Jottings. (1909)

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

“Twenty-eight years ago the S.D.F. advocated national afforestation, not only as possessing great national advantages in preventing what capitalism was and is forcing on the world, namely, a timber famine, but also as a means whereby the labour of men otherwise unemployed could be utilised, and they in turn benefited. And now the members of the Royal Commission (including an ex-member of the S.D.F., who apparently has not forgotten all he learnt while with us) unite not only in blessing the idea of afforestation as many have done before, but produce definite statistics and estimates on the subject.”— Justice, 23.1.09.

There’s progress for you ! Only 28 years of hard, honest, unremitting toil and then a Royal Commission blesses the idea you have been advocating. Surely this is a complete answer to those “young men in a hurry” who sneer at those who devote so much energy to obtaining these “much needed reforms.” Here is a success sufficient to confound all the “unpractical,” “impossibilist” hustlers.

* * *

True, the “unpractical” persons may retort that had the same energy and enthusiasm been devoted to propagating Socialism and making Socialists these “reforms”—for whatever they may be worth—would have been handed out by the capitalist class, not only in a much shorter time, but in far greater quantity ; that the confusion engendered in the minds of the working class by associating these tinkerings with the name of Socialism would have been avoided, and a far more solid—because clearer-minded—organisation of the working class effected, while some of the more extreme might even suggest that the reform, when obtained, was hardly worth spending a day, let alone 28 years, upon. As witnesseth the following :

“Afforestation appears late in the race, and even if undertaken to the fullest extent suggested by the Royal Commission (which they themselves do not appear to expect) it can only absorb some small fraction of the unemployed, and the wave of unemployment will soon overtake the difference caused even by wholesale afforestation.”

No one, of course, but an “unpractical impossibilist” could have written that. Any self-respecting “reformer” would at once denounce it as mere jealousy. But, alas ! it is from the same page of the same paper that was just previously chortling over its success in obtaining so valuable a concession for the workers.

* * *

Surely the rank and file of the S.D.P. might compare such statements as those given above and realise the futility of following the example of the horse purchaser in the ancient story where the horse dealer admitted after the sale that the animal he had sold had two faults. “What are they?” asked the purchaser. “Well,” was the reply, “the first is that he is very difficult to catch.” “Oh, I’ll manage that all right !” confidently asserted the purchaser. “The second little drawback is,” the dealer went on, ” he is no good when you’ve caught him.”

* * *

The moral is obvious.

* * *

The New Age for 14.1.09 contained an article in support of municipal bakeries for the supply of “free bread for everybody.” The point which seemed to appeal most strongly to the writer was that “It would positively pay the State in the long run to provide free bread.”

The “State,” to whom the appeal to municipalise anything must be made, consists of the representatives of the capitalist class. This will continue to be the case until such time as the working class, educated to a consciousness of their class position and organised for their own emancipation, possess power to use the machinery of government to their own advantage. When that time arrives the necessity for the working class to appeal to capitalism for anything will be gone.

The power to pass a Free Bread Bill would be sufficient to “socialise” everything. That such a state of affairs is not contemplated by the “New Age” writer (A. O. Orage) is shown by his having written “Private artists would provide it (i.e., fancy bread, cakes, etc.) for the people who choose to pay.”

* * *

A member of the S.D.P. alluding to the “impossibilists” recently, said, “they were like certain early Christians who went about asking people to kill them, so sure were they of going to heaven.” The fact that certain persons hold opinions strongly enough to suffer death rather than give them up, is no proof of the truth or falsity of those opinions. For example, if five or five hundred people die to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5 it will not affect the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Both the professing Christian and the so-called Socialist of to-day stand on different planes to those early Christians alluded to above. The Christian of to-day looks forward to a life hereafter, but if he gets a chance to visit the realms of bliss by passing through the Gate of Death, he will call in the best medical aid obtainable in order that he may continue his penal servitude on earth.

So likewise is it with that contradiction in terms, the “revolutionary reformer” of the S.D.P. He knows, or should know, that Socialism can only be achieved by the complete overthrow of the present system of wealth production, yet he works for this, that and the other reform in order to patch up the very system he is out to abolish.

* * *

Here is an example. After stating that waste was desirable in order that work should be found for persons who would be otherwise unemployed, Mr. H. Quelch (at Eccles, 17.1.09.) in answer to a question, said in effect that, organisation of various concerns under municipal and national management tended towards the elimination of waste and consequently to the more speedy overthrow of the capitalist system.

Whilst he does not hold with one capitalist spending money wastefully upon a “coming out” dinner that found work for some persons,, he, as a member of the Right to Work Executive Council, would approach the capitalist class banded together as “the State,” to find useful work for the unemployed, knowing full well that the problem of production has already been solved, and that anything produced by the present unemployed would only mean the consequent slackness or loss of work to those employed. In the one case “elimination of waste” means the more speedy overthrow of capitalism, and in the other he would advocate waste to overthrow the system sooner than if nothing were granted to the unemployed, by advocating relief works, etc. It would be interesting to know whether he is really of the opinion that waste or the elimination of waste is better for the workers under capitalism.

* * *

Seeing Mr. Quelch admits that the organisation of production under municipal and national control is used to the detriment of the workers whilst the capitalist class are in power, perhaps he can explain how “greater material and moral facilities for the working class to organise itself and carry on the class war” (S.D.P. programme) will be obtained by advocating measures whereby the workers will come more under the sway of capital. When explaining this point he might also prove the following words to be false. “The higher the productiveness of labour the greater is the pressure of the labourers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition of existence, viz, the sale of their own labour-power for the increasing of another’s wealth, or for the expansion of capital.”—”Capital,” Karl Marx, Vol. I p. 660. Should he admit the truth of the above passage, then the reforms advocated by his colleagues of the S.D.P. are not palliations of the system from the working-class point of view at all, and support for the movement gained by their advocacy is falsely gained, because these supporters are led to believe that the lot of the mass of the workers would be bettered while it would not.

