaning that it arose out of the government's policy of moving workers from contracting industries into expanding ones. "We can now look forward to what could be our greatest period of sustained growth in decades" (Financial Times 11 December 1971). The Thatcher government has had to fall back on the argument that the unemployed largely owe their condition to having pressed for too-high wages, and that it will take a long time for Tory policy to get things right.

In the politician's game about the unemployment figures points are scored by the opposition if they can claim that unemployment has reached a record level. For months on end. during the Labour government of 1974-79. the Tory opposition was able to do this, as unemployment climbed by over a million, from 629,000 to 1,636,000 in 1977. The form of the attack was that the figures were “a post-war record". Latterly, Labour Party politicians have been saying that the present figure of 3 million is “the highest ever recorded". The intention is to convey that unemployment now is greater than it was in the 1930s which it certainly is not.

The point is that the severity of unemployment has to take into account not only the number of unemployed but also the total number of workers to which it is related. For example, 2 million unemployed out of 10 million workers would be twice as severe as 2 million unemployed out of 20 million workers. Firstly, in 1932, the total number of wage and salary earners was perhaps about 19 million compared with the present 24 million. Secondly, fewer than 13 million of the 19 million were covered by the Unemployment Insurance Scheme and the official figure of unemployment in 1932 (over 2,900,000) took into account only those of the unemployed who were insured. If unemployment was as severe among the other 6 million workers as among the 13 million who were insured, the number of unemployed would have been shown as well over 4 million. Among the workers who were not insured were agricultural workers and non-manual workers generally.

Writing about unemployment in 1936, when it had fallen far below its peak of 1931-2, G.D.H.Cole dealt with the point:

There are, as we write, roughly 1.600.000 of them in Great Britain in the insured trades alone, there are really a good many more altogether; for there are also 110,000 uninsured workers on the register of the Employment Exchanges and an unknown number more who are neither insured nor registered. (The Condition of Britain, p. 219.)

Cole mentioned that at that time there were nearly 250,000 unemployed coal miners.

In 1932, when there were over 2.900,000 unemployed insured workers, on the register, it is the fact that 23 percent of the insured workers were out of work which gives a more accurate picture of the severity of unemployment generally, among both insured and uninsured workers. Unemployment was therefore very more severe in 1931-32 than it is in 1982. when it is 12.8 percent. The same is true of the United States where unemployment in 1933 was over 25 percent, compared with about 10 percent at present. Needless to say the “numbers” game was in full swing in the 1930s and with even more scope for guessing, since nobody knew how many of the millions of uninsured workers were out of a job.

As unemployment under the Labour government had risen from 1,164,000 (9.6 per cent) in June 1929 to 2.813.000 (21.9 percent) in August 1931 when they went out of office, they got a little satisfaction from seeing it go on rising under the National government which followed. Among the points made in the Labour Year Book 1932 was that a seeming 60,000 drop of unemployed among women late in 1931 was due to “changes in the conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit, by which the claims of a large number of married women were disallowed”.

Of course the Thatcher government’s much-heralded recovery has not yet produced results, and unemployment might yet rise to the levels of the 1930s.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Look Round. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who are the “impossiblists” ?

* * *

At the Central Hall of the Social Democratic Federation Mr. Herbert Burrows has been tearing up the Programme of the S.D.F., pointing out that it contains contradictory proposals and also wants boiling down. Many of the changes demanded should not be included in the list of immediate reforms and others are not Socialist at all ! Moreover, he entirely disbelieves in the establishment of a National Citizen Force. The S.D.F., then, which claims to be out to unite the working class, has not yet even united itself upon the means to be employed to unite them.

* * *

An elevating sight was witnessed last month. Mr. H. M. Hyndman publicly trounced his “comrade” Will Thorne, M.P. On January 31st at the Holborn Town Hall Mr. Hyndman declared that it was an absolute disgrace that the Labour Party in the House of Commons took no more vigorous action in the Unemployed Debate. John Burns should have been denounced as a traitor of the foulest and most loathsome type. Someone should have got up on the floor of the House and insulted him.

* * *

How very Hyndmaniac ! And yet since Burns became a “traitor,” the S.D.F., with Mr. Hyndman’s consent and largely upon his advice, supported his candidature for Parliament, and prominent members canvassed for him.

* * *

W. Thorne is a member of the Labour Party in the House, and also a member of the S.D.F. He is therefore included in Mr. Hyndman’s public condemnation. Verily, the “father of English Social Democracy” gives it “hot” to some of his offspring at times.

