The 61st Trades Union Congress. (1929)

From the October 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ben Tillett's Day Out.

The 1929 Annual Congress of the T.U.C. was held this year at Belfast under the chairmanship of Mr. Ben Tillett, M.P.

What decided the choice of Belfast, we do not know. That Belfast is far enough away to preclude the embarrassing presence of embittered workers from the mining and cotton districts is fairly certain. Windy platitudes, therefore, had free play.

Mr. Tillett’s presidential address was received by the Press with more than the usual flattery that is doled out to the trade union and Labour leader.

Says the Daily Herald: “He acquitted himself in a manner which has given the keynote to the Congress—that of business efficiency tempered with humanity." Mr. Tillett’s form—on the one occasion when the present writer heard him, corresponded more closely to Billy Sunday revivalism, tempered with acrobatics. But different audiences call for different turns— as variety artists know.

Mr. Tillett, pre-war firebrand, war-time jingo, and recent communist pet, delivered a flamboyant speech, whose main argument was a characteristic piece of nonsense. He declared “with an air of triumph ” that “To-day the trade unions are an integral part of the organisation of industry" (Daily Herald report, September 3rd).

    They negotiated as equals, and did not deal only with hours, wages and conditions, but with policy and economic organisation in the widest aspects. . . . They hold an unchallenged position as representatives of the working class in all negotiations affecting conditions of employment. . . . There is nothing in the organisation and direction that can now be regarded as the exclusive concern of the employer.

What comforting news to miners and cotton-workers in the desolate poverty-stricken villages of Northumberland, Lanarkshire and Manchester. It might, of course, strike them as curious that there are ever industrial disputes at all. And, more curious still, that disputes of recent years have led to an encroachment on their already low standard of living.

If Mr. Tillett meant that many employers have now learned that it is an advantage to them to deal with an organised body of workers, and that they sometimes negotiate with trade union officials about adjustments of wages, conditions and hours, his statement is not untrue; but why the “air of triumph"?

What cause is there to be triumphant because the cotton masters consulted cotton trade union officials and allowed other trade union leaders to negotiate the recent wage reduction?

If Mr. Tillett’s words were intended to mean what they say, then they were just bluff. The trade unions are not to-day, and never have been, an “ integral part ” of the organisation of industry. They do not, and never have, been able to negotiate “as equals nor do they deal “with policy and economic organisation in the widest aspects.” The trade unions do not do any of these things because they have not the power. They neither own nor control the machinery of production and distribution, and those who own and control have no need and no intention of relinquishing their ownership or their control or the power over policy which accompanies ownership and control.

Turning to rationalisation, Mr. Tillett said:—

   They had already given official support to the rationalisation of industry provided adequate safeguards were given to the workers . . . rationalisation meant the most complete application of science and scientific organisation to industry—in plant, processes and production.

Rationalisation is a new name for a process as old as capitalism. Improvements in machinery are introduced by the capitalists for the benefit of capitalists. They are the outcome of competition between sections of the capitalist class, and can only have the effect of reducing the human labour required in production. The less labour-power required for the production of a given quantity of wealth—the more profits there are for the capitalist. This process is, and always has been, a feature of Capitalism. To-day the only difference is, that the pace has become quicker, and the trusts and combines more powerful. The smaller capitalists are vanishing; the position of the working class grows more insecure ; and their relative portion of the wealth produced becomes less and less.

Mr. Tillett went on to say of rationalisation that, “It was their duty to see that the results of the tendency were beneficial to the workers.” But he omitted to explain how this is to be done. The rationalisation of their industrial organisation is dictated by the employers in their own interest. The trade unions have not the power to stop it (Mr. Tillett himself described it as “ inevitable ”) and they have not the power to impose conditions on the employers. Point was given to this by the admission of Congress that is impotent to save the musicians from the unemployment and other effects of the introduction of sound films. The unions have not succeeded, and cannot succeed, in making it a condition of rationalisation that it shall take place only if the results are “beneficial to the workers." Trade unions can perform a useful and necessary service to the workers under Capitalism, but—not being the owners and controllers of industry—they cannot control industrial development; and when Mr. Tillett states that they can, he is doing a definite disservice to those whose interests he is paid to represent.

Mr. Tillett's further contribution to our knowledge was a boost of Empire trade and Empire development “in the interests of the workers,” and in imitation of the U.S.A. In answer to this dangerous doctrine that working-class interests may be promoted by the development of capitalist industry and trade, whether in Great Britain, Europe, the Empire or in any other geographical unit, it is only necessary to consider the U.S.A., which, for the moment, is the object of Mr. Tillett’s admiration. In the U.S.A. every feature of capitalism as we know it here, is faithfully reproduced— with some aggravations. Inequality of wealth is even more striking than here, unemployment is no less—some estimates place it higher; insecurity there is as great, pauperism, overcrowded slums, the brutal crushing of strikes, and, last but not the less harmful, Yankee Ben Tilletts—all the features of triumphant capitalism exist in their profusion over the water.

At the same time, it is wonderful how ideas catch on. Sidney Webb dines with the King, Snowden stays with the King, Macdonald visits the King to say good-bye when he goes abroad—and, not to be behind, Tillett does his bit and becomes “Imperial.” Of course, Tillett has drunk much that inspires since the celebrated Devonport Farce on Tower Hill years ago.

Industrial Unionism.

Congress rejected a resolution, moved by Mr. A. J. Cook, asking the General Committee to try to promote organisation on the basis of “ one union for each industry.”

Mr. Ernest Bevin, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, opposed the resolution, and pointed out that it would mean breaking up his organisation into 180 separate unions. He instanced the difficulty even of defining an industry in the face of continued capitalist combinations, in which financial control extended over all kinds of processes. He stated that "one of the associated companies of the Imperial Chemical Industries controlled 78 distinct processes ” (Daily Herald, September 4th).

The Daily Herald.

On Wednesday, September 4th, it was announced in the Daily Herald that the T.U.C. in private session had agreed, by 3,404,000 votes to 47,000 to make certain new arrangements for the development of the paper. Other newspapers announced that the new arrangement contemplated the handing over the the Daily Herald to a private company, with, however, explicit guarantees that policy will remain under the , control of the T.U.C.

Workers Banks.

A Fraternal Delegate from the American Federation of Labour did his best to outshine Mr. Tillett's home-produced nonsense by advocating "workers' banks.” He described experiments in this direction which have been made in the U.S.A., and expressed the opinion that if all workers patronised their own banks “a chill would be sent along the spinal columns of the financial captains.”

How perfectly simple! How is it that nobody has thought of it before! So easy, fellow workers; just put your surplus wealth in your own banks and show Rothschild and Sassoon what you are made of. What puerile inanities. It is difficult to believe that such piffle comes from paid representatives of the workers. The working class receive as the price of their labour power just that which will purchase the barest necessities in the form of food, clothing, and shelter. They simply cannot save enough to matter. The capitalist class appropriate the enormous remainder.

Then he gave the answer to his own hot-air by informing Congress (Daily Herald, September 5th) that in U.S.A. they are faced with the "difficulty of keeping men of 50 and over employed . . . particularly where labour-saving machinery had been introduced."

It looks very much as if U.S.A. workers of 50 and over are not likely to have any savings or anything else, and those under 50 will be busy enough, when they are in work, trying to provide for their over-fifty relatives. 

The Cotton Arbitration.

