Editorial: The Food of the People. (1906)

Editorial from the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Food of the People.

Let the people eat grass, said the representative of the governing class in reply to the clamour of a hungry populace in the days that preceded the French Revolution; and let the people eat the poisonous products of Packingtown say that portion of the capitalist governing class of to-day engaged in drawing their profits from that nauseating undertaking. And from the point of view of capitalism, why not ? If diseased flesh, decaying offal, and excrementitious matter can be dosed with essences to change its taste and chemicals to stay the process of decomposition and after passing through embalming machinery appear upon epicurean tables as ham, chicken and tongue, or other delectable comestible, and upon the scanty board of the hungry as corned beef or what not; and if this can be done without inducing nausea in those who eat and without coroners’ verdicts of death from ptomaine or other poisoning being too closely associated with the “food”-stuff; and if, above all, it can be done at a good fat profit—why not, indeed ? Why cant of the “moral” aspect and blether of the anti-Social rapacity of the vendors of such filth? Are they more anti-social or immoral than the God-fearing capitalist who locks out his men for refusing to submit to his terms, or shuts down his factory or mine when, through the arduous toil of his “hands” a surplus has accumulated which he can then proceed to work off at enhanced prices ? He doesn’t care greatly whether the men thrown out of employment starve to death. It isn’t expected of him. He is quite within his right in the action he takes. “The law allows it, the court awards it.” If the unemployed refuse to die quietly, he is quite justified in shooting them into eternity. He is even applauded for his “strong” action in protecting property and maintaining order. The embalmer of “beef,” or filth, as the case may be—or rather the capitalist director of that “industry”—is just as indifferent to the fate of the purchaser as his kind order-loving fellow capitalist is to the fate of his discharged hand. Yet a mighty roar of indignation goes up when we get a sensational disclosure of the “food” embalmers’ method and the name of Armour is anathema; while the only roar that goes up at the Featherstone disclosures is one of congratulation and the name of Masham is honoured in the land.

Capitalist Cant.

The only apparent reason for this divergence of opinion is that the probable purchasers of “canned delicacies” are to some extent members of the capitalist class themselves and their esprit de corps is not equal to the strain of a possible painful death even in the noble cause of unlimited profits. It is fairly certain that if it had been merely a question of the revolting conditions under which the workers of Packingtown were forced to exist, the stir would have been barely sufficient to perceptibly disturb the social placidity. That at any rate has been the invariable effect of other disclosures of working-class hardships and unhappiness in the process of production. They can be poisoned by lead or pork, killed by starvation or bullets, cremated, suffocated or drowned in mines, worked under revolting conditions in Chicago or Cradley or Whitechapel or the Potteries. That is of no great consequence. But let the suspicion get abroad that the capitalist goes in danger of his life from poisoned food out of Chicago or of disease-infested clothing out of Whitechapel and the Social “conscience” is immediately aroused, the “soul” of Society is stirred to its deepest depths, and we are in the throes of a great popular agitation assiduously fostered by Press and Pulpit, for something to be done to end such immoral rapacity.

The Chicago disclosures simply go to show that adulteration is still regarded by the capitalist class as it was by that “Christ-like” political pet of Nonconformity and Liberalism, John Bright, as a legitimate form of competition. The keener the competition the greater the adulteration. And when competition finds its inevitable end in monopoly what more natural than that the methods which have accompanied its evolution should remain to assist in the creation of greater profits. “Morality” has nothing to do with it. The question of profits is the only thing that matters to capitalism—that and a tender regard for longevity. While commodities are produced for profit there will always he adulteration and unemployment and sweating and misery and poverty. They all spring from the same source in the private ownership of the means of living and although it may occur that some of the more revolting and dangerous of that private ownership may be suppressed, they cannot be disposed of until the cause bas been attacked and removed. Until then the people are at the mercy of the capitalist profit-monger in the matter of their food-stuffs as in all else.

On Personalities. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A standing objection to us and our method of propaganda in press and on platform is that we are too personal. When all other criticism has been reasoned down, we can generally rely that our opponent for the time being will fling at us as the last word in the category of the objectionables—too personal. Generally, also, we get this dialectical missile hurtled at us as our worthy critic hastens without the reach of any reply we may wish to make—which provokes in what I endeavour shall be my exceedingly charitable mind, the thought that the objector is more concerned with scoring a point at our expense than with urging an argument for the sake of truth.

Nevertheless, I am aware that the same objection seriously influences some number of persons to regard us unfavourably, so that it may be worth while to occupy a little space in an enquiry into the validity and the value of the objection.