* * *

Hyndman is most unfair to Thorne. He knows his position and the extent to which he is bound to his Union. The S.D.F. would have been more manly had they expelled Thorne years ago for breaking their rules by supporting Liberal candidates, as he has done on so many occasions. It would have been better for the S.D.F. and also for Thorne. Instead of which they have assisted him into an untenable position and now publicly denounce him for his inaction.

* * *

Thorne is no doubt doing his best. On February 13th he brought in a Bill defining luggage on railways with regard to bicycles. Thus the revolution proceeds apace.

* * *

Mr. H. Quelch, too, who will vigorously denounce the writer of the above pars when he reads them, who is always protesting against this policy of “pin pricks,” who will “go for” the Wigan branch of the S.D.F. at the forthcoming annual conference with all the vehemence and vituperation at his command (and that’s not a little), when they urge, if permitted by the Conference, the deletion of the palliatives from the S.D.F. programme, has also been distinguishing himself recently.

* * *

In the Daily Express for January 30th he had an article on Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., with whom he associates and co-operates at various conferences and congresses. For that attack on the chairman of the I.L.P. he received, I suppose, four or five guineas. He, therefore, is quite willing to become a capitalist hack in pursuance of his desire to discredit one whose success (by means quite as creditable as those employed by many S.D.F. aspirants for political honours) has made him green with envy.

* * *

In the House of Commons on January 29th Mr. A. Henderson opened his remarks on the King’s Speech by saying that the Labour Party welcomed most heartily the references to the policy of the Government in regard to Macedonia and the Congo Free State. It is, of course, most important from the capitalist point of view that as much attention as possible should be diverted from evils here to troubles thousands of miles away.

* * *

On the following day Mr. Ramsay MacDonald declared that the existing machinery for dealing with unemployment is very simple and the Act establishing it, for which Mr. Walter Long was responsible, was one of the most courageous pieces of statesmanship seen in our generation ! Mr. Pete Curran followed and asked the Government and all parties in the House to prevent the possibility of revolution in this country !

* * *

There is no possibility of revolution so long as the workers are content to be represented by the Hendersons, the MacDonalds and the Currans, and the Liberals and Conservatives are fully aware of it.

* * *

Mr. A. Henderson has been elected to the committee of the Nonconformist members of the House of Commons. His election is another proof of the value of the Labour Party pledge to abstain from identifying themselves with any section of the Liberal or Conservative Parties.

* * *

Whenever it has to define a policy on social and economic questions the Labour Party is forced by the logic of circumstances to proceed on Socialist lines, say the Executive of the S.D.F. in a circular appealing for more money. From this we gather that the Labour Party’s Unemployed Bill, with its Penal Clause, is, in the opinion of the S.D.F. on Socialist lines. No wonder it’s a difficult job to convert the workers to Socialism.

* * *

Mr. E. R. Pease, in The International, makes a similar remarkable statement. The particular measures the Labour Party introduces, he says, and the proposals it makes are without exception Socialist !

* * *

“Bold advocacy might win the middle classes to see that their interests are in no way injured by a policy of social justice and humane reform.”—Daily News.

* * *

In his “Report on Sanatoria for Consumption and Certain Other Aspects of the Tuberculosis Question” issued on January 23rd by the Local Government Board, Dr. H. Timbrell Bulstrode says that whilst the prevalence of consumption is contributed to by many causes, poverty stands out prominently above all others. “Although” he says, “it is a matter for dispute which elements of poverty are mainly operative, there is much evidence in support of the view that poverty as a whole, with all that it comprises and implies, may be regarded as one of the most, if not the most, potent predisposing causes of the malady. Poverty acts in many ways ; it may, for instance, diminish resistance of the individual to the disease by promoting overcrowding of persons, semi-starvation, lack of sunlight, of ventilation, and of cleanliness; it may induce occupational predisposition, and increase opportunities for infection.”

* * *

“Where are your hospitals?” demands the thoughtless opponent of the Socialist speaker. But they are not ours. They belong to the capitalist system to which they are necessary. They will not be required under Socialism, because the poverty and the risks of employment common to capitalism will have disappeared.

* * *

In opening his campaign at South Leeds on February 3rd Mr. Fox, in reply to a question, said that he didn’t agree that capitalism is the root of poverty, but he did agree that Socialism is the only real remedy!

* * *

Giving evidence before the Factory Commission at Cawnpore (India) on January 18th, Mr. Francis Horsman, of the Cawnpore Cotton Mill said they had worked twelve hours a day for the past year, as compared with thirteen hours previously, and the gross production was just as good. In other words, with the shorter hours each operative produced more per hour than previously.

J. Kay

The case of Philip Snowden, M.P. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour member for Blackburn, like others who came to the front at the general election, strives to add to his income, (a paltry £200 a year with an extra £25 now and again) by lecturing at high fees, and by writing articles to suit the purposes of the millionaire proprietors of the trustified Press.

