Editorial: A Cut at the S.L.P. (1917)

Editorial from the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The criticism of the Socialist Labour Party which appears in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto to the Proposed International Socialist Congress seems to have met with the disapproval of the people criticised. The people criticised try — we were going to write “to hit back,” but this would not be correct: they do not try to hit back, they simply try to parry the blow.

Of course, they cannot be blamed for confining their efforts to such defensive measures. That they can find no opening in our defence is apparently obvious, even to them. They have done their best with the unpromising material to hand, and it amounts to this:

An effusion of cheap sneers, stale witticisms, and the like as a mask to cover their skedaddling from the real issue ; a vague charge (vague in that it is unsupported by any evidence) of “flagrant dishonesty ” ; a ludicrous and lying attempt to explain away an awkward statement which appeared in their official organ ; and finally a display of fireworks on their own behalf which is as amusing as such things usually are.

Regarding the criticism in our Manifesto to the Proposed Socialist Congress, the S.L.P. state in their organ : “For ourselves we can smile at the weak criticism passed on the S.L.P.” And having thus adopted the policy of “grin and bear it, or take it lying down,” they pass on to the lighter task of finding funny names to fit the signature of our correspondent ”B.B.B.” In such easy ways are victories won in the class struggle!

“B.B.B.” quoted in our July issue the following (described by the “Socialist” of August as “an Editorial note”) from Nov. ’14 “Socialist”:

“That there are differences of opinion in the S.L.P. as in other parties, on the question of the war must have been apparent to most readers of “The Socialist.” Last month I tried to show what the different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is.”

And this is how the S.L.P. try to explain away that very curious, not to say damaging, statement :

“This note was quite in order; in accordance with our policy of allowing full expression of different opinions in our columns, letters were published urging a pre-war (? pro-war) policy. A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.

Some individuals, mislead by the correspondence and discussion, accused the S.L.P. of wavering on internationalism ; but later, when the Party Manifesto was issued and the air cleared, it was seen that the whole membership was solidly anti-war.”

That is enough to go on with. We will now proceed to handle the S.L.P. on the matter contained in this quotation.

First of all let it be noted that our opponents cling desperately to the pronouncement our comrade and contributor “B.B.B.” adduced against them. They had not the courage — or should we say indiscretion? — to reprint it, for it would then at