* * *

Mr. R. Blatchford as good as says there is no Socialist Party because the posters for a recent issue of the “Clarion” said, “Wanted, a Socialist Party.” If the S.P.G.B. had said the S.D.P., I.L.P., Fabian Society and Clarion Scouts were not Socialist Parties it would have been high treason. Still those persons who were about to join the Clarion Scouts under the impression that it was a Socialist body will reconsider their position, doubtless. Of course, it applies equally to the S.P.G.B., but then we are used to being told that we are “Tories in disguise,” except when we want the platform in opposition, when it is refused to us on the plea that they take opposition only from non-Socialists.

* * *

Mr. J. Hunter Watts has been lecturing on “The Need for a Revision of the S.D.P. Programme.” After 25 years too! We would suggest as his next subject “The S.D.P. : Where is it ?”

* * *

In our January issue it was mentioned that the capitalist class would always out-bid, in the field of charity-doles, such efforts as the “Clarion Bread Fund.” Here is proof. Sir Peter Carlow Walker (of brewery fame) has placed at the disposal of the Liverpool Food and Betterment Association, funds to any amount necessary for the alleviation of dire necessity. Two offices have also been furnished at Sir P. C. Walker’s expense.

Irish stew, currant bread, cocoa and coffee are to be distributed to single, respectable, unemployed women and men, and provisions and probably clothes are to be given to widows having young families. Higher grade artisans and clerks out of employment are to be the chief beneficiares of the fund, those who are hard pressed and have to keep up appearances will, most likely, have clothing supplied them so that they may go respectably dressed to look for the work that does not exist.

Fitz Brough

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.

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

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Strange Inversion.

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

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

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

No Hope in the Master Class.

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

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

The Treachery of the ‘Labour’ Members.

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

We Warned the Working Class.

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

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

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

What’s Bred In the Bone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogger's Note:

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

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

Who are the Impossibilists? (1908)

From the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is obvious that the revolutionary attitude of the S.P.G.B. is making headway within the ranks of the S.D.P. It is recognised by many members of the latter organisation that the advocacy of reforms is not the work of a Socialist.

The Duty of a Socialist

(in his capacity as propagandist) is to explain briefly and lucidly the position the working class occupy to-day. He must bring the worker to understand that he is a wage slave, compelled by dire necessity to sell his labour-power in return for wages. He must teach the worker to recognise that he belongs to a class who are— and will be—kept in economic bondage until the arrival and institution of the Socialist Republic. This method of propaganda—certainly the correct one—adopted by the S.P.G.B. is growing with such rapidity that the wire-pullers of the S.D.P. can no longer pursue a policy of ignoring methods.

Some time has elapsed since Harry Quelch announced his intention of dealing with “impossibilism,” and of proving the necessity of the advocacy of certain reforms beneficial to the working-class. Behold, now, the long promised article (Justice, June 13/08). The article was a reply to the following letter submitted to “Tattler” :—

“I have also had the following letter handed to me by the Editor :—

“Dear Comrade,—Will you clear up for me the following point—viz., the position of our organisation towards impossibilism ? The controversy between the impossibilists and the S.D.P. I am unable to clear up to my own satisfaction. Socialism teaches that there is an iron law of wages which drags down wages to the level of subsistence. If this is a fact, how can any reform alter the operation of this law ? In other words, is not a poverty-stricken working class a necessity under capitalism ? In reference to unemployment, if unemployment is a necessity of the ruling class, what is the use of appealing to that class for the right to work ? I have heard our comrade Hyndman say that the provision of work for the unemployed would mean the collapse of capitalism. But capitalism being the cause of unemployment, to abolish unemployment is it not necessary to first abolish capitalism ? Dear comrade, if you will solve this problem for me you will earn my gratitude.”

Our organisation is opposed to “impossibilism” because it is impossibilism, and we are Social-Democrats, not impossibilists. The impossibilist position may be summed up as follows: The emancipation of the working-class can only be achieved by the working-class themselves. In order for the working class to achieve its emancipation it is necessary that the workers should be educated, organised and class-conscious. But no reforms of any advantage to the workers are possible under capitalism ; therefore the workers cannot become educated, etc., until they have emancipated themselves; yet they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”

“Tattler’s” summing up of the impossibilist position contains some truth, and we recognise its truth because the italicised passages may be used against the reform-mongering parties like the S.D.P. and the I.L.P., i.e., “We do not preach pure Socialism to the workers because they do not understand it, and they do not understand it because we preach reforms instead,” say these parties.

The argument from our point of view turns upon

What is Meant by Education.

If “Tattler” takes education in its narrowest sense, then the educated class and snobocracy of the universities should be revolutionary to the core. That such is not the case, however, even “Tattler” knows. Does education necessarily mean a knowledge of the higher mathematics, Greek, and chemistry ? No ! Education from the Socialist point of view is a recognition of that class antagonism prevalent in society to-day, and a consciousness that the workers as a class must combine in opposition to the capitalist class and its supporters for the purpose of taking, holding, and controlling the political machine, and subsequently the means of life, in their own interest.

The full recognition of this basic principle of Socialist propaganda and of the uncompromising action necessary to the attainment of the above object is absolutely essential from our point of view, and the moment the individual unit of society recognises this and acts accordingly, he is, from the Socialist view-point, educated.

Unless the workers are educated in this sense all efforts at emancipation will be as futile as those already attempted. And that is why “they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”

The administration of education at present lies in the hands of the capitalist class, who will take care that only those subjects tending to keep the workers in subjection, and to make them

More Efficient Producers

shall be taught. The education in Socialist principles takes place after the worker has had his mind chloriformed by the paid agents of the capitalist class.