In the course of his peregrinations he has run up against members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and in our last number we briefly recorded that our Manchester comrades had forwarded to Mr. Snowden particulars of compacts made between I.L.P. candidates and Liberals, with special reference to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. James Parker.

Mr. Philip Snowden replied as follows : 

(Copy). 

10, Baron’s Court Road,

West Kensington, W.

Jan. 23, ’08.

Dear Sir,—There is nothing at all in all you say which gives any proof of an alliance or understanding. Your extracts simply prove what everybody knows, namely, that in the absence of a second Liberal the Liberal electors voted against the Tory.—Yrs very truly,

(Signed) Philip Snowden.

Now what do we say ?

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was adopted as the Labour candidate for Leicester, at a meeting held at the Temperance Hall on Jan. 5th, 1906. In the course of his speech he said that the trade union section, and that practically comprehended the whole of the movement, said that in connection with this election they must vote so that all votes in the House of Commons they could influence would be cast in favour of the upsetting of the Taff Vale judgment. They said the danger of Protection to the wage earners was so great and so pressing that they must fight and kill Protection, and so, after full discussion, their local Labour Representation Committee came to the decision, and he was empowered to communicate it to them that night, that on no account was it going to ask them to plump on Monday week (cheers), and their Trades Council came to the decision the other night to advise every working man, and everybody who was influenced by the Labour movement, to use both their votes, to give one to Mr. Broadhurst and the other to himself (loud cheers).

Councillor Hill proposed the resolution in support and asked every Progressive elector to use his two votes solid for progress and the advancement of Labour.

Alderman Wood, president of the Liberal Association, seconded. He said that his friends had decided not only to run one candidate, but they were going to take off their coats and work not only for the return of their candidate, but also of their good friend, Mr. MacDonald. Let them all work hard and vote for both the Progressive candidates, and then he should be confident of the result.”

Mr. Snowden may find a full report of this meeting in the Leicester Daily Post of January 6th, 1906, headed—

THE BOROUGH ELECTION.

LABOUR CAMPAIGN OPEN.

BRILLIANT SPEECH BY MR. J. R. MACDONALD.

UNITY WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY.

PROTECTION MUST BE KILLED.

Undoubtedly it was a brilliant speech, from a Liberal point of view.

The Leicester correspondent of the London Daily News, on January 15th, 1906, said, “Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. MacDonald, although on separate platforms, are urging that electors should not plump, but allocate their votes to the two Progressives.” Only by accident, of course, Mr. Snowden, there was no “understanding.”

In the Leicester Daily Post for January 16th, 1906, further speeches may be found. The polling took place on the previous day. The following is a reprint from the article “Labour at the Polls” which appeared in the Socialist Standard, March, 1906 :—

“After the poll was declared a meeting was held at the Liberal Club, at which Ald. Wood congratulated them upon their magnificent victory. He was proud of the Liberals of Leicester, proud of the Labour Party of Leicester and of the unity of action which had brought about that great triumph. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said that Labour and Liberalism had known no difference, as shown by the extraordinary equality of votes between Mr. MacDonald and himself. That is what they did when they had trust in each other. There was one man who had made that grand result possible, and that was Alderman Wood, but for whose years of devotion to unity they might have been a divided people again. Three cheers were given for Ald. Wood.

At the same time a meeting was being held by the Labour Party. Councillor Banton, in opening, said the Liberals had polled with them (cheers) and they reciprocated the fight side by side (loud cheers). Mr. MacDonald said there had been one very significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald (cheers). The plumping had been insignificant, and consequently—(Voices: “Three cheers for MacDonald and Broadhurst.”)—he wanted to read the following message to them : “I wish you to give my hearty congratulations to the Labour Party on the Progressive victory at Leicester to-day. (Signed) Ald. Wood,” (Voices: “Three cheers for Ald. Wood,” which were heartily given). The Alderman had told him that he would be 67 years of age to-morrow. They had given him a magnificent birthday present (cheers). Let them be perfectly clear. The Mercury had said that the two parties— Liberal and Labour—had been occupying quite independent positions during the whole of the contest, but owing to the great crises that the late government had brought upon this country—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to Industry—they had, upon those specific and definite points, cooperated for the purpose of killing the late government, and preventing things going from bad to worse.”

If no alliance existed, no “understanding” was arrived at, when these two parties—Liberal and Labour—”co-operated for the purpose of killing the late Government,” we have yet to learn what an alliance or “understanding” is.

