Editorial: Progress ! (1907)

Editorial from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 1905 criminal statistics recently issued from the Home Office show that while there is a decline in convictions for drunkenness, manslaughter, bigamy and malicious wounding, there is nevertheless a significant increase in burglaries and crimes against property with violence. Sir John Macdonell says in his summary : “The enormous preponderance of crimes against property is remarkable : nearly nine-tenths of the whole fall every year within that category.”

Indictable offences have increased from a yearly average of 51,612 during 1896-1900 to 61,463 in 1905. While, instead of drink being the cause of crime, drunkenness has declined while crime has increased. The statistics are eloquent of the dependence of crime on economic conditions, the increase in crime coinciding with greater distress and unemployment among the people. The accumulation of property into few hands and the corresponding lack of the means of existence among the many lead irresistibly to what are called crimes against property, and the Socialist is not surprised to find that the year of acutest distress and unemployment among the workers was at the same time “a record year of National Prosperity.”

Truly there is progress and prosperity, but it is not for the workers—yet; and instead of the class cleavage becoming less marked it daily grows wider.

To abolish the contradictions and antagonisms of interest that exist, the working class must gain control of Society and dispossess the owners of capital so that unity of interest may be secured by the participation of all in production. Those, however, who think of securing the support of those whose superior position depends upon the slavery of the workers, must, if honest, be ignorant of the lessons of history and of everyday experience.

Thus Mr. Keir Hardie tried to assure the Cambridge undergraduates recently that “Socialism was not a class movement.” “Down with it!” they cried. “Many of the Socialists’ most enthusiastic advocates are university men,” shouted Keir Hardie. “Shame!” howled the undergraduates. “These men and women from the middle and upper classes realise that there is something more sacred than property,” continued Hardie. “Rot!” yelled the gownsmen ; and there is no doubt that the undergraduates differ in no essential from the generality of their class.

Blogger's Note:

This is the 19,000 post on the blog. It begs the question: will I hit 20,000 before the end of the year? Stick around to find out.

Editorial: The Sweets of Rusticity ! (1907)

Editorial from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A recent enquiry into the housing conditions of a small Hertfordshire village, known as Chipperfield has apparently been greatly agitating the Daily News and our pro-stock exchange, anti-gambling, nonconformist contemporary is of course mightily shocked at the revelations which have been made as to the unhappy state in which the villagers,—or some of them—exist so far as their lodgement is concerned. Most of the houses in which the agriculturist (the backbone of England’s greatness—see Tariff Reform Handbook) has his abode, have no sanitary conveniences ; many of them are in bad repair (in one case it is alleged that the happy tenant would go to bed on wet nights with an umbrella up !) and there is the usual scarcity with its inevitable overcrowding and comparatively high rents.

Excepting, perhaps, the somewhat novel feature of an umbrella protected bedroom, these are not unusual features of village life. Few villages indeed can boast of being free from all of them. They are just complementary to the private ownership of the land and housing accommodation, and there is no adequate and final remedy apart from the complete abolition of such private ownership and the extirpation of the capitalist and land-owning class. Conceivably the local authority could erect sanitary and well constructed houses even under present conditions, but as the obsession peculiar to local authorities is comprised in the necessity for showing a profit on any work of this character they may undertake, and as the great labour statesman at the head of the Local Government department has expressed his strong disapproval of any suggestion of increased indebtedness (and thereby earned the “well done good and faithful servant” of his capitalist paymasters) it is hardly conceivable, under present conditions, that the local authority would let any house erected by them at a rental within the possibilities of the agriculturist’s attenuated purse.

What generally happens is that houses are erected ostensibly for those in want of them, and let to those for whom they are not supposed to be intended, because these last only are in a position to pay the rental demanded. That is to say that in practice the Housing of the Working Classes Act is, like most other capitalist “working-class” Acts—a fraud.

The agriculturists of Chipperfield and elsewhere will therefore—unless it suggests itself as it very well may to the local authority or local landowner as good business to lose a little on the swings in order to get it back on the round-abouts—have to continue pigging together until such time as better housing accommodation is thrown to them as a sop to stay their conscious progress toward that Socialism which is the only sure cure for housing and other economic ills. Hopeless though it may seem, the agriculturist will have to organise himself in company with his town bred fellow for the overthrow of capitalist domination. There is no other way.

In Defence of Property. (1907)

Book Review from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Socialism: Its Fallacies and Dangers.” A collection of papers edited by Frederick Millar. Published by Watts & Co. for the “Liberty and Property Defence League.”

“Let us jealously watch the encroachments of the State, and never suffer it to become more than a watchdog.” Such appears to be the political doctrine of the band of belated individualists who are responsible for this book, for they include and condemn under the name of Socialism practically all State activity other than that of the mere policeman. Since, however, the propertied class has in its own interests been compelled to add to the State many other functions than that of the “watch-dog,” it is hardly necessary to consider the question at issue as being individualism versus collectivism at all, but rather as being—the class which lives by labour versus the class which lives by ownership, and whether those who produce should not own and control the product.

To those who seek a clear and useful criticism of Socialist principles the book under review will be disappointing. The facts of industrial evolution are not appreciated. The significance of the huge company and combine, where great and complicated branches of industry are run by hireling workers for absentee shareholders, is not taken into account. Nor is it recognised that industry is developing to the point at which the workers’ choice lies only between the oppressive collectivism of the trust or capitalist State for the profit of a few, and the collectivism of democracy for the benefit of all united in producing. The writers place themselves athwart the economic trend, and though as modern Mrs. Partingtons they may be excellent at a slop or a puddle, yet, trundle their mops as they will, they can hardly succeed in checking the rising Atlantic of economic development.

