Editorial: A Retrospect. (1905)

Editorial  from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 12th of June witnesses the first anniversary of the formation of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. It thus affords a meet opportunity to review our year’s work to ascertain whether our hopes have been fulfilled and our efforts justified.

The formation of a new party was rendered imperative by the falling away of the S.D.F. from the paths of political right doing. Those who formed the new party had, almost without exception, been members of the S.D.F., the primary and for many years the only Socialist organisation in Great Britain. During many years of its life it had held aloft the banner of uncompromising Socialism in this country and many of us hoped that it would continue to work along the lines of no compromise with other political parties which is dictated by the existence of a class struggle.

Some years ago, however, when reaction dominated every sphere of thought—political or scientific—throughout Europe and America, new ideas were introduced into the S.D.F. by members of the organisation whose Socialism was rooted in sentiment rather than in scientific knowledge. Looking around them in the political world they saw that organisations of the half-way house character were obtaining a larger measure of support than was their own organisation. Unwitting that such must needs be the case in the present stage of capitalist development, they set themselves to the task of winning their own organisation to a similar position and to the adoption of a similar line of action. In this they were highly successful and the manner in which the S.D.F. adapted itself to its new way of looking at political events is of exceeding interest, and at a more convenient season we shall unfold the manner of its development from a no-compromise organisation to an organisation believing in and accepting entangling alliances.

The falling away of the S.D.F. from its traditional method was viewed with the deepest regret by those members of the organisation who still adhered to the ideas of uncompromising Socialism. They hoped against hope that their organisation would be recalled to a sense of its wrong-doing—that once again it would return to the true path of Socialist progress and weld itself into an organisation deserving the support of every Socialist.

Such was not to be the case. Reluctantly there was forced upon them the opinion that the organisation to which they had hitherto given a whole-hearted support was unworthy and they decided to withdraw from its ranks and form a Socialist organisation into which they could throw their entire energy and untiringly work towards the making it into a strong political organisation.

This then was the idea of those who, on June 12th, 1904, decided to form The Socialist Party of Great Britain. The founders were fully alive to the fact that much spade work had to be performed ; that there could be no mushroom growth for the new party ; that its ranks could only be recruited steadily and, at first, slowly.

And even so has been our course during the last twelve months. Parties which compromise—parties that concentrate upon one or two palliatives must necessarily have for the time a larger success than the party which seeks to build up a political party for the overthrow of modern commercial society. It is easier to gain adherents to belief in a small palliative reform than to gain them to a new philosophy based upon an understanding of the material foundation of modern industrial slavery. But in the former case the adherents are not adherents for Socialism, in the latter case they are.

Our work in the past year has been based upon a knowledge of the aforementioned facts. We have concentrated our attention upon the propaganda of our principles and to making public the fact of our existence. Our progress has necessarily, therefore, been slow and has been almost entirely confined to London where our propaganda has been greater than that of any other body. The result of this propaganda has been the strengthening of our party by the addition of a gratifying number of new members and the weeding out of the worthless elements which attach themselves to every party.

In face of many difficulties we have brought out and maintained our party organ, the Socialist Standard. Our paper has been written by the members of our party in the intervals snatched from their daily toil and their oral propaganda. It has met with sufficient success to warrant its continuance as an unfearing exponent of the principles of the party. As time goes on and we gather experience we shall introduce new features, and with a growing membership insure greater variety of topics than has hitherto been the case. We have had critics who have suggested alterations and their suggestions, when considered advisable, we have adopted. Further criticism is solicited.

Last August we sent two delegates to the Amsterdam Congress. While there it was borne in upon them that the admission to the Congress was too wide, and that to make it truly a Socialist Congress alterations should be made in the direction of excluding the representatives of non-Socialist organisations such as the L.R.C., the Fabian Society, and the I.L.P. in England. By no stretch of the imagination can such bodies be recognised as Socialist, and the sooner definitive action is taken for their exclusion, such as laying down principles to which the organisations must adhere, the better it will be for the International Socialist movement. We are convinced that much though not all of the difficulty which arose at the recent discussion on the bureau as to the method of representation at the Congresses is due to the fact that no principles have ever been clearly laid down to which every body represented must give their adherence.

Such rules must be sufficiently wide in their scope to admit of their universal application and must not cover matters of detail which must be modified by national conditions. This is not the time to offer suggestions as to the nature of those principles but at another season we shall return to the subject and offer tentative suggestions as a basis for discussion.

Our work and its results during the past twelve months, although necessarily limited, have, we claim, justified the step we took on the 12th of June last. The seed we sow will germinate in the future and will be reaped, perhaps, by other hands than ours, but we can see that the fruits of the harvest will be a Socialist Republic carrying with it a guarantee of a healthy human race living in a society of free men and free women—the children of the life that is to be.

A Look Round. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

An appeal to the possessors of this world’s goods and chattels has been issued, signed by a peculiar collection of side-trackers, amongst them the Countess of Kinnoul, the Hon Claude Hay, Mrs. Clara Hendin, and Mr. George Lansbury. These good people have discovered that the employment of working-class mothers to the detriment of their children is an evil. Do they therefore propose to abolish the capitalist system which produces the evil ?—to stir up the mothers and other members of the working-class to revolt, so that they can establish the Co-operative Commonwealth and properly provide for all, grown-ups as well as children ? No, my friends, As the appeal states, they are “Social Reformers.” The aristocratic and middle-class of them desire to show the working-class how the hearts of the upper-class beat in sympathy for the sufferings of the lower-class, and how much they are willing to do to brighten the lives of the poor. As usual, they have been cute enough to secure the help of some members of the working-class, and as soon as the funds come in Model Day Nurseries will be established.

* * *

And as soon as possible after they are in working order, and mothers are relieved of the cost of providing for their children during the day time, the wily capitalist will seize the opportunity to reduce the wages of the women.

* * *

Well, we suppose the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. can assist the employing-class to “humanise” the conditions of capitalism, if they wish. We prefer to devote our energies to changing the system. That is why we claim to be the only revolutionary party in this country.

* * *

“We cannot find much to say for a Bill which looks suspiciously like a quack remedy for the present industrial disease.”

* * *

Thus the Tory People about the Government’s Unemployed Bill, which Keir Hardie and other Labour “Leaders” are so anxious that the House shall pass. It is this thing which Hardie must know is a quack remedy that he advises the Unemployed not to endanger by marching on London !

* * *

The “tactics” question has reached an acute stage in America, in connection with the Spring elections in Milwaukee. According to Wilshire’s Magazine, the Socialist Party there, upon a referendum vote, has decided not to contest these elections, as has hitherto been its custom. Victor Berger, recently their candidate for Mayor, explains that it is merely a judicial election, and doesn’t count for much ; and anyway the party can, by casting its vote for one of the old party candidates defeat one of the other old party candidates, a man who is strongly “anti-Socialist.”