Attacks were made on Mr. C. T. Cramp and Mr. A. G. Walkden for their part in the arbitration, which resulted in a 6¼ per cent. reduction in wages for cotton operatives. They made the extraordinary defence (see Daily Herald, September 6th) that they "did not believe, and had never believed, that any wage cut would improve the cotton trade,” but that the terms of arbitration gave full power to the Chairman, alone if necessary, to "give the award both on the principle and the amount of reduction.”

This is, of course, no defence at all, even taken in conjunction with their further plea that if they had not agreed to a 6¼ per cent. reduction, the "cut would have been double.” Since this term of the arbitration was not known to the operatives, but was known to Mr. Cramp and Mr. Walkden, they could either have refused appointment to the Board or have insisted on the operatives making their own decision. It is at least probable that the latter would have rejected arbitration on such terms.

How does this square with the Chairman of Conference’s speech?

The Turner-Mond Conferences.

A resolution calling for the discontinuance of the Industrial Peace negotiations between the General Council and the T.U.C. was rejected by a large majority. Peace! for whom?—robber and robbed? Are the workers to abandon the only industrial weapon they possess, and leave themselves open to the systematic attacks of their masters? What else can peace mean? To babble of peace whilst the cotton dispute is still fresh in the memory and another attack on the miners is impending, is sheer hypocrisy. Peace—who asks for war anyway? The workers cannot afford to strike from pure frivolity. It is they who suffer during a strike, not their masters. It is they who see their children go hungry and without adequate clothing, who see their homes depleted and sold up.

The tone of the Congress was quiet and expectant—their friends now being the Government and A. J. Cook having dropped the game of sniping at the General Council and coining silly slogans. But throughout the five days the cause of all the evils from which the workers suffer were not even glimpsed by the delegates. The cause is the private ownership in the means of life and the only solution is common ownership. Then those parasites who live by robbing the workers and exploiting their ignorance will disappear.

Harry Waite

The Labour Party Conference. (1929)

From the November 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under the chairmanship of Mr. Herbert Morrison, M.P., the 29th Annual Conference of the Labour Party was held at Brighton during early October.

The Conference was the first to be held during the lifetime of a Labour Government, and the criticisms, therefore, were levelled at their own colleagues.

Mr. Herbert Morrison, in his opening address, reviewed the “record of success” of the Government, particularly in relation to foreign affairs, to which a great part of the time was devoted. He was received with satisfied applause from the whole of the delegates. Mr. A. Henderson, Mr. Philip Snowden, and Mr. J. H. Thomas were each allowed a day in which to state their respective parts in the “success.” Mr. Morrison was guilty of a lapse that was strange in one who recently announced that the Government (in which he is Minister of Transport) were the “friends of the business man.” He said (Daily Herald, October 1st, 1929):—

  We go forward to make material wealth the servant of mankind and not the master of mankind. . . . We aim at a new society—the Socialist Commonwealth—not as an end in itself but as a stepping-stone to the mental and spiritual regeneration of mankind. . . .  It is a great change we seek, it can only be secured if the hearts as well as the minds of the people are elevated.

Such misty stuff might as easily have come from any parson or most of those politicians who sing the praises of the Capitalist system, save for the use of the words “Socialist Commonwealth.” Material wealth is the servant of “mankind.” The obstacle preventing the majority of mankind, that is the workers, from enjoying it is that the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth are owned and controlled by a small section of “mankind”—the Master Class. From this ownership all the economic evils which afflict the working-class arise: poverty, insecurity, and a social existence that is limited to the production of wealth and the reproduction of themselves as wealth producers serving only to pile up wealth for their masters. We seek to change this by transferring ownership of the means of living from private hands to society as a whole. What is the change of heart necessary for this simple procedure? This tale of making yourselves fit for a new Society is the equivalent of the Christian doctrine of being good now in the hope of a reward in the sweet bye and bye.

An I.L.P. Bogey.

Miss Dorothy Jewson was responsible for resurrecting the latest side-tracking reform endorsed by the I.L.P.—family allowance. She moved a resolution calling upon the Government to introduce

   increasing taxation of the wealthy to provide for a wide development of the social services, including an effective system of children’s allowances. (Daily Herald, Oct. 2nd, 1920.)

The debate on this question was a long one, and the remarkable feature about it was that most of the delegates were of the opinion that such a measure would be effective in permanently improving the conditions of the workers.

But would it?

The price of the workers’ labour power on an average covers the cost of keeping himself and his family. If a worker receives from the State an allowance which covers the cost of keeping his children, then the wages he receives from the employers will fall to a level which will cover the cost of his and his wife’s keep only. Where and when such a scheme has been introduced it has been of benefit chiefly to the capitalists. The working class as a whole gain nothing from it.

On the appeal of Mr. A. Henderson to refer the question to next year’s conference, the resolution was lost on a card vote, the votes being cast in proportions of about 3 to 2.

Unemployment.

Mr. J. H. Thomas related his difficulties in trying to find work for the unemployed. He stated that

   unemployment could not be solved by merely pouring out money, but by finding new markets for our goods.
   The heads of railways, harbours, docks, and electrical undertakings, etc., had been invited by the Government to private discussion on providing employment by making machinery efficient.

(Daily Herald, Oct, 2nd, 1929.)

The process was not explained. Mr. Wheatley’s contribution to the debate was to the effect that Mr. J. H. Thomas was wasting his time. "While Capitalism remains there would also remain the victims of unemployment,” which was rather unkind of Mr. Wheatley, and also inconsistent with his own support of Capitalism and the Labour Party which administers it.

Jimmie, after all, was doing his best. And doesn’t he get £5,000 a year for trying so hard? Doubtless Mr. Wheatley is sore because he has lost the Ministerial job he had in 1924.

The debate showed that the delegates believed that the “problem of unemployment” could not be solved. Their main plank was that the administration of unemployment insurance by the officials of the Ministry of Labour was inhuman. It must be “humanised,” they said. Hell, humanise cancer or remove it!

It is surprising with what gusto and indignation the Labour Party will shout and make a great noise about effects while accepting their causes. Truly, “much ado about nothing.”

Disarmament.

Dealing with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s visit to the U.S.A. and the question of the reduction in the number of warships in the fleets of Great Britain and the U.S.A. respectively, Mr. Henderson “outlined his hopes for an early world conference and disarmament.” He said:—

  If that conference comes up to our expectations we shall have opened up an era in which we may see the vast sums hitherto spent on armaments put to better purposes. (Daily Herald, Oct. 3rd, 1929.)

What does that mean? Nothing! On being called upon to answer a question put by a woman delegate concerning complete disarmament, Mr. Henderson said that “he only wished those who held the questioner's views would say what they meant by total or complete disarmament. If they thought the problem out they would see they were asking what was impossible. What they must get down to was reasonable police-forcing.”

Precisely, Mr. Henderson, and you are administrating the Capitalist System, and whilst it exists the interests of the different national groups of capitalists can be defended, in the last resort, only by force. But why the cant and humbug about disarmament and world’s peace. In the circumstances Mr. MacDonald’s visit to America is not a “mission of peace” or a question concerning “disarmament.” In the past, the bow and arrow, the sword, the musket, and many other primitive weapons have in their time been very efficient and up-to-date means of warfare. But as new methods are developed and introduced, so the older methods are relegated to the scrap heap as useless. To-day aerial and gas warfare has developed so rapidly that many comparatively new cruisers are as obsolete as the bow and arrow as a means of destruction. Aeroplanes loaded with the necessary implements could spread desolation and disease, and almost raze to the ground large towns and industrial centres in a few days. It is noteworthy that politicians are never heard proposing the abolition of aerial warfare and the instruments of it. A “war in the air” would be much cheaper than war fought under the older methods, and how easily civil aircraft can be quickly transformed into fighting planes. The way to abolish war lies not in painstaking attempts to get the capitalist class to disarm, but in the abolition of the capitalist system.

