Tuesday, June 16, 2020

What Is Lacking. (1918)

Editorial from the October 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Both at the Trades Union Congress and the Inter-Allied Conference the question of the war and its aims was discussed by the representatives of the workers organised in trade unions.

While the Defence of the Realm Act prevented a full and free discussion on the question, yet the debates, so far as published reports give us any information, were conducted on a level that showed a complete failure on the part of the delegates to grasp the actual situation of the working class in modern society, with the result that resolutions were accepted and passed that did not contain a single sentence voicing the real interests of the workers, or giving any clear guide for them to follow.

Thus at the Trade Union Congress Mr. Havelock Wilson led a small group in favour of the "Knockout blow" who are willing to shed the last drop of somebody else's blood to beat the Germans.

Colonel W. Thorne and Mr. B. Tillett were the spokesmen of a section who desire a "fight to the finish with Prussian Militarism"—in the meantime doing all they can to extend British Militarism.

Mr. J. H. Thomas and Mr. B. Turner carried the banner of the Party out for "Peace by Negotiation" —after the Germans are out of France and Belgium.

The two latter sections agreed upon a composite resolution, containing things neither side wanted, that Colonel Thorne in seconding said "was a great mistake." Mr. Wilson opposed it because no reference was made to Russia. In other words, he wishes the war to continue till the Allies can "annex" Russia as well as beat the Germans. His jibe against Thomas & Co. for "sitting on the fence" fell flat, as the other side sat there as well, and both Thorne and Tillett went to considerable lengths to explain how strongly they were in favour of peace. Minister G. H. Roberts pleaded for a unanimous vote for the resolution, pointing out that as it deferred "negotiations" till the Germans were out of France and Belgium, this obviously meant that Germany would have to be defeated before negotiations could begin. He then called upon the "negotiators" to state how they were going to give effect to their own resolution and assist in driving the Germans out of those two countries.

Now it was distinctly unkind to Mr. Wilson that the resolution should have been carried by a large majority. A large majority of the delegates had attended the free Lunch, with liberal supplies of champagne, that he had done so much in organising, and yet they failed to support him in open Congress.

The "Boycott" resolution met with a similar fate. A delegate of another seaman's union—Cotter, of the Ships' Stewards—stated his belief that Wilson's motive was a political, and not a sympathetic one. Robert Smillie pointed out that others besides Germans murdered British seamen and referred to Plimsoll's charge of "coffin ships," and Thomas gave an unkind cut by quoting from Wilson's own speech at the Conference of Firemen and Seamen held shortly after the sinking of the "Lusitania," where Wilson had opposed a similar resolution on the ground that the boycott would result in the replacement of British sailors by Germans after the war.

The resolution was shelved by the carrying the "Previous Question."

At the Inter-Allied Labour Conference a resolution was presented stating, among other things that the Conference recognizes :—
  "In this world war a conflict between autocratic and democratic institutions, the contest between the principles of self-development through free institutions and that of arbitrary control of government by groups or individuals for selfish ends. —"Daily Telegraph," Sept 9th, 1918.
The stock phrases of the Liberals here and the Democrats in America about "democratic institutions" is sheer cant. What are "democratic institutions"? We are not told. Now, if the phrase means anything, it surely is intended to convey that the majority of the people rule in society. Yet both in Britain and America millions of men have been forced into armies and navies to slaughter their fellow-workers by these ''democratic'' governments without the people being consulted in any way. Nay, more—the powers of D.O.R.A. and other Arts have been used to prevent any expression of opinion these governments did not wish to be spread over the country to a degree and in a manner quite equal in severity to that used by any "autocratic" government.

Mr. Kneeshaw, of the I.L.P., protested against the resolution, and stated that 
"the secret treaties of the Allied Governments made it clear that the purposes of the Allied Governments is the same as the Governments of the Central Powers,"—"Daily Telegraph," Sept. 21, 1918.
Will Mr. Kneeshaw, then, explain why he remains a member of an organisation whose M.P.'s have in some cases accepted jobs from the Government, and in all cases have voted for the war credits?

Kneeshaw's remarks, of course, drew forth protests from the supporters of the government like Sidney Webb, J. Sexton, and J. H. Thomas, the latter describing it as "a most unfortunate speech." Like his fellow-countryman Lloyd George, Mr. Thomas delights in trotting out old lies with an impressive air, as when he claimed to meet Kneeshaw's statement with "one cold hard fact," namely, that the British nation were not ready for war. By "British nation" Mr. Thomas, of course, means the "British Government," and that they were ready is proved by the fact that the British Navy bottled up the German Fleet and swept German commerce from the seas far more rapidly and much more effectively than the German army was able to progress in the warfare on land.

