Aphorisms of Socialism. [I.] (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Being an explanation of the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B.

Aphorism I.

Society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.

To declare that any one fact, and especially such a seemingly superficial fact as the the matter of the possession of property, can be the basis of the social system, will doubtless fill many people with astonishment. It seems to be reversing the order of things. It appears, to the ordinary untutored eye, that the ownership of property must arise out of and depend upon the social system, and not that the system arises out of and depends on the form of property ownership. Yet very few words will suffice to make it clear that the truth is revealed in our first aphorism.

Society is a number of people living together in community, having dealings or relations with each other in the every-day affairs of life.

The sum total of all these relations forms the system under which the people live – the social system or the system of society.

It is quite clear, therefore, that the form of these dealings or relations will determine the form of the social system, and that whatever fact or facts shape the relations between the human beings who are the units of society shape also the whole system of society – which is nothing but the sum total of those relations.

Now if you go into a baker’s shop and take possession of a loaf of bread, you enter into certain definite relations with the baker.

Those relations will vary, according to whether you have bought, begged, borrowed, or stolen the loaf. In the first case the relations between the baker and you are those of seller and buyer, in the second .case those of giver and receiver, in the third case those of lender and borrower, in the last case those of robbed and robber.

But the significant fact is that, though each of these relations is different, owing to the different circumstances of your acquiring the loaf, they all arise from the one constant and unchanging factor that the loaf is the property of the baker to start with. Had the loaf not been the property of someone it could not have been bought or sold, begged or given, lent, borrowed or the object of a theft.

In St. Paul’s Churchyard many pigeons may be seen. They belong to nobody. You cannot beg, borrow, or buy one of them, for there is no owner to give, lend, or sell them. If you take possession of one you have stolen nothing. You cannot, enter, on account of these pigeons, enter into any of the relations that characterised your taking possession of the baker’s loaf. Even the law cannot oblige you in this respect, for the only charge that can be preferred against you – and that only by an obvious straining of the law to meet an awkward situation – is that of unlawful possession: the charge, not that you have something belonging to someone else, but that you have something that does not belong to you.

Now it is beyond dispute that what makes the difference in the relations between you and your fellows in the given instances is the fact that the loaf is the property of some person or persons while the pigeon is not.

If we look around to try to discover what are the social relations that occupy the largest and most important place in the social scheme, we find that they are the relations which arise out of the production and distribution of wealth.

The reason for this is plain to see. It is because every living person must be a wealth consumer as the first essential condition of his or her existence.

These relations pervade the whole of society. They cannot be escaped. What form, then, do these social relations take?

Wealth is produced by the application of human energy to the material provided by nature. All wealth, as the term is understood in political economy, is produced thus, and only thus. Even the working-power of the horse is not an exception, for the horse itself is wealth, being the product of human energy applied in horse-breeding and rearing. Its energy, therefore, takes no higher rank in the production of wealth than that developed by a steam engine.

The two things, then, which are fundamentally necessary to the production of wealth are human labour-power and nature-given material.

But to-day, in addition to these, highly developed machinery and other means of production and distribution are necessary before wealth can be produced and placed at the disposal of the consumer, for, under the system, and in the broad sense, human energy can only be applied to material through these means of production.

All normal people within certain limits of age possess one of these essentials of wealth production – labour-power. But before it is possible for them to produce they must have access to the natural material and to the means of production.

Here, then, is the primary need of every person that draws breath, if that person is to be self-supporting – access to the nature given material and the productive machinery.

Now let us place these things, desired of all people, in the circumstances of the baker’s loaf and the Churchyard pigeon respectively, and see what happens – what effect it has upon the great mass of relations between man and man which go to make up the social system.

In the first case, with the means of production owned by individuals, two sets of relationships may arise, according to whether these things are owned by those who use them or by those who do not.

In the Middle Ages the means of production largely belonged to those who used them, and access to agricultural land was the common right. As a consequence the relations between the social units were entirely different to those obtaining to-day. Men had the means of gaining their livelihood in their own hands, and so the wage-worker, the man who had no source of subsistence other than the sale of his labour-power, was practically unknown.

But we are not concerned at the moment with that property condition that was the basis of the feudal social system. We know that to-day the things necessary for wealth production are not, broadly speaking, owned by those who use them. That fact, at least, requires no demonstration.

In this case those who do not share in the possession of the productive wealth must get the sanction of the owners before they can apply their labour-power in the production of wealth.