Similarly with our economic problems; if all the schemes of new bridges and roads; making the machinery of production more efficient; the “humanising of the dole”; earlier old age pensions, family allowances, etc., are put into operation, the workers would still be faced with the problems of Capitalism as they are at present. The only solution is its abolition and the establishment of Socialism.

The conference ended with the singing of the “Red Flag” to an accompaniment of a violin played by a Cabinet Minister (F. O. Roberts, Minister of Pensions).

Did they sing the third verse?

“It suits to-day the Meek and Base, Whose thoughts are fixed on Pelf and Place,
To cringe before the Rich Man’s frown,
And haul the sacred colour down.” 

Apparently they did not.

It might have disturbed their happy and contented frame of mind. For Mr. George Lansbury, on being asked by a Daily Herald reporter, “What he thought of the conference,” replied:

“Fine, everyone is going home happy, and what more could you want.” (Daily Herald, 5/10/1929.)

Comment on that statement could only be made in words as lurid as Mr. Lansbury’s are placid.

Harry Waite

The I.L.P. in Parliament (1929)

From the December 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is argued on behalf of the I.L.P. that their propaganda methods are justified by their success. As proof of this they point to a relatively large membership and to the fact that more than 200 of their members are Labour Party M.P.'s. How hollow is this success can be seen from the inability of the I.L.P. to control its members in the House of Commons. Mr. Maxton, Chairman of the I.L.P., criticised the Labour Government’s Unemployment Insurance . Bill, and threatened to oppose its second reading. The prompt result, as reported in the Daily Herald of November 19th, was that,

between 50 and 60 I.L.P. M.P.s last night signed a memorial repudiating the right of the I.L.P. officials to speak on their behalf.

Moreover, Mr. W. Leach, M.P., who prepared the memorial and is himself an I.L.P member, explained that he had not approached any of the 80 holders of offices in the Government, and could have obtained many other signatures (apart from the 80 referred to) if he had had more time to approach Labour M.P.’s not immediately available. (Daily Herald, 20th November.)

The following day, November 19th, Mr. Maxton stated his case against the Government’s Bill at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The Daily Herald reports that he received the support of only half a dozen M.P.’s (Daily Herald, 20th November); this, although over 200 of them are members of his party, the I.L.P.

The same evening he stated his case again at a meeting of the I.L.P. M.P.’s, but was turned down by 41 votes to 14 (Daily Herald, 20th November).

On November 20th, Mr. Maxton and his supporters put their names to an amendment, as follows:—

  This House records its profound regret that the Bill, while abolishing the fourth statutory condition for the receipt of benefit, imposes a new condition, which still leaves the burden of proof of his search for work on the applicant for benefit; which does not provide £1 a week for the adult unemployed man, 10s. for his wife, and 5s. for each dependent child, but leaves young persons inadequately provided for; and which fails to restore the waiting period of three days as in the Act of 1924.

It will be noticed that the demand of the "rebels” differs little from the offer of the Government. They only ask for 2s. more per week for an unemployed man, and are presumably of the opinion that £1 a week is enough.

Mr. P. C. Hoffmann, one of the 33 signatories (32 Labour M.P.’s and one Independent, Mr. Scrymgeour), explained to a Herald correspondent that “if the motion were one for the rejection of the Bill, or if it were a vote of censure on the Government, I should have nothing to do with it.” 

That many others of the 33 were in the same boat and were counting on the amendment never going to a division is shown by the fact that 12 of the signatories withdrew their names next day (see Herald, 23rd November). Finally they all voted for the Government Bill. What is obvious is that the members of the I.L.P. who have scrambled into Parliament on the non-Socialist votes of Labour Party supporters are not controlled or controllable by the I.L.P. Elected on the Labour Party’s non-Socialist programme and dependent on the machinery and on the financial support of that party and of the trade unions, these M.P.’s are powerless to work for Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Gus has a shock. (1907)

A Short Story from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

GUS: You socialists ought to be grateful for the glorious institution of the free press instead of criticising the great newspapers as you do.

WILL: Grateful to whom? The so-called Freedom of the Press is, in reality, painfully limited; but such as it is, it was granted because absolutely necessary to commercial development. Material interests dictated it; not any love of the people. The capitalist class give us nothing but what it is to their interest to give, either to increase their profits or stave off their defeat, and we know from bitter experience that we have most to fear when our enemies profess a regard for us. 

GUS: But can you deny that the great daily newspapers are glorious and beneficient institutions, fearlessly standing out for truth and purity in public life? 

WILL: I emphatically and entirely deny every word of it!

GUS: Do you mean to say that the modern press is not free, or that it suppresses or perverts the truth?

WILL: I mean to say that the modern newspaper, by its very nature as a commercial venture, cannot exist except by perverting the truth; and that it is absolutely the slave of capitalist interests.

GUS: You surprise me. Explain yourself.

WILL: With pleasure. Now, newspapers are run by limited liability companies to obtain a profit, are they not?

GUS: That is so.

WILL: To get a profit they must sell; to sell they must please, to please they must suit themselves to the prejudices, ignorance or interests of their supporters.

     (Gus opens his eyes)

WILL: They cannot, then, afford to continue any line of policy when it does not pay, or when it is unpopular with the public or with that section of which they have constituted themselves the mouthpiece. To get the largest circulation and the greatest percentage of profit they must say what their readers or supporters want them to say, or else go under.

     (Gus looks startled)

WILL: Nor is that all; they have an even more important person to cater for — the advertiser. He is partly satisfied if the journal panders successfully to a large number of the public; but as a manufacturer he has important capitalist interests, and therefore would not support, by his advertisement, any journal that, through a love of truth, attacked his interests in any way.

    (Gus looks frightened)

WILL: Further, the various sections of the capitalist party have enormous campaign funds, and the newspapers, being run for profit, must slavishly support their capitalist party interest or forgo their reward. And the journalists who run the papers are the wage-slaves of the proprietors, compelled to utter, not what they think, but what their employers consider will sell best, and will please most the capitalist interest.

   (Gus tries to hide himself, Will holds him back)

WILL: Don’t run away, I’ve not done yet. The modern newspaper is thus, in the main, the reflection of the commonest, most superficial and most servile opinions of the public, and at the same time the advocate of the interests of its capitalist owners and advertisers. It is, therefore, against the financial policy of the modern newspaper to enlighten the working class; particularly in any direction that runs counter to capitalist interests. To satisfy its principal clients, the great advertisers and the political leaders, it must expound the views of the ruling class (or of a section thereof) and so doctor these views that the people may easily swallow them. It must, whenever the workers show a tendency to think clearly, carefully draw the wool over their eyes in order to keep them at the tail of the capitalist party and ignorant of the things that should concern them. For the rest, in order to earn its profits, the newspaper must batten on the ignorance and folly of its public.

GUS (who feels that the scales have fallen from his eyes): Well, but how can we alter it?

WILL: Only by abolishing the profit system. But we can help this on by doing all in our power to spread enlightenment among the workers and so show them the utter worthlessness of capitalist journalism; we can help by organising the workers for the overthrow of capitalist domination, and by pointing out that it is their duty to support a press of their own, not run by an individual or company (or profit, but owned and controlled by a genuine working-class organisation for the propagation of definite working-class principles. Thus alone can the education and emancipation of the working class be accomplished, and the freedom of the press from the curse of profit and capitalist domination become a fact.