The great fact standing out in these conferences, and the resolutions passed, is the utter darkness in which the organised workers are groping about, a darkness due to their ignorance of their own place in society. Through the scores of years that the workers have been organising on the economic field to debate the price and conditions of the sale of their labour-power, despite the desperate struggles they have fought and the forces they have seen the masters use against them, they have clung to the stupid superstition that the real interests of the masters and the workers are the same, that it is only the "bad" masters who are responsible for the rotten conditions under which the workers live, and that if only all the masters became "good masters" and were satisfied with a "fair" profit, the world would be a haven of happiness for all.

It is this appalling ignorance, so carefully fostered and perpetuated by the agents of the master class in Press, pulpit, and on platform, that allows the master-class to continue their savage domination.

The workers must first study their own position in the modern world ; must ask themselves why, with powers of production growing at an enormous rate, with the workers slaving harder than ever, with women and children swept into the whirlpool of capitalist industry, their actual situation grows steadily worse, while the insecurity of life becomes more pronounced than ever. 

Right at their own door will they find the answer. When a worker goes to work it is always for somebody else. Why ? Because he cannot obtain the raw material, cannot use the machinery, cannot carry out the processes or move the finished articles without the permission of someone else. When the worker looks around he can see the fact existing in every branch of production and distribution. The general situation thus revealed is that in society the section who perform all the work— useful or other—are shut out from any control of the means of producing wealth, that is, from the means of living itself. The other section, performing no necessary function in society, own and control these means of life. But if one section in society owns the means of life, the other section must necessarily be slaves to those owners.

And this is exactly the great essential fact the organised workers have failed to grasp. Once they do understand it the superstition of common interest between master and slave will be dropped, and taking its place will be the recognition of the fundamental and unbridgeable antagonism between the two classes while capitalism lasts. Then will the organised workers start to fight the master class in earnest and build their organisation upon a class basis instead of splitting up into crafts, industries, or any other anti-working-class division. Understanding also that the masters' centre of power rests in their control of the political machine, they will enter the ranks of the Socialist Party for the purpose of capturing political power from the masters and establishing Socialism in the place of slavery.

Our £1,000 Fund Progresses. (1918)

Party News from the October 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our £1,000 Fund progresses very slowly. The following list of subscriptions was unavoidably crowded out of our last issue, and last month's list has not arrived in time for insertion in this issue. Now, comrades and fellow-members of the working-class, to attain our object, viz,. £1,000 by the end of the year, or before, you must do better than this. With the general election looming in the distance, £1,000 won't bring us very far along the road towards the object we have in view.

Important Notice.

Here's an item for you to make a note of—and don't forget it.

A dance will be held in the Devonshire Hall, Devonshire Road, Mare Street, Hackney on Sunday, 20th October. Commence at 6.30, doors open at 7 o.c. Proceeds to go to the £1,000 Fund.

Society and Morals. (1918)

From the October 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part IX.

Part X. —Morals and Socialism.

The relation of ethics to Socialism may be considered under two main aspects which correspond with the two-fold nature of Socialist activity; on the one hand its character as a comprehensive theory of social evolution, and, on the other, its practical aspect as a working class revolutionary movement. In other words, we have to consider the place occupied in the Marxian theoretic system by morals in general, and also the nature of the moral obligations, imposed upon Socialists, by their revolutionary principles.

The Materialist Conception of Ethics.

We have already, in the course of these essays, outlined the Socialist theory of the evolution of morals. Little further, therefore, on this head need be said here. Nevertheless, it is desirable to emphasise again the distinction which exists between the Socialist and the orthodox conceptions of morality.

In this historical sketch we have considered principally those ethical ideas which were really observed and those which sanctioned the social conditions existing and the modes of conduct actually practised by masses of men in each social epoch. This method of treating the subject, however, does not suit those whose view of history is idealistic. To them morality is the cause, not the result, of social conditions. This position is very common indeed. The Socialist is, for instance, frequently informed that, to achieve his aim, he must first "moralise the people," make them all "loving brothers," and so on. Very often, indeed, he is told that the Socialist aim is impossible because such "moral perfection," as it presupposes, is incompatible with human nature. In this way also has arisen the absurd misconception that Socialism is a scheme for reforming the morality of individuals in the direction of altruism, with a view to establishing a perfect system of society. Most of the so-called "Christian" Socialists take up this attitude, and by so doing proclaim themselves in reality anti-Socialists.

