The Kirkdale Bye-Election. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blatchford Eats his Words.

Appeals to “Socialists” to close up their ranks and help in every possible way to return Mr. J.. Hill to Parliament are falling fast and furious and the usual reasons are being advanced by those whose policy is changed as often as is demanded by the necessity to maintain the circulation of their newspapers, secure the attendance of the public in large numbers at their meetings or to bring themselves into prominence as “leaders” of the working class. Mr. Robert Blatchford, who for weeks in the columns of the Clarion has been explaining “Why the Labour Party is no good,” now urges all, Socialists and Labour men alike, to help to swell the ranks of the “useless” Labour Party by returning a candidate who will be as useless as the best of them. In the Clarion Election Supplement Mr. Blatchford eats his own words and declares that “the workers need a strong and United Labour Party” because “two ominous words, ‘Conscription’ and ‘Protection’ are being freely bandied about, and attacks, open or covert, are being made upon Trade Unionism and Education,” and further, “The Liberal Party may be a better Party than the the Tory Party, but the best Party for Labour is a Labour Party.” And this whilst the ink is hardly dry on his utterances on the failure of the Labour Party and his declarations that only a Socialist Party will do ! But then, Robert Blatchford is a journalist and also writes romances.

The S.D.F. Position.

Edward Hartley, too, calls us “To Arms ! To Arms !” He also, in Justice and elsewhere, has been asserting the necessity for a Socialist party, but like Blatchford and others, is not honest enough to admit that it exists in The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Hill should be helped because he “is not only the secretary of a strong and well-organised trade union (!) but a good Socialist who has advocated his principles for years.” But, Hartley adds, “Even if he were not a Socialist, but only a Trade Unionist who would stand firm on the principle of independence in political action, he would be better than the best candidate who could be selected as either Liberal or Tory.” We hope our friends who tell us they believe in our policy of hostility to all other parties, but who remain in the S.D.F. because they also believe that to be an uncompromising Socialist organisation, will note its willingness to support non-Socialists and even anti-Socialists under the conditions stated by Mr. Hartley.

The Liberal Attitude.

Mr. Hartley says also that the Liberals find the Tory candidate so acceptable that there is to be no Liberal candidate, but on the other hand, it may be that the Liberals find Mr. Hill so acceptable that they prefer to leave the field open to him. After all, if at the General Election they were willing to assist “independent” candidates, like Mr. Ramsay McDonald, Mr. T. F. Richards, Mr. Jas. Parker, Mr. G. J. Wardle and others into the House of Commons, why should they fight the Labour candidate now that they have discovered how “sensible, respectable and adaptable” the Labour members are ? As the Daily News admitted, when commenting on Mr. Gill’s address at the Trade Union Congress “no Liberal who is in earnest about his creed . . . can do anything but rejoice in the strength of a party at once so sincere and so reasonable.” And judging by his election address, no Liberal need fear the return of Mr. John Hill for the Kirkdale division. (Since the above was written the Kirkdale Liberal Divsional Council have passed a resolution urging the Liberal electors to vote for Mr. Hill.)

Mr. Hill’s Program.

The Labour Leader prints certain portions of Mr. Hill’s election address, and even from these it can be seen how far he is in conflict with the programs of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. Amongst other things Mr. Hill says :—

Aliens' Bill.

I deeply regret that through lack of employment at home British Workers are forced to go to other countries as “Blacklegs,” or stay at home and starve. I am in favour of a Bill to give Protection to British Workers by the prohibition of Aliens being imported to take the place of men on strike, or to undercut or displace British Worker.

Education.

As a Nonconformist, I believe in simple Bible study—the Bible is still my best book: at the same time, Bible lessons should only be given to children at their parents’ desire, as every parent should have the fullest opportunity to teach his child his own faith. I believe that religion thrives best and retains its sincerity without State interference.

Temperance.

As a total abstainer, I am in favour of the people of every town or parish having the fullest direct veto on the renewal of old licences or the granting of new ones. The common people ought to have the right to say whether or not temptation shall be beside their homes and amongst their children.