That there are misrepresentations is to be expected from such a source. Thus on page 17 we meet our old and hoary friend, “Sharing Out,” Socialism being referred to as the “confiscation and division of the national income.” It is also stated that Socialists “maintain that if a man lives in the house of another man, it is an extortion to ask him to pay a rent.” But the scientific Socialist knows that, apart from what is called economic rent, house rent is but the price of a commodity that, like every other commodity, tends to exchange at its value, which already includes its proportion of unpaid labour. The Socialist, therefore, holds that the robbery of the worker really takes place in the factory, not on the market.

Those who go into the highways and byways facing the opposition and abuse of the ignorant and the interested, and who, in their championship of the workers against oppression and robbery, brave the malice and persecution of the defenders of property, are told on page 24 that “The root of Socialism is cowardice. Here is the real source of the whole movement. It is the whine and the dream of the weaklings’ base fear of rivalry, of competition. It is the duty of real men to circumvent and defeat, by war if necessary, by invasion if necessary, by conquest if necessary, by extermination if necessary, the despicable effeminacy of creatures unworthy of the name of men, because they fear to carry on the competitive struggle in which the true life of manhood consists. The Socialist movement is popular because it appeals to these numerous creatures ; panders to their baseness ; promises them what they would be ashamed to desire or seek if they were men.”

Socialism and the Family.

Next comes the war-cry of the pro-property hypocrite,—”Socialism means the abolition of family life.” On this subject the defenders of that class whose heroes fill the divorce courts and whose morals are said to be “of the poultry yard,” have only vague innuendo and misrepresentation to offer. But what are the simple facts ? The family life of the workers is being destroyed by capitalism through the man, wife and child being forced into the factory to earn the daily bread; and where the home life remains it too often spells brutalising drudgery and ill-temper, owing to the poverty of the wage earner and the great waste of labour entailed by the individual household. The tremendous saving in drudgery that the co-operative household under Socialism will allow, the improvement in comfort, health, and happiness that it will bring, leave no room for doubt regarding the future of the home, while should any prefer the greater labour and discomfort of the old style, they would certainly be allowed to please themselves.

But what of the relations of men and women ? The Socialist knows that the methods of obtaining the material living, and the social order essential thereto, form the foundations of the moral and intellectual life of the time; and that with the changing economic foundation, not only must the relations of individuals to each other change, but their ideas also. The history of family life affords a striking example of this. As Prof. Jenks points out, permanent marriage had its origin in patriarchal society, and was due to no improvement in morality, but to the necessities of the pastoral pursuits of the man, and to his desire to secure for himself exclusively the labour of the woman and her offspring. The wife was bought or captured, and the children were valuable articles of merchandise. The very word “family” is derived from an old Italian word, famel, meaning a slave.

From its origin in the institution of property the marriage relationship has reflected the changing needs of property. Children are no longer chattels or assets in the old sense ; they are “encumbrances,” and paterfamilias’ former power of life and death over his household is now restricted to very meagre dimensions. The present marriage contract expresses the needs of the economic dependence of women and children on the man, and becomes an instrument for the control and transmission of property. Mutual affection is quite subordinated to questions of property and income, with the consequent outcrop of hypocrisy, adultery, and unhappiness. While on the one hand the number of men who do not marry is made greater by the insecurity of their lot, on the other hand the number of women who sell themselves on the streets is increased by the inability of many to obtain otherwise even the bare necessaries of life.

But when socialisation ends the reign of capitalist property and insecurity, when woman has economic equality with man, and the fear for the children’s future is ended by communal life, then the relationship between the sexes ceases to be a property one and becomes human ; and who can doubt that modern forms must alter with such change of circumstances, and that the matrimonial market and property contract, with the buying and selling of cohabitation for title and income, must, together with the corollaries of prostitution and domestic misery, become mere memories of a dark past. Who can doubt that the relations between man and woman, when freed of the demoralising influence of economic inequality and vicious social surroundings, will be healthier and purer than ever before being based no longer on a property transaction or economic compulsion, but upon mutual affection. Yet we are told, among much other nonsense on page 29 of the book under review, that under Socialism “the union of men and women would be an affair of the State, not of mutual regard” !

The Intellectual Few.

On page 54 the reader is told, “the more the origin of wealth is enquired into, the more clearly will the truth appear that wealth is caused by the intelligence of the few, as distinguished from the labour of the many.” Now even if this were so it would not bear the inference that the propertied class are the intellectual few reaping the reward of their intellectual labour, for the wealth of the few is accumulated from the purchase and exploitation of both “manual” and “intellectual” workers. But what is the truth regarding the wonderful inventions and improvements which have occurred in industrial processes ? Have a series of supermen arisen to produce at each stroke a great wage-saving improvement ? Herbert Spencer himself has exploded the “great man” theory, and has shown that the great man is the product of his age, whilst the history of industry shows that nearly all improvements have been the result of an accumulation of small inventions which up to a certain point were ignored or despised, in spite of their possibilities, because they were not immediately cheaper to work than the older methods. But a last slight improvement, based upon and supplementing the labour of those who had gone before, rendered the new process more profitable than the former methods, and rapidly the features of that industry became transformed. In 1857, Hodge, before a Commission said : “Present spinning machinery is supposed to be a compound of about 800 inventions. The present carding machinery is a compound of about 60 patents.”

And those who wrought these improvements, were they rewarded ? And were they members of our amazingly intellectual ruling class ? They were, indeed, rawly rewarded, while it is almost entirely from men of the working class that the leading inventions have come. J. Burnley, in “The Story of British Trade and Industry,” says, “It is a notable fact that the leading inventors of the latter half of the eighteenth century were of the artizan class—humble workers who, in their cottages and little improvised workshops, quietly worked out the mechanical problems which achieved so much for the world, if not for themselves.”