The generally accepted non-scientific conception of morality and immorality regards these as not in any direct way connected with social utility or material interests, but simply as the conforming to or deviation of conduct from certain "principles" which are independent of forms of society, common to all periods of history; of universal application and unalterable. Briefly, morality is considered not as a relative thing dependent upon certain temporary conditions, but as something absolute and eternal. "Truth," "Liberty," "Brotherhood"' and "Justice" are some of the abstract principles in question.

A study of history, however, demonstrates that, although several of these conceptions are themselves very persistent and of great antiquity, the actual concrete expression of them, the real meaning attached to the terms has varied according to the changes in social needs. Thus, amongst the rudest barbarians, "brotherhood" has a very real significance, but one vastly different, in many respects, from its modern meaning. It denoted loyalty to the tribe (a very small community judged by modern standards), reverence for the tribal gods and ancestors, as well as strict observance of the customs of the tribe, both social and religious. Its practice, moreover, entailed antagonism, and often absolute ferocity, towards those outside the community.

So with the bourgeois conception of "freedom" which, on its positive side, meant freedom of production, of trade, of emigration, of property rights and of exploitation, and on its negative, the abolition of patriarchal and feudal ties and obligations.

Owing to his conviction, based upon an understanding of social evolution, that moral systems are generated by, and can only be explained in relation to, social institutions, the Socialist cannot agree with those "advanced ethicists" who, accepting a standard of so-called ''humanitarian" ethics, condemn all things, past and present, which cause or have caused pain or misery. These people ignore the findings of biologic and social science. To condemn cannibalism, torture, robbery, slavery, war, et off-hand without regard for the conditions which gave rise to them is, the Socialist sees, as foolish it is futile. These practices have all been inevitable and relatively useful in their time and place, and so long as these conditions were maintained they were moral. They gradually came to be regard as immoral only after the circumstances which necessitated them had passed away and such habits had become inadapted to the ways of living and institutions newly evolved.

Morality and Revolutions.

Although it is true that conceptions of justice and injustice, good and evil, have never formed the basis of revolutions, which is always to be found that external world from which the ideas underlying revolutionary activity are mainly drawn, yet moral notions have certainly been powerful factors in the concentration of that class power which enacted the fiat of economic development. While the time, place and character of the revolutionary current was always determined by objective economic conditions, it was through the effect of these conditions upon the perceptions of men, rousing the emotion impulses which promoted them to action that the social revolution was transferred from the potential to the actual.

But in the past, revolutionary convictions have at the best been based upon only a superficial knowledge of economic circumstances and the social requirements. Consequently much energy was wasted and its efficiency impaired by hopeless strivings after ideals which were impossible of realization. Over-reaching the practicable the movements were rudely checked and dragged back by the hard facts of economic reality.

The Socialist movement, however, lives in the "age of Science," and, to this extent, has an enormous advantage over its predecessors. Firstly, the Socialist movement must be disciplined by sound knowledge; given this, the greater the feeling put into it the better; in the absence of scientific principles, however, the success of the movement will be gravely imperilled. Nevertheless, it is certain that the power of the movement and, therefore, its capacity to attain its end, will in large measure be determined by the degree to which it develops among its adherents a consistent moral code, based upon Marxian principles, and into which is infused those powerful impulses—the social instincts.

The Practice of Social Morality.

It will be evident from what has been said before that the Socialist's opposition to the bourgeois and the capitalistic system for which they stand, by no means springs simply from a recognition of the misery, slavery and degradation which capitalism entails, though being human and not mere automata of logic, Socialists are naturally strongly influenced by such facts. They know, however, that capitalism has been a necessary and useful stage in the evolution of human society. It is because the system is neither of these to-day, because it can be shown that the functioning of wealth as capital is now a hindrance to economic and therefore social and intellectual progress, that the Socialist regards capitalism as an obsolete and evil institution.