But before leaving this we may point out that the S.D.P., whilst believing in the class war, has many prominent members of its organisation who state that, in the struggle for working-class emancipation the workers will be led and guided by members of the middle class. They are, apparently, ignorant of the fact that Socialism will not arrive until the class war has reached its most acute stage. It will then be a struggle between two classes—the working class and the capitalist class. It is difficult to discern where another class comes in.

“Tattler” admits that “as long as capitalism lasts there will be unemployed,” which admission proves the futility and fatuity of approaching the capitalist class for measures of alleviation. Such being the case, it should be the duty of the S.D.P.—instead of advocating the “Right to Work”—to teach the worker that demands a large margin of unemployed in order to keep down wages and the standard of living, and to give an increase in profits. Instead, the S.D.P. have for 25 years marched battalions of unemployed from one end of the country to the other, gulling, defrauding, and deceiving the industrial outcasts by telling them this, that and the other Bill will help them. The S.D.P. know perfectly well that the capitalist class will not, in fact, dare not, tamper with the unemployed problem. That is the rock upon which capitalism rests. Take it away and your whole system is abolished. Do the S.D.P. think the capitalist class are going to interfere, knowingly, with their own interests ?

If remedial measures were of any good, how is it that to-day there are

A Larger Number of Unemployed

than ever. Frederick Engels wrote in 1886 the following : “Meanwhile each succeeding winter brings up afresh the great question ‘what to do with the unemployed ‘; but while the number of the unemployed keep swelling from year to year, there is no answer to that question.” Since that date the number of unemployed has increased. Industrial development and the perfection of machinery grows apace ; with that goes the displacement of human labour arid consequently an increase of the unemployed. Karl Marx states in “Das Capital,” “Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital . . . grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation ; but with this grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.”

Along with the exploitation of the working class grows the increasing intelligence of the workers, who are being organised in order that when the inevitable collapse of the present system takes place, they, the workers, will be competent to deal with the new method and state of society. We, as Socialists, must point out that Socialism is the only hope. That is our aim. That is our sole object. The S.D.P. do not do so, but waste their time deluding the working class into believing that some reforms are good. The “impossibilist” method will not prevent reforms being given by the capitalist class, nor can we avoid accepting reform measures passed by the governing class when it suits their interest to do so. What does matter is the wasting of energies and activities upon the advocacy of reforms, the splitting up of the forces of the workers into opposing factions, each desirous of seeing its own particular pet and paltry palliative pushed persistently and prominently before all others. In these circumstances the workers are necessarily lacking in the one common principle to which all could give allegiance.

The S.D.P. have 48 palliatives down for immediate enactment.

Note the Confusion

existing in that organisation. Harry Quelch’s principle desire is to see a “Citizen Army” in existence. Hyndman says that Payment of Members’ Election Expenses is the most important. Mrs. Bridges Adams and “Comrade” Warwick insist on the agitation for the Feeding of School Children being the first object of S.D.P. propagandists. Some advocate Old Age Pensions at an age when the majority of the workers are dead; others say that an important reform is the Municipalisation of the Pawnshops, while Mr. J. F. Green says the Eight Hour Day is a measure that he “would like to see in the forefront.” We anticipate being told that these are but individual members, but each of them has his own particular coterie of supporters, and further, each, of the reforms advocated by them and their following is on the list of “immediate reforms” wanted by the S.D.P. It must be borne in mind that while these reforms are being advocated Socialism is being neglected and put in the background. If this is not so then reform and Socialism are synonymous terms, according to the S.D.P.

But then “Tattler” again disagrees and says “There are two directions in which reforms at the present moment could materially benefit the worker,” viz., by a reduction of the hours of labour and, the better housing of the poor. With reference to the first of these it must be remembered that the shorter working day generally means a greater intensity of labour during the time the worker is employed, the

Increased Strain

being met by the greater period for recuperation.

Many instances have been cited in the Socialist Standard where a reduction in the hours of labour has led to an increase of unemployed in the particular trade affected. Such increase of production with fewer working hours causes the market to become overstocked owing to the non-effective demand for the commodities produced to excess. During these periods of glutted markets the workers who were employed producing the goods are either placed on short time or cease work until those stocks are depleted.

“Tattler” tells us that it is because the hours of labour devoted to the production of surplus-value are decreased that capitalists always fight against any reduction of the working day. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but very few capitalists revert to a ten hour day after trying one of eight hours. Messrs. Lever Bros., Mather & Platts, Allaij & Co., Brunner Mond, and other firms have not built up their great businesses on a system detrimental to their own interests.

Says “Tattler” (same article) :—

“Granted that a certain proportion of the day’s labour is necessary labour, it is quite clear that the amount of exploitation and of surplus value is in direct proportion to the prolongation of the working day. Thus, given a day of ten hours, four of which represent necessary labour, there are six hours devoted to the production of surplus value. The worker works, then, four hours for himself and six for the capitalist. If the hours are reduced to eight, everything else remaining equal, the worker then only works four hours for the capitalist instead of six. That is certainly a material advantage, and it is quite easy to understand, therefore, the vehemence with which the capitalists always fight against any reduction of the working-day.”

“Everything else remaining equal” Mr. Quelch (or “Tattler,” or the Editor of Justice— they are all the same chap) may have a case. It is precisely because everything else doesn’t remain equal that he has none. It must be recognised that if the workers obtain any

Material Advantage

it can only be taken from the capitalist class, who lose thereby. All statistics in connection with the production of wealth prove conclusively that, in spite of the reduction of the hours of labour, the workers (who produce all the wealth) are becoming poorer and poorer, whilst the idle and luxurious capitalist class get richer. Marx has pointed out that, in connection with the reduction of the hours from 12 to 10 per day, “The denser hour of the 10 hours working-day contains more labour—i.e., expended labour power, than the more porous hour of the 12 hour working day. The product, therefore, of one of the former hours has as much or more value than the product of one and one-fifth of the latter hours. Apart from the increased yield of relative surplus-value through the heightened productiveness of labour, the same mass of value is now produced for the capitalist say by three and one-third hours of surplus labour and six and two thirds of necessary labour, as was previously produced by four hours of surplus labour and eight hours of necessary labour.”