John Kay, after inventing the fly shuttle, died a pauper at the end of a few years of ineffectual struggle. Wyatt, who after three years of close effort produced a machine which “spun the first thread of cotton ever produced without the intervention of human fingers,” was poor, and allied himself with Lewis Paul, of Birmingham, who promised to finance the invention. Wyatt, however, never benefited by it, for nothing came of the idea until Arkwright revised it at a later date. Another poor inventor, Crompton, set himself to combine the spinning jenny and the water frame. It took him five years of secret experiment, but he eventually succeeded and for a while quietly used his improvement in his own work. Crompton, however, was asked how he managed to spin such fine yarn ; he then let the manufacturers into the secret on their subscribing about £50. The firm of which Sir Robert Peel, the grandfather of the statesman, was principal, were the first to make big profits out of the invention, making their machines after Crompton’s model. Soon millions of the spindles were working, but Crompton died a few years later in extreme poverty. Such is, indeed, the usual answer of capitalist practice to capitalist theory. The brains of the workers are picked, and their bodily strength exhausted, in order to increase the wealth of those who own the means of living.

The whole argument that “wealth is due to the intelligence of the few” is, in reality, nonsensical. There is no intellectual labour without some degree of manual labour, and no manual labour, however mechanical, that does not imply intellectual labour also. The marketable wealth of the world is not produced otherwise than by labour, intellectual and manual; yet the fact remains that it is a non-producing class who, by their ownership of the means whereby wealth is created, and by their control of political power, are enabled to compel the people to carry on production for them, and to hand over to them all the enormous surplus that remains when the bare necessities of the producers have been grudgingly provided for.

And it is in defence of the title of this owning class to the wealth created by others, that the book under review is published. Well does the League that is responsible for the book deserve to be called, as it is by many working men, the Liberty to Rob Defence League.

F. C.Watts

Blogger's Note:

There isn't a lot of information about Frederick Millar on the net, but he does get a few mentions in Edward Bristow's 1975 article, 'The Liberty and Property Defence League and Individualism', which was published in The Historical Journal.

Doubts and Difficulties: Why Every Other Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jan. 7th, 1907.

To the Executive of the S.P.G.B.

Whilst thanking you for the courtesy with which your contributor dealt with my “Doubts and Difficulties” in the December issue, I beg leave to put one or two more points. In the first place allow me to say that when I stated that I accepted your Declaration of Principles as a sound basis of waging the class struggle, I did not accept that portion of it which, it now appears, declares war on other Socialists,—because they are not of your party ; but because it was hostile, as I then understood it, to the two capitalist parties. Truly the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Fabian Society are political parties; but they are avowed Socialist Parties. The Liberal and Tory Parties are not. You must admit that when they take on themselves the title of “Socialist,” they all have one end in view, viz., the common ownership of all the forces requisite for man’s necessity. But the capitalist parties never advocate such measures. That to me is where the whole difference lies. The quarrel between Socialists appears to me as ridiculous as the sham-fighting between Liberal and Tory. There is no difference between their interests ; and where is the difference of interest with Socialists ? There can only be a difference of tactics. Therefore if you cannot conscientiously help other Socialist parties why not cease to hamper the little good they may be doing ; and instead, use the time, space and energy in fighting the capitalists, and exposing their alluring promises, etc. It would at least keep the issue clearer.

My respondent does not think I am justified in saying that you should recognise everybody and everything making for Socialism. I did not say that. The next sentence is thus : “We fully recognise that every action of every party, person, or economic force is making for Socialism.” Then, how can you say you do not ? Now, I said, “assist everyone aiming at . . Socialism . . irrespective of party or religion, etc.” “Economicus” then asks, ”How are we to recognise them ?” Why by respect and toleration, if not help.

My replier owes his conversion to Herbert Spencer and asks how is he to be recognised, and his types. Well, I suggest you should recognise him by advising others to read his works also, pointing out that he was only a learned philosopher, not an infallible god ; for if one intelligent man can be brought to the light that way, why not others ? Tell the people to read all sides ; the truth never suffers, and the more sure the result. Intelligent Socialists are not made by reading socialistic literature alone, but by thinking broadly on all subjects.

You say you do not attack Socialists of the S.D.F. because they are such. But, where there is a meeting, your party, instead of keeping quiet and hearing if the speaker is unscientific, get up in deliberate opposition, as though he were a fraud, while he may be a more able speaker, temporally, than your own supporter. One of the crowd hears both speakers, and can’t for the life of him make out what the two parties exist for, much less what the quarrel is.

But I must not intrude on your generosity for space. There are many points I should have, liked to have contested in the reply, but I refrain. But I put this to you : would it be wise for me to leave my trade society, and start another on my own account, because I did not get satisfaction for my endeavours, great or small ? Would it not be better to remain inside, and by persistent propaganda in the branch, monthly report, or workshop, try to secure a majority of those who think as I do, and thereby alter the government of it ?

That is how I look at the action of your party ; to say nothing of the split that has occurred, as I foreshadowed in my previous letter. Verily, to accomplish Socialism—make Socialists. For Socialism, to be successful, must be directed by intelligence ; but the bulk of the people are ignorant, and to place ignorance in power would be to establish a system more terrible and tyrannical than the present. Therefore, however much you may disagree with what you term palliatives, such as feeding the children before “educating” them, healthier dwellings, municipal buildings, shorter hours, increase of wages, etc., bear in mind that most of them are economic advances ; and only by this means will the people gradually become intellectually, morally, and physically fit to wield the power they will possess, safely, securely and permanently. It will take a long time, but slowly and surely the race will be run.

Yours very fraternally,

Fredk. W. Tod.

92, Duckett Road, 

Harringay.

Reply:

The break down of the feudal system of wealth production was necessitated by the growth within it of a new system of production under which the worker was divorced from his means of production. The new society evolved from the old and worked at first harmoniously with it, but a time came when the forces of the new industrial system were hindered by, and became antagonistic to, the powers of the old. An inevitable struggle ensued and, inevitably, the old society had to go.