Franchise.

I am in favour of Adult Suffrage. Meantime, I would support the agitation for the extension of the franchise to women on the same basis as it now is, or may be, extended to men. I also favour the Bill giving married women the right to vote on their husband’s qualifications.

In conclusion.

As I am opposed to the present commercial system of production for profit, I would advocate in Parliament the Nationalisation of the production, distribution, and exchange of the common necessities of life. The enormous and ever increasing trade and wealth of the country is only tending to make the poor poorer, and rich richer and creating a luxurious, idle class on the one hand, and a starving unemployed class on the other. It is only by a more scientific system of society, a more just division of the products of labour, a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work, that the workers shall be emancipated.

And it is on utterances such as these that the Clarion, the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Trade Unions unite ! Such unity proves our case against them in regard to political action.

Mr. Hill’s Hotch Potch.

So far as we know Mr. Hill is the first “Labour” candidate to advocate the exclusion of aliens, and to adopt the Tariff Reformers’ position that the low wages and lack of employment of the working class here are due to the admission of aliens. Evidently Mr. Hill is one of the “working-men Tariff Reform missionaries” that Mr. C. Arthur Pearson threatens shall take the field against Socialism. The paragraph concerning “Education” conflicts with the resolution of the Trade Union Congress, the program of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., and again typifies the latitude allowed to “Labour” candidates for vote catching purposes, and proves conclusively how the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. will ignore their own programs in order to be “in the swim.” Both these two bodies, also, are pledged to public ownership and control of the drink traffic, a “reform” which Mr. Hill does not support. His reference to “the common people” is an insult to the working class, and his plea for a more just division of the products of labour is an admission that the present system is just and all Mr. Hill wants is to make it more so !

The Only Way.

There is one course for the workers of Kirkdale to adopt, although the result will be announced before these lines are in print,—Abstain from voting. A candidate who will pander to all sections, as Mr. Hill, with the support of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Clarion, is doing, proving thereby that he holds to no guiding principle beyond the personal desire to add the much coveted letters M.P. to his name, or, if we acquit him of this, showing conclusively that he does not comprehend the working-class position, is worse than useless to his class, and can only fall a victim, as the others have done, to the flattery and the hospitality of the master-class representatives. To serve the working class a candidate must stand as a rebel, be prepared to act as a rebel if elected, and to take all the consequences of such action. Prating about “a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work” after two thousand years of wars, barbarities, faction fights and other loving pleasantries which Christ’s followers indulge in, may be a good card to play in Liverpool and the appeal no doubt goes straight to the heart of atheists like Robert Blatchford, and the leaders of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. But neither by looking up to Christs nor down to devils, neither by appealing to politicians nor by relying upon “leaders” will the workers secure their emancipation. Only by realising that they are slaves, that there is no hope for them while Capitalism exists, that their emancipation can only be secured by abolishing, not palliating, the capitalist system and by organising themselves to take for themselves possession and control of all the means of producing and distributing wealth, will their historic mission be fulfilled. As voting for Mr. Hill would not assist them, but make the existing confusion worse confounded, we trust that the result will show that large numbers of the workers of Kirkdale have declined to vote for either of the candidates before them. But we confess we are not hopeful. The Social Revolution must be preceded by a mental revolution. Much deep study must be undertaken before the mental revolution is accomplished, and until then the workers will fall an easy prey to Labour Misleaders like Mr. Hill and his supporters.

Jack Kent

“If Mr. Hill is defeated,” says the Labour Leader of September 27th, “he will not be defeated on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of our Socialist purposes or faith.” And, it may be added, if Mr. Hill is successful he will not be successful on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of the Socialist purpose or faith.