F. C. Watts

Editorial: For Christ's Sake. (1907)

Editorial from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is a bare statement of the experiences of a man who, out of work and with a wife and four children to support, applied, with a letter from a local clergyman, to one of the Church Army Depots, for work. The man lives at South Tottenham. He delivered his letter at No. 8a. Hornsey-st., Holloway-rd., at 8 a.m. on December 4th. With five others he was told to apply at 9 a.m. and was then given a cross cut saw and started by a Church Army Officer at cutting a heap of old, damp wood full of nails. The men worked in pairs; the wood was of all shapes and sizes but had to be cut into pieces 5½ inches in length. After working from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. without food (although a dinner time was allowed between 1 and 2) our correspondent and his mate had cut 274 lbs. between them. For this he received 10½d. less than 1½d. per hour! It is not suggested that his mate worked harder or better or had more to shew for his efforts, but his mate received 2/6. Another pair who cut between them in the same time 180 lbs received 2/6 and 6d. respectively. The third pair, who had cut about 175 lbs received 6d. and 5½d.

Thinking himself rather hardly used in the circumstances our correspondent addressed the chief secretary of the Church Army and received a reply from W. W. Jemmett, who said : "We regret to hear that you are dissatisfied, but it should not be necessary for us to explain to every man why some other applicant should be placed on special work under special conditions.” He concludes: “The half-crown a day rate of pay is not the usual scale.”

On the face of it there is here shewn a discrimination which resembles the peace of the God the Church Army are alleged to serve, in that it passeth all understanding. In very special circumstances a man may get 2/6 a day for one day, which is remuneration at the rate of 3½d. per hour. This, to put it mildly, is not munificent. Even in the rare contingency of the recipient receiving it as a regular rate of pay for six days a week, there is not a great chance of exercising thrift, of putting by for a rainy day, after the wants of a wife and four children are attended to—not to mention the unimportant wants of the rent collector. Divide the total by four, however, and it becomes at once apparent that the Church Army holds to the belief that the day when the hunger-cravings of thousands could be satisfied with two small loaves and five small fishes is by no means past. Ten pence, ten whole pence, a day [is] a clear rise of nine pence upon the wage of the biblical labourers who engaged themselves to work in the vineyards. What possibilities of saving are here. Why not accept the letter of holy writ in this connection and reduce the scale of remuneration to the vineyard labourers’ figure? It would then be possible to employ ten men where to-day only one can be employed. The “right to work” would have been conceded. The unemployed problem would be solved!

But what if we dispense with the hypothesis of miraculous properties in Church Army pennies? What if the purchasing power of Church Army money is no more than the filthy lucre of common usage? In that case we can only say that if there is an organisation existing anywhere which has succeeded in “grinding the faces of the poor " to better purpose we have yet to hear of it, and we say this fairly cognisant of the workings of that other religious Army which has so successfully combined the business of the salvation of souls with the damnation of bodies.

We may return to the matter again, but meantime, perhaps the Church Army would like a word.

The Brutality of the Bourgeoisie. by W. J. Ghent. (1907)

From the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Originally published in the Toledo "Socialist."

In reading again the story of the Paris Commune, especially in the light of other class conflicts, one is struck afresh with a sense of the ferocious brutality of the bourgeoisie when repelling attacks upon its property. It is not necessary to say that individually the property owner is more brutal than the proletarian. Perhaps he is not. But no informed person can deny that when acting by group or class in defense of its material interests, the bourgeoisie reverts to a bloodthirstiness, an inhumanity, like that of the lowest savages. In such times all the veneer of civilization is sloughed off as a snake sloughs its skin, and the most cruel passions are awakened. It would seem that nothing that men will do in defence of their wives, their state or their religion, can compare, in desperate ferocity, with what they will do in defence of rent, interest and profit.

And, after all, it is by group and class that men are prompted in the larger activities of their lives. Primarily there is a struggle of individual against individual. But this individual struggle pertains to only a part of our activities, The workman competes with the workman for a job; but in all the larger matters that affect him as a member of an economic class, he feels, thinks and acts with his fellows of like needs and aims. And so the trader, tho’ he will cheat and rob his fellow trader, will still instinctively feel, think and act with him in all matters wherein his class interests are involved.

In the mob the worst passions are developed. What the individual would never dream of doing alone, he is prompted spontaneously to do when in company with his fellows. "Crowd consciousness ” is one thing, "class consciousness” is another. But when the two are met in the same persons, at the same time, there is developed an impulse and a power for evil which spurn ordinary restraints; And when those two are met in the bourgeoisie, repelling attacks upon its possessions, or meting out punishment for a baffled attack, the result is a diabolism of frenzied malice worse than anything which Milton has inscribed to the cohorts of Satan.

It matters not when or where the occasion. At Peterloo in 1819, in Prussia in 1848, in Paris in 1871, in the Coeur de’Alene, in Pennsylvania, in Colorado, in Russia, in more recent years, it is all the same. The bourgeoisie will fight among themselves with some show of restraint. The little fellows, under the constant hemming in of their scope and province by the big fellows, are developing a sort of group feeling and community of interest which causes them to battle against the increasing domination of the magnates. But however fiercely the conflict rages, it is restrained by a fundamental sense of a certain likeness of interest. It is only by the attacks of the proletarians on capitalist property, that the real frenzy of the bourgeoisie is awakened; and then every one, from petty retailer to industrial overlord, unites with his fellows in a cry for the defence of property, religion and the state, and for the annihilation of the proletarian aggressors.

The lesson of Colorado is still fresh in most minds. The beatings, the deportings, the killings, the forced starvation of men, women, and children, the overthrow of civil government, combined to illustrate again the instinctive brutality and lawlessness of the bourgeoisie when roused in defence of its possessions and its privileges. But it is to the Commune that one turns for the chief instance. Here was a class conflict on a gigantic scale, and here the frenzy of the bourgeoisie manifested itself as perhaps it never did before. The frightful deeds of the victors are not to be ascribed to racial temperament, as some of our Anglo-Saxon sentimentalists assume. The French can be quite as humane as the English or the Americans. Nor were the deeds done because the Communards were considered traitors. Treason has been a pretty respectable crime in France. The deeds were done because the Communard home rulers were led by men who strove for a better order of society, which involved the abolition of capitalism. All the mad ferocity of the bourgeoisie was awakened by this attempted subversion of its material interests, and it slaughtered the victims till its rage was glutted.

The Communards held the city of Paris for a little more than nine weeks. They rapidly and efficiently organized its municipal activity. They suppressed vice and crime; they kept industry and commerce moving. Betrayed on every hand by the agents of the Versaillese, they maintained a rare leniency in their treatment of their enemies. From April 3 to May 24, tho’ provoked by every manner of brutality and treachery on the part of the Versaillese. they did not execute a single prisoner. Only in the last desperate days of the defence, after the Versaillese had shot down hundreds of prisoners and of unresisting citizens suspected of sympathy with the Communards, did the latter retaliate. They then executed 63 prisoners out of some 300 in their hands. As frightful as this act appears, it is one in entire accord with the rules of warfare. It has been resorted to in probably every war, and was certainly practised in our Civil War. When one side violates a flag of truce, or executes a prisoner, the other side invariably retaliates in kind.