My endeavour will be to shew, not that we do not use what is called personalities, but that such personal references as we make are entirely unobjectionable and are, indeed, absolutely indispensable to the elucidation of the problems and the discussion of the questions we direct our attention to as a Socialist Party. Not, of course, that the use of personalities is peculiar to a Socialist Party. Every other body of propagandists, from the occupants of professional chairs dilating upon the wonders of a universe, to the denizens of a pot-house dilating upon the virtues of a particular brand of four ale ; from men of the standing of Ernst Haeckel to men of the lying of say, Dr. Torrey, all make the personal appeal, the personal reference, use the personal illustration. Even our friend the anti-personality man commits what he regards as the unpardonable sin in illustrating his objection by personal references to us. There is no subject under high heaven that can be discussed without personalities of one sort or another. We can hardly talk of the law of gravity without reference to Newton and without pointing our remarks upon the operation of the law by the illustration of the unfortunate men who have fallen out of balloons. Nor can we dissociate Darwin from evolution, Marx from the theory of value, Armour and Co. from the recently disclosed horrors of embalmed beef, “Labour” Leaders from political impotency and the cause of working-class confusion and so on. These are all personal references and should be, if our objector’s case is a good one, taboo. Does our objector agree ? So far as the first four cases are concerned probably he does, but he disagrees about the last mentioned. Which means that he is in favor of some personalities sometimes. Then where does he draw his line ? How does he discriminate ?

If I know my honest objector well (as I think I do), his protest is not against the use of personalities at all. It is against the unfair and the unnecessary use of them. And his idea of the unfair and unnecessary personality is that one which for certain reasons is distasteful to him. He is an admirer say of Will Crooks or John Burns. He thinks they are good men who are striving whole-heartedly for the benefit of the working class. And when we lump them together among the crowd of working-class enemies, he is indignant and declaims our use of personalities. But when in our examination of the workings of Capitalism we make denunciatory references to the pork packers of Chicago who are prepared to poison the proletariat for personal profit, he says “hear, hear,” and applauds vociferously.

Now why is this ? It is in the one case because he can appreciate enough of the facts to know that our personal references to Armour and Co. are fair and necessary and serve as a forceful illustration of our argument, while in the other the references are not fair or necessary, because he has not appreciated the facts. Yet we are continually placing on record facts in proof of our arguments against Burns and Crooks, who we hold are poisoning the minds of the proletariat. We make our personal references to them serve as illustrations in just the same way as our personal references to the poisoned pork packers.

Why does not our friend appreciate the facts as much in the one case as in the other ? Because in the case of Crooks or Burns he starts prejudiced in their favour and either will not listen to the facts at all, or dismisses them as personalities. Which simply means that he is in favor only of the personalities of approval so far as they are concerned and is in favor of the personalities of disapproval so far as we are concerned, because he usually stigmatizes us as “personality” purveyors of an objectionable type. But be it observed he approves the use of personalities in any case.

The same thing applies to our references to the I.L.P., the S.D.F. and similar bodies or members of similar bodies. It is frequently urged that we may and should go on our way preaching our gospel, regardless entirely of such men and organisations. But this is just as impossible as the omission of references to the individuals whose names are inextricably intermixed with such subjects as Evolution would be, were we discussing those subjects. As a Socialist Party, we have to face and deal with a doleful mass of working-class ignorance. To do so we have to face and deal with what we regard as contributing factors to working-class ignorance such as the organizations and individuals named. In their case we have the greater incentive because their existence is known of in every district that we can reach in our national propaganda work and we are, therefore, the more urgently called upon to shew cause why we, making for the goal which they too are ostensibly working toward, are yet dissociated from them. Moreover, even if it were possible to drop them from our consideration entirely, we should be discarding the potent illuminating force to be obtained from personal reference. Anything that may be fairly used to illustrate our argument and emphasise our attitude, should be utilised. We should be failing in our duty to our class were we to omit to do so. We should most certainly be voluntarily weakening ourselves as propagandists and to that extent should be defeating our own purposes. Incidentally we should be laying ourselves open also to the charge of cowardice from those who, knowing of the existence of these other bodies, observe that we studiously avoid tackling them.

Very well. The position narrows itself to this : personalities, so far from being objectionable, are proper and necessary, so long as they are fair. A fair personality is one which expresses that which can be substantiated as true. If any objector thinks he has a case against us he must, therefore, shew that our personal references are unfair because they are untrue. If he can find any such and will point them out to us and so prove his objection, we, for our part will be very ready to withdraw and apologise. So far as I am aware, no such unfair reference has been made by members of this Party. If it has, I am quite confident that the Party will immediately repudiate it. We are out to speak the truth as we know it to the end that the working class knowing the truth may organize upon a sound basis and proceed along right lines towards their emancipation.