If the Socialist holds exploitation and class oppression to be morally wrong, it is because, for the first time in history since the formation of class divisions away in the remote past, the material means are now available wherewith these, together with all their consequences, may be eliminated from human institutions. It is because this latest existing phase of class society, capitalism, is the great obstacle, holding mankind back, so to speak, on the very threshold of a new and splendid era manifesting untold developments in the material, social and mental triumphs of the race, that the Socialist holds this system and all the agencies which uphold or tend to perpetuate it, in hatred and abomination. The Socialist guides his own conduct according to this principle, abstaining from all actions, except such as are unavoidable, which in any way support the capitalist system, and he judges the behaviour fellow Socialists by the same standard.

But, above almost all else, the Socialist ethic is proletarian. The welfare of the working-class is the concern of every Socialist—their interests are his interests. Every effort of the workers to resist the predatory profit-hunger of the capitalists, and their strivings towards greater economic security, has his sympathy and support. For all that, the Socialist does not fail to criticise the ideas, organisations and activities of his class whenever he considers it necessary, for he sees that only too often these are based upon bourgeois conceptions, and betray an almost complete ignorance of social science, the structure of capitalism, and the facts the class-struggle.

This ignorance of the bulk of the workers regarding social matters is the greatest barrier in the way of their emancipation, and to assist in its dissipation the Socialist considers his first and most important duty. Among the workers be strives to undermine those bourgeois ''virtues" humility and reverence for constituted authority and tradition—by preaching self-assertion, independence of thought, and irreverence for tradition and the "powers that be." He sees the paralysing effect of apathetic contentment upon the minds of the proletarians, and endeavours to instil among them that slave virtue, discontent — discontent with slavery, with exploitation, and with poverty, with every social evil it can be proved possible to abolish. Against the beguiling ethic of "universal goodwill" and "brotherhood," the Socialist urges upon the working-class, suspicion, opposition, and hatred for their inveterate enemies the capitalist-class.

Incessant educational work, spreading amongst workers a knowledge of social development and the economic basis of capitalism, is the pressing need of the moment. This work of agitation the Socialist regards as an imperative duty. It is, moreover, his duty to make himself a fit propagandist. His code of morals embodies and insists upon the necessity of study and self-education, wherever possible. A Socialist who neglects to do this is hardly worthy of the name.
R. W. Housley

(To be Continued.)

By The Way. (1918)

The By The Way column from the October 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the last four years of what is termed the "war to make the world safe for democracy," we have been presented with many "keys to victory." All those that have gone before have somehow failed to achieve the desired object, but now this latest "key" is really "it,'' for no less a personage than Marshal Foch hath spoken the word. "Coal is the key to victory." 

* * *

Now, as the days are getting shorter, and likewise the atmosphere much cooler, coal is an interesting subject. I pray thee, therefore, tarry awhile with me. In times past we have been regaled by yellow Press journalises shouting in their Press that the mines were full of ''slackers" (what a horrid joke to suggest that "slackers" would rush after such tedious and dangerous work) and "comb them all out,", and so forth. And so it came to pass in April, after the Allies' reverse, that our "great business government," assisted by all the "great business men" of the country, forthwith proceeded to put the before mentioned "comb" in action. It may be noted here that earlier in the year the coal mining industry had been called upon by Sir Auckland Geddes to provide 50,000 men. Then the oracle from Wales cum Manchester added that—

"The military needs will necessitate the calling up of another 50,000 men from this industry. We are convinced, after entering into the matter very carefully, that these men can be spared without endangering the essential output of coal for our national industries."—"Daily Chronicle," September 10th, 1918.

It is the same old story of muddle and hustle over again. The experience of the past with regard to the engineers, shipbuilders, munition workers, agricultural workers, and others has not yet taught our "business" government the lesson and the folly of their "all-into-the-Army" campaign.

* * *

The announcements of all the belligerents concerning their air raids are couched in similar terms, and with wearying monotony they inform all and sundry that the "objectives" were reached. Strange indeed, is it not, that the following paragraph should find a place in a paper a short time ago.
"It is rather curious that while the German official communiques are busy belittling the effect of the air raids on the Rhineland, the German illustrated papers should be allowed to undo the good work by publishing pictures showing the havoc wrought by the bombs. One of them depicts the wreck of the Provinzial Museum at Treves. It certainly looks as much a ruin as some of the ancient relics in the town." "Daily News," 28.8.1918.
This achievement can hardly be termed a military objective or a railway junction. To put it mildly it would approximate to vandalism.