The Versaillese seized the city, and for days gave it up to almost indiscriminate slaughter. Probably 20,000 persons were killed. The number of wounded will never be known. The dead were strewn all over the city. Burial on such a gigantic scale became impossible, and the corpses, saturated with petroleum, were burned in the casements of the fortifications or in the open air.

Tired with the slaughter, the further ferocity of the bourgeoisie was wreaked upon the hapless victims through the form of “ law.” More than 40,000 prisoners were taken. Thousands of these, men, women and children, were driven along the roads to Versailles, scourged, beaten and insulted, packed into foul dungeons and stockades, where they were systematically starved. No words can adequately picture the horrors of that time. The worst degraded savages would have shown instincts of humanity superior to those manifested by the victorious bourgeoisie. The "trials" followed, lasting several years, and 13,221 men, 157 women and 63 children were condemned. Two hundred and seventy of these were condemned to death and 7,500 to transportation.

It is from this bourgeoisie, the same in America as in France, that we must take our laws, our institutions, and our moral codes. This class rules, and its intellectual retainers formulate and hand down the principles and precepts of conduct which are obligatory upon all of us. But not for long we hope. As tho working class comes gradually to a consciousness of itself, it throws off its ingrained timidity and learns to trust the validity of its own instincts. More and more it learns to condemn the cheap moralities of the bourgeoisie—the "fair weather” moralities which it mouths in times of ease and security, but which it forgets in times of stress. The virtues of usefulness, of fellowship, of magnanimity, which the working class instinctively develops, but which, out of its timidity and subservience to the ruling class, it hesitates to proclaim, come more and more to be the conscious and reasoned bases of its ethical code. And so, as it comes to a full consciousness of itself, it purposes the overthrow of the regime of the bourgeoisie and the installation of an order of society wherein its own code shall have ample field for expression.

And for all its sacrifice of blood it will not retaliate in kind. Out of its instinctive magnanimity, tho’ it remembers the massacres, the indescribable cruelties practised upon it by the propertied class, it will obey the injunction of Shelley:

"Do not thus when ye are strong!”

W. J. Ghent

Editorial: Our Annual Conference. (1907)

Party News from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Third Annual Conference of The Socialist Party of Great Britain gathered at the Communist Club on Friday, March 29th. Nineteen delegates representing ten branches and a considerable number of the Party membership were in attendance when the General Secretary, W. Gifford, called the meeting to order and asked for the election of provisional chairman. Comrade R. H. Kent was finally elected. Three delegates representing two other branches subsequently arrived.

H. Crump and A. Pearson were deputed to act as stewards and tellers and F. Leigh, T. Dix, and J. Lewis formed the Credentials Committee.

Attention having been called to the presence of several non-members of the Party, it was decided on the motion of A. Pearson, seconded by Witcher, that the Conference be open, as usual, to the public.

Comrades R. Kent and McManus were then appointed chairman and vice-chairman of the Conference respectively.

The Gen. Secretary then read the E.C. Report to the Party as follows:—

1. —Since last Conference 46 meetings of the E.C. have been held. (Attendances followed.)
2. —Although complete returns are not yet to hand we are pleased to report a steady increase in the membership and influence of the Party. Over 100 new members have been enrolled during the year, and correspondence and propaganda have been carried well into the provinces. The “Socialist Standard” has also increased its circulation in the provinces, largely owing to about 150 copies per month being supplied to Public Libraries, and to the active work of comrades in various parts of England and Scotland. The Bexley Heath Branch has been dissolved and a new branch has been formed at Woolwich.
3. —The first of a series of pamphlets has been issued, entitled: “From Handicraft to Capitalism,” and has had a ready sale. Further pamphlets are in course of preparation. The first edition of the Manifesto has been completely exhausted and a new edition will be issued shortly.
4. —Borough and County Council elections have been contested in Battersea and Tooting with results as satisfactory as could be expected.
5. —Classes for the training of speakers and the study of economics have been formed at Head Office and at branches, which it is hoped will prove excellent agencies for strengthening the Party as a militant propagandist organisation
6. —Four Party meetings of London members were held to discuss our attitude towards Trades Unionism, but the resolutions carried at these meetings were defeated on being submitted to a vote of he Party.
7. — Arising out of a dispute with the Islington Branch resulting in the expulsion of several members. a Party meeting was held at which an endeavour was made to reopen the whole matter, but this the meeting refused to allow.
8. —The question of the enlargement of the Party Organ was also considered and referred to a Party vote. The item appears on the Conference agenda.
9. —The decision of the Party to adopt uniform stationery has not been given effect to, owing to lack of funds.
10. —Owing to evidence of disorganisation in the Peckham Branch representatives of the E.C. have been sent to consult with the branch membership, and it is hoped that good results will accrue.
11. —The E.C., having been called upon, has ruled the Clarion Cycling Club, in view of its object as printed in its constitution and rules, to be a political organisation antagonistic to our Party.
12. —A libel action against the Party is pending, in which two comrades have been made representative defendants, but it is improbable that the case will be heard before Easter.
13. —The E.C. would draw special attention to the Party’s liabilities, which amount to about £25 in excess of assets. As this is all owing to Jacomb Bros , it is hoped that efforts will be made to entirely liquidate the debt within a very short time.

W. Gifford, Gen. Sec.

March 15th, 1907.

The E. C. statement was then discussed paragraph by paragraph.

On clause 10 the Secretary reported the reasons why the E.C. had decided to take action. Leigh and Harris moved that further discussion be deferred until after amendments to rules had been dealt with.

McManus and Waller moved as an amendment “that the Peckham Branch be dissolved and a new branch be formed by those who still adhere to the letter and spirit of the Party—subject to a Party vote.”

The amendment was lost by 11 to 3.
The resolution was carried by 14 to 4.
The adoption of the E.C. Report was passed by 18 to 0.

A. J. M. Gray (Treasurer) presented the balance sheet, which showed that the Party finances were in a satisfactory condition. The only item of indebtedness was to the printer, mainly on The Socialist Standard account; but this was being reduced by the method adopted by the E.C. of systematic collections of special donations. Contributions to this special fund were appealed for and branches were urged to see that payment for Party Organ supplies was made within the month of issue. Adoption of Treasurer’s and Auditors’ reports was carried unanimously.

The following were announced as the new Executive Committee:—

Comrades A. Anderson. H. Crump, J. H. Day, T. Dix, A. J. M. Gray, W. Gifford, F. Hawes, Killick, McManus, Neuman, H. Young, F. C. Watts. 

General Secretary: R. H. Kent; Treasurer: J. Kent; Auditor: H. Crump.

AMENDMENTS TO RULES.

Rule 1. Edmonton moved (a) to delete the words from “be" to “and” inclusive, line 1, and (b) delete the word “policy” line 2.

First section carried by 15 to 7. Second section carried by 18 to 4.

Rule 8. Edmonton moved to delete the word “ Policy.” Carried by 18 to 4.

Rule 10. Fulham moved to add after “ 1d.” line 2 “for each financial member per week, unemployed members may be excepted.” Carried, 17 to 5.

Rule 17. Edmonton moved to insert after “conference” line 2, “delegate meeting." Carried, 17 to 5.

Rule 19. Edmonton moved (a) to delete the word “policy’’ line 2; (b) insert after the word “Party” line 2, “or detrimental to the interests of .the Party as a whole” (c) delete, line 8, all words after “concerned ” and substitute “the findings of the delegate meeting or conference shall be submitted to a Party vote, the result of which shall be final.”