That is our business. Simply that and nothing more, and if in the process we come full tilt against the words or the deeds of the heroes of our good friend the conscientious objector to personalities, I hope that, before he stultifies himself by launching the personality of opprobrium against us, he will carefully weigh with what of calm, cool dispassionate discrimination he may, the facts and the argument which we adduce in support of our attitude. Then he will be the better able to judge whether we deserve dismissal from his or any other’s consideration. In any case, I am sure a fair attention to this little screed will induce him to regard his objection to the use of personalities with rather less favor than at present.

Agra.

The Note Book. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s come at last ! I knew it would if we only kept at it long enough. When you call a man say, a thief, and prove it, he has no reply except perhaps “you’re another.” When we say a Party has sold out to the capitalist class and prove it, there is no reply possible except perhaps “so have you.” After Camborne it is therefore not surprising that we should hear from the S.D.F. that we are financed by the capitalist class. The allegation comes from Bradford. I understand it’s quite a common sort of charge against us there in the S.D.F. branch. Deponent sayeth that this paper is run by a wealthy American gent (name and extent of financial resources unknown) who pours his wealth into our party exchequer to the end that we may break up the Socialist movement in this country. We are, it seems, bold bad persons of no delicacy, and we are also, at last, discovered—in Bradford.

o o o

It’s such a pretty story that I am fain to withhold my hand from writing that which will burst it. Yet must I. Therefore be it known to all men that, like so much of the information that cometh out of the S.D.F., this story is entirely untrue. Unlike the S.D.F. this Party’s Treasurer is not allowed to issue all-embracing items of expenditure such as “Ink and Sundries £50,” or similar statements. He must give to all the membership a full detailed return of income and expenditure. These returns, supplied quarterly and annually, can be inspected by arrangement with any of our Branch secretaries, or through the Head Office. That should, I think, dispose of our American millionaire. Will the S.D.F. allow the same inspection of their books ? or the I.L.P.? or any other party claiming to represent the working class as against the capitalist class ?

o o o

Speaking for the S.D.F. at Tottenham, on Sunday, June 25th, Mr. Whitlock of the Stratford Branch, said “I would not have crossed my doorstep to vote for Will Thorne at the last election.” Referring to an interview he had had the previous week with Mr. H. M. Hyndman he said “Mr. Hyndman declared himself utterly disgusted with the present Executive Committee of the S.D.F.” Here’s a pretty kettle of fish !

Mr. Hyndman utterly disgusted with his Executive and Mr. Whitlock utterly disgusted with Mr. Thorne. It’s a great Party !

o o o

“Socialists don’t desire to get into Parliament quickly : they desire to make Socialists. And they can make Socialists best by teaching Socialism, not by masquerading as ‘Labour’ men.” This is not an extract from a back number of the Socialist Standard—it is from the “Answers to Correspondents” column of the Clarion, of all papers in the world ! And the Clarion is a thick-and-thin supporter of the gentlemen masquerading as “Labour” men, and says that what the workers want is more of ’em ! Well! Well ! If consistency is a jewel the Clarion men must have realised on theirs very early in their career, if, indeed, they ever had it.

o o o

In reply to a question put to him in the House of Commons on May 23rd, Mr. John Burns said it was not true that he stated in 1886 that there were five millions of people in England on the verge of starvation. We fear that John Burns’ memory, like most other official memories, has grown very short. Speaking from the Old Bailey Dock when on trial for conspiracy on April 9th, 1886, Mr. Burns said, “I say we cannot have in England as we have to-day, five millions living on the verge of pauperism, without gross discontent.” This speech was published at the time in pamphlet form, and was sold widely. It has been sold by Burns’ supporters and by Burns himself. A copy of it, unless I am very mistaken, is at the present time among Mr. Burns’ collection. I have never heard of Burns repudiating the accuracy of his reported remarks before. It is only now, when it is brought up in evidence against his official view of the poverty problem that he denies it. Which brings us to this : either Burns was disseminating a falsehood then or he is disseminating a falsehood now. On the evidence of the supporters of the Party he belongs to, like Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. Rowntree, the statement made at the Old Bailey must have been well within the mark. Therefore it is now that Mr. Burns is fabricating

o o o

The question referred to was asked, I observe, by Mr. Will Thorne and Mr. Thorne is a regular reader of this paper, as I happen to know. And in this paper for May we reproduced extracts from Burns’ speech in the Dock. The source of Mr. Thorne’s information, therefore, is clearly the Socialist Standard ; and not a bad source either. I commend Mr. Thorne’s example to the other “Labour” members. A regular and careful perusal of the Socialist Standard would, I am sure, do them a world of good. The terms, gentlemen, are 1s. 6d. per annum, post free.