* * *

The new cinematograph film of Lloyd George should surely be called "Through Terror to
 Triumph." A part of it will depict this gentleman as an "objector" to war and military service fighting for liberty during the Boer War, and how he escaped from the Birmingham Town Hall through a surging mob of patriots who were threatening his destruction (some terror, this!), then how he triumphed disguised as a policeman. Yes, audacity wins !

* * *

We have time and time again called attention to the parsimony of the ruling class in their treatment of the discharged ''heroes" of the war, as likewise their callous indifference to the used-up and discarded wage-slave. While we have conscription of men's lives, voluntary subscriptions, or what is termed in the vernacular as passing the hat round, are good enough to meet the claims of those who have been battered and bruised in the masters' service.

There is now established an old boots and clothes depot to equip these saviours of the empire ere they return to the home battle-front—the office or the factory. The announcement informs me that
   "Y.M.C.A. National Council appeals for clothes or boots for men discharged from the services who are seeking employment. When the men are discharged they are provided with a suit of mufti, or given a sum in cash, by the War Office. Frequently, however, the first suit is worn out, and many then applying to the Y.M.C.A. for work or help cannot start on new employment, even when it has been found, because of their shabby appearance. The Y.M.C.A. re-equips such men, and they are able to face life with renewed hope.
Those who cannot send clothing are invited to send donations. For 6s. a very serviceable pair of repaired old army boots can be bought. Dress suits are required for men anxious to become waiters, but all kinds of clothes will be welcome." "Daily News," August 34th, 1918.
Almost at the same time John Hodge, the Minister of Pensions, launches his cadging appeal for helping discharged and disabled sailors and soldiers. The fund is to be "the symbol of a nation's gratitude." And we are informed that "no system of State aid could ever meet the varying requirements of thousands of disabled officers and men." Think of it, ye valiant warriors, your needs are to be met by an appeal to the alms-giving public, for "no system of State aid could ever meet the varying requirements." By a stroke of the pen Dora's help can be invoked when the interest of the ruling class is threatened, but not so when it should be a case of generous treatment of those who have "offered all in the fight for honour, home and liberty." The State can find money and pour it forth like water when death-dealing instruments and the other paraphernalia of war are required : the restoration to health, the training of the blind, and kindred matters can be left to haphazard Charity. Think it over!

* * *

It is a treat these days to read the speeches of those red-herring merchants, the Labour ministers. Just recently Mr. G. H. Roberts was speaking on reconstruction after the war, and he went on to say that 
"we shall not tolerate any haphazard dealings with the problem of reconstruction. I should prefer to retain these splendid fellows in the army much longer than they themselves think necessary rather than they should be released in a haphazard fashion simply to swell the ranks of the unemployed. We are going to release these men only when we have a reasonable assurance that industry is capable of absorbing them and that they can be permanently resettled in civil life." (Daily News, 9.9.1918.) 
Now this in itself is a tall order, for signs are not wanting already that industry is not yet capable of absorbing these "splendid fellows." In case there should be any doubting Thomas's, let me here interpose an observation of John Hodge, another Labour minister, who is advocating "compulsion" for what he terms "skunk employers." He says: 
"The employer with a big heart and mind would willingly take back all the men he had promised to find jobs for, but the mean man, who was always after money, would shirk his responsibility. He thought, therefore, that for the protection of the good employer it was necessary that the 'skunk' be compelled to toe the line and do his duty." (Daily News, 27.8.1918) 
Presumably, therefore, I imagine that at this moment there are a number of men who have not yet been "permanently resettled in civil life."

In the same speech of friend Roberts there is another interesting item, namely, "that employment should be given by preference to the married as against the single men, and to tbe volunteers as against conscripts." So there you are, my lads, when you go to some other "lordly fellow worm" and ask his leave to toil, a kind of shorter catechism will take place, when the "superior" one will ask: "What did you do in the great war, sonny ?" The applicant might afterwards ask such a one what HE did ? and whether he fought and bled, or only held the other fellow's coat while he got on with the business. A very pertinent question this. Why not?