* * *

The new mode of production brought in its train an entire revolution in the conceptions of mankind arising from entirely fresh conditions of wealth production. The development of this society, with its introduction of machine produced wealth, its dependence of the worker upon the owner of the machine, its placing political power in the hands of the machine-owning or capitalist class, has gone with the development of the antagonisms latent within it. Machine owner against wage worker, profit against wages, capitalist class against working-class interest—these oppositions. made necessary the growth of a working-class political party fighting against the ruling powers controlling the administration. of the nation.

* * *

Such a political party of the workers made necessary by the oppositions of class must have as an objective the capturing the political machine. But to what purpose ? So as to so administer the affairs of the community that every man should be ranked among the workers and that the production of wealth and its distribution should be socially controlled in the interest and for the welfare of the whole people.

* * *

Such a party must be a Socialist party. Further, it must be a working-class party. Only the working class can work out working-class emancipation. The past history of class warfare shows that political power is wrested by each successive class in the social strata which then absorbs within itself the former ruling class and refuses to share its power with the class below. Only one class now remains the working class—and it, too, must finally wrest power from the hands of the capitalist class and thereby absorbing that class, secure the abolition of all class. This strife for dominion can end only when classes have ceased to be.

* * *

The class strife, of which I have just spoken, must be mainly political, but alongside the political struggle must go pari passu the economic organisation of the working class. On such field of the struggle they must be prepared. The class strife manifests itself in a struggle on the political plane which involves the building up of a political organisation prepared to capture all the powers of government.

* * *

Being a class struggle nothing can be hoped for from either of the capitalist political parties. Hence any alliance or agreement with them must necessarily hinder the emancipation of the working class and confuse the class issue. Whether such an alliance or agreement is entered into in local or in national politics the end to be gained, even if gained, must remain of less importance than the keeping a clear class issue before the working class.

* * *

We have therefore to recognise (1) a class strife, manifesting itself in (2) a politico-economic struggle for power on the part of the workers, necessitating (3) a Socialist Parliamentary political party fighting for Socialism and for all that Socialism implies. This fight must be without hope of aid from the other political parties whose interests harmonise with the maintenance of the present class society. We have also to recognise the impossibility of securing the palliation of the present capitalist society, except at the hands of a Socialist Party Government. When you have a Socialist Party Government in power you will find that they do not mean to allow the capitalist regime to exist sufficiently long to need palliation. They will rear a new society rather than patch up an old ; revolutionise and not reform.

* * *

Any political party, then, call it by whatsoever name you will, which has a palliative programme is a party which seeks the assistance of a political party of capitalist texture. They can only carry any palliative measure on their programme by the aid of the capitalist government. To have such a hope says little for their understanding of the class war. Such a programme is the first step towards alliances and agreements, and we cannot, therefore, experience much surprise when we find that every political party other than The Socialist Party of Great Britain has entered into such alliances and agreements. Such parties are a danger to the Socialist movement in this country and must be opposed and exposed.

* * *

It is of no avail asking why we could not have remained in this or the other party with a view to rectifying their errors. We have made every possible effort in that direction but have signally failed. We know that there are many earnest, self-sacrificing Socialists in those parties among the rank and file, but so long as they support their present parties their Socialism is of little utility to the furtherance of Socialism in this country.

* * *

Again we criticise the actions of those parties and of the members of those parties in detail—and apart from their erroneous basic principles—whenever we find them inconsistent with Socialism. We criticise, not so much from any expectation that they will act differently, but, so that our readers may clearly understand the course of conduct these parties pursue.

* * *

My critic, Mr. Tod, thinks that we should recognise men like Spencer by advising people to read his books, and parties like the S.D.F., I.L.P., Fabian Society, and Labour Party by toleration if not by help. We have no objection to people reading Spencer’s “Synthetic Philosophy” or even the organs of these organisations. I do not see, however, why we should advise them to do so. The party of reaction is sufficiently strong without our aiding it by giving such advice. In giving the readers of the Socialist Standard advice as to books to study we shall be governed by what we consider best for Socialism and by no other motive whatsoever.

* * *

But toleration if not help ! Toleration of compromise !!! Of the denial of the class war !!! Surely not. The difference between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the parties which Mr. Tod takes under his wing is not merely difference in tactics, but is a difference in the underlying principles upon which those tactics are based. As an example I may again point out that our principles determine that we are the only political party in Great Britain which has from its inception rejected a palliative programme.

* * *

It is not that we are opposed to such desirable objects as the free feeding of children, or the free feeding, housing, clothing, &c. of adults. It is that we are firmly convinced that nothing which can materially benefit the working class will ever be given by the one and only capitalist political party. If there were two capitalist political parties we might—but I trust not.

* * *

For there is but one capitalist political party—the Liberal-Tory Party. They are like unto a wedded couple. Bound in the ties of holy matrimony their essential interests are the same. Like all married couples they have their petty differences. Seek, however, to gain an influence over either, or to side with either, or to obtain an advantage detrimental to either, and we soon learn to “beware the redding stroke,” for they twain are of one flesh.

* * *

I may conclude my remarks arising from Mr. Tod’s letter with the following quotation from Wilhelm Liebknecht:

”On the ground of the class struggle we are invincible; if we leave it we are lost, because we are no longer Socialists. The strength and the power of Socialism rests in the fact that we are leading a class struggle ; that the labouring class is exploited and oppressed by the capitalist class, and that within capitalist society effectual reforms, which will put an end to class government and class exploitation, are impossible.