The worthy “Tattler” has manufactured a premis not of fact in order to justify a specious argument. Knock away the premis and the bottom is out of the case. By the “Tattler” method anything can be proven. From the Socialist point of view his position on Housing is also wrong. Houses to-day are erected, not for living in, but for the purpose of making profit. If the habitations in the “garden cities” produce more profit than those in the slums, it is reasonable to assume the gradual disappearance and demolition of Slumdom. The wages in Bournville, Port Sunlight, Ancoats and Whitechapel are in each case determined by the cost of subsistence. The “garden cities” mentioned naturally produce better and more efficient wage slaves than those in the slums.

No matter how we turn, no matter what reform is instituted, there the capitalist class, controlling political power and holding the wires of the administrative machinery, are able to use the same to their own advantage.

“Tattler” then concludes :

“At the same time it must be borne in mind that the tendency is always, not only to keep wages down to the subsistence level, but also to lower the level by reducing the standard of comfort.”

These remarks prove

The Logical Position

of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Because the tendency is always on the downward grade, notwithstanding the remedial measures advocated by the S.D.P. and other reform organisations, reform is absolutely useless, as it cannot, on “Tattler’s” own admission, prevent the downward grade. It is evident, then, that the education of the working class must proceed on lines identical with the policy of the S.P.G.B. Whatever the party, the workers can only achieve their emancipation on such lines. Socialism itself implies a scientific organisation of industry, and this can only be realised by class-conscious Socialists.

—CONCILIO ET LABORE

Cuttings and Comments. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Consider ye the millionaires, how they toil not, neither spin, yet Solomon in all his glory couldn’t buy the gasoline for their automobiles. How do they manage to do it? It’s a cinch. You are foolish enough to work and they are sensible enough to let you. By ‘abstinence and thrift’ they have succeeded in gobbling everything in sight, so that when your poetic soul is filled with the noble aspiration to toil, you have to do it with their tools, in their factories. Whatever you make should logically belong to them. And it does. Out of the fulness of their pocketbooks they humanely return you enough so that you may live to work another day, and all goes as merry as a funeral until their warehouses are filled to overflowing. Then it becomes manifestly impossible for them to allow you to work any longer. You have been gluttonous and intemperate instead of taking your work in decent moderation and look what you’ve done.”

–++–

The reference to millionaires in the above extract from the Western Clarion (Vancouver, B.C.) reminds one of the Harmsworth publication, entitled, “Fortunes made in Business,” in which it is stated that

“The House of Rothschild is to-day one of the greatest powers of the world. Its members exercise more direct influence on human affairs than perhaps any king. Its agents, mostly unknown, are at work in a hundred lands. It creates new nations. At the bidding of its members kings stay their campaigns. . . . The total of their wealth can only be imagined. In the great capitals of Europe they hold their court—the money lords of the Eastern world. Their nod could produce, if they wished, the greatest financial panic the world has ever seen, sending hundreds of thousands to ruin almost in a day.”

–++–

The apologists of the capitalist system declare that the “common people” rule in this “democratic age.” The words quoted above will be useful to our propagandists who run up against such flapdoodlers.

–++–

From the same series we learn that the foundation of the Rothschild’s wealth was laid by an incident that occurred when Europe was in arms against Bonaparte. Hearing that Napoleon had sent an army to seize him and sack his country, the Landgrave of Hesse took flight, but before doing so he handed over his gold and art treasures to Rothschild (Mayer Anselm of that ilk) to mind. The Jew buried them and after the soldiers had left, having failed to discover anything, dug them up and sent the bullion to his son (Nathan Mayer) in London. He used it and luck being with him multiplied it exceedingly. Had Waterloo gone against the British, the Rothschilds would probably have been ruined and would certainly have lost the Landgrave’s millions. As it was, however, they were enabled to return his money and also considerable profits.

–++–

It is always advisable to be successful when you set out to gamble with others’ property. If you fail, you will probably be sent to jail, as often happens to solicitors and others who try to emulate the deeds of the Rothschilds and gamble with wealth entrusted to them to “mind.” But if you succeed and succeed on a sufficiently large scale, you will be appointed to high places in the State and may “exercise more influence on human affairs than perhaps any king.”

–++–

“We will never have Socialism until the working class become conscious of being a class and a disinherited class, and until as the result of this class consciousness they struggle as a class for the institution of a society in which they will be equal participators with all at the festal board of humanity.”

Wilshire’s Magazine (New York).

–++–

Messrs. J. Keir Hardie and J. Bruce Glasier of the Independent Labour Party, which Mr. Wilshire in his journal supports, declare there is no class war ; they say it is a “shibboleth” and a “reactionary and whiggish precept, certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism.”

–++–

But political job hunters will say anything.

–++–

“With a Labour party on a trade union basis Liberals could always work in sympathy, although they could not go the whole way with them. With a Labour party which had become the instrument of revolutionary Socialist propaganda they could have nothing to do. They accept Sir Henry Fowler’s words spoken so opportunely at Wolverhampton this week. With a scheme such as the Hull Conference has adopted for “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange,” Liberals “will have nothing to do ; they will oppose it to the utmost; they will oppose it in the interests of commerce and industry, and in the interests of the people themselves.”—Daily Chronicle, Jan. 24th.

–++–

Those who really understand Socialism know that neither Liberals nor Tories will help it along, they will fight it to the bitter end. That is why they advise the workers to abstain from voting for candidates of these parties. And when organisations such as the Social-Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party not only urge the working class to vote Liberal but also make arrangements with them for dividing the working-class vote it is evident that they do not really understand the principles of revolutionary Socialism.