* * *

There seems to be no ending to the tosh trotted out by these Jacks-in-office. This brainy one from Norwich is perturbed about the horrors of the class war. He says:
 "There are some who want to get rid of this military war in order to embark on what they designate as a class war.
 If military war is simply to give way to class war or industrial strife, our recovery from this war will be rendered almost impossible, and it will affect not one class of the whole community, but particularly the working class."
Does Mr. Roberts mean to suggest that he is not aware that inside society as at present constituted there are two classes, namely, a capitalist or master class who owns the means of wealth production; and a working class who operate those tools of production by whose labour alone wealth is produced? That, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle. Despite the fact that Mr. Roberts puts the telescope to the blind eye and exclaims that he does not see these two opposing forces, the truth is that his paymasters realise them. Why the sudden appeal, late in the day, by a section of the master class to their friends for a more "humane treatment" of their wage-slaves, "better houses" for them to live in, and an opportunity for a "fuller life"? These are signs of an awakening of the working class and the desire of the master class to stave off the day of reckoning a little longer by disgorging a portion of their ill-gotten gains.
The Scout.

Prussianism Flourishes. (1918)

From the October 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

How The Home Culture Progresses.

Everyone is by now familiar with the old gags about "making the world safe for democracy," "crushing Prussian militarism," etc. What some people are wondering is, why, if it is necessary to destroy "Prussianism," it should be considered necessary to emulate it in every particular ? If "Prussianism" is the enemy, why has our ruling class such a profound respect for it that they are eager to adopt it ? Where is the consistency ?

It is here. "Prussianism" is necessary to the existence of the capitalist class all over the world. It exists wherever capital operates. It varies only in degree according to the exigencies of capitalist development. In some countries it is veiled under various cloaks, in others it stands "naked and unashamed." We are asked to believe that this war will end war for ever, that henceforth nations will live in harmony, and the fullest liberty will have a foremost place in the lives of the people. 

Let no one believe it. Prussianism is not dead. It is not intended that it should die, for it is one of capitalism's greatest assets. Not only will there not be "freedom for the masses," but the chains will be rivetted still firmer. There is now, and will be, a condition of brutalising slavery the like of which the world has never seen. Groups of capitalists are fighting for their existence. Millions of men, women and children, who do not understand what it is all about, are ruthlessly grabbed and sent to their death, or thrust into degrading toil, all to one end—that the master class shall preserve possession of the wealth stolen from their victims, and at the same time secure larger areas of exploitation. 

As these areas are strictly limited to the planet Earth, it means that if one particular group "wins," it is at the expense of another group. Each group wants to be paramount, hence the interminable length of the conflict. It need not be assumed that they hate each other. Their rivalry is purely commercial and is actuated solely by greed. In any case their lives are not endangered. On many points they are in common agreement. Two of the most important are—the existence of a docile working class to be exploited, and a system of force. Both are necessary to their existence as a ruling class. If they can beat each other in the struggle for markets well and good. But as for one group abolishing the system of another whilst retaining the same system themselves— their economic interests would not permit it.

This brings me to the proof that "Prussianism" will not only not be abolished, but will be extended. Preparations are being made in this country now. The latest device is intended to turn children into soldiers, and this principle is to be adopted in the schools. Opportunities will be provided under the new Education Bill of Mr. H. Fisher. Clause 8 (5) provides that the local educational authority may direct any child to attend any class, whether on the school premises or not, for the purpose of practical or special instructton or demonstration. It is also ordained that all young persons (i.e., up to eighteen) shall attend continuation schools under very heavy penalties, and the local education authority may require the young person, beyond his attendance at the school, to attend "for such other specified part of the day not exceeding two hours, as the authority consider necessary, in order that he may be in a fit mental and bodily condition to receive full benefit from attendance at the school." The use that will be made of these opportunities by the local authorities can be seen from the following extracts from a handbook "Elements of Military Education" issued from the County of Leicester Education Office :
  "Bayonet practice. This may be carried out as a physical drill; without bayonet fixed.",
"Trench practice. (c) In the second trench the sack is lying on the far side, as if a man were crawling out. Leap the trench and make a point. (e) Sack lying on ground (wounded man ready to jab upwards). Quick point, (f) Into final trench. Drop butt to ground and seize bayonet to stick into throat at close quarters."
Commenting on the danger which the introduction of the new Bill engenders "The Nation," a bourgeois journal, says : 
"Teach military discipline under compulsion in English schools, and in two generations you will have produced in England all that we have most detested and ridiculed in the German life and character. You will have produced the worship of uniform, the swaggering officer, the bullying official, the petty regulation, the perpetual inquisition, the government by police, the multitude prone in passive submission. To those conditions our own militarists and bureaucrats are even now bringing us so near that already we are chilled by the breath of that 'cold-hearted monster the State.' "
This is the programme, and the Versailles Conference have set their seal upon it. They are going to "make the world safe"—for capitalism.