Clause (a) carried, 16 to 6; clause (b) carried, 15 to 7 ; clause (c) carried, 13 to 9.

Rule 20. West Ham moved to add after “Treasurer ” the word “Organiser”. Carried, 13 to 9.

Rule 25. Edmonton moved to delete the words "and additional items” in lines 4 and 5. Carried, 9 to 8. A card vote being called for, there voted for 72, against 31.

Rule 26. West Ham moved to add “any member—unless disqualified under Rule 3—present at any branch meeting held prior to the date fixed for the return of the voting papers, shall be entitled to have his or her vote recorded." Carried, 17 to 2.

New Rule. West Ham moved “No member shall be put forward for any political office until he or she has satisfactorily passed an examination test to be drawn up by the E.C.” Carried, 22 to 0.

The deferred business relating to the position of the Peckham Branch was then taken, several members of the branch representing both sides in the dispute being present. Leigh (Watford) moved “that the E.C. take steps to deal with the Peckham Branch under Rule 19 as amended.” Lobb (Tottenham) seconded.

Blewett (Battersea) moved amendment “that the E.C. be instructed to depute three of its members to re-organise the Peckham Brandi.” Witcher seconded.

After exhaustive discussion the vote was taken. The amendment was lost by 16 against 3 and the resolution was carried by 14 to 5.

The Conference then adjourned until next morning. During the evening a successful concert and dance was held, the ball being packed to the doors. As entrance was by programme, price 6d., a considerable sum was realised for the purposes of the Party.

The first business of the Conference next day consisted in a discussion upon the International Congress at Stuttgart, which revolved about the question of whether The Socialist Party of Great Britain should seek representation at that Congress and the best means of entering into communication with the known representatives of that uncompromising policy of which the S.P.G.B. are the exponents in Great Britain. In the result Blewett moved and Witcher seconded, “that this Conference of the S.P.G.B. recommends that no delegates be sent to the next International Congress, but that the E.C. use their best endeavour to get in touch with those abroad who occupy our position,"

Dix and Pearson moved as amendment “that the E.C. be instructed to draw up a statement of what they consider necessary as to the best means of establishing relations with other national Parties holding our view—whether by delegation or correspondence.”

The amendment was lost by 9 to 7 and the resolution carried by 10 to 5.

On the question of The Socialist Standard, standing in the name of the Romford Division Branch, Phillips gave the experiences of Fairbrother and himself in the provinces, and the results of their endeavours to induce newsagents and wholesale houses to stock the Party Organ. He urged that special steps be taken to establish a more extensive provincial connection through the newsagents while every possible opportunity be utilised by the Party membership to increase sales, particularly through the same medium in and around the Metropolis, pointing out that the Party cyclists particularly could do good work in this connection.

After much discussion it was carried by 13 to 0 “that it be the first duty of the new E.C. to take action on the lines suggested.”

The following resolution from Edmonton was then submitted, “That Municipal, Parliamentary or other such elections shall only be contested by the Party putting forward the full number of candidates for the vacancies in the particular ward, district or constituency, and no member, though elected, shall take office unless the whole number be elected.” This was carried by 16 votes to 4.

Arising out of this it was moved by Crump and Waller “that all three resolutions on the agenda, if carried, lie referred to a Party vote.” Carried, 13 to 0.

Pearson and Crump then moved that the Party be asked to vote as to whether the Edmonton resolution, if carried by Party Poll, shall be incorporated in the rules of the Party. Carried, 15 to 0.

The resolution in the name of Tottenham “That this Conference re-affirms the position re Trade Unions laid down in Party Manifesto, pages 8, 9 and 10“ then came on, but on the ground that the resolution was unnecessary in view of the poll already taken, Wilkins and Phillips moved next business and it was carried by 9 to 6.

In the absence of the Tooting delegates, Pearson and Gower moved the resolution standing in the name of that Branch, "That this Conference instruct the E.C. to organise a meeting on the first of May and if possible issue a special number of The Socialist Standard for the occasion." On a show of hands this was carried by 7 to  5, but a card vote being called for it was lost be 53 to 25.

The Conference concluded with the singing of "The Red Flag" and "L'Internationale."

Tottenham Branch Report. (1907)

Party News from the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Tottenham Branch are still striving, still spending their time in propagating the principles of Socialism and have scarcely had time to report. Our membership is steadily increasing but our numbers (which are not small) are insignificant compared with the number of sympathisers that gather around our platform. Tottenham has been in the throes of electionitis and we joined in the fray, advising the worker, by voice and pen, to abstain from voting their enemies into power. We captured one meeting organised by a Liberal and finished with three rousing cheers for Socialism.

Considering the inclement weather our outdoor propaganda has been excellent. Thanks to the help of the Edmonton comrades, close on 40 meetings have been held during the last quarter. Our “Salisbury” meeting has been held over for a few weeks, but we hope to be there again before this report is in print. We continue to hold huge meetings at West Green Corner, despite the fact that humorous personalities are indulged in by speakers from the platform of an alleged Socialist party near our pitch. We are still running our discussion class after Branch meetings. All comrades and others are welcome.

T. W. Lobb, Branch Sec.

Interesting Documents. No. 1. (1907)

From the June 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following circular has been issued by some of the oldest members of the Southampton Branch of the Social Democratic Federation. Amongst the signatories is an ex-member of the Provincial Executive of the S.D.F.,

SOUTH HANTS SOCIALIST SOCIETY. 

The above Society has been formed by former members of the S.D.F. with the object of spreading by means of literature, and if need be, by public meetings, the ideals and principles of Socialism.

Being unable to remain in and work with the S.D.F. owing to the change that has gradually come over it whereby the propagation of reforms and the contesting of elections instead of being a subsidiary part, as of yore, has become the primary part of its work, leaving the ideals and principles of Socialism to be a formal part of its creed in much the same way as it has always been with the Trades Council and the Trades Unions which boast of a Socialist constitution. Indeed, the S.D.F. has for some time past so completely allied itself with these bodies and assimilated its work with theirs as to be hardly distinguishable from them.

We still believe there is plenty of scope for the propagation of Socialism and that all the reforms together would, if achieved, be of very little use in remedying the social evils of which we complain.

Although, owing to such bad conditions os do exist among the workers, one is much tempted to devote undue attention to reforms, it cannot be too often or too strenuously asserted that all and every reform possible in Capitalist Society would do next to nothing in the end as the capitalist class has always shown that it knows full well how to force back with one hand what it is compelled to pay out with the other. It is surely significant that after all the years occupied in obtaining reforms, that it should be even now a debatable point as to whether the workers as a class are any better off to-day than they were at the beginning.

Even in the case of such apparently obviously desirable reforms as state maintenance - or, as it is watered down to, state feeding of the children and the relief of the unemployed, it is fairly clear that the Capitalist Class will take care to benefit more itself than the workers by the greater exploitation of the young, by reason of their more fit condition making them better producing mediums, and from having their reserve army kept by the state for them. And it must not be lost sight of that a reserve army of unemployed is a necessary condition of Capitalist Society.

Brutal as it may seem to say so, it is clear to us that the only purpose of reforms is to put off the day when the workers will come by their own. The workers will always be badly fed, housed and clothed so long as they are robbed, and robbed they will be so long as capitalism lasts.

What interest we had in reforms, municipal or otherwise, and in the use of elections for propagation of Socialism has vanished. We have been disillusioned by watching its effects and results. The failure to get any substantial gain from these sources is not accounted for by the good or bad actions of individuals but by the conditions of the problem itself.