Justice, however, declares it to be a “Socialist” fight. The contest, they say, is “one between Socialism and anti-Socialism.” “The fight is distinctly one for and against Socialism, and if Mr. Hill wins it will unquestionably be a Socialist victory.” In view of the candidate’s program, which Justice admits might be “more pronouncedly Socialist,” these words must have come as a severe shock to those S.D.F. members who assert that their organisation is “stiffening.” It is more flabby than ever.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fact that Victor Grayson fought Colne Valley without the sanction of the Labour Party has upset several members of that “sensible, respectable, and adaptable” collection of odds and ends. Writing in the A.S.E. Journal for August, Mr. G. N. Barnes says that “each section should endeavour to fall in line with due regard to the general situation. Otherwise there may be more or less irregular candidatures leading to friction and a breaking up of the solidarity which has so far characterised the Labour Party. If Socialists, for instance, are going to run candidates ‘on their own’ without regard to the feelings of the Trade Unionist section, and, as in this case, without consulting the party as a whole, then Trade Unionists may be disposed to return the compliment.”

***

Mr. Barnes’ reference to “solidarity” is amusing. Even the Daily News for September 3rd wrote concerning it: “Its members are but loosely joined together : in its small aggregation it comprehends the extremes of opinion. Today they are often seen walking into different lobbies in Parliament.”

***

The following report appeared in the Times of August 27th:—

” The ‘Survivors of the all-night sittings’ of August 19 and 20 dined together at the House of Commons last night, among those present being Mr. Whitely, Mr. J. A. Pease, Mr. Herbert Lewis, the Master of Elibank, Mr. Fuller, Captain Norton, and Mr. Whitley (Liberal Whips), Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease (Unionist Whips), and Messrs. Burns, Cavendish, Hobhouse, T. W. Russell, Ainsworth, G. Baring, W. Benn, Bowerman, Carr-Gomm, Clough, C. H. Corbett, Courthope, C. Duncan, Dunn, Fenwick, Gill, Goddard, C. L. Harmsworth, Haworth, A. Henderson, Henry, Higham, Illingworth, MacVeagh, Manfield, Markham, Nicholls, John O’Connor, Pearce, C. E. Price, Rainey, T. F. Richards, Silcock, A. Stanley, Whitehead, and W. T. Wilson. The menu for the occasion was something in the nature of a novelty, among the dishes being ‘Consommé Tortue à la Banbury,’ ‘Harengs aux Baleines Ecossais. Sauce Wason,’ ‘Gelée Lloyd-George,’ ‘Harcourts Verts petite culture,’ ‘Grouse de Hampstead Heath (Tué par M. Whiteley et Sir Hood),” ‘Pèches Anglaises sucrées, sans impôot (Garanties par M. Jean Burns),’ ‘Moelles pain dore du Sud Afrique à la Chinois,’ ‘Dessert de 45 héros,’ and ‘Gâteau (Gagne par M. Jeremie McVeagh).’ The wines were described as ‘Moselle Piesporter Cuvée Caisse Fermée Minisère de Finance. Ad Hoc.” ‘Champagne Cuvée Dorsdors’ and ‘ Porte ! Porte ! Dow’s 1878.’ The concluding line on the menu was ‘Prorogation—Le Roi le veult.'”

***

Subject to correction, the “Survivors” named Bowerman, Duncan, Gill, Henderson, and T. F. Richards are “Labour” members. Who paid ?

***

Lord William Cecil is recording, in the columns of the Times, the impressions of his recent visit to China, where he went with the object of seeing the Christian missions at work in that portion of the Far East. What he has to say is far from reassuring says the Church Times. He found only too convincing proof of the tendency among European residents in China to sink to the lower moral standard of the Orientals. Foreseeing a time when China, like Japan, will enter into close relation and intercourse with the West, he dreads a Yellow Peril no less serious than the peril of aggression, which he believes to be imaginary. The Yellow Peril he fears is that of moral contamination for Europe, through the adoption of Chinese morals and ideas.

To meet this Lord William thinks that every effort should be made to make known the religion of Christ to the Chinese ! But a knowledge of this religion has not prevented the Europeans from falling !

***

The correspondence in the Church Times on Socialism was brought to a close on September 15th with a letter from Mr. Harry Phillips, writing from the Church House, Westminster, He “was once a member of the I.L.P., but is not now,” as he “can no longer support Labour when it declares for secular education !”