On this fact the whole structure of modern society is based. All the relations between the social units take their shape from it, as we shall presently see.

In the first place, those people who do not share in the ownership of the means of production find others standing between them and the sources of life. To make mere assertion of that which is to well known to need argument, they have to sell their labour-power to the owners of the means of living in order to obtain subsistence. What other means are there ?

Thus is set up that large and important group of social relations and social institutions which we have before noted. First, society is divided into two classes – employers and employees; those who possess and those who do not possess. So the two-class nature of society, with property as the differentiating agent, is shown to be founded on the ownership of the means of living by the master class.

Secondly, the wages system, with the labour market – into which every propertyless person is driven, to seek his livelihood by the sale of his labour-power – together with the whole range of relationships between people on the industrial field – the relations between employer and employed, foreman and underling, and even those arising between master and master competing against one another for labour-power at the lowest price, and between worker and worker competing for jobs – all these relations and institutions are set up by the possession of the means of living by a class.

One other great and striking characteristic of the present social system arises out of this basic property condition, but one to which we are so accustomed that we are surprised to find that this feature is peculiar to the present system. It is that all the wealth of society is produced as commodities, that is, as articles for sale instead of for the use of the producer.

This is a very important distinction. It takes away from mankind the sane, logical purpose of productive effort, and replaces it with an incentive more mad even than the inmates of Bedlam. Bread is no longer produced to feed people but because profit may be made from its sale. And the remark applies to all other goods.

Where goods are produced for use the incentive produce remains as long as a human need is unsatisfied. But when production is for sale, it ceases when goods cannot be sold, though the children of the nation are crying for bread and perishing for want of clothing and shelter.

And, strange as it may appear, though with the productive instruments belonging to those who use them, there may be famine as the result of scarcity, with the instruments belonging to those who do not use them there must be famine on account of the very plentitude of wealth.

The reason for this is not far to seek. The wealth the wage-worker produces must, in order to satisfy the employer, exceed the amount of his wages, and therefore must exceed the amount he is able to buy back and consume. This surplus of commodities, far in excess of the requirements of the masters themselves, accumulates in the warehouses until the mass is so vast that the markets are glutted. Then production is strangled. Then there is no demand and no prospect of sale for further products. The incentive to create wealth has ceased. There is a falling off in demand and prospects of only small sales for further products. The machines are stopped, the factories partially or wholly shut down, the workers thrown out of work, and all the miseries of famine stalk the land because too much wealth exists

If the means of living were in the case of the pigeons in St. Paul’s Churchyard an entirely different social system would of necessity result.

Were the means and instruments of production the property of no individuals, but of the community as a community, the wages system could not exist. Each one having equal right of access to the means of living, none would be compelled to sell his labour-power to another person in order to live. In addition, none would purchase labour-power because none would have the opportunity to do so, and, secondly, because, even if any could, since no individuals would possess the means of production, none would be able to exploit labour-power.

So society could not be composed of two or more classes – could know no class distinction at all, in fact. It could not contain masters and men, and could not be founded on the labour of a section of the community. No able-bodied member of the community would be exempted from rendering his due quota of useful service to the community, in return for the material wealth which society placed at his disposal, for in the absence of private ownership there would be nothing on which to base such privileges.

And in a social system founded upon common ownership in the means of living, goods could not possibly be produced for sale. As now the wealth created belongs to those who own the machinery and factories – the masters, so then the product of labour would belong to the owners of the means of production – the community. The community could not sell the goods to itself, and there would be no party outside the community to whom to sell. Hence goods could only be produced for use, and production would continue as long as there were social needs to be satisfied.

What has been said shows how the social system of to-day is “based upon the ownership of the means of living by the capitalist or master-class,” and also how this class-ownership results in the enslavement of the working class, who are doomed to a life of drudgery and want, because every avenue of life is closed to them save that of the wage-labour market. But while it has been shown that the basis of society determines the form of social structure, no attempt has been made to explain what determine the basis of society. This point will arise in another connection.

A. E. Jacomb

Asked & Answered. (1912)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the editor.]

Manchester, 12.5. 1912.

Sir,—Your article in the current issue of the “S.S.” on “Why we oppose Labour Leaders,” prompts me to reply as follows.

In the first place what do you mean by “Labour Leaders” ? My conception of the term may or may not coincide with yours, but to put it to the test let me define what I take the term to mean.