* * *

In comment the Editor of Wilshire’s writes :— “Inasmuch as I had supposed that all non-Socialist party candidates look alike to us Socialists, all in our eyes being ‘anti-Socialist,’ I hardly see the logic of Mr. Berger’s position. When the fall elections come round Mr. Berger may have trouble leading all of his Milwaukee flock back out of the old party ranks into the fold of Socialism. His tactics are most dangerous and are calculated to destroy the solidarity of our Socialist political movement.”

* * *

Well said, Mr. Wilshire. It is precisely because we of the S.P.G.B. take up a similar position that we are denounced by the would-be political wire-pullers of the S.D.F. and I.L.P. as “Ishmaelites,” “Impossiblists,” etc. But we hold that “straight” tactics are best, at all times. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

* * *

After Mr. Berger’s reply, however, Mr. Wilshire says:— “There may be no objection to Socialists voting for capitalist candidates when the Socialist Party has no nominee” ! We admit that “may” is different to “can,” but surely, in the comments quoted above, Mr. Wilshire has given the best possible reasons why such a course should not be pursued. And so we “hardly see the logic” of Mr. Wilshire’s position.

* * *

“Socialists demand the abolition of the system of competition and the private ownership in its entirety, and are in politics to voice this demand, and not merely to get through any particular reform, even if that reform is so good and soundly Socialistic as municipal control of street railways. The Goddess lost the race by stooping to pick up the golden apple. The apple was good and beautiful enough, but it was not worth the losing of the race. This is the Socialist position regarding municipal ownership, the referendum, and other side issues. All good enough in their way, but not good enough for us to break up our Party and let go of Socialism to chase after them.”—Wilshire’s Magazine.

* * *

At the Annual Dinner of the Woolwich Chamber of Commerce last month, Mr. Hugh Montgomery (Conservative candidate) proposed the toast of “The Houses of Parliament,” and coupled with it the name of Mr. Will Crooks, M.P. In reply Mr. Crooks said that in the House of Commons there was a comradeship which was comparatively unknown in any other gathering elsewhere. In the tea room could be seen the Prime Minister chatting with the humble “Labour” member. The labour members were very much like the Chamber of Commerce, they “looked after the interests of the whole community.” And so on, only more so. And this is the man whom the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. delight to support.

* * *

Mr. J. R. Clynes, Organising Secretary of the Gasworkers’ Union, has publicly denied the statement made in the Executive Report of the S.D.F., submitted to the Annual Conference at Northampton, that W. Thorne, at South West Ham, is one of the Parliamentary candidates for whom the S.D.F. is financially responsible. He states that Thorne is a candidate promoted by the Gas-workers’ Union, which makes itself responsible, the members paying a quarterly contribution to a Parliamentary Fund, on conditions similar to the other candidates endorsed by the L.R.C.

* * *

As we pointed out in our November issue, W. Thorne, acting upon the instructions of his Trade Union paymasters, has signed the constitution of the L.R.C., and is running as a “Labour” candidate accordingly. But the S.D.F. still claim him as “their” candidate (and they are quite welcome to him as far as we are concerned) and mislead their members into believing that he is running as a “definitely avowed Social-Democrat” as required by the Rules of the S.D.F. Pie-crust !

* * *

It will be remembered that a few issues ago we drew attention to the illogical position of the S.D.F. in opposing Mr. Masterman at North West Ham in face of the fact that at Dulwich Mr. J. Hunter Watts had voted for him and urged the local S.D.F. to do likewise. We contended that the reasons which were given for opposing Dr. Rutherfoord Harris by supporting Masterman could be urged against Ernest Gray at West Ham. Last month Dr. Rutherfoord Harris addressed a crowded meeting of his constituents at the Denmark Hill Schools, and his principal supporter upon the platform was Mr. Ernest Gray ! Are our S.D.F. friends still unrepentant?

* * *

An interesting article on “James Farley, Strike-Breaker” has appeared in the Times. Not many years ago, it says, the need of a job constrained Farley to join the crowd of “blacklegs” in a strike at Brooklyn. After this was over, he devised a scheme for keeping in touch with “blacklegs,” and it is said that he has today on his books nearly 40,000 names. He perfects his arrangements for breaking a strike to such a degree that, at the moment when the employees of the elevated and underground railways of New York came out on strike recently, Farley had on the spot a man to fill nearly every deserted post, and within three days it was generally recognised that the strikers were beaten. Farley is considered to be a very wealthy man now, as the result of his operations, and. we fear he will amass much more wealth before the workmen of America recognise the futility of the Strike, as now understood, and make up their minds to strike at the ballot box—not merely for shorter hours and higher wages, but for the abolition of the wage system by the substitution of public for private ownership, democratic for class control, and production for use for production for profit.

* * *

In the article referred to the Times says that “labour troubles in Chicago mean war.” And they mean war everywhere. A war in which the employing class are ever ready to use the maxim gun and the magazine rifle, the gatling and the gunboat, and, in fact, all the death-dealing forces of Christian Civilization against the men, women, and children of the working-class. And while even the Times admits that this war exists, the leaders of the I.L.P., when it suits them, deny it.

* * *

The Co-operative Small Holdings Society has issued an appeal for funds to enable it to carry on its work. Now it is indisputable that the land must play a very vital part when the reorganisation of our economic system is under consideration, but evidently this society, to quote a phrase used by Sir William Harcourt concerning the Liberal Party, “has no revolutionary schemes.” It appears to be merely desirous of establishing the labourer, as such, more firmly on the soil, because “it is proved that in the few districts where allotments and Small Holdings are numerous, farmers have less difficulty in securing labourers.” It therefore proposes “to supply a ladder whereby the agricultural labourer or artizen may rise from the cultivation of a small allotment to the occupation of a holding capable of contributing materially to the support of himself and his family.”

* * *

It will be noticed that the Society does not aim at providing a Holding which will be capable of entirely supporting the holder, and the position seems to work out somewhat in this way. The provision of allotments and small holdings on a large scale will enable landowners to obtain more for their land than otherwise and secure the presence of a large supply of labour in districts where at present it is scarce. The Holdings will not suffice for the sustenance of the holder and his family, therefore, he must sell his labour-power to the farmer. But his holding will partly sustain him, so that he can accept a lower wage. But if he has to work for the farmer he can only labour on his own holding either before commencing his wage labour or after finishing it for the day. The nett result to him therefore is that his hours of labour are greatly increased, his rate of wages is decreased, to the advantage of the farmer. This being so, it is clear that Allotments and Small Holdings offer no solution of the agricultural problem. We shall return to this matter, but cannot refrain from asking why, amongst others, the names of Joseph Hyder, Percy Alden, J. R. MacDonald, and Fred Maddison appear in the list of supporters of the Society. Why should they strive to increase the landlord’s rent, the farmer’s surplus-value, and the labourer’s hours ?