***

In the course of his letter Mr. Phillips says : “Under the rule of a strong Socialist majority on the West Ham Town Council, there was more poverty, more suffering, and greater want of employment, than at any other period during the history of West Ham, and had it not been for the generous subscriptions of strong individualists and capitalists like Mr. Dewar, and others, the suffering would have been a great deal worse ; it was exactly the same at Poplar. I am not now alluding to the bribery and corruption of a few men, none of whom were Labour men, nor am I in any sense attacking any Socialist members of the Town Council, but the administration during the Socialist regime instead of reducing poverty, intensified it. Rates and rent went up enormously, and unemployment and suffering increased.”

***

Now, even a Christian Socialist might try to tell the truth sometimes ! There never has been a Socialist majority on the West Ham Town Council, and far from rates and rent going up enormously, it is a well-known fact that in West Ham and in districts further East rents have fallen considerably, although rates have risen. As we have repeatedly shown, a rise in rates is not always followed by a rise in rents, but, on the other hand, rents often fall concurrently with rising rates. The landlords always secure the full amount that competition for house accommodation will permit them to exact, irrespective of rates. And very often high rates mean low assessments, and low rates high assessments.

***

In their efforts to capture the working class for Christ the parsons are ably assisted by some of the Labour Misleaders. Mr. G. J. Wardle, M.P., speaking at Brixham Congregational Church on Aug. 25 delivered himself as follows:

“There were thousands of men who had to work hard from week to week, and yet at the end there was nothing for them but the workhouse and a pauper’s grave. Every working-man who was discontented with the present conditions was so because he knew that life to him was not what it ought to be and what it might be. Under a system of industry in, which they could see the Divine hand, he knew that there would not only be security of tenure, but no unreasonably long hours and small wages, whilst he would have those comforts which health demanded.”

***

Mr. Wardle, apparently, has no conception of a time when the working man shall cease to be such, as distinguished from the non-working section of the community. No, all that is wanted is “fixity of tenure” (which apparently means that the workman’s nose is to be fixed to the grindstone) and not unreasonably long hours or unreasonably small wages. These of course are very vague terms, suitable to the occasion. And what reason has Mr. Wardle for suggesting that the Divine hand (whatever that may be) is not to be seen in the present system of industry ?

***

At the annual demonstration of the Blaina district of the South Wales Miners’ Federation on August 26th dissatisfaction was expressed at the action of Mr. T. Richards, Labour M.P. for West Monmouth, in supporting Liberal candidates. Mr. Richards, in reply, said that he went to support the Liberal candidate at Bristol at the request of a Labour Leader (whom he did not name) and he was not sorry that he had helped to return Mr. Robinson, the Liberal member for Breconshire. Loud cheers greeted his speech, after which Mr. W. Crooks, M.P., addressed the meeting, no doubt on the “solidarity” of the Labour Party.

***

At a Primrose League demonstration Lord Londonderry spoke of the great and growing danger of Socialism to the State. He said :

“There is £152,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank, the savings of ten million persons, for the Socialists to take. A million and three-quarter persons have put nearly £53,000,000 in trustee savings banks. Some £68,000,000 has been placed by workmen in building societies, and there is some £50,000,000 invested in industrial and provident societies, co-operative and friendly societies, and trade union benefit funds, while small holders hold some £20,000,000 worth of Government stock.

“All these are workmen’s savings, and they are all to be confiscated by the Socialists, all to be shared by the thriftless, all to be looted by the ‘have nots’ at the expense of those who have something.”

***

These figures make a total of £343,000,000, and as we showed last month, there is only about £100,000,000 of money in the Kingdom, so that even under Capitalism these “workmen” would be in a bad way if they wanted to withdraw their savings in a hurry. It is unfortunate that his Lordship did not give the numbers of all these various kinds of thrifty workmen. But according to him the depositors in the P.O. and Trustee savings banks number 11,750,000 “workmen.” The Industrial and Provident Societies have about 2,250,000 members and the Trade Unionists number about 2,000,000. Exclusive, then, of the Building Societies, at least 16,000,000 ‘workmen’ have deposited all these savings. But the workers only number about 13,000,000, or, with their dependents, 33,000,000. And of these, according to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 13,000,000 are always on the verge of hunger !