I would say that a “Labour Leader” is one who, in the opinion of the rank and file of the organisation he belongs to, political or industrial, is the most capable exponent of that organisation’s principles. The most capable man to be found in the organisation who, in addition to expounding its principles and objects, can effectively retaliate and confound its critics. Thnt is my conception of a prominent man in “Labour circles,” who nowadays is popularly termed a “leader.”

But this applies equally to the S.P.G.B. Does it not elect its representatives in debate ? Do not the industrial organisations elect their “leaders” in like manner ? Aye, even more democratically than does the S.P.G.B. its debaters and official speakers, for the S.P.G.B. Executive have absolute control over the appointment of them, while a trade union does elect, either by ballot of the membership or at its business meetings, its officers and representatives. So, to speak, as your article does, of “placing themselves at the head” of their organisations is hardly correct—as your contributor admits later on, when he says that “leading, after all, is by consent,” which is somewhat different to “placing themselves.”

Personally, I am inclined to think that leaders are more or less necessary to any movement. Take, for instance, the official organ of the S.P.G.B. Its articles generally come from the same pens month after month, and those articles are taken by almost every member of the Party as the official utterances of the whole Party, yet the decision of that is vested in either an editorial committee or the whole Executive. Where do the rank and file come in ? It has to be published before they can agree or disagree, and if they disagree, as did a section of your members over the “W.B.” (Upton Park) reply (Feb. 1910), they have an almost insuperable task before them to convince, not the Party, but the Executive Committee. Anyhow, that by the way.

To my mind, so great a number of the working class have the unfortunate practice of “following” that I am inclined to think that even on the stroke of capitalism’s doom they would be “following” rather than “conscious” of their “historic mission,” and would enjoy the “fun of the fight.” For the same contributor, in his article “Might is Right,” tells us that it is only “opportunity” that is wanted to establish the workers’ right to the full products of their labour, brought about, of course, by might. Whether each and every one of the struggling workers is to be a conscious instrument or merely a “tool” in the execution of their mission we are not told. Men will “follow the crowd.” Again, there are men who lead and at the same time preach doctrines identical with your own. They lead because the “led” recognise their ability and worth. I myself have questioned the “led” on such occasions, and frequently they have been unable to say in anything like an intelligent manner, much less clear, why they allowed them to lead, or themselves to be led.

Fraternally yours,

Edwin Garvey.

——————————————–

My dear Mr. Garvey, though, as a student of Darwin, I am well aware that some people do have funny children, I really am surprised at you. If you have been a purchaser of the “S.S.” ever since “Might is Right” appeared, and have learnt no more than this, then we have been taking your money for nothing, and I must see about getting it refunded.

Your conception of a “Labour leader” indeed. Well, you must have got it from the “Labour leaders” themselves. It is just what they say about themselves whenever they can get a mug to listen to them.

But you must have had somebody in your mind, Mr. Garvey, surely. Who was it ? Was it the Right Honourable John Burns, who so warmly defended the Featherstone butchery ? Was it Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., who exhibits such fine contempt lor the “drink-sodden democracy” ? Was it Mr. J. R. MacDonald, who called the Civil Servants sponges and said that it is “high time” they were told they would have to submit to the same terms as labour in the outside market ? Was it Mr. H. Quelch, whose only definite principle is what he calls the “One-and-one Principle” ? Was it Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., who assured his audiences from his election platform that he did not stand as a Socialist candidate, and then said, on the balcony of the Stratford Town Hall on the night of the “count” : “It is a great victory for Socialism and Labour” ? Was it any one of the forty-two so-called Labour M.P.s who sit cheek by jowl with tbe Liberal party in the House of Commons, and dare not vote for their own amendments for fear of embarrassing their allies ? Who was it, good friend Garvey, whom you took for type when you painted what you term your conception of a “Labour Leader” ? Perhaps you nodded in some tin chapel, where your hero was sacrificing himself to make a “Pleasant Sunday Afternoon,” and you got him mixed up with the stained glass angels on the windows.

Now I will give you my conception of the term “Labour leader.” First and foremost he is one who desires to lead. There may, course, be various reasons for this desire. It may arise from sheer egoism—the craving to loom large in the public eye ; or it may proceed from the lust of pelf. But commonly it is due to an admixture of reasons, in which the chief and guiding one is the consideration of the eternal, omnipresent, almighty question of bread and butter. But there it is—he wants to lead, he must lead, he will lead, and, say you and the likes of you, he shall lead. It is that, and you, who make the “Labour leader,” or, that I may not fall behind you in| humble respect for His Nibs, the “labour Leader.”