* * *

At a Conference held on Saturday last at the Passmore Edward’s Settlement to consider the Unemployed Bill, Mr. J. Hunter Watts represented the S.D.F. He characterised the Bill as a wretched one, but it was better than none, and for that reason he hoped it would be passed.

* * *

Oh! what a falling off is here ! It is not merely a case of half a loaf being better than no bread, but even of the distant prospect of a crumb being better than half a loaf. Which shows how easy it is to tread the downward path when once a start is made.

* * *

Speaking at the Town Hall, East Ham, yesterday week, H. Quelch stated that he had no sympathy with the working man because at one time he voted Conservative and at another Liberal. Well, this is precisely what the S.D.F. has advised him to do at different times

J. Kay

Doubts and Difficulties: The Wealth of the Wealthless Workers. (1905)

The Doubts and Difficulties column from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Wealth of the Wealthless Workers.

A correspondent writes: “I am very pleased to welcome your new venture in opening a Doubts and Difficulties section in the Socialist Standard. I think that the ventilation of all difficulties in the way of a full acception of Socialism and Socialist principles is of the greatest educational utility, and that this section of the Socialist Standard deserves the support of all Socialists. With the experience gained in this way the answers will tend to become less crudely expressed and will prove doubtless a valuable contribution to the education of our propagandists.”

* * *

I thank my correspondent for his appreciation and may assure him that I am keenly alive to the imperfection of my methods of expression. The Board School education which most of us workers have received does not lend itself to the building up of a graceful literary style. At the same time a knowledge of working-class life and an understanding of its inner meaning is forced upon us as we live and work amongst our fellows. And if experience of the bitterness and misery engendered by the grinding poverty of the every-day life of the working-class is of any advantage in understanding the condition of the wage worker I think I am so far equipped for my present task.

* * *

Another correspondent has set me the following conundrum: “In your ‘Doubts and Difficulties’ in the May Standard you say that the spinner enters the labour market possessed of only his labour-power which he is compelled to sell so as to secure his means of livelihood. Is this so ? Does not the spinner—the working-class—own a considerable amount of wealth in Savings Banks, Friendly Societies, and Trade Unions, and does not this fact vitiate your entire argument? ”

* * *

I think we shall find that the contention in the above argument is not a sound one and that it is in fact one of the stock arguments of the apologist of the capitalist regime in favour of the present system. When the Socialist points out that thrift is impossible for the worker because his wages are determined by the average cost of his subsistence we are told that he has been thrifty as is shown by the Savings Bank deposits and that as he has been thrifty and has been able to save some of his wages they must have been more than the cost of his subsistence and that the Socialist position was therefore futile and absurd.

* * *

The first fallacy which is made in reckoning up those “savings of the working classes” is to count in several huge sums twice over. We are told grandiloquently of the £198,000,000 in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks and of the £45,000,000 deposited with Friendly Societies, forgetting that special provision is made by the Post Office Savings Bank for the receiving of the funds of Friendly Societies and Trades Unions. But we do not desire to press this point. We can afford—such is the strength of our case—to take the highest possible estimate and assume that these deposits aggregate £300,000,000.

* * *

The question which now arises is : Who has deposited this £300,000,000? The capitalist apologists of the press, the platform, and the pulpit assume that it is wholly the savings of members of the working-class. We contend that such an assumption is a grotesque fallacy.

* * *

Let us ask ourselves another question. Where do the small shopkeeper, the small trader, the less successful professional and business men deposit their money, and where do the children of these classes and even of the richer middle-class keep their savings ?

* * *

I do not think that it can be in the ordinary bank—whether private or joint-stock—inasmuch as they refuse to carry on their business except for the profit of the banker and that profit cannot be derived from a banking account unless a minimum balance is guaranteed. In small credit banks an average of say £50 would be required, while larger banks require considerably higher balances to be maintained.

* * *

It is not possible for the working-class to have accounts with these banks and neither is it possible for the average small trader to do so. As far as possible he requires his money to be in circulation. He uses it to replenish his stock—to increase the quantity of his goods available for turnover. At the same time the whole of his money cannot be tied up in this way. He buys on credit and has to meet his bills when they fall due and he has to save his money for the purpose. The ordinary bank not being convenient for his purpose he avails himself of the facilities afforded by the Post Office Savings Bank.

* * *

So with his children. They use the Savings Bank to put away the pennies and shillings they save from the sweet-stuff shop and often have accounts which aggregate to more than the yearly earnings of the working man.

* * *

As to the proportion of the deposits which belong to working men, I may mention the result of an investigation made into this question in the United States of America by Lucien Saniel. His conclusion was that 10 per cent. would more than cover the share invested by the working-class of that country.

* * *

In America we are informed by the Reports of the Commissioner of Labour of the United States, the average wage is 30 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom, and we should consequently expect that the savings of the working-class there were higher in proportion than of the working-class in this country. But even taking it that the working-class here own 10 per cent. of the high estimated savings given above, the result would be £20,000,000 as representing the savings of the working-class.

* * *

I am informed further that many of these deposits are very temporary in their nature. The wage deposited on Saturday afternoon is often withdrawn the following Thursday, and the working-class in the large towns deposit in the Savings Bank to meet the contingency of rent, holiday, or even more interesting domestic occurrences.

* * *

This, however, only refers to the better paid mechanic who has a wage somewhat higher than the working-class average and can sometimes afford a holiday. Taking all the facts, I think we must take it as fully borne out that the working-class as a class are never more than a few weeks from starvation and that as a class they own nothing beyond their labour-power—their power to perform work.

* * *

While the better class mechanic getting a relatively higher wage because he has somewhat reduced the number of similarly situated mechanics competing for employment can save against a rainy day that never fails to come, the ordinary worker is getting less than the average cost of his subsistence and can save nothing.

* * *

Take the case of the worker of Ridgmount as depicted by our Comrade R. H. Kent in a recent issue of the Socialist Standard. Any saving made by those workers can only be at the expense of the necessities of their wives and children. Individuals may of course save if they remain single, but marriage soon uses up the savings and reduces such individuals to the dead level of a starvation existence.

* * *

When we are informed that 43 per cent. of the working-class population of York are living in poverty we are interested to know how the standard of poverty is understood and Mr. Rowntree is kind enough to inform us.

* * *

He says : “It is thus seen that the wages paid for unskilled labour in York are insufficient to provide food, shelter and clothing adequate to maintain a family of moderate size in a state of bare physical efficiency. It will be remembered that the above estimate of necessary minimum expenditure is based upon the assumption that the diet is even less generous than that allowed to able-bodied paupers in the York Workhouse, and that no allowance is made for any expenditure other than that absolutely required for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency.”