***

The sums mentioned by his Lordship do not represent the savings of the working class. Take the P.O. for example. The commercial and trading class know, what the working class, as a rule, do not, viz., that deposits are unattachable, that is, that in event of a bankruptcy, deed of composition, or any other circumstance, the creditors of a depositor in the P.O. Savings Bank cannot touch his or her deposit. Hence many of these wide-awake folk deposit up to the limit (£200) as a sort of provision against a “rainy day.”

***

The working class (S.D.F. resolutions notwithstanding) have nothing to lose but their chains. This also applies to many members of the “respectable classes,” the clerks and shop assistants, and many of their chains are “duds,” as watch snatchers have sometimes found, to their chagrin.

***

The S.D.F. is continually passing resolutions, and sending them to various representatives of the master class and the latest is a “stunner.”

***

Thus saith the S.D.F. Executive : “That this meeting of the Executive Committee of the S.D.F. enters its emphatic protest against the invitation given by King Edward VII on behalf of the British nation to the German Kaiser, and declares its intention to make this protest publicly effective upon his visit in London if necessary, seeing that the presence of a reactionary militarist such as the Kaiser is in no wise welcome among a free and self-respecting people.”

***

The issue of Justice which contained this resolution contained also “A Practical Suggestion for Socialist Unity” by E. R. Hartley, from which it was apparent that E.R.H. desires “Socialist” Unity in order to send to Parliament “someone who shall speak with confidence and authority.” This “someone” is “H. M. Hyndman.” E.R.H. waxes enthusiastic. “Hyndman, the economist, the educated gentleman, the polished and scholarly traveller, . . . Hyndman, with his sublime capacity for magnificent indiscretions” and so on. Evidently the resolution quoted above is one of Hyndman’s “magnificent indiscretions.”

***

Consider the position. In its literature and on its platforms, the S.D.F. declare that the people of this country are slaves. Mr. Hyndman has gone further and has denounced all those who are not class-conscious Socialists as “slaves and curs indeed.” Now, slaves and curs cannot be “free and self-respecting.” The S.D.F. Executive have allowed their jingoism to get the better of their Socialism, and in pursuit of their policy of currying favour with the jingo and “patriotic” section of the master class, of which the advocacy of compulsory military training forms a part, have thrown their Socialism overboard again, and declared what they know is a lie, viz., that the people of this country are “free and self respecting.”

J. Kay.

Letters: Socialism or Reform? Two Letters on Tactics. (1907)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,—I saw the July number of your journal in the local public library and straightway sat down to read it. What struck me most was your vigorous hostility towards the Labor Party. Being an ardent Socialist myself I would much rather the Labor Party in Parliament was Socialist, but if this was so I cannot see how they could have acted any different if a start was to be made at all in bettering the lot of the poorer working class. Socialism is utterly impossible until the people become Socialists, and as the time is very far distant when the people will decide that it is only by Socialism that Society will become a healthy organism it becomes necessary for us to adopt seasonable methods. It surely cannot be urged that to try and obtain immediate relief for those who feel the crushing burden of poverty the most is travelling in a wrong direction.

If a small Socialist party were in Parliament and preached nothing but the doctrines of collective ownership of the land and machinery of production nothing at all would be done towards mitigating existing evils, in fact, if I understand you rightly, nothing else matters, and until the Socialist Government comes along let things go on as they are, as, for instance: working 12 hours a day for £1 a week, children attending school half starved, taxes on food, and the glorious prospect that, at some future time you may occupy a place in the workhouse when a pension of about 10/- a week would obviate it.

It must be admitted that remedies for this lamentable state of affairs are very pressing and I for one think it far better and safer to climb the ladder of progress rather than try and leap to the top, which, perhaps, may be very good exercise but accomplishes nothing.