The second point is that the “Labour leader” must have no principles. Principles are very ugly customers in the eyes of the “Labour leader.” They demand a certain consistency of action which is beastly awkward to the political weathercock. In addition to this, and vastly more important, men who have principles and understand them cannot be led. They are the masters of the situation. They know whither they want to go, for the road is clearly pointed out by their principles. Their collective understanding of these principles, and their collective wisdom, and courage, and determination in the prosecution of the line of action which these principles demand, far outweighs that of any individuals. What men with principles want, therefore, are not leaders and bosses, but servants to do their bidding. This the “Labour leader” understands well enough, and so he has no concern with principles. Indeed, so far, Mr. Garvey, is your conception from, being correct in this particular, that the “Labour leader” cannot arise in an organisation which is firmly grounded upon any set of principles.

It is a very clumsy dodge of yours to profess a conception of a “Labour leader” in such form as precludes him from being a leader, and then asking where he differs from an S.P.G.B. representative. But again you show that it is your misfortune to have to look on these things through eyes which, to put it with becoming courtesy and gentleness, do not focuss accurately. An S.P.G.B. debater is appointed by the E.C. for a specific and temporary purpose. He is not an official of the Party, for there is no office of Party Debater, as there is of Party Organiser, Party Treasurer, and so on. If there were it would be filled, as these offices are, by the Party membership. But the E.C. appoints debaters because the membership elects them to perform that duty among others.

And as for your remarks concerning the publication of the Party Organ, you answer yourself when you say : “It has to be published before they,” the rank and file (your expression, Mr. Garvey, not mine) “can agree or disagree.” Exactly, and I should not be surprised if you have hit upon the very consideration that moved the Party membership to saddle the E.C. with the task of getting it published. Every dog has his day—go up one.

“Where do the rank and file come in ?” you ask. Every member of the Party comes in where and when he receives his copy of the issue. Every member of the Party has an opportunity to agree or disagree before he takes any part in pushing the sale of the Organ. What more would you have after confessing that the paper must be published before they can agree or disagree ?

Your statement that a section who disagreed with the Party position on a certain matter had an almost insuperable task to convince the E.C. falls a trifle short of the truth. They had an absolutely insuperable task, and when they tried to convince the Party, the task was just as insuperable.

The article “Might is Right” does not contain the statement you attribute to it, nor anything like it. Your statement is rubbish and falsehood. As a matter of fact, the opportunity is always present when the workers are sufficiently educated and organised to seize it. And the inconsistency you fancy you can detect in the article you criticise vanishes directly you ask yourself whether, before a person can place himself at the head of a body of men he must be permitted to do so —in other words, he leads by consent.

Your inclination “to think that leaders are more or less necessary to any movement” betrays the Anarchist. The Socialist knows that the strength comes, not from “prominent men,” but from the class as such. While the class has no definite guiding principles, it will be the prey of so-called Labour leaders. The Anarchist, the Individualist, the man who is “inclined to think that leaders are more or less necessary to every movement” has no faith in his class, but only in individuals. Such alone are they who, “even on the stroke of Capitalism’s doom, would be following,” creating confusion, ignorant of the real object, blind to the real enemy, halting when they should march, sparing when they should strike, stampeding when they should snatch the fruits of victory from a beaten foe. Once again I proclaim, as many Socialists have proclaimed before me, and as my comrades are proclaiming from our platforms day by day, there is no hope save in the class. There is no hope save in the class. There is no hope save in the working class understanding, not their but its own politics. Therefore the Socialist, who has faith in the inevitability of Socialism, has faith also in the working class. He has faith in its intellect, faith in its courage, faith in its tenacity, faith in its mission, and therefore faith in its triumph. Those who doubt in any one of these matters cannot be Socialists, are unworthy to stand in the ranks of those who are fighting the battle of the working class. They doubt their class ; they have contempt for the capacities of their class ; they can be nothing but enemies of their class. If they be men who have had ample opportunity to learn the truth, then the beet place for them is in the ranks of the B.S.P., where they can sit in open-mouthed adoration of those “leaders” whom they appraise above the class they are part of.