* * *

“And let us clearly understand what ‘merely physical efficiency’ means. A family living upon the scale allowed for in this estimate must never spend a penny on railway fare or omnibus. They must never go into the country unless they walk. They must never purchase a halfpenny newspaper or spend a penny to buy a ticket for a popular concert. They must write no letters to absent children, for they cannot afford to pay the postage. They must never contribute anything to their church or chapel, or give any help to a neighbour which costs them money. They cannot save, neither can they join Sick Club or Trade Union, because they cannot pay the necessary subscriptions. The children must have no pocket money for dolls, marbles, or sweets. The father must smoke no tobacco and must drink no beer. The mother must never buy pretty clothes for herself or for her children, the character of the family wardrobe as of the family diet being governed by the regulation. Nothing must be bought but that which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of physical health, and what is bought must be of the plainest and most economical description. Should a child fall ill it must be attended by the Parish doctor; should it die it must be buried by the Parish. Finally, the wage earner must never be absent from his work for a single day.”

* * *

“If any of these conditions are broken, the extra expenditure involved is met, and can only be met, by limiting the diet; or in other words by sacrificing physical efficiency.”

* * *

“That few York labourers receiving 20s. or 21s. per week submit to these iron conditions in order to maintain physical efficiency is obvious. And even were they to submit, physical efficiency would be unattainable for those who had three or more children dependent upon them. It cannot, therefore, be too clearly understood, nor too emphatically repeated, that whenever a worker having three children dependent on him, and receiving not more than 21s. 8d. per week, indulges in any expenditure beyond that required for the barest physical needs, he can do so only at the cost of his own physical efficiency, or that of some members of his family.”

* * *

In every case the italics are those of Mr. Rowntree. Under those conditions it would be criminal for any man to try to save, and he must remain possessed only of his power to work. He must sell his power to work, which is himself, in order to live. By thus selling himself he acknowledges himself a slave bound by the will of the master who buys him. The English wage worker is veritably a wage-slave and among them is—

Economicus.

The Question of the Rates. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Akin with the rest of the fiscal dodges which the workers are led to take as vital issues, is the present outcry about the rising rates of the Metropolis. And whilst property owners are vehemently condemning municipal extravagance and high rates, we have “gas and water” Socialists coming to their aid by urging the extension of municipal trading, that the rates may be lowered with the profits.

The general question of taxation and the working-class has, it is true, been dealt with in No. 2 of the Socialist Standard, but in view of the fact that there are many under the impression that the workers are interested in keeping rates low, it cannot fail to be useful to treat specially of the rates from a proletarian standpoint.

Now it is often urged that a rise in rates always means a rise in rent. If, however, we look a little closer at this matter we shall soon see how superficial is such a line of reasoning, and that, in reality, the question of the rates does not concern the working-class. In the first place, the idea that the landlord can always compensate himself for a rise in rates or taxes by an increase in rent, rests upon the fallacy that landlords can charge whatever they please. Yet it should be evident that landlords in general always demand as much rent as they can get. That is to say, they demand the full market price of their accommodation. The price land will fetch in any district does not depend upon the will of the landlord, but upon factors outside his control. Now what determines this so-called value of building land ? It may be stated in brief as being regulated by the supply and demand for accommodation. This is in turn determined by the advantages possessed by any plot over land in inconvenient places on which it scarcely pays to build. Once considered, this is self-evident, for if one district has advantages over others, there will be keenest competition for house-room in the favoured district, while the fact that demand exceeds supply will permit the land and house owners to increase the rents until the special advantages of the district are neutralized by the greater cost of accommodation.

To the average person it is of little consequence whether he lives in one district or another ; for although one place may possess advantages, yet the property owners therein, owing to the consequent greater demand for house-room, are enabled to extort proportionately more rent. Thus the landlords get the full benefit of local advantages. If they are asking more than this they are warned by the increase of unoccupied houses : if they are getting less the increasing demand gives them the hint that accommodation can command a greater price, and up goes the rent. If one may make such a comparison, the landlords no more choose their rent than the workers choose their wages. Both get as much as they can, and that limit is determined by conditions outside of their control. The former get the equivalent of the advantages of their sites, regulated by the demand for accommodation, whilst the latter get their cost of subsistence, modified by supply and demand for labour-power.

Where, then, do rates come in? Clearly, higher rates, as such, do not add to the advantages of a district, neither do they increase the demand for accommodation. It is therefore evident that rates do not increase rent. “But,” it is urged, “rent often rises when rates do.” Granted, my friends, but notice that rent more often rises when rates do not. In fact as has already been pointed out in these columns, rent has in several instances declined while rates have risen. But why does rent sometimes rise at the same time that rates go up ? A moment’s reflection will show why. Owing to the continual increase in population and size of towns, the circle of building land is continually extending. This means that as the demand for accommodation grows, less and less convenient, or more distant, sites are built upon. Obviously, then, the land in central and favoured districts is rendered comparatively more valuable by reason of this. Thus there is an increase in the advantages of the favoured districts that is gradual while to meet this rent is raised by little jumps. A change of tenants, an increase in Income Tax or in rates, is seized upon as an excuse for raising the rent. And be it noted that the rise in rent is usually out of all proportion to the pretended reason for the increase. More often, however, rent is raised without any excuse being given other than the fact that the accommodation will fetch more.

The man who farms an entire house is practically in the same position as the lodgers who form so large a percentage of the people. If during the term of his agreement rates rise, the tenant of the house is the immediate sufferer, it is true, but he is only temporarily affected, as we shall see, and in the long run the same facts may be observed if the period of observation be somewhat extended. The property owner in letting his house, gets on the average the full market price for it; and every time he makes a fresh agreement he raises or lowers the rent to meet the demand, or lack of demand, for accommodation. Many householders are in miserable circumstances, in perpetual fear of quarter-day; mere touts for the real landlord, saving him the expenses of rent collecting, house management, etc. When the additional risk, responsibility, work and worry are taken into consideration, many a householder is seen to be in a worse position than his lodgers. It is quite obvious that if rates were abolished in a district, by municipal trading for instance, the people in that district would not thereby be enabled to pay less. The landlords would at the earliest opportunity raise the rent proportionately, and would be able to do this because of the increased demand for houses that would follow such a reduction of the rates.

The question of the rates, then, is of vital concern to the property owners alone. The middle-class cry of saving the rates, or aiding them out of municipal profits, is a dodge to put money into property owners’ pockets. Every effort is being made to lead the workers to believe that they will be better off by reducing the rates, and by this means the workers are hoodwinked into increasing the profits of sections of the capitalist-class. If an improvement follows some municipal expenditure, or a new means of transit is opened, the property near by becomes more valuable, and the capitalist gets the whole benefit by the increased rent or profit he is enabled to obtain. This is observed again and again, and it shows that the term, “value of land” really means that the owner is enabled to extort so much value from others, much the same as a highwayman’s position and arms enable him to rob all who must pass his way.

If in a few cases rising rates are quoted as a reason for raising rent, the excuse is seen to be the merest twaddle from the fact that if there are many apartments to let in a district and rates rise, rents will not go up since there would then be still less chance of obtaining tenants; whilst if the houses let well, and there is competition for house-room, rent will surely go up, whether rates do or not. Workers are misled by narrowness of view and superficial observation, and fail to realize the deeper lying general factors which are of supreme importance. In formulating a general law it is not the exceptional but the representative facts which must be taken into consideration if the law is to be a truth.