The so-called advance, the growth of the Labour Party, is in our opinion but the erection of a bulwark against the real movement — the only one of any use to the proletariat — i.e., the Socialist movement.

Eleven years ago in a Manifesto the local S. D. F. said as follows :

  “We, Revolutionary Social-Democrats, disdain to conceal our principles. We proclaim the class war. We hold that the lot of the workers cannot to any appreciable extent be improved except by a complete overthrow of this present capitalist system of Society. The time for Social tinkering has gone past.”

That is where the S.D.F. stood then and that is where we stand now, and we are convinced that it is only from that standpoint that any good can be done.

Numbers have no charm for us. All we want is that the ideals and principles of Socialism shall be spread. We do not desire to make members unless we first of all make them Socialists.

If you think you would like to help us, join us. We require everyone who does come to come to us whole-heartedly. We prefer the help of one sincere member who is in the light to twenty who are groping in the dark or floating on the tide of expediency catching at straws.

We send herewith our Object, policy and rules so that you can see what we are after. If any explanation is required we are prepared to give it. If you want to follow up your study of Socialism we are prepared to offer friendly advice. If you want literature we are prepared to supply you.

“Work for Socialism — all else is vain.”

The Roots of Social Change. (1907)

From the July 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why We Are Wage Slaves.

The causationist, seeing everywhere in nature a concatenation of cause and effect, as the links of a chain running through endless time and through endless space, sees everywhere also that this infinite variety of happenings occurs in accordance with immutable laws, too impassive to be weak, too dispassionate to be stern. Law, and order, he knows to be universal, and chaos is a term which has no meaning to him save as the description of his own limited view and knowledge of phenomena.

The science of political economy enquires into the movements of man in the quest for the material means of subsistence, and shows that these movements also, no less than the rolling of celestial orbs, are governed by laws, and conform to the purposeless dictates of causal sequence.

Thus, there is a law of capitalist production which ordains that human labour-power shall be in constant competition with machinery, and shall as constantly be displaced and defeated by its formidable rival. And there is a law that, notwithstanding that the result is bitter as blood to the great working class of the world, yet must working-class intelligence and working-class strength go on improving and developing this machinery of production, to their own undoing, as long as the capitalist system of profit production shall prevail. There is a further law—a law of wages—under governance of which wages are determined by the cost of subsistence under certain prevailing conditions. There are many other stated laws controlling the economic movements of man, and many more, doubtless enough, awaiting human recognition and enunciation.

The knowledge of these laws is of vital importance to the workers. Such knowledge alone can explain to them how, and in what circumstances, the wealth of the world is produced— and who can it more closely concern than those who produce it all and who enjoy so little of it ? Such knowledge is the only sure foundation of Socialist faith—our pillar of fire by night, our pillar of cloud by day—the one unerring index where all else is confusion.

The reformer is a reformer only because he is ignorant of the existence of the laws governing social growth, or because he fails to realise their universal applicancy, and the unbending potency with which they reduce all human wishes, as far as they are in opposition to them, to merest empty vanity.

The science of political economy, then, so long the peculiar study of our masters and pastors— those who rule, is an essentially necessary study to the workers—those who are ruled. For if the knowledge to be gained from it is something less than “the wing wherewith we fly to heaven” this alone can serve us as hands and knees whereon to crawl from hell.

To start at the beginning, or, shall we say—to start at a beginning—since it is a beginning only for our purpose, and to reduce our lesson to the utmost simplicity, it can easily be understood that given as a condition the private ownership of all the means of producing those things which are necessary to support human life, a certain other concomitant must co-exist, as the inevitable effect of the given cause : private ownership of the means of life — namely, all those who are excluded from ownership are dependent upon those who possess the means of living.

This is a fact that cannot be controverted. The owners of the means of subsistence might be all that the noblest pagan and Christian philosophers exhort them to be, might be the very embodiment of all the graces, but still the dependency is there, unaffected, as dependency, by any magnanimity of the possessors.

Given then this private ownership of the land (in political economy the term includes the seas and lakes and rivers), from which all material wealth flows, and the machinery of production—the channel by which it flows; and given also this dependence of those who, not being possessors, have no free access to the means of producing the necessaries of life; and given further, human nature, not us it was before it fell if it has fallen, or as it will be when it rises again if it ever does rise again, but as it is presented to us at this time of day, the unfinished work of history: given all these conditions then nothing is more certain than that this ownership by a class of the means whereby all men must live, will be used, not, perhaps, consciously and wilfully to the detriment of the non-possessors, but, over the general field of operations, first and last for the benefit of the possessors. What is there else in ownership, but that it confers on the possessor some advantage or advantages which are conditional upon possession, and which therefore are denied to the non-possessor ?

All these conditions then we have in present-day society—the ownership of the means of life by a class, the dependence of the non-possessors upon that class, and the exclusion of these propertyless ones from access to the means of subsistence except upon condition of advantage to the class which possesses all productive wealth.

Here is a certain set of conditions which, in the very nature of things, stand as causes from which effects must follow. If the whole of the propertyless resolved to sit themselves down and die rather than exist in dependence, that would be an effect of the causes, and a perfectly possible effect—if the resolution were there. But history shows that the propertyless did not do so, but that some other condition prevailed, which made them surrender.

Since, then, submission to dependence was inevitable, and this dependence demanded certain advantages to be yielded to the possessing class, what form did this submission take and why? and what form did these advantages take, and also why?

With the means of life in the hands of a class there are several forms of subjection which might conceivably follow. But what shall it be in the case we are supposing? Shall it be chattel slavery? Shall it be serfage ? Shall it be wage slavery? That must be decided by the degree of development of the instruments of production primarily, and by the social conditions which have arisen out of this historic development. Thus, because the means of producing wealth had not advanced to that stage in which they enabled human energy to produce more than sufficient for its own reproduction, (and are therefore profitless to any but the user)—such means of production are common property, and form the base of a communal society ; but growing out of such a communal form of society, and keeping more or less even pace with that development of the means of production which does enable human energy to produce a surplus of wealth beyond that necessary for its own reproduction, we find a form of subject labour. Why does this subjugation take the shape of chattel slavery and not of wage shivery?

Because, in the first place, developing imperceptibly out of a system based upon communal ownership, the propertyless ones are mainly drawn from outside the community, prisoners of war, who are no longer eaten now that there exist means of making them produce tlieir own living and something over. And being captives they must be the property of their captors, and kept in subjection by the sword. In the second place a wage is essentially a price, a money equivalent of the thing which it is the price of. It is one side of an equation which is possible only through the operation of the laws of supply and demand in a competitive market; and being an equivalent only because it has freedom of motion to find its own level and equal through the ceaseless fluctuation of supply and demand, it can only be the equivalent of something of like fluidity. Wages, then, presupposes free labourers— labourers, that is, who are owners of their labour-power, and can within certain limits withhold it, though under certain pressure they must exchange it in the end; presupposes also a world of commodities (goods produced for sale and which are still “in the market") since it can only exist as the counterpart of innumerable other commodities, for which it is readily exchangeable at current rates; presupposes also a competitive market, where goods produced for sale find their quantitative likeness in their qualitative opposites; presupposes also, and therefore, and finally, a certain development of the means of production, and of the method of production, and of accumulated wealth, none of which conditions can exist until long after the means of producing wealth have reached the stage suggested above. That is why the form of subjugation at this period is chattel slavery, and not wage-slavery.