Yours faithfully,

V. Wilson.

_____________

Uncompromising consistency.

Dear Sir,— Since I heard a very interesting lecture by Mr. Anderson in Finsbury Park, I have (now and again) been considering the policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, and although I have thought myself an out-and-out Socialist for some years, I cannot altogether agree with your doctrines.

I do not love compromises, but I have grown more and more convinced that inconsistent compromises are among the necessary evils of existence.

Nothing in nature is absolute, and it seems impossible that any social or political action can take place that is entirely free from compromise, because no two people could entirely agree as to what is absolutely the best way to promote human welfare.

Then it is, theoretically, impossible for any progress to result from two forces acting in directly opposed directions, unless the party of progress were the stronger. Progress seems to me to be the resultant of the action of different forces which are to some extent inclined towards one another.

This may appear mere fantastic theory to you, at first sight, but really it is merely a way of illustrating a conclusion I had already reached by considering actual experiences.

Another point: the supporting of “palliative” measures. It seems to me that there are cases when it is the obvious duty of every Socialist, and indeed of every kind of humanitarian, to do all they can for such measures. Would it be your policy to refuse to support a measure (on the grounds that it delays the ultimate triumph of Socialism) to better the condition of half-starved children ? It seems to me that if you refused to support such measures, because Socialism might be the ultimate gainer by your opposition, you would be offering blood sacrifices to an idea, and so making an idol of Socialism. Of course I do not believe that, in actual fact, you would oppose measures that might be to the obvious present advantage of the workers as a whole ; but then why pretend that it is possible to be uncompromisingly consistent ?

Finally, you must not think that I think that The Socialist Party of Great Britain is doing harm ; I think it is doing a great deal of good ; but only as one of many forces working towards Socialism

—Leonard J. Simons.

_____________

Reply:

With each of our correspondents we find ourselves at least in partial agreement. Thus, for instance, we agree with Mr. Wilson that “Socialism is utterly impossible until the people become Socialists” and therefore

We are making Socialists.

We also agree with Mr. Simons that “Progress” (given the identity of our conceptions of progress) “is the resultant of different forces which are inclined towards one another,” and that “it is impossible for any progress to result from two forces acting in directly opposed directions unless the party of progress were the stronger.” Precisely. As The Socialist Party we take our stand upon the essential minimum upon which the real interests of all wage-workers are united or inclined towards each other, but these united interests are at the same time directly opposed to those of the capitalist class. Hence on Mr. Simons’ own showing no progress can possibly result from any attempt at compromise between two forces in direct antagonism, and that the workers’ only hope is to become, as indeed they must, the stronger party. Compromises are, therefore, not only inconsistent—they are utterly futile.

Both correspondents tacitly admit that the evils that cry for palliation are the effects of capitalist exploitation and that in reality Socialism alone is the remedy, yet both, curiously enough, consider reform nostrums of greater importance than Socialism. And this attitude we believe is the result of allowing generous sentiment to usurp the place of reason. Knowledge and reason are of far greater importance than sentimental impulse, and the kindest intentions result in the greatest harm where they override truth and logic.

The whole working class (so named because they do the work for which they get a grudging subsistence) have to produce thrice the amount of wealth they get in wages. Millions of men in this country toil for less than a pound a week. Thousands of women have to slave for wages insuflicient to purchase food alone; and many thousands eagerly hunt for employment without success ; while as a result of this

Ruthless Exploitation

thousands of children go to school and millions of men and women go to work insufficiently clothed and insufficiently fed. We know this and we are working to end it. Now who is going about it the better way ?

We are asked to practically withdraw our energies from what is admittedly the only thing that can put an end to the evils it is sought to palliate and to devote ourselves to inducing the capitalist class to provide meals for school-children and old age pensions. In other words we, and the workers generally, are urged to confine ourselves to begging the ruling class to treat certain of its victims more gently rather than that the workers organise and concentrate upon taking the power to make victims away from the ruling class. But so long as the people confine themselves to crumb begging and do not threaten his supremacy, what more does the capitalist demand ?