The great truth the workers have to heed, amidst the shouting of the rate-saving hucksters, is that so long as the workers must, to get a living, sell their labour-force on the market, as potatoes are sold on the potato market, so long will whatever lowers the cost of production of labour-force inevitably lower its price, aided by the increasing competition on the labour market. Thus the propertied class reaps the benefit of every improvement while capitalism endures. The working-class has, therefore, one great enemy—capitalism, and but one hope—the abolition of wage slavery,—and that is Socialism

F. C. Watts 

Quotes from Wilhelm Liebknecht. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Pity for poverty, enthusiasm for equality and freedom, recognition of social injustice and a desire to remove it, is not Socialism.—W. Liebknecht

#    #    #    #

Modern Socialism is the child of capitalist society and its class antagonisms. Without these it could not be. Socialism and ethics are two separate things. This fact must be kept in mind.—W. Liebknecht

Blogger's Note:

Both quotes are from Wilhelm Liebknecht's 1899 pamphlet, No Compromise. First published in English in 1900, No Compromise was an incredibly influential tract for early members of the SPGB.

Quorate? (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Far rather six men strong in the strength that comes of knowledge, with energies directed by a clear understanding and bent to a common purpose, than sixty men strong in nothing but sentiment and good intentions. For sentiment, howbeit a good thing when healthy, is always unstable, while good intentions unshaped by adequate knowledge, but serve to pave the path that leads directly to the hell of confusion.

Proverb of a Propagandist.

The new arrangement. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Harkins,” said old Barlow to his foreman, “the firm has decided to inaugurate a system of profit sharing with the employees.”

“Good ! What were the profits last year ?” 

“Last year we lost twelve thousand pounds.. That necessitates a cut of 10 per cent. in wages under the new system. Tell the men the new arrangement comes into effect immediately.”

Party Notes. (1905)

Party News from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Until further notice, the Executive Committee will meet on the first Saturday and third Tuesday in each month at 3 and 7 p.m. respectively, at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street, London, W.

* * *

On. Sunday, 11th June, there will be held a Party demonstration at Watford, and on Monday, 12th June, will take place the first Anniversary Reunion in celebration of the establishment of the Party. Particulars of both meetings will be forwarded to the Branches in due course.

* * *

The reports to hand concerning our out-door propaganda are very encouraging, and excellent results will doubtless accrue to the Party. The idea ought to be not so much the holding of a great number of meetings as to see that a certain number of meetings are held regularly, so that the audiences may rely on hearing an address at the advertised time and place..

* * *

Socialist propaganda and unpunctuality have been largely synonymous in this country. The S.P.G.B. will change that.

*  * *

Each Branch, in addition to its regular Sunday meetings, should hold at least one week-day meeting, and the young speakers should be given every opportunity of developing. Active and vigorous propaganda is the need of the moment and all other work should be subordinated to the task of conducting meetings, pushing the Party Organ, and spreading the light.

* * *.

Many kind friends were of opinion that our organisation would not survive the  winter, but that was because they assumed the men and women who form the S.P.G.B. to be of the same calibre as the members of other organisations claiming to be Socialist. Those who rallied to the call when circumstances demanded the formation of our organisation were thoroughly cognisant of the nature of the task with which. they were confronted, and the efforts put forth during the first twelve months of its existence are but an earnest of what will be accomplished ere another summer goes by.

* * *

When obtaining handbills or other printed matter advertising meetings, etc., branch Secretaries should not fail to have included thereon an invitation to read the Party Organ. It is important that every possible opportunity of advertising the SOCIALIST STANDARD be seized.

C. Lehane.

 

Official Notice.

To all Party Correspondents. 

Branch Secretaries, members and others sending communications to the Central Office are requested to address them to C. Lehane, General Secretary, and to indicate such letters as are intended to be dealt with by the Executive Committee by writing the words “Executive Committee ” on the left hand top corner of the correspondence.

C. Lehane, 

General Secretary.

Alien Humbug. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Of all the fraudulent measures which the professional politicians of the capitalist class ever conjured out of the fertility of their imaginations to serve as incentives to that working-class division and confusion upon which their position as an exploiting class depends, surely the measure directed against the “undesirable” alien is the most glaringly fraudulent.

How it can be successfully foisted upon the credulity of the most purblind passes comprehension. Even for the most unthinking worker the Bill has but one claim—a claim that will not bear investigation—viz, that by keeping out cheap foreign labour the opportunities for employment of English labour are increased. As though the facts do not show that the proportion of aliens to natives in England is far less than in any other European country, and that therefore practically no effective alien competition affects the chances of the home-made worker; as though it was work that the unemployed required when their condition is traceable to the fact that they have already worked too long and produced too much; as though the capitalist-class would shut out cheap labour and therefore the larger profits for which they hunger. The cheap labour of women and children is an infinitely more effective competitor in the labour market to-day, and even were it not the development of capitalism and the higher organisation of industry must add to the quantity of redundant labour, must make the competition for work more keen, must operate to keep the price of labour-power (wages) from rising above sufficient for bare subsistence.

That is the matter for the consideration of the workers of this country. And when they have grasped the significance of it they will recognise why it is that the capitalist-class, through their political mouthpieces, parade their Alien Bills and other legislative flummery alleged to be designed to serve working-class interests. They will find, curiously enough, that such measures invariably coincide with working-class unrest, with such periods as when the pressure of exceptionally adverse circumstances tends to excite the unhappy worker out of his customary lethargy. And they will find upon further enquiry, that every such measure is an elaborate “fake” from their point of view.

When that time comes they will see the reason for the existence of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, and will join it as the only party in England to-day translating its knowledge of the working-class position into consistent political action.

A. G.

Blogger's Note:

There's a strong possibility that 'A.G.' was another pen name for A. J. M. Gray. Gray had already reviewed a Keir Hardie pamphlet in the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard so, perhaps, the editors did not want to give the impression that the same handful of writers were overly represented in the pages of the Socialist Standard and decided to switch around the pen names. Just a thought. 

Books and Booklets. The Citizenship of Women (Keir Hardie) (1905)

Pamphlet Review from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Citizenship of Women—is the latest pamphlet from the pen of Mr. Keir Hardie, and within its covers are probably all the few arguments that can be adduced by the supporters of what is known as the Limited Franchise Bill for Women. Its chief value, however, lies in the fact that it emphasises the back-door and step-at-a-time (the smaller the better) methods which find favour in the sight of Mr. Hardie’s I.L.P. Thus :—

“Once women are admitted to citizenship and some women become voters, the male mind will insensibly accustom itself to the idea of women citizenship and the way be thus prepared for adult suffrage complete and unrestricted.”