In what has been said may be found also the answer to the previous question, why did the subjection of the propertyless take the form that characterises it to-day ? But in order that a proper understanding of this vitally important matter may be attained, it will be advisable to analyse yet a little more minutely the causes which give birth to the effect. This will form a fitting subject for a second article. 

A. E. Jacomb

Editorial: Our Policy then and now. (1907)

Editorial from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the first number of the Socialist Standard, published in September, 1904, it was stated in an editorial that “in dealing with all questions affecting the welfare of the working class our standpoint will be frankly revolutionary. We shall show that the misery, the poverty and degradation caused by capitalism grow far more rapidly than does the enacting of palliative legislation for its removal. The adequate alleviation of these ills can be brought about only by a political party having Socialism for its object. So long as the powers of administration are controlled by the capitalist class so long can that class render nugatory any legislation they consider to unduly favour the workers.”

No critic can deny that this line of policy has volumes of the Socialist Standard which are completed with this issue. It was our policy then and it is our policy now, and will remain our policy till the workers come by their own. 

Their Policy now and Then.

As the official organ of the Party, the Socialist Standard has, therefore, consistently voiced the interests of the working class during the time when it is more than ever necessary to do so since in general those interests are yet denied or unrecognised by the very class they mostly concern. It must, however, frankly be admitted that there are quite a number of working-class “leaders” who are prepared to tell the workers the truth about their position when it pays, but the trouble is that it does not always or even usually pay in the ordinary sense; which may explain the gyrations and inconsistencies of so-called Socialists who, for example, will say at one time that the capitalist class cannot and will not abolish unemployment, yet who will at another time take the lead in an appeal to the capitalist class to put an end to unemployment, the corner-stone of the very system upon which it lives.

The attitude of BY-ENDS toward Christian bears considerable resemblance to the attitude of many of these “leaders” toward the consistent Socialist.

“Why, they,” said BY-ENDS, " after their headstrong manner, conclude that it is duty to rush on their journey all weathers; and I am for waiting for wind and tide. They are for hazarding all for God at a clap; and I am for taking all advantages to secure my life and estate; They are for holding their notions, though all other men are against them; but I am for religion in what, and so far as the times, and my safety will bear it. They are for religion when in rags and contempt; but I am for him when be walks in his golden slippers, in the j sunshine, and with applause.”

The race of BY-ENDS is unfortunately far from being extinct.

Editorial: Fly Paper Politics. (1907)

Editorial from the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is curious that in the song of triumph that was sung by nearly all the "labour” papers on the election of a “Socialist” in the person of Grayson, scarcely a mention was made of the programme upon which the election was run. The Westminster Gazette, however, printed the address and was moved to remark in its leading article that Mr. Grayson’s “actual proposals, as they appear in his election address are somewhat milder than his theory seems to require.” When an orthodox Liberal journal comments thusly, the reason the journals supporting Grayson did not publish his address becomes apparent

After describing himself as a Socialist, which his programme denies, he puts forward these vote-catching proposals: “The Right to Work,” forsooth. Old Age Pensions, Taxation of Land Values, Free Trade; he says he “would resist any interference with our present Fiscal System;” “Free Maintenance,” which may mean anything from soup kitchens to children’s barracks; “Abolishing rather than admonishing” the House of Lords, Progressive Income Tax and Temperance Reform. But readers will be interested to learn that his “most immediate and enthusiastic support ” is to go “to a measure according women the vote on the same terms as men.” Not even adult suffrage! A revolutionary programme indeed. How the Liberals must have trembled to find their opponent stealing their planks and doing their work!

The Fraud of Reform.
A Socialist knows that reforms or measures palliative of capitalism can only be obtained while the master class rules in so far as capitalist interests are thereby served; and since capitalist interests are directly opposed to those of workers in all essential points of wealth and leisure, it is obvious that the measures passed by capitalist representatives will have for object the maintenance or extension of their system or the intensification of the robbery of the workers upon which they depend. It is then a fraud for a candidate to pretend to be able to obtain measures in the workers’ interests from the capitalist class in power. The workers can get nothing of their own until they are able to take it. No man is a Socialist who throws out such fraudulent sops or promises as bait to prospective voters, for besides that it must lead workers to disappointment and apathy and aid their enemies, it is obvious that as far as sops or promises are concerned the master class can, and does when it needs to, always outsop the would-be member. Hence it is of supreme importance that the workers rely upon themselves and concentrate all their energies on the capture of political power for Socialism, for all else is illusion.

A man is not a genius or a Socialist because he calls himself one. and wild appeals to sentiment as in the case of Grayson can never do the work of Science. No election run to further Liberal measures can be a victory for Socialism, for before the workers can emancipate themselves or use in any way the industrial and political machinery to their advantage they must wrest political power from the master class. 

I.L.P. Intrigue

E. R. Hartley of the I.L.P. etc., who actively supported Grayson, lets the cat out of the bag in his account in Justice of August 3rd of the Colne Valley victory for confusion. He said that the men of Colne Valley would not have a nominee of the L.R.C. and—

   This so displeased the wire-pullers that they used every power they possessed to prevent a candidate being ran. It is more than probable if Jarrow had been lost the I.L.P. executive would have refused to give their backing to the Socialist candidate.
    One fact stands out for all to see—the I.L.P. ran a candidate for Parliament, and their chairman sulks in his tent because he cannot have his own way.
     Shades of Democracy!
    There is not a politician in either the Tory or Liberal Parties who is half such an autocrat as the chairman of the I L.P. and the secretary of the L.R.C. At the General Election a small group arrogated to itself the right to say where candidates should be ran; now it has resolved itself into one man who is going to decide.
   When all the backstairs work was done and the winning of Jarrow forced the hand, it was still possible to try and wreck the election, in order to prove how wise and far-seeing was the opposition.
     The chairman of the I.L P. sends no message wishing success to his own party’s candidate.
     The secretary of the L R.C. prevents the Labour M.P.’s going to help. Philip Snowden is permitted to go just “to save their face," and the other I.L.P. members of Parliament are conspicuous by their absence.
     If the members of the I.L.P. understood the meaning of democracy Mr. Ramsay MacDonald would not be their chairman for another month.
     The action of the men who seek to dominate the Socialist movement has received a check, but it is idle for the Socialist movement to shut its eyes to plain facts.
    We were all anxious to get some men into Parliament. To anyone who would spend a half-hour in thinking it was quite obvious we could only get our men in with the assistance of one of the great political parties.
   Toryism, with its great majority was useless, but the Liberal Party, in its weakness, was only too ready to come to terms.
   No arrangements were made, the rank and file would not have stood that; but in a number of constituencies an understanding was arrived at where for a double-membered constituency one Liberal and one Labour man were ran, with what Hardie himself described at York as the common object of knocking out the Tories.
   When the "understanders'’ had got their places fixed up, they began a campaign to prevent any further candidates being run.
    Nothing succeeds like success, and these tactics were more successful than anybody dreamed they could be. The very success, however, brought further complications; the I.L.P. contributions to the funds are less than £100 and their members’ salaries £l,400. While the trade unions are bound to admit their members won their seats mainly through the propaganda of the Socialists, it must be admitted their contributions to the maintenance of the I.L.P. members is on a liberal scale.
    Perhaps it will now be obvious why the L.R.C. would not endorse another Socialist candidature and why it is very unlikely they will endorse any in the near future.

The above admissions should be noted, for when we point out similar things we are said to be abusive. But the truth of them cannot be disputed and they are eloquent of the condition of things within the "Independent” Labour Party.