A. E. Jacomb

Editorial: The Fruit of "Victory." (1912)

Editorial from the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month comment was made in these columns on the permission by the miners’ leaders of the men to return to work too early, as well as on the impossibility of the “impartial” chairman being impartial. Within the short span of a month both points of criticism are borne out by the development of events.

Lord St Aldwyn, better known when Tory Chancellor as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, was the “impartial” chairman for the South Welsh District Board set up by the Bill that settled the recent coal strike. He is reported by the miners’ leader, Mr. C. B. Stanton, to have surrendered the men to the coal owners.

Says Mr. Stanton : “Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Sir. E. Grey and others, told our National Executive they considered 5s. per day very reasonable for any man who worked in the mine as a minimum wage. Lord St. Aldwyn has given us a 3s. minimum. This is not a living wage, but a measly, wretched surrender to the Welsh coal-owners, whose profits, greed, and obstinacy at all times are notorious. How any man could, upon the evidence, give such a verdict I cannot understand.”

But Mr. Stanton ought to know that the “independent” chairman, even with the collusion of the Government as he suggests, is quite capable of betraying the men and converting a promised increase of wages into a decrease. When did Mr. Stanton put any value upon a Liberal promise to the workers, or trust the “ impartiality ” of a Tory politician ? Why, exactly when it was least justified— when the strike had driven the master class and the political wire-pullers, Liberal and Tory alike, to an extremity.

It was easy for the Liberals to premise the “5 and 2” and to sympathise with the men in their “reasonable” demands. And very convenient to leave to the “impartiality” of a retired Tory politician, the execution of the premise.

Says Mr. Stanton further: “ The rank and file know where the mistake was made before ; we shall not repeat that mistake again.” But it seems to us that the mistake need never have been made at all. Mr. Stanton was among the leaders who advised the men to accept the Bill, with its machinery of "impartial” boards and “independent” chairmen, even against the better judgment of the men. It was the leaders who should have known what the masters and their political servants were likely to do once the men were back again at work.

We of course, can draw no satisfaction from the turn events have taken, except from the fact that in bearing out our prognostications they have given further proof of the existence of the class struggle and the solidarity of the capitalist class against the workers. Had the miners’ actions been guided by this knowledge they would not now be lamenting that they have been tricked by the masters and sold by—but the law of libel bolds us dumb.

Cutlets. With S.P. Sauce. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Home Rule looms large in that vital organ, the public eye. Whether the Bill will kill the Pope or whether the Germans will land at Belfast are questions that agitate the minds of patriotic Britishers. Of course, the Labour Party cannot be left out, and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald gave the Home Rule Bill his sanction and blessing. In view of this, the following extract from the “Labour Leader” of November 10th last, will not be out of place.

In an article entitled “Liberalism and Progress” the writer, Mr. H. Dubery, lets fall this brilliant gem :

“What is ‘the pathway of progress ‘from the Socialist standpoint’ ? ‘The test I bring to every measure introduced in the House of Commons,’ recently said one of our leaders, ‘is this. Will this Bill on the whole increase that share of national wealth and comfort that goes to the working class ? If it does that by even a fractional amount, I will support it. If it does not, then it is to me a non-essential.’

“Taking this statement as a test, let us apply it … to the Home Rule Bill. we shall see that when the smoke of battle has cleared and the horrible din has subsided, not one working man will be a whit the better off, nor will the nation be a step further along the true ‘pathway of progress.’ ”

Yet the Labour Party, whose organ is this self-same “Labour Leader,” support the Home Rule Bill. They are playing the same game of chasing the Will-o’-the-wisp, of leading the workers “up the garden.”

* * *

Mr. A. Henderson, M.P., the P S.A.-tin bethel-monger, speaking at a Brotherhood meeting on April 13th, remarked that Christianity had failed to arrest the masses. From the masters’ point of view it hasn’t : it still does its dirty work well. But one of the leading clerical lights, the Bishop of the Falkland Isles, thinks that its sphere is not large enough, and urges the necessity of a fund to extend the movement in South America.

In an appeal that is being widely circulated among the frauds of Christendom the Bishop says : “The Bishop of the Falkland Islands” Fund. For religious, educational, and medical work in Western South America, which must be carried out before the opening of the Panama Canal in 1913. The future success of British influence depends upon the answer to this appeal.”