“We cannot traffic in our principles, we can make no compromise, no agreement with the ruling system. We must break with the ruling system and fight it to a finish. It must fall that Socialism may arise, and we certainly cannot expect from the ruling class that it will give to itself and its domination the death blow. The International Working Men’s Association accordingly preached that ‘the emancipation of the labouring class must be the work of the labourers themselves.’ ”

* * *

Thus by these words of wisdom we are justified.

Economicus.

Literary Curiosities No. 5—E. E. Hunter in Sackcloth and Ashes. (1907)

From the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Stratford Socialist Club,

3, Well Street, Stratford, E.

3rd April, 1906.

To the Members and Branches of the Social Democratic Federation.

Dear Comrades,—In April 1903 I was expelled the S.D.F. Early in the present year I applied for re-admission to the Stratford Branch, and they accepted me subject to the consent of the Executive Council. They, however, have withheld that consent, and writing on March 6th, comrade H. W. Lee informs me “that they (the E.C.) do not see their way to grant such application at the present time.”

The Stratford Branch are now appealing against this decision to the Annual Conference at Bradford, and it is in support of this appeal, and in order to explain my position that I pen this letter.

During the three years that have elapsed since my expulsion there are, of course, many of my actions that the S.D.F. can legitimately call me to account for, and as I was fully aware of this fact I requested the E.C. to allow me to attend their meeting with a view to coming to an understanding upon such matters. I duly attended the meeting, and made a statement fully dealing with my reasons, and my attitude as regards my past relations with the S.D.F. Several questions were asked including one by comrade Qnelch as to whether I was willing to put in writing what I had said to them. I replied that I was perfectly willing if they so desired it. This I now do.

As distinct from my criticisms of the organisation, I have made certain charges against the party and individuals which were simply founded on hypothesis. These I unreservedly withdraw. Where these charges have caused pain to comrades, I can only express my regret, and trust that loyal work for the party in the future will efface any feelings of bitterness that may remain. One thing I would emphasise in fairness to myself, and those whom up till October last were my colleagues, that at any rate we were conscientious and sincere. Personally I am thoroughly convinced that the “impossiblist” movement in so far as it developed into a revolt against the real organisation of revolutionary Socialism in Great Britain was a great and grievous error.

Experience has taught me that it is an impossibility to build a party in which every unit shall, temperamentally, economically and politically toe a given line. The party of the workers must be one that always keeps the class standpoint in view, that politically stands in antagonism to all the sections of the capitalist class, and that always keeps to the front the vital principles of the social revolution. The S.D.F. fits these qualifications, and is therefore the party to which, should rally the class-conscious Socialist of the country. On minor questions that deal with the policy to be adopted in relation to this or that palliative, or reform of capitalist society there may be legitimate differences of opinion, but as long as there is no sinking of principle involved the drawing of a hard and fast line is apt to disintegrate the movement by enforcing cast-iron discipline in small things that are not vitally important. The same remarks apply to my attitude towards alliances, temporary or otherwise, for a specific purpose. As long as such an alliance does not hide our principles, and the object of the alliance is good in an agitational sense, such an alliance is of utility ; as soon, however, as it has tendency to smother the party’s principles, and associate it with dubious company it becomes dangerous. I am convinced, however, that the S.D.F. has sufficient political acumen to discriminate between good and bad alliances.

I trust that this confession of faith will help to clear the air. In the main, I, of course hold that the Socialist, movement progresses in equal ratio to its independence and sturdy clearness of utterance. The more clearly it is able to define its position, the more it gathers to itself all that is best and strongest in the working class. On these lines the S.D.F. has fought, and its strong position to-day after all its expulsions and secessions is ample justification for its existence. The S.D.F. undoubtedly represents the revolutionary working class, and it is folly to hinder its way with carping criticism, and spiteful opposition.

In conclusion I trust that the comrades will fully consider my application, and by endorsing my membership of the Stratford Branch, put an end my wandering in the wilderness.

Fraternally yours,

Ernest E. Hunter

Blogger's Note:

Admittedly, it is rather vindictive publishing this mea culpa from Hunter in the pages of the Socialist Standard but, in fairness to the SPGB, he is pretty much throwing his old impossibilist comrades under the proverbial bus in the course of his letter. You can't help but feel that the SDF leadership was going out of its way in publicly humiliating a young man — Hunter would have been in his mid-20s in 1907 — for  previously stepping out of line.

It turned out okay for Hunter in the end. A brief moment of public scorn didn't stop him from carving out a long career in left-wing reformism. His wiki page - linked to above - is well worth a read.

[Press Cuttings.] (1907)

From the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Child Labour on Farms.

It passes one’s comprehension that after 100 years’ legislation on behalf of factory children, the farmer and other individuals may yet employ younger children than were ever dragged into cotton mills, and may work them for longer hours than were ever known in the history of the factory system ! 

Co-operative News.

____________

Street bookmaking is practically dead ; but its place has been taken by bookmaking through the post. This—according to a prominent member of the Metropolitan Police force, who has been engaged for twenty-five years in the prosecution of street bookmakers—is the main result of the new Betting Act increasing the penalties for street betting, which came into operation at the beginning of the year.

So that in getting rid of one evil it is questionable whether a greater evil is not being created. Street betting has probably disappeared, but the betting will be carried on just as much as before. 

Daily Chronicle

____________

Of all the Western industries introduced into Japan, the one which has made the most rapid progress is, says Engineering, that of cotton-spinning and manufacturing. Its products are also those which compete most directly with the corresponding British manufactures. Some of the most enterprising men of the Japanese Empire control the factories; and behind the young industry is the whole force of the paternal Government urging it on. There are 49 cotton-spinning companies in Japan, operating eighty-five mills. At present Japanese mills are making profits, not because of any special skill of their operatives, but simply on account of the difference in price between the raw materials and the simplest forms of manufactures therefrom. It is simply a question of keeping the belt on the tight pulley ; and that they are doing this to the fullest extent is shown by the fact that for the last six months of the period covered by this report, 81 out of 85 mills ran both night and day, and averaged over 22 hours a day.