–++–

“The laboring class, who perform the work of the world, must sell themselves to the ruling class. They cannot produce independent of the owners of the machines, mines and factories, because under competition only the cheapest production demands the best, most expensive and complicated machines. They are compelled, because of the fact that social progress and private property in improved machines is making vast numbers of them unnecessary in the process of production, to fight among themselves for any opportunity to live. If they are to rise an atom above the slaves’ portion, they must unite and fight side by side against the class of exploiters,”

–++–

Thus says the International Socialist Review for Australasia, but to fight against the class of exploiters means to fight against them all the time, not to oppose them in one district and support them in another as has been the practice of the professing Socialist parties, the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., in this country.

–++–

“If I have to take money from you does it matter whether I take it from your right or your left pocket ?” asked the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain in one of his Tariff Reform speeches.

–++–

As the working class must be exploited by the master class, does it matter to the former whether the latter call themselves Liberals or Tories, Christians or Jews, Imperialists or Little Englanders, Protestants or Catholics ?

–++–

“It (a minimum wage for State employment) should be fixed at such a sum that whilst it would be sufficient to support life on a scale of decency it would not unduly tax the resources of the capitalist system to afford it,” says Mr. H. Russell Smart, of the Independent Labour Party, in his pamphlet, “The Right to Work.”

–++–

How anxious the I.L.P. leaders are not to “unduly tax the capitalist system” ! Can the Socialist omelette be made without breaking the capitalist egg ?

–++–

At Fairbairn Hall, Canning Town, on Feb. 14, Cllr. J. Jones, S.D.F., in his well-known manly manner, persistently interrupted the speech of Mr. Masterman, M.P., on the Unemployed. When the speaker declared that the most he hoped for from the Farm Colony was that it would improve the men’s physical condition, Councillor Jones shouted: “Yes, for their masters to exploit them and make more money out of them.” Jones denouncing palliatives is a sight for gods and men.

Books Received. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

My Right To Work: Free Trade, Protection or Socialism? by R. B. Suthers, Clarion Press, 72, Fleet Street, E.C.  Paper 6d,. Cloth 1/-

The Ethics of Corporal Punishment, by H. S. Salt, Humanitarian League, 53, Chancery Lane. One Penny.

Letter: The Path to Socialism (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Path to Socialism

Dear Editors.

Your literature does not seem to offer an acceptable path to socialism. Obviously socialism must be worldwide; once you are elected you seem to think that socialism will just "happen". Possibly, in fact probably, most other countries will not have socialist governments. So what will you do in Britain whilst waiting for our friends abroad to come into power?

In Steve Coleman’s article "Class v. Class” (July 1982 Socialist Standard) he says that "Some misguided workers who call themselves socialists, but are in fact the most backward of social thinkers, actually organise processions demanding the right to be exploited". I presume he refers to the right to work campaigns. These are an essential part of the fight for socialism. When the people see us helping them they will join us. Yours is the misguided view, criticising every quest to better our conditions, workers will look upon you as fools and supporters of the capitalists. Please stop your ridicule of workers' fight for better conditions under capitalism, these are necessary and will precede the formation of a socialist world.

Militant's views are much like yours, although they say what they will do whilst awaiting the world socialism they want, when the right wing of Labour move out to the SDP Labour will again be a Marxist party and able to bring about world socialism. I am sorry, but I cannot see your party gaining any significant support in the near (100 years) future. Not because of your views but because of your size and lack of opinions relating to day to day issues.

Chris Cooke 

Hull

Reply:

As any reader of the Socialist Standard is aware, the SPGB has very clear, definite opinions on day to day issues; Chris Cooke confuses opinions which he happens to disagree with with having no opinion. Our policy on day to day issues is that workers must struggle to defend and improve their wages and working conditions under a capitalist society; that is an essential, inescapable part of the class struggle. But we recognise the limitations of these struggles; they cannot bring about a comprehensive, permanent solution to the workers' problems. That can only happen by the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. We also insist that much of the “day to day struggle" has nothing to do with working class interests. It is often for some ephemeral, inconsequential reform within capitalism or even at times for some blatantly anti-working class aim like "national self-determination". Workers everywhere should avoid such "struggles" like the plague.

Socialism will not be the work of any government and it will not take place as the result of a majority of socialist MPs behaving just like Labour and Tory members now — legislating on issues of capitalist reform. It will be a very different process — it will arise from the democratic action of the international working class in a deliberate, conscious decision taken in full knowledge of the nature of socialism and of how it will end the problems of capitalism. A socialist working class will not need — or want — anyone to set themselves up as leaders and to "help" them to socialism; they will know thoroughly how to get it for themselves. They will elect socialist delegates to the various seats of parliament throughout the world mandated to take over the state machines and transform them into agents of working class emancipation.

Any differences there may be in the timing of this event in the various parts of the world will be so slight as not to affect the matter. Socialism is a process of changing ideas and ideas spring from prevailing material conditions. In terms of broad social concepts they keep pace and as the means of communication develop this tendency will increase. At present, for example, there is a general acceptance throughout the world of the capitalist system of society, of its preconceptions, principles and morals. Workers everywhere offer the same arguments in support of capitalism and the same objections to socialism. It can thus be said that the development of socialist ideas will follow the same pattern; capitalism will be questioned, rejected and finally overthrown more or less simultaneously all over the world.