The class that lives by profit controls the state administratively, judicially and politically, and it is incontestable that any measure of so-called reform that is granted will only go to serve the interests of the ruling class. Thus any miserable measure that may be passed for the feeding of school children would be passed whether we supported or not, while it could only result in paltry soup kitchens for a few—nothing adequate in any sense—and would be used as an instrument for beating down wages. It is indeed futile to oppose such a measure, and no part of our policy, but it is equally futile to abandon work for the removal of the cause in favour of a thing that would not decrease the sum total of working class misery. We seek to own and control collectively the product of our labour, so that our children should not be degraded as profit-producing larvae, but nourished and clothed as they should be.

The old age pension scheme of Mr. Barnes, M.P., Labour misleader, would give the few workers so unfortunate as to survive the age of 65 a pension of 5s. per week, which could only operate as a bribe to encourage them to starve slowly outside rather than enter the workhouse, where they would be better off. Indeed, whatever paltry pension may ultimately be granted will be to relieve poor rates of the growing burden of the workers who are discharged in favour of younger men, and will also operate like the pensions of soldiers, police, etc., as

A Premium on the Acceptance of Low Wages.

as many workers know to their cost.

Any genuine reform that takes a bite out of capitalist interests (and no reform can be genuine that does not) can only be obtained in opposition to the capitalist class by the workers capturing political power. Thus to obtain even reforms would require what is essentially a revolution. But the working class cannot be united upon a measure that can only doubtfully benefit a small number of them ; while the number of evil effects of capitalism is so vast that scarcely any two workers can be united upon all the innumerable palliatives called for, and as to which are the most pressing. By having their attention directed to effects only the efforts of the workers are made mutually antagonistic, and are scattered and nullified by being directed to all points of the compass upon the myriad effects of capitalism, instead of being focussed on the cause.

For the workers to do anything in their interests they must first obtain the power to do it; the next step, therefore, upon which all workers can be united is the capture of political power for the inauguration of industrial democracy. Whether for genuine reform or for Socialism the substitution of working class control for capitalist control—the revolution—is essential, and it alone can stop what is admittedly the cause of misery and poverty—the exploitation of the workers for profit—and can convert the machinery of production from the means of profit for a handful into the means of life and happiness for a people.

To put, as is done in many instances, a long list of “palliatives” before the workers not only excites division and scatters the workers’ energies, but leaves the cause of evil unchecked, confines the workers’ attention to

Fruitless Efforts at Reform

within the present system, serves capitalist interests and starves and hinders the only forward movement, thus postponing indefinitely both the removal of the cause and the healing of the wounds.

The workers, we believe, can only be united upon broad and elementary fundamental principles, since even transitional measures are conditional on working-class supremacy and can only be determined by the state of industry and the needs of democracy at the revolution. These principles are given in our Declaration of Principles and may be resumed briefly as:—

Firstly : that the poverty and slavery of the workers and all that flows therefrom is due to their robbery by the class owning the means of production and distribution.

Secondly : that to remove the ills under which they labour the workers must themselves own and use collectively the means of producing wealth.

Thirdly : that the workers cannot use or own the political and industrial machinery in their interests or gain any real advantage until they capture the supremacy, therefore the essential step is the revolutionary step, the

Control of Society by the Working Class

organised as a class party for Socialism. Upon such essentials the workers as a whole can be united, for all who live by labour stand to gain.

The alternative before us is not, then, as Mr. Wilson would have it, between climbing a ladder and jumping to the top, no metaphor was ever more unfortunate ; but the alternative is between marching surely and always toward Socialism as we are doing toward the only remedy by the only road—or marching, as are the reformers, in circles within capitalism with much shouting and capitalist applause but no advance whatever.

Finally, even regarding such inadequate and restricted measures of alleviation that may be possible within the capitalist system, and even supposing the ruling class could be induced to grant them, we direct attention to the following incontrovertible proposition: That the only effective way to induce the ruling class to attempt to palliate the evils of their system is to organise the workers for the overthrow of that system.

F. C. Watts