____________

The Law Journal, referring to the question raised in the music hall strike whether pickets, whose proceedings lead to the gathering of crowds in the streets can be fined under the provisions of the Highway Act, 1835, having regard to the fact that peaceful picketing is legal under the provisions of the Trades Disputes Act, says it should have supposed that the section was intended to take away doubts as to the legality of picketing itself, and not to make the pickets entitled to over-ride public rights as well as molest individuals in the course of a trade dispute. If Mr. Atherley Jones’s reading of the Trades Disputes Act is correct, pickets would be entitled to trespass on private property in furtherance of their trade dispute.

Blogger's Note:

Llewellyn Atherley-Jones was the son of the famous Chartist, Ernest Jones.

From the Fighting Line. (1907)

Party News from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

West Ham.—Fair to middling. Little to rejoice at except increase of membership, and little to complain of but the apathy of the workers. Our success, of course, is equal to our power to command it, and that both may increase we have now reason to hope. The central classes for which we have yearned and worked are now an accomplished fact, and so far we can confidently recommend them to the careful consideration of the comrades who are still young or at least are not too old to learn. The Hammers look forward to meeting members of all the branches at this intellectual venue of the Party. We already feel the benefit in our own classes of the stimulus of “something done,” in the way of co-ordination of intellectual effort.

G. C. H. Carter

Tooting.—The working class can be united in demanding Socialism, but the reform has yet to be named that does not succeed in dividing their interests more or less. The I.L.P. manifesto on the L.C.C. elections which contains as one of its principal planks that revolutionary reform “A Municipal Milk Supply” is a case in point. Four Tooting milkmen, who had just commenced to take an interest in Socialism, saw this reform alluded to in the daily Press as “a Socialist demand” ; and knowing full well that it would mean that at the most only one fourth of their number would be required to deliver milk under that system, they, on meeting one of our speakers recently, charged him with seeking reform which would put three-fourths of their number out of work. It will take our comrade more than one evening to convince those milkmen that neither municipal capitalism nor the I.L.P. have anything to do with Socialism except in so far as the I.L.P. preaches confusion under that name.

The Wandsworth Trades and Labour Council are affording ample justification for the attitude of the Party in running candidates for the Borough Council against theirs last November. According to the aforesaid Labour Council neither the Progressives nor the Rev. Anderson (Tory) were then able to represent the interests of the workers, so they opposed them with candidates of their own. Somehow the L.C.C. elections have altered the complexion of affairs. First the Trades Council held a meeting for the purpose of hearing an address by Mr. Kellaway, the Progressive, candidate. This not affording complete satisfaction, they invited the Rev. Anderson to run in their interest. He declining they finally decided by 21 votes to 14 to support the Progressive, Mr. Kellaway !

This is independence as practised by Labour groups alliliated to the Labour Party. Opposition to all sections of the capitalist class at all times is the only attitude that will ever release the working class from its present bondage; and many outside our membership are beginning to see the impregnability of our position, in which mental transformation they are being assisted by the vacillating policy of the Wandsworth Trades Council, who have shown so completely that they neither know where they are nor where they are going.

Paul Dumenil

Paddington.—Once again the Paddington Borough is seething with political manifestations, having arisen out of the Slough of Despond into which it had been plunged since the last general election. Progressives and Moderates, aspirants for municipal honours, appear before the working class in this and other districts, clamouring for votes, each party stirring up the emotions of the working class with vague promises that can never be fulfilled while capitalism lasts, even if they wanted to fulfill them.

When the polling day arrives the climax will be reached, the Progressives or the Moderates will be announced as the victors. The glib-tongued politicians having had their purpose served (viz., the perpetuation of capitalism) will, disappear from the public gaze, and the majority of the working class having trusted their own interest to another class, will consider their duty done and await another general uprising in capitalist politics.

In distinct contrast to this flash in the pan, we, the Paddington members, assemble every Sunday morning throughout the year at the junction of the Walterton Road and Elgin Avenue, for the purpose of discussing political and economic questions of vital interest to the working class. We make no promises as to what we will do for them, we solicit no favours from them, nor ask them to support us, but to support themselves by combining with us. For working-class emancipation can only arise from working-class activities being directed in a scientifically organised way by that class itself. We invite all, of every shade of political opinion, to come and analyse the position we take up, and to ask questions of us. For the conclusion we draw from past experience is that the future belongs to us, for ours is the way, the truth, and the light.

T. A. Wilson

Philanthropy and Profits. (1907)

From the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The real nature of the pretendedly disinterested benevolence of some large employers is at times laid bare even in the journals of the enemy; and capitalist “philanthropy” is then found to have a very material basis. The Berlin correspondent of the Daily Chronicle has, for example, after a visit to Essen, the following to say regarding the famous firm of Krupp :—

“Krupps are honourably known for the patriarchal benevolence which they display towards their workpeople Their model dwellings, their sick-clubs, their co-operative stores, and a great variety of other institutions to alleviate the lot of their workers, have often been described, and always in terms of adulation. For my part, I carried away a different impression. I felt that all the mature thought bestowed by the famous firm on their benevolent institutions was the result of sound business principles, tinctured by despotism, rather than the manifestation of any special leanings towards philanthropy. This is the opinion of a large body of their own employees who regard the many admirably-conducted institutions as so many chains binding the men to the firm. The chains are covered with cotton wool, but that does not impair their strength ; it only makes them less galling. A concern like Krupp’s could not afford to have a large body of their workmen disaffected ; a strike could have most disastrous consequences.