Campaigns like Right to Work have always been justified on such grounds as “an essential part of the fight for socialism" or that they will "precede the formation of a socialist world". In fact they have if anything delayed socialism; they have misled and confused workers into a belief that they must divert their attention from an uncompromising, immediate demand for a social revolution into campaigns for reforms of capitalism. None of these have any useful, permanent effect on workers' lives except that, by delaying socialism, they worsen workers’ conditions. Unemployment does not happen because of an absence of demonstrations against it and it cannot be removed as a result of such demonstrations. It happens as a direct consequence of the anarchy of capitalist production and the only permanent solution is to struggle, not for the Right to Work (whatever that may mean), but for an end to the social system in which class exploitation is basic.

Militant has the absurd ambition to change the Labour Party while leaving untouched its basic nature as a party of capitalism. It was never a Marxist party; it never propagated Marx's analysis of history, economics and politics (which in fact effectively destroy the case for muddled reformists like Militant) so it cannot "again" be a Marxist party. There is already such a party and any workers who are interested in propagating Marxian ideas should be in it. That party is the SPGB.

Editors.

Letter: "Can you be serious?" (1983)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

In your October issue you have written that reforms of capitalism have “no useful, permanent effect on workers' lives except that by delaying socialism, they worsen workers’ conditions”. Can you be serious? All the rights won by the working class and the foundations of its economic and political strength have been gained by actions which, since we do not yet have socialism, must come under the definition of "reforms of capitalism".

The transcendence of capitalism must be a dialectical transformation of quantity to quality, in other words, for the revolution in social relationships which we aim for to be possible, the conditions for such a revolution must be generated through progressive piecemeal change in all areas of society, economic, ideological, political — that is. they must be generated through reform. Unless the word “revolution” is aligned with such a conception, it is, obviously, a meaningless abstract. Yet your paper comes close to using the word “revolution” in this way in its attitude towards reformist proposals and any avowed socialists who advocate reform, like Tony Benn.

You may say your mistrust of Labour Party “reformists” is justified in the light of experience but your attitude towards figures like Benn topples over into ignorant dismissal of practical socialist reforms.

Your treatment of the Glasgow Media Group’s third report was an illustration of the poverty of this attitude. Their theme is the formation of consciousness — a central concern of your paper and one fundamental to the class struggle. It surely merited more detailed attention. It was declared to have “some value” but presumably because its compilers asked for reforms instead of calling for the Socialist Party to lead us to revolution, it was given short shrift.

This wholesale refusal to sympathise at least in part with other avowed socialists and to deny them serious critical attention can do no good, and to completely alienate your paper from reformist ideas is not socialist but reactionary, sectarian and damaging to your objectives.

James Daly 

Glasgow

Reply:

James Daly has misread the passage in the October Socialist Standard (p. 198 — reply to letter from Chris Cooke), which did not say that reforms have no effect except to worsen workers' conditions but that reformism has this effect — in this case, specifically the Right to Work Campaign.

Of course some reforms (although not by far as many as the reformists say) benefit the working class. Workers must constantly struggle against the inroads which capitalism threatens to make into their standards and to improve those standards, for example by class conscious trade union action. Socialists recognise that the freedom to discuss ideas and to form political parties is vital to the working class and to the existence of a socialist party. This cannot be said about the Right to Work Campaign, which can only divert workers’ energies away from the struggle for that ultimate “reform" — the radical solution to all the problems the reformists claim to deal with — of establishing socialism. If the object of that Campaign were to be achieved, the only result would be that more workers would be exploited in employment than is the case at present. Is that supposed to be a change towards socialism?

Workers should realise that, whatever reforms they may accept, they will not remove the basis of capitalism's problems and that the problems, in one form or another, will therefore continue. Anything which delays the establishment of socialism amounts to a worsening of working class conditions, to more intense exploitation. to ever more fearsome weapons of war.

There is no evidence to support the argument that every reform is a quantitative change and that when there have been enough of these they will amass into a qualitative change in society. The history of reformism shows that it confuses workers; it persuades them that they should use their political power to opt for reforming capitalism. in the belief that this society can be reformed out of its basic character. This amounts to an argument for the delay of socialism, when all facts point to the conclusion that socialism is an immediate need. Socialism cannot happen by capitalism being reformed out of existence; it will happen through the act of a politically aware working class who understand that only socialism can set up a world based on production for human need and free access.

Our review of Really Bad News (October Socialist Standard, p. 197) was in fact an example of socialist critical attention; we recognised the merits of the Glasgow Media Group but also its limitations. How else should we deal with such groups? We apply the same style to that prominent member of the capitalist Labour Party, that man who has willingly served as a member of Labour governments which have run capitalism — Tony Benn. We have published much material in these columns, exposing Benn as another supporter of capitalism and there is no point in repeating any of it here, save to say that we don’t simply make assertions on the matter; we back our arguments up with evidence such as Benn's own words. It is people like James Daly, who persist, despite all the evidence, in their faith that Benn is a socialist who are reactionary, sectarian and damaging to the objective of the establishment of socialism.

Editors.

Reformism, old and new (2007)

Book Review from the November 2007 issue of the Socialist Standard

Struggling for a Social Europe: Neoliberal Globalisation and the Birth of a European Social Movement. By Andy Mathers. Ashgate.

Mathers begins his book with the claim that “15 June 1997 may prove to be a significant date in the development of the labour movement in Europe”. What, you will be asking, happened that day? Some 50,000 people demonstrated in Amsterdam at the EU Summit that was being held there, including a few hundred who had marched from various parts of Europe to demand “the right to work or a guaranteed basic income”. Nothing very new — or very significant — then. Except for Mathers who had chosen to study these marches for this PhD thesis, but as a “researcher-activist”, i.e. someone who sympathised with their aims but was at the same time studying them like an ethnologist studying a primitive tribe.

He writes as some sort of Trotskyist, so his conclusions are predictable: there is still some mileage to be got from making reform demands on the nation-state (as opposed to the EU), that the trade union movement ought to have involved itself more, etc. He criticises as “the new reformism” those theorists who have written off the working class as an agent for social change and who look instead to some other groups such as students, employed and unemployed graduates, and marginalised youth who make up the bulk of those involved in the so-called “New Social Movements”  (NSMs).