o o o

When Mr. Burns denied the accuracy of Mr. Thorne’s statement, Mr.Thorne replied that he had the evidence in his pocket. A thousand pities Mr. Burns did not challenge its production.

o o o

I observe that the S.D.F. have endeavoured to secure kudos from the incident by reprinting the speech referred to. We published a few extracts only in order to effect a sharp contrast between the Burns of the eighties and the Burns of to-day. The possibility of reproducing the whole speech was discussed by us several months ago but, although we could see that it would find a ready sale, the idea was rejected because there would be no propagandist value in the document by itself. Like most of Burns’ speeches (in this respect at any rate the gentleman has consistency) it was largely wind and bombast. Apart from their educational possibilities we have no concern with the publication of pamphlets. Because it had no educational possibilities we rejected the Burns’ speech pamphlet. For the same reason, apparently, the S.D.F. seized upon it. They are very welcome.

o o o

Mr, Thorne has, it seems, nearly arrived at the conclusion that if anything is to be done in the matter of the unemployed, they will have to do it themselves. “They,” I presume, means the “Labour” members. William must have been very muddle headed if he thought the Government was ever likely to do more than the exact equivalent of nothing. And William must be still more muddle-headed if he thinks the “Labour” members can do anything worth talking about. If William wants reasons and has preserved his back numbers of the Socialist Standard, he will find any number of them have already appeared in our columns. If he wants any more, a note to the Editorial address will receive prompt attention,

o o o

On the authority of The Labour Record, this—”while Parliament sits in the sweltering heat of these summer days discussing dogma, trifling about tittles and often failing to take occasion by the hand, J. R. Clynes, the Labour representative for North East Manchester, sits quiet, emotionless, imperturbable, noting everything and forgetting nothing ! Someday he will arouse himself—and then !” Lor ! Someday he will arouse himself. Note that, impatience ! Someday—and then? Well, frankly, I don’t know what then ; but I conclude, there’s a good time coming boys when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. We may wipe away all tears from our eyes—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. And we shall have a time—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. But why, oh, why! does he sit quiet, emotionless, imperturbable ? Why doesn’t he arouse himself?

o o o

Quoth the Daily News in adverse criticism of that prince of political judges Sir William Grantham (whose judicial calm and serenity by the way, appears to find highest expression in speech husky with emotion and watered with the bitterest of tears !)—”We do not complain of the Bodmin decision as it stands by itself. The serious part of the business is that the election at Bodmin should be declared void while the elections at Yarmouth and Maidstone are allowed to stand.” The naiveté is charming. The serious part of the business, the part that really matters is that two Conservatives retain their seats while the poor Liberal loses his. If now, it had been two Liberals who had maintained their positions and a Conservative who had failed, it wouldn’t have been nearly so serious a matter. Indeed, there would have been nothing at all calling for comment except, perhaps, the skilful discrimination and the even-handed justice of the be-wigged and very learned exponent of law on the Bench. As it is, the really serious part of the business to the Liberal Daily News is that all three Liberals have failed—two in their efforts to unseat their opponents and one in his effort to himself remain seated !

o o o

In the matter of the Daily News—can anyone tell me why its “Life and Labour” column now appears only about once a week ? Was the writer too out-spoken, giving offence to too many good Liberals and true ; or has the need for the maintenance of the fiction which the Daily News was so assiduous in disseminating about the time of the General Election, that the Liberal Party is the Party of the workers, the Party of Progress and industrial reform, etc., etc., ad nauseam, now ceased to exist ? Many of those who take in, and are taken in by, the Daily News, incline to the first view. I accept the second. The good Liberals and true, don’t mind the “Life and Labour” column fillips so long as the writer is always careful to muddle the real issue of the irreconcilable antagonism existing between working-class interests and the interests of that section of capitalism represented in the Liberal Party.

o o o

It is time the good Liberals aforesaid could always rely upon the good Liberals in the editorial and sub-editorial chairs deleting anything particularly objectionable, but I don’t think there would have ever been serious occasion for their intervention. Those who are familiar with the writings of the “Life and Labour” column man know how adroitly he can steer himself out of the danger zone while leaving in the mind of the casual reader the impression that he has faced the whole problem and arrived at the only conclusion. They know too that it is inconceivable that a man can get so near the truth without seeing it, and they know, therefore, that the writer referred to can be relied upon to say just enough and no more. It may consequently be fairly concluded that the Daily News does not now think it necessary to particularly emphasize the fiction mentioned. When the time comes again, as it surely will, the “Life and Labour” column or its equivalent will surely reappear as a regular feature.