“With my Socialist friend I visited several of the model dwelling-houses, and found much to admire, but a good deal also to criticise. Rents on the whole were high, and I found a far larger proportion of the tenements than I had expected anything but comfortable. Indeed, in too many cases the dwellings looked gloomy, forbidding, and absolutely devoid of homeliness and comfort. The colonies known as Schederhof and Nordhof were dreary and squalid in the extreme. An incessant guard, moreover, is kept over the men that they do not live a life outside the works which is displeasing to their employers. Their political activities, for example, are very narrowly scrutinised. Every workman on entering Krupp’s employ must sign a document of portentous length, in which his work and his play are both regulated. He must, for example, sign that he will not attach himself to any political organisation which has as its object the upheaval of existing social or political institutions. As Socialism in the eyes of Krupp is synonymous with revolution, this means that any workman known as a Socialist is summarily dismissed.”

Party Notes. (1907)

Party News from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Third Annual Conference will be held on Good Friday and Saturday, March 29th and 30th respectively, at the Communist Club, commencing each day at 10 a.m.

* * *

On Good Friday evening a Social and Dance will be held. Admission by programme, to be obtained from branch secretaries or direct from Head Office.

* * *

Enquiries have been made as to whether membership of Clarion Cycling Clubs is compatible with membership of the S.P.G.B. Were the clubs merely social there would, of course, be no difficulty about the matter, but in point of fact one of the rules of the N.C.C.C. adopted last year at Warwick, specifies “The propagation of principles of Socialism as advocated by the CLARION.”

* * *

The “Principles of Socialism as advocated by the Clarion” are the principles of rate-saving municipal capitalism, and state industry on the lines of the Post Office; the transference of capital and the function of the capitalist from the individual to the Public Body.

* * *

A member of the S.P.G.B. would, then, clearly be wrong in joining a Clarion Cycling Club.

* * *

In some walks of life a man is compelled by economic necessity to become a member of an organisation which devotes a small portion of its funds to a political policy as a side line. But there are plenty of purely social clubs, and the member of the S.P.G.B. consequently finds that he need not support a club that is run to advertise a confusionist journal and to propagate an “ism” that is inimical to his class, while in so far as the cycle can be used as an auxiliary to political activity the S.P.G.B. wheelers fill the bill.

* * *

The economic and speakers’ classes meet every Thursday evening at the Head Office.

* * *

Our comrades, “the two revolutionaries,” are pushing the sale of the Party Organ in the Northern industrial centres, thus performing services to the organisation that will, no doubt, be of material service to us in our endeavour to enlarge the scope of our political activities.

_____________

Now that the propaganda season is upon us comrades should throw redoubled vigour into the work of pushing the sale of the Party Organ and other Party literature. No more effective work can be performed for Socialism.

Wholesale and retail agents for the Socialist Standard. (1907)

From the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Politics and You (1977)

From the July 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

No doubt many of you are increasingly indifferent to politics and hold most politicians in contempt. This is understandable — the politicians make promises which they do not keep, and so more and more of the electorate adopt a cynical attitude to it all.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain do not blame the politicians for failing to “deliver the goods”; in fact our case is that they cannot. Surely if they could, they would, because this would be a certain recipe for retaining political power.

What we in the Socialist Party say, in other words, is that present-day society we live in cannot be shaped or directed at will. Merely because a politician pledges to reduce inflation, cure unemployment or solve the housing problem does not mean that this can be done. Most of you are becoming aware that far from governments controlling events, the reverse is true.

All right then! This calls for a basic examination of present-day society — which most people accept, and bemoan the inevitable consequences.

It calls for a recognition that in a world of competition turmoil is inevitable, stability impossible. In the existing economic system, which operates throughout the modern world regardless of political labels, goods and services are produced for a market, sale with profit being the only motive for production.

A rational and human attitude to resources, technology and the needs of mankind cannot be brought about within a society of money-dominated production and conflicting nation-states.

We all know that the British economy is facing the twin problems of inflation and slump. These problems are facing other industrial countries. The great argument and competition among them (USA, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Britain and the emerging industrial countries, not to mention the Soviet Union etc.) is who are to be top rats in one gigantic rat-race.

In every country the workers are being told that they must work harder to make the national economy more competitive than its rivals.

The exhortations to work harder (to those in employment) are particularly prevalent in this country. Such is the nature of the capitalist system that the problems facing the successful economies like Japan are just as pressing. Their very growth of productive capacity means that they require a large slice of the world market (at the expense of the other industrial countries). Yet we are told that the only solution to British problems is “growth”.

The following figures demonstrate the irrational world of capitalist competition in (for instance) shipbuilding.

Japan cutting shipyard labour force by 25,000, France 6,000. West Germany 4,000, Sweden is cutting by 30 per cent, Holland’s shipbuilding is only at 10 per cent of full capacity. Australia is closing 3 of its 5 shipyards.

(Daily Telegraph, 8th December 1976)

It is interesting to note that these various countries have different political parties in power operating supposedly different economic policies (Australia replaced their Labour government last year with a Conservative one, likewise Sweden): but with the same result.

Going back to October 28th 1976, the Daily Telegraph (City page) had the following statement on shipbuilding:

The oil crisis has been merely the catalyst for the shipbuilding crisis, which has been looming since 1969-70. Any expansion beyond that date has been irresponsible.

It was forecast that shipbuilding world orders may drop to 13 million tons whilst the production capacity being worked now was 33 million tons. With the increasing development of shipbuilding in countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil capacity could be raised to 53 million tons.

Against this background of so-called “overproduction” and the subsequent frenzy to survive, are the millions even in the advanced countries who live sub-standard lives and the teeming millions in the “Third World” who live in the direst poverty.

In this country the slump has hit the building industry. Side by side with homelessness and slum living are unemployed building workers. Likewise large classes in schools with poor facilities and unemployed teachers.