With regard to Halifax, we said in March 1906:—

“At Halifax Mr. Parker openly advised his supporters to give one vote to the Liberal. The defeat of the Tory, said the Halifax Guardian, was entirely due to the alliance between the Liberal and Socialist Parties, which had occurred for the first time in the political history of Halifax. The figures showed unmistakably that the combination had held good, that Liberal votes by the thousand went for Socialism, and that Socialism reciprocated this support to the fullest extent of its power.

The Guardian, however, is a bit out in calling it a victory for Socialism. Even Mr. Parker only claimed “that the result had shown that Halifax at heart was in favour of progress.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall Mr. M. J. Blatchford said, after speeches from Mr. Parker and others, the result showed that the arrangement made by the Liberals had been honestly carried out by both parties. It had been a magnificent display of confidence. Nothing could be more splendid than the confidence each party had shown in the other. He was entirely satisfied that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party had done what they had undertaken to do and he thought both sides might be proud of it (cheers).”

And Mr. Snowden says that Mr. M. J. Blatchford’s words do not prove the existence of any alliance or undertaking ! What would prove it to Mr. Snowden?

In November last we referred to Mr. Parker as having “made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election,” and Mr. Parker wrote to us to dispute a certain statement made concerning him in the same article, but did not deny the truth of this particular one. But Mr. Snowden rushes in where Mr. Parker feared to tread.

The member for Blackburn says that what happened was that, in the absence of a second Liberal, the Liberal electors voted against the Tory ! But if the votes polled were merely anti-Tory votes, what becomes of Mr. Bruce Glasier’s arithmetic in the Labour Leader of April 26th last ?

In the Smethwick Telephone for February 8th, appeared a column, which doubtless also saw the light in many another local journal, headed: “From Labour’s Standpoint, by Philip Snowden, M.P.,” in the course of which he says:—

“There is one great omission in the King’s Speech. There is no reference to the question of unemployment. It is amazing that a Government professing the zeal for Social Reform which carried this Government into power should ignore the acuteness and urgency of this matter. . . . The appointment of Mr. John Burns to the control of the department responsible for this work, a man who had himself known the want of food through unemployment, strengthened the hope that a sympathetic treatment of the problem would be adopted.”

Is Mr. Snowden simple or is he merely playing the game ? We must incline to the latter view. What Socialist could expect a capitalist Government to recognise “the acuteness and urgency of the matter of unemployment” from the viewpoint of the unemployed ? A reserve army of labour is necessary to capitalism ; the problem therefore will only become acute and urgent when that reserve army, assisted by those in employment, becomes dangerous, and that period, thanks largely to the tactics of Mr. Snowden and his friends, is a long way off. What Socialist regarded the appointment of Mr. John Burns as any promise of sympathetic treatment of the problem ? His appointment was a clever, very clever move of the Liberals. Burns understands Socialism, and was appointed as a foil. The Labour members are either envious of Burns or afraid of him,—probably both. He knows that their precious Unemployment Bill is a fraud, and has probably told them so, has sneeringly pointed out to them, say behind the Speaker’s chair, that if they are Socialists they cannot support their own Bill, with its monstrosity of a penal clause. Mr. Snowden complains that in the debate on the Labour Party’s amendment to the Address, John Burns—

“adopted an offensive attitude from the first. He had no justification for such a course. He followed almost immediately after myself and I had taken special pains to be friendly and sympathetic, and to recognise and admit the difficulties of his position.”

As if John Burns wants the sympathy of Mr. Snowden and his friends ! Of course his attitude was offensive, and it will be until the Labour Party make up their mind (if they have one) to fight him and the master class whose interests he so ably serves. Mr. Snowden continued :—

“A Labour Party in Parliament which remained quiet while men and women and children were starving outside would merit the condemnation of the country.”

Heavens! think of it ! All the time that there has been a Labour Party in the House, men, women, and children have been starving outside. And the Labour Party has been quiet, damnably quiet. It has boasted of its “sensibility, respectability, and adaptability” ; its fighting men have taken a turn on the terrace when they wanted to say that wicked word “damn” ; it has moved the adjournment of the House to draw attention to the shooting of natives in Natal, but behaved with Christlike meekness over the shooting of workers at Belfast; it has boasted of its connection with the Nonconformist humbugs and canted in P.S.A. pulpits, appealing for charity for the Hemsworth colliers (who have now been locked out for 171 weeks) when it should have been denouncing these people for supporting a system and a government which make such things possible ; it has expressed its gratification at the references in the King’s Speech to the Congo and Macedonia when it should have been raising hell over the condition of the people here at home; it has attended Royal Garden Parties and told funny tales concerning the working “classes” to “Docks” when it should have been organising the workers for the Social Revolution.

The Labour Party does “merit the condemnation of the country” !

Jack Kent

Here and There. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

J. B.

Blogger's Note:

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