This is in fact an interesting discussion since the “official” labour movement — trade unions and Labour and Social Democratic parties — have given up any idea of changing society, even gradually through a series of social reform measures voted by parliaments. They have abandoned this and now settle for getting the best they can out of the present social system, capitalism. This is a significant development that does need analysing.

The “Labour Movement” essentially only embraced a section of the working class properly so-called – only those who worked in industry and transport whereas the working class is comprised of all those who are forced by economic necessity to sell their ability to work in order to live, so including the so-called “middle class” too.

Mathers does in fact conclude that the non-industrial workers involved in the NSMs are workers, even if they don’t yet recognise it. But his criticism of the “new reformism” is not made from a revolutionary socialist standpoint, but from that of “old reformism”, as can be seen from his description and endorsement of the programme proposed by leading SWP theoretician, Alex Callinicos:

“In An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto, Callinicos outlined a set of measures which he argued combined ‘immediate remedies’ to the consequences of neoliberal policies with a ‘different social logic’ (p. 132). These demands included those prominent in the European Marches such as the Tobin Tax, the universal basic income, the reduced working week, the defence of public services, and the redistribution of wealth and income. It also included those arising from the broader movement like the abolition of immigration controls and third world debt, the defence of civil liberties, and measures to ensure environmental protection (pp. 132-9).”

Some of these are not even palliatives led alone remedies, but they are all reforms to capitalism.

As it happens, I was myself present in Amsterdam on that 15 June (with my trade union) and witnessed one of the incidents mentioned by Mathers: the reception by the Dutch riot police of a group of masked demonstrators who had travelled from Italy by train (p. 62). Both groups were lined up outside the railway station facing each other, with ordinary passengers walking between then. Apparently, later there were some clashes as the police forced them back on to a train for Italy. What the point was I don’t know.

Adam Buick

Editorial: The Right to Work. (1905)

Editorial from the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The very latest is a ”Right to Work Committee” upon which, a number of middle-class persons and some who have discovered that labour “leadering” is more easy and profitable than work have elected themselves. The “right” they clamour for is not for themselves but for others. They “appeal” to the working-class to “demand” from the dominant class more work, when already too much is performed. They would perpetuate the capitalist system by shewing the wealthy shirkers how they may stave off the day of reckoning and save their skins for awhile if they will accept their proposals and make work. For our part we say To Hell with the “Right” to Work; we claim our Right to Live and to live right well. Let us scorn these middle class decoy ducks and organise to bring about the common ownership of the means of life, which alone will enable us to secure the only Right we are concerned about. Then and not till then shall we recognise our obligation to perform our share of the necessary work. In the meantime, our Right to work is the Right of the wealthy idlers to organise our labour as their wage slaves. The “demand” for that Right we will leave to the agents of the capitalists, whether in the guise of middle class sympathisers or well paid labour “leaders.”

The Jarrow March (1996)

From the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Criticising the Jarrow March of the 1930s is considered almost a crime amongst left-wingers yet the facts are that working class men tramped hundreds of miles simply to beg with the political representatives of the capitalist class that something be done about unemployment in a particular area (an impossibility anyway) only to be treated with contempt by them

The economic slump that plunged Britain and many other countries into depression in the 1930s was felt in few places harder than in Jarrow', where unemployment soared above 80 percent, where people lived in overcrowded and vermin-infested houses and where poverty was unimaginable.

In 1933 J. B. Priestley, having visited Jarrow, wrote about the town in his book English Journey.

"Wherever we went there were men hanging about, not scores of them but hundreds and thousands of them. The whole town looked as if it had entered a perpetual penniless bleak sabbath. The men wore the masks of prisoners of war. A stranger from a distant civilisation, observing the condition of the place and its people, would have arrived at once at the conclusion that Jarrow had deeply offended some celestial emperor of the island and was now being punished. He would never believe us if we told him that in theory this town was as good as any other and that its inhabitants were not criminals, but citizens with a vote. ”

Not long after the publication of English Journey, in January 1934, a delegation of 300 people from Jarrow, Hebburn and Felling travelled to Seaham to argue their case with the town’s MP and leader of a largely Conservative National government, Ramsay MacDonald.

Leading the delegation was “Red” Ellen Wilkinson, Labour MP for Jarrow, hoping to impress upon the PM the plight of the people along the Tyne and their desperation for work.

No doubt MacDonald was all too aware of the pathos of the situation and the inevitability of the 1930s’ slump and capitalism’s inability to solve it. The advice he gave the member from Jarrow was later described by her as “sham sympathy”:

"Ellen, why don't you go and preach socialism, which is the only remedy for this?”

This reply from a supporter of capitalism was as cold and smacked of the same indifference as a similar delegation received when they visited Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, regarding the opening of a steelworks in Jarrow. Said Runciman: “Jarrow must work out its own problems”.

Jarrow, it seemed, was indeed left to sort out its own problems. To a town whose ship industry had closed down and whose much-anticipated steelworks had failed to materialise, Runciman’s words were received as icily as they had been uttered and sent a shiver down the collective spine of the borough.

Distressed area

At a time when the entire country seemed to be taking part in hunger marches and protest rallies, Councillor David Riley’s suggestion in July 1936 that the unemployed of Jarrow should march to London hardly seemed original or serious in light of the fact that many previous marches had been dismissed as “communist demonstrations”.