The same writer recently gave it as his opinion that Socialism would probably come as a thief in the night, and it is not extraordinary to find the same argument being used in regard to an alleged step that was used in regard to the ultimate object of that step. But to the man who understands that the first postulate of Socialism is the existence of a class-conscious and well organised proletariat whose every step towards emancipation must be taken with eyes wide open, Mr. Hardie’s position is grotesque.

If Mr. Hardie and the I.L.P. hold that the only way for the workers lies in the unconscious absorption of these alleged preliminaries to Socialism, obviously their duty to themselves and to the workers is to ensure that the process shall be unconscious. Because clearly if the workers have their suspicions aroused by the clumsy administration of an overdose, they may on the one hand do themselves an irreparable injury by refusing to acquiesce in a measure designed to benefit them, and on the other, summarily and ignorantly, seal the fate of the I.L.P. that to-day trembles in the balances. Therefore the course Mr. Hardie should adopt in this matter of the enfranchisement of women, is to reduce the persons immediately affected by the measure to the lowest possible minimum. Let it embrace the wives of, say, dukes only, and let it be smuggled through if possible without fuss and under some other guise by someone who cannot be accused of sympathy with the working-class. Thus a commencement will have been made, and the principle, which is to have such beneficial and far-reaching effects upon working-class life and outlook, will have been conceded, and, before the male worker who, according to Mr. Hardie, “will not lightly or all at once part with the authority which has so long been his, and admit that the wife of his bosom is his political equal,” will have awakened to the fact that his authority has been weakened, his mind “will have accustomed itself to the idea of women citizenship and the way will have been, prepared for complete adult suffrage.”

Really one would think from a perusal of Mr. Hardie’s pamphlet that the extension of the franchise to women was a matter of the first importance. The fact is, of course, that to-day the working-class have sufficient political power to do pretty much as they like. Unfortunately they like to return the Liberal or Tory or bogey Labour man. The reason they like to do that is because they do not know how to use their power. And they have failed to understand largely because reformers, with the best of intentions maybe, have worked upon the untenable assumption that the average mind is not capable of taking a grip on the whole Socialist position and have so omitted to tell the whole truth. While the workers do not know the whole truth they cannot understand, and while the mental activity they can spare is harnessed to and expended upon, attempts at altogether ineffectual reforms, they never will.

The pamphlet is prefaced by a character sketch of the author by W. T. Stead.

A. J. M. Gray

Correspondence: Evolution and Revolution. (1905)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Correspondents MUST be brief.

Communications must be authenticated by name and address of writer and written on one side of the paper only.

The writers only are responsible for the views expressed.

Evolution and Revolution. 

Dear Comrade,—Ignoring Mr. T. A. Jackson’s opening remarks on my article, “Evolution and Revolution,” I will come at once to his first point.

He complains that in one place I use the word “revolution” in the sense of “destruction,” in other places as meaning “dissolution,” “sudden transition,” and “catastrophic change.” Quite right, I do; but, what is more surprising, Mr. Jackson himself runs me pretty close in so defining the word, for after giving a brief account of his experience he says : —

”The acquirement of the knowledge necessary to the apprehension of this fact and to a recognition of its importance was a long and gradual process, but the apprehension was a single and sudden mental occurence.”

If that does not mean a sudden transition, what does it mean ? A little further on your correspondent says :—

“From one point of view here was a continuous development; from another a destruction of one form and the substitution of something entirely different.”

Had Mr. Jackson proceeded much further he would doubtless have introduced the other definitions to which he appears to take exception—dissolution, and catastrophic change; the former, by the way, being one of the definitions of “destruction.”

As it is, however, the comrade has practically conceded all I asked in that direction. Revolution is a sudden transition from one form to another; it is destructive to the old, and stands as base to something entirely different. So far we agree. Now as to evolution.

In the article Mr. Jackson so ably criticised these words occur :—

“The change revolution produces may of course go on evolving, but we must not forget that revolution brought that particular phase of evolution into existence.”

Here is my meaning:—

Man, it is affirmed, has evolved from the ape, but he is not an ape. Socialism, as we understand it, has evolved from the capitalist system, but it is not the capitalist system. Therefore, I hold that Socialism is not evolution leading up to revolution, but revolution in the process of evolution; that is, revolution evolving to its final consummation.

The theory of Socialism being revolt against present institutions, it must of necessity be revolution in the making; in other words, evolving revolution. Being so, it must, while fostering its own development, regard all similar developments with more or less hostility, proving that revolution is antagonistic to all forms of evolution but its own.

Without that revolutionary principal in our midst, no revolution, as we now use the word, could occur. That is to say, left to evolve without the revolutionary force behind it, the capitalist system could not evolve up to a revolution, only in the sense of a change produced by the lapse of time. The two systems being antagonistic, one could never evolve directly from the other, any more than a young tiger could evolve into a gazelle.

I submit that Mr. Jackson mistakes the nature of the force governing his conversion. When he first began to take a live interest in Socialism, he was immediately in the throes of an intellectual revolution ; consequently, his evolution up to a full apprehension of what Socialism means had a revolutionary base, without the aid of which Mr. Jackson would never have been a Socialist.

Is it not evident that as Socialism is revolutionary, all Socialists must evolve from that revolutionary base ? From the point of view of their ideal they have cut off all connection with the present system; standing, as an embodiment of revolution, in direct hostility to that system. If this is not correct, how is it that the present system does not evolve every man into a Socialist ? It is apparent that men must grasp the revolutionary principle before they can evolve into Socialists.

The capitalist system is complete in itself. The theory of Socialism is complete in itself. Each is controlled by a distinct and hostile evolution. The one is established; the other seeks to take its place. Each constitutes a system in process of evolution ; the one evolves with preceding revolution as base, the other evolves upon its own base, and when the time is ripe, will step in as a complete and new revolution, so cutting off the further evolution of the old.

If these two forces are not antagonistic, I should like to know where we are to look for antagonism.

Should these conclusions be correct, there is nothing illogical in certain Socialists calling themselves “Evolutionary Socialists” in contradistinction to the Revolutionary. They are evolving Revolutionists, believing that they can apply their principle of revolution a “bit at a time,” so gradually bringing about the realization of their ideal.

In the extract which your correspondent gives from Karl Marx, it will be noted that the great economist discriminates between evolution and revolution.

The former, he observes, “takes place unconsciously, strictly according to the laws of natural science.” Of the latter he says, “Men fight out this conflict as a revolution, conscious of their opposing interests.”

Therefore, without the revolutionary principle you cannot get the proletariat class-conscious. Evolving with the present system, they can never become class-conscious in a Socialist sense. They must step across the borders where revolution awaits them.

Mr. Jackson, like many another, had a hard fight with his doubts and prejudices, but being conscious of this, he was, as I have said, from the very first in the throes of an intellectual revolution. His new ideas, the instruction he received, did not come to him directly from the present system, but from the revolutionary impulse at work within that system. The comparison enabled Mr. Jackson to choose; his sense of justice enabled him to choose rightly. That, I submit, is the secret of the mental process he describes.