Then there is the obscenity of food surpluses in one part of the world and starvation in another part. Even in those countries where the mountains of food are stored there are many ill-fed people: look at the world’s richest country, the USA .

The Socialist Party of Great Britain does not seek votes in a futile attempt to administer the existing system. The problems facing mankind can only be solved on a global scale upon the basis of worldwide common ownership and production for use. This means the ending of the whole paraphernalia of wages, profits, taxes and money. The end of state coercion, of leaders and led (the blind leading the blind).

It requires the urgent marshalling of resources to meet human needs. The introduction of free access: “from each according to his (her) ability, to each according to his (her) needs”. A change of this magnitude can be brought about politically, through the ballot box and using Parliament to lay the foundation stone of Socialist society. At the same time breaking down centralized government and replacing it with real democracy. This form of decision-making can only be decided by the majority of the population.

The various Socialist administrations in the different countries would then have to co-ordinate their activities so as to have a world approach to world needs. No doubt many of the existing forms like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation could be adapted to this end.

Too tall an order, too vast a dream, too naive a hope? We think not. There is no other way to safeguard mankind’s future survival. You know the problems are real enough. There never has been a period in man’s history where the survival of our species has been so thoroughly discussed and society’s contradictions so thoroughly exposed.

Men and women of the working class, YOU in conjunction with your fellows abroad are the ones who can change things. The politicians are caught up in the power struggle within the present system. The industrialists, the wealthy in general have a vested interest in capitalism.

The working class have to bear the brunt of today’s problems and they are the majority.

If you agree with the World Socialist position you will wish to join the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It would not want to have you for any other reason.

Frank Simkins

Them and us (1977)

From the July 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The popular souvenir of coronations etc. is a decorated pottery mug, and for last month’s royal jubilee a not-too-tawdry one cost about 80p. That is one-fiftieth of the common sort of net wage. On 5th June The Observer mentioned some more expensive souvenirs. Harrods had sold “a silver fruitbowl supported by a silver Lion and Unicorn rampant and bearing the Jubilee hallmark” for £8.750; Asprey’s had “a silver cigar box with an engraving of the Palace of Westminster on the lid and a lining of Macassar ebony” for £4,750. On the one-fiftieth principle, these would be bought from disposable incomes of £437,500 and £237,500 any week.

Doesn’t it make you angry? This is the flesh on the bones of statistics of the distribution of wealth. Fat smirking politicians and industrialists rise from banquet-tables to pronounce that the sun will set on civilization if the workers’ greed for another £5 a week is not contained. Meanwhile the privileged ten per cent (who are there applauding) live with an unstinted prodigality which speaks contempt for the millions whose labour provides it all. Perhaps the High Street mugs were devised as an upper-class joke, like sweets for the sweet.

Pelf on parade

Look down the advertisement columns and notices in The Times on any day: 8th June. There are houses to let in London—£140 a week, £225 a week; or a flat at £90. For those who prefer the country, a house at Purley is advertized at £75,000 (which used to be the amount of the top football-pools win, the worker’s dream of riches); or at Wentworth (“on the edge of the 17th Green of this renowned golf course”) for £100,000; or Windsor, £85,000. Servants are essential. “Responsible cheerful nanny required to take full responsibility for 4 mth-old baby”; “One experienced Butler & 2 domestics and a qualified cook”; “mother’s help/housekeeper” (£20 to £25 a week).

This is not pre-1914, the world of Upstairs, Downstairs: it is 1977, in the epoch of the Social Contract. Nor does the working-class kind of racial prejudice get in the way. Agencies offer “Best Filipino domestics”, and “experienced maids, couples, housemen” (English-speaking) “from Philippines”. It would be interesting to know the wages paid—and to hear these householders titter at the naïveté of Enoch Powell and the National Front. There are other services too. Working-class children of “low attainments” go down; upper-class ones go up to Oxford and Cambridge, with the help of the tutors and coaching establishments that advertize in The Times.

Then the endless luxury expenditures. What about a piano for £2,200, or a mink coat at £2,900? A pair of ornamental stone griffins for the gateposts, £2,000? The reports of auction sales which go on all the time—oriental rugs, pictures, gewgaws at several thousands each; wining and costly dining; prolonged cruise holidays; the waiting lists for public schools whose annual fees are more than the majority earn. Contrast this with the self-congratulation of the ruling class at workers possessing colour televisions, refrigerators and cars; “you never had it so good” (sotto voce: “you undeserving swine”). Yet the total at cost of practically any worker’s possessions would be no more, and probably much less, than two or three thousand pounds—say, his year’s wages; it would not buy one article the upper class thinks worth having.

Get it right

It is mistaken, however, to think of this as injustice or maldistribution. Reformers who believe that have been trying to change things for a hundred years. They have failed because they are wrong. The monopoly of wealth comes from rhe ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the capitalist system, a single class owns them; and wealth takes the form of commodities—articles produced for sale at a profit. Take away the greater part of the owners’ money in taxation, and they still have the means of going on acquiring more. Moreover, because their activity constitutes “the economy” everything is done to facilitate and protect it.

The majority, the working class, because they do not own the means of living can get nothing beyond wages and salaries. The price of labour-power, like the prices of all other commodities, expresses its value: what is required to produce and reproduce it. This is what makes have-nots of nine out of ten, while the owning class are haves. There is no point in calling it unfair; it is capitalism, and cannot be changed while the system continues. If the revenues were not spent on ostentation and indulgence they would still be there, extracted from the labour of the working class.

Oh yes, anger is in order. But let it be turned in the proper direction: not at the pudgy hands which place the mouldy cheese on the spike, but at the existence of the trap itself. There is an alternative. The trap is class ownership; it can be ended and replaced with common ownership of the means of living. Make a new social system on that basis. The fat of the land will not vanish but increase, and who will get it? The owners—everybody'

Robert Barltrop