The appeal has the support of Lord Northcliffe, the well-known Salvation Army field-officer, and from the accompanying explanation we gather the following extracts :

“The Chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce represents the business men of the capital of the Empire. He asked to be convinced as to the use of the £100,000 for which the Bishop asks. The case was put before him, and at a Mansion House meeting he said : ‘This is the finest commercial investment the traders of this country could make.'”

“The Archbishop of Canterbury writes : ‘I am impressed and interested by the Appeal which the Bishop of the Falkland Islands is now making, and earnestly hope that he may elicit a really adequate response from those who have financial and other interests in South America, and especially on its Western coastline. The conditions are unique, the possibilities are immense, and the Bishop, in addition to his personal gifts as a religious teacher, is eminently well qualified to arrange and control the work wisely. I very cordially wish him God-speed.'”

“The Archbishop of York writes : ‘The cause for which the Bishop of the Falkland Islands appeals is one which ought specially to commend itself to all who care for the welfare of our own people in the vast territory entrusted to his care. I trust that the very large number of persons in this country who have personal interests in that part of the world will be ready to acknowledge its claim.'”

And so Christianity continues, propped up by interested men, supported by the capitalist class as a means whereby they can keep the chains of wage-slavery bound more tightly around you. The position laid down in our pamphlet “Socialism and Religion” has yet to be shaken, and the worthy bishop, in his blindness, comes and amply substantiates that position. Christianity closely reflects modern capitalist interests. We are out to slay capitalism. Look to it that the end is speedily brought about.

* * *

Amidst the turmoil and strife of the last coal strike at least one idea was prominently heralded as the means of salvation for the working class (and let it be quietly known—for the master class). I refer to the “dark horse” known as Co-partnership.

To those who have freely imbibed at the fountain of Co-partnery the following document will serve as a kind of “digestive tablet.”

“SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS CO.”

“TO ALL CO-PARTNERS.”

“We now know the cost of the coal strike to this Company, and it has been very heavy. A very big price has to be paid (the larger part going out of the country) for coal purchased abroad in substitution for that undelivered to us by reason of the unfortunate disagreement between the owners and men. But our obligations to our consumers could not be set aside at any cost. To have done so would have in some respects irretrievably damaged our business, and as a result seriously harmed the employees who are our partners in it.

“My object in issuing this statement is to urge that all Co-partners will try by special endeavour to replace the lost tens of thousands by zealous working, and scrupulous economy in the materials used in our undertaking. Much has been accomplished, more can be, to avoid waste either of Time or Stores, and I feel sure I shall not ask in vain for the help of all our employees in the very anxious time through which we are passing.

Charles Carpenter, Chairman

April 24th, 1912.”

There is Co-partnership !

Profits are shared,—oh ! yes, and the workman may get a problematical increase (although in comparison with the wealth produced he is poorer), but when it comes to losses, well, one class of Co-partners share that, and that class is called the Working Class, alias “the Great Unwashed.” In spite of the use of the plural (“our” and “we”), when losses are incurred you must “try by special endeavour to replace them by zealous working.”

Co-partnership is merely a narcotic for the working class, to imbue them with the idea that they have an interest in the business, and under its influence they are speeded up, made to economise in materials, and all the sooner driven onto the scrap-heap. No, Socialism is the only hope, and Co-partnership is only—a hope.

* * *

“The B.S.P. Babes” have been at it again. In spite of their frequent protestations of the similar nature of Liberal and Tory, they still play the game of voting “agen the Government.” The following is culled from “Justice” of May 25th, 1912 :

“At South Hackney the Liberals in their panic have rushed the election so as to prevent a three-cornered contest. In that, unfortunately, they have succeeded ; but we hope every Socialist and Labour elector in the division will vote Tory and so deal a blow at the present Government.”

Poor old B.S.P. ! Just as a burglar does not become honest by calling himself King George, so the S.D.P. has not become Socialist by changing its name. That work has still to be done, and we are the Party to do it.

* * *

After a week of revelry, of riotous living, of gay feasting, of nautical cake-walks, and of splashing saucy mermaids, the Sea-King has now returned from seeking his fleet. It is quite possible, nay, probable, judging by the newspaper reports, that he is now able to tell the difference between an aeroplane and a battleship.

* * *

Of interest to race-goers. Just as “White Star” did not come home in the “Two Thousand Guineas,” so the King of Denmark did not come home in the Monarchy Stakes. He was unknown to the police, which is strange for a Royal scion.

A. L. Cox