But introspective reasoning is always defective, for the experiences of any two men rarely agree. For instance, the experience of a young man who from his infancy had been brought up as a Socialist, would be quite different to that of Mr. Jackson ; for where, in such a case, would come in “an evolution with a revolution as an integral phase phase” ?

Again, suppose a man who was formerly a Socialist were to change his political belief and join one of the present political parties, would Mr. Jackson call this a revolution ? I am inclined to think our friend would call that man a Reactionary, not a Revolutionist. A man must change from the orthodox to the revolutionary before he can be regarded as a Revolutionist. From this base he stands as an individual personification of Revolution, ready to play his part in putting a period to the further evolution of the thing to which he is opposed.

Therefore, a complete change of opinion, as such, does not constitute a revolution, as Mr. Jackson appears to argue.

I am not trying to score points against Mr. Jackson or anyone else, rny sole desire being to lessen the confusion apparently prevailing as to the “true value and relative application of the words evolution and revolution.”

I could say much more upon the subject, but noticing that you ask for brief communications I will close with a few words in reply to your correspondent, Filius Populi.

I am sorry to say I cannot dispute his statement that he is a “peregrinating paradox and several other things.” The truth of his sad admission is only too apparent. He wants to know what he is as a Socialist. A ghastly failure, I should say, for a man afflicted with such a decided kink in his cerebrum could scarely be a success. However, let him take courage: with study and persistent application he may presently begin to understand things.

He requests you to fix on a title that will explain his brand of Socialism clearly. If you decide to oblige him you have some tall thinking ahead. But as he pleads so pathetically for your help, I trust you will not withold it altogether. May I suggest, however, that you refrain on this occasion from calling a spade a spade. You might hurt friend Populi’s feelings. May I also suggest that you make your answer as elementary as possible.

—H. Philpott Wright.

______________

The accident of a call at the Editorial address coinciding with the receipt of Mr. P. Wright’s letter enables me to pen a line designed to appear in company with Mr. Wright’s latest contribution to the confusion of terms. I leave the task of straightening out Mr. Wright’s unhappy tangle to Jackson, moderately confident of his ability to deal with it expeditiously and effectively with no great mental exertion, and confine myself to pointing out with becoming humility, that Mr. Wright has shunted his responsibility in the matter of finding a name satisfactory to himself for the Socialist who is at once evolutionary, revolutionary, and involutionary in the definition I set upon the words, upon the shoulders of a long suffering editorial committee.

It was, of course, natural that Mr. Wright should endeavour in that way to unhook himself from the triple-horned dilemma upon which he so ably, howbeit unconsciously, transfixed himself, but I think he might have assisted the Editorial Committee with one of those scintillating inspirations that characterized his first letter and set the Party membership agog. We should then have again seen how far Mr. Wright can be wrong in his conception of what a Socialist should hold. I invite him most cheerfully to be quite ruthless of my feelings: they don’t matter. Let him call a spade a spade. It will be wonderful to hear him speak clearly, although I fear me he will get a hoe somehow woven into his definition. And then I will retire into my wonted obscurity with a full heart.

Filius Populi.

P.S. 

My conscience smites me. I fear I ought not to lure Mr. Wright into the position of a butt for derision. He didn’t know—how could he ?—that all Socialists are evolutionary, revolutionary, and involutionary to the extent suggested in my note. He didn’t know—how could he ?—that the “Dear Comrades” he fraternally addresses are “ghastly failures” to a man. Ah me! these intellectuals!—Fil.Pop. (not Philpott)

From Our Branches. (1905)

Party News from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Watford.

Last month we were, according to a certain “organ of Social-Democracy,” financially ruined for months to come. We had also been “effectually disposed of” by—of all the good and harmless persons in the world—Mrs. Jarvis! who, together with other champions of irreconcilable and uncompromising class consciousness (S.D.F. brand), did their little best to help return candidates in whose programmes the eye of Faith, peering through the most perfect of microscopical appliances, would have failed to discover a distinctive labour characteristic, and who appealed piteously for votes on the ground that they would look after “the best interests of all”! Yet we have quite cheerfully commenced to financially ruin ourselves some more by running a series of meetings in the Market Place on Sunday evenings, at which we shall be pleased to welcome S.D.F.’ers or what-not, and to make clear how well Mrs. Jarvis (or whoever was responsible) has succeeded in deluding the writer of the note referred to into believing (if indeed he did believe) that we were disposed of. Nothing, says the report of the S.D.F. oracle, was spoken but undiluted Social-Democracy, Thus:—

We want the children brought up with wills free and strong in the image of God.

Socialism means the abolition of idlers at both ends of the scale.

Socialism means a fair return to the workers for their labour.

Etc., etc., ad nauseum. Samples of diluted Social-Democracy would be interesting.

We took the opportunity the elections presented to distribute some thousands of a special pamphlet dealing with the local situation. Of course the wrath of our “labour leaders” was aroused, but they will doubtless recover. We are quite ready to justify our action on the public platform as they well know, and that is probably why they give our public platform a wide berth.

The Raunds strikers passed through this town twice. The “Labour” Party supplied tea the first visit. The Liberal Party did ditto the second. Effect—confusion worse confounded.

And there are so few of us to clear the issue and keep it clear. But we go forward doing all a few men may, knowing that the future is with us ; that we hold the key to the door through which the workers must pass to their emancipation. And it is well.—THE BRANCH.

Islington.

We have emerged from winter-quarters and initiated our 1905 open-air campaign. On May 7th we had an excellent meeting in Finsbury Park, with plenty of questions and opposition, 50 copies of the Party Organ sold and a good collection. A local supporter of Mr. Percy Alden, Liberal and Labour Candidate for Tottenham, challenged us to debate. We at once closed with the offer, and on Sunday, 14th, the encounter took place. An ex parte statement that we had the best of it may scarcely be a fair way of putting it, but at any rate the meeting was large, so was our collection, and again we sold 50 copies of our paper. On the following Wednesday we engaged the enemy at Highbury Corner, and forced the representatives of the local I.L.P. to accept a challenge to debate, which comes off on Wednesday, 24th May. This will afford us a good opportunity of exposing the pretensions of those who are trying to resuscitate the I.L.P. in Islington, and of exhibiting in their true colours the mar-eadh Socialists. In Islington, as in other parts of this country, those who call themselves Socialists can be divided into two classes, viz., those who believe in Socialism and those who don’t. It is our business to get those who believe in Socialism to join the S.P.G.B. and to keep those who don’t outside until they learn something of the science of working-class politics. At Highbury Corner two men came forward to join our party. On Sunday, 21st May, we were again in evidence in the Park where we held a large audience for two hours. One new member handed in his name, 50 copies of our Organ sold, and a good collection taken up. It is only fair to mention that no other organisation claiming to be Socialist has held an audience in Finsbury Park for the last three Sundays, although they have held meetings. We don’t mind this in the least. Soon the workers on Islington’s heights will realise that the S.P.G.B. is the only party of the workers. Saoghal fada dho !—CONCHUBHAU.