However, the idea was discussed at length with the town’s MP and the Jarrow Labour Party executive. Eventually it was decided that any march should be the town’s march, only to go ahead with the full support of the citizens. The town council sanctioned the march and above the signature of the mayor went appeals for support. This was followed by the sending-out of letters requesting the use of services and halls in towns along the proposed route to London. As the pace of events hotted up the organisation of the march was done from the town hall and under the supervision of the town clerk. At the same time, men were also marching to London from South Wales, Cumberland, Durham and Yorkshire, all bent on expressing their grievances against the means test and the Unemployment Assistance Board regulations, which was for the Jarrow men "a welcome sign that other men felt the same as they did and were kicking, too” (Wilkinson, The Town that was Murdered, 1939).

So on a cold morning, Monday 5 October 1936, 200 marchers set out from Jarrow, ahead of them representatives from the Labour and Conservative parties to arrange meetings en route to London. Even the Inter-Hospital Socialist Society came to their assistance, sending out relays of helpers performing dentistry and medical necessities.

The marchers had hardly time to get blistered feet when their organisers were condemned by a Labour Party meeting in Edinburgh for “sending hungry' and ill-clad men across the country on a march to London”. Incensed, Ellen Wilkinson left the marchers and travelled to the Conference in Edinburgh in an attempt to rally support. Her efforts were in vain for the conference had more important matters to discuss, such as their attitude to the Spanish question and the re-armament issue—a time-honoured and typical response from the Labour Party to requests for help from the working class. Neither was support to be found with the TUC, who similarly blacked the march and advised trade councils against giving help. Wilkinson had this to say: “I went from the warm comradeship of the road to an atmosphere of official disapproval . . . Had the Labour Party put its power behind the marchers, sent out the call for solidarity with them, then by the time these men reached London, not only from Jarrow, but from all parts of the country', the support that would have been aroused . . . would have been enough to shake the complacency of the Baldwin government” (The Town that was Murdered, p. 204-5). There was, however, no shortage of support for and working-class approval, of the march After all, 47 percent of the industrial population of the country at that time resided in areas scheduled as “distressed” or in need

of being so scheduled.

The brainwashed Trades and Labour Council at Chesterfield might have obeyed the TUC circular denouncing the march, but this did not stop the local Conservative Party from rallying to the aid of the marchers, providing hot meals and a place to sleep. The Labour Party rationalised their apathy by asserting that if they gave support to one march, then support would have been demanded of them all. This from an allegedly working-class party!

Along the route to London, members of the working class, and indeed the capitalist class, were all too ready to support the march. By the time the marchers reached Leicester their boots were falling apart. In response, the Co-operative Society’s own cobblers took it upon themselves to work all through the night without pay to repair the boots of the Jarrow men, the Co-op donating the necessary material free.

One cobbler almost anticipated socialism, saying:

“It seems sort of queer, doing your own job just because you want to do it, and for something you want to help, instead of doing it because you’d starve if you didn't. ” (p. 207).

Elsewhere, at Leeds, a newspaper proprietor laid on free food and beer (no doubt providing his own newspaper with a story) and at Barnsley, Joe Jones, a miners’ leader had the municipal baths specially opened and heated in time for the arrival of the marchers. A group of journalists, following the march, even clubbed together and purchased a dozen mouth organs in an attempt to boost the morale of the marchers.

The march continued and gained support and sympathy the entire 291 miles of its journey. The men marched between 10 and 21 miles every' day and held meetings every night. After three-and-a-half weeks on the road, they reached Marble Arch tired and rain-soaked, perturbed that only a small crowd had braved the October weather to greet them.

The following day they were given permission to hold a meeting at Hyde Park. The Communist Party was already there, holding a mass demonstration to protest against unemployment. Realising the Jarrow men were in the area, they suspended their rally for an hour and asked their audience to swell the Jarrow Crusade meeting.

Humble petitioners

When Parliament re-assembled two days later, the men marched to the Houses of Parliament and handed in two petitions, one containing 68,500 signatures from towns along the Tyne. The petition presented the case for Jarrow in simple language, pointing out how Jarrow was experiencing a stage of industrial depression unprecedented in the town’s history. Shipyards had closed and the steelworks had been denied a lifeline. Once 8,000 workers were in employment. Now the figure stood at 100 with others on temporary schemes. The petition continued:

“The Town cannot be left derelict, and therefore your petitioners humbly pray that His Majesty's Government and this honourable House will realise the urgent need that work should be provided without delay. ”

But there was no debate. As Wilkinson points out: “A few questions were asked .. . and the house passed on to consideration of other things.”

The marchers took it all in their stride. Wilkinson describes them as being “rather sporting about it” and how they were afterwards entertained to tea in the House. Demoralised to the point that they could not care less would have been a more fitting description of the marchers’ sentiments—men pushed and crushed until they could only accept their lot.

When the marchers arrived home they did so to a hero’s welcome. Tens of thousands turned out to greet them and bonfires burned long into the night. For many they had achieved something, even if it meant no change to their meagre existence.

Wilkinson writes of the marchers: “Many were politically educated men, who through the long, bitter struggles, knew who and what was the real enemy.” But to be honest, and not to disparage such a monumental event in working-class history', did they? Were they so educated as to think marching could better their lot and did they really think it possible that capitalism can be bargained with? Did they realise that, in truth, they were marching for the right to be exploited by a system that cared not a jot had the marchers perished to a man en route to London?

Three years later, work did come to Jarrow (more would follow as the capitalist war machine revved up) in the form of a new rolling mill. Walking through the site when the men were laying the concrete foundations, Wilkinson was greeted with: “This is what we marched to get.”

Wilkinson could only find a strange pathos in the statement. She commented:

“The grim thing is that the workers have no share in these mills. When the works are built they will still be subject to the toll of profit, the exigencies of a system where they can be closed at the will of people far away to suit a financial policy. "

Seemingly, as with the cobbler at Leicester, the stark reality of the madness, the insane logic of capitalism, had become apparent to the future Labour Cabinet Minister. But did she actually realise that the internal mechanisms of capitalism run on with a will of their own, oblivious of logic and men with Geordie accents and sore feet?

John Bissett