Romford Division.

We congratulated ourselves upon the result of our first Sunday morning meeting this season, but our success was also our undoing. We had a large audience, sold over two dozen Standards, and had many questions and some teetotal opposition. But the police discovered that the meeting was a danger to the electric trams, or that the trams were a danger to the meeting, or something to that effect, and when we again essayed to hold a meeting in Ilford Broadway on the following Monday evening, the “force” prohibited it, and we were perforce compelled to seek a fresh location. But we shall make a good station of this by sticking to it and not disappointing our audiences. There is no question about the interest displayed by the public in our position. It is to them a welcome change from the attempts to confuse Socialism with Christianity and the perpetual glorification of municipal profit-mongering to which the speakers of a local “Socialist” body mainly devote themselves, what time they are not supporting Liberals for municipal elections. We have held meetings in Romford and Barking, and hope in the latter town to revive that revolutionary spirit which the confusing tactics of the S.D.F. turned Labour Fakir politicians have almost crushed out. At the last General Election the S.D.F. supported the Liberal candidate in this division, but we have made it quite clear that we shall oppose them all. We are not of those who advise the working-class to vote for their class and then blame them for the result.

TEAR’EM

West Ham.

Enthusiasm is working wonders in West Ham. We are having good and attentive audiences, both here and in East Ham, in the former case drawn chiefly from those to whom it is necessary to break the news very gently that they also are of the working-class, but so far we have had no fatality. The worst of messing about with ink, worrying over details of profit and loss, and looking like bosses is that it leads to so many cases of mistaken identity. Many are wroth to find that the profits are somebody else’s while the losses are theirs. The local “squints” continue to shape their course by the rule of “don’t let ’em see any red, Sir !” but there are signs of mistrust of those who see round corners. Especially is this the case in East Ham, where we hope to establish a branch almost immediately.—A. E. Jacomb.

Answers to correspondents. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

H. Te Dee—The article printed in this issue over the name of F. C. Watts should dispose of your difficulties.

J. C. R. (Soham).—Many thanks for extract and circulars. If our comments on the latter are not justified, our columns are open. Audi alteram partem.

Acknowledgments.—Articles from E. J. B. Allen, H. Davey and J. H. Kennett. Exchange List. “The Socialist Voice” (Oakland, California).

SPGB Outdoor Meetings. (1905)

Party News from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voice From The Back: Hard Times (2007)

The Voice From The Back Column from the July 2007 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hard Times 

Capitalism treats everything as a business. The Thomas Deacon Academy in Peterborough is a good example. Chief executive of the new ú46 million academy Alan McMurdo makes his aims plain. He will have no playground and insists that the school will be a business concern. “Dr McMurdo … says that he wants to run his school like a business, treating pupils as employees. Lunch will be incorporated into the third lesson of the day, when students will be escorted to the refectory and given 30 minutes to eat before returning directly to the classroom. … ‘It’s all about the investment of public money,’ he said.” (Times, 14 May) Charles Dickens’s tyrannical school teacher Gradgrind looks positively benevolent compared to McMurdo.

Moral Majority nonsense

The death of Jerry Falwell, the founder of Moral Majority Inc. marks the end of an obnoxious combination of rightwing politics, homophobia, racialism and US nationalism. In the 1980s he had a 21 million TV viewing audience and a church that was enjoying an income of £45 million a year. “While MMI was avowedly bipartisan, he claimed that Democrats were a ‘dangerous minority of homosexuals, feminists, socialists and freezeniks’. He said that anyone who was anti-Israel was anti-God, but later added that the Antichrist was Jewish, and that Jews, like Roman Catholics, had no place in heaven.” (Times, 16 May) His life is a sad commentary on the gullibility of many American workers. Eventually his MMI ended in financial bankruptcy to match its intellectual bankruptcy.

USA, fantasy and reality 

“At least 10 of the Republicans and Democrats hoping to run for U.S. president in the November 2008 election are millionaires, The Washington Post reported on Thursday. Collectively, the candidates are worth at least a quarter of a billion dollars, the newspaper said. Republican Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and founder of a private equity firm, is the richest of the field with personal assets estimated by his campaign at $190 million to $250 million, the Post reported. …The Post noted a long history of the very wealthy becoming president, from Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.” (Yahoo News, 17, May) So much for the fantasy of “log cabin to White House”.

Merchants of Death

“The Government’s pledge ten years ago to act ethically and openly when licensing arms export sales has failed to eradicate corruption or stop weapons ending up in the wrong hands, a report says today.” (Times, 21 May) The report The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: a Decade of Labour’s Arms Exports is produced by Saferworld and reports that Britain has consistently approved military exports to countries accused of violating human rights, including Colombia and Indonesia. They make peaceful electoral promises, but in power – business is business.

Let them suffer

“Sick children who have been taking part in trials for a drug that has transformed their lives now face the prospect of being denied the treatment because of NHS cost-cutting. Doctors have condemned the NHS for inflicting misery on children who have the painful rare blood disorder sickle cell anaemia. Some children have gone from the agonising routine of having their parents insert a needle into their stomach for eight to 12 hours a night at least five nights a week, to taking two Exjade tablets daily. The drug cleanses their blood of life-threatening excess iron – a side effect of the frequent blood transfusions needed to treat the disease.” (Observer, 3 June) 10,000 people in the UK suffer from this condition, so why the delay in supplying this drug? It costs £10,000-£15,000 for a year’s supply for a sufferer. Need any other explanation?

Capitalism distorts science 

Two separate items from the same day’s newspaper illustrate the harshness of capitalism. “Several men were arrested in an organ-smuggling inquiry in Jordan for allegedly luring poor people to sell their kidneys. More than 80 cases have been uncovered in recent months. Each kidney can sell for up to $2,000 (£1,000).” (Times, 5 June)

“Clinical trials that compare two similar drugs are significantly more likely to favour the one made by the company that pays for the work, according to a study that sheds new light on bias in medical research. …The work, by a team led by Lisa Bero, Professor of Clinical Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, raises fresh concern about the influence of pharmaceutical companies over research.” (Times, 5 June)

Growing old disgracefully 

The journalist Mary Riddell paints a dire picture of what it is like to be old when you are poor. “Some of the 31,000 pensioners who died of cold-related illnesses in the last five winters would still be alive, but for enforced frugality. … In its Spotlight survey out this week Help the Aged will present a disturbing picture of worsening old age. According to its findings, 144,000 people never leave their homes, 21 per cent live in poverty and more than one in 10 is chronically lonely, a figure up significantly in the past year; 73 per cent of adults say older people face routine discrimination.” (Observer, 10 June) After a lifetime of work and exploitation, this is the fate of many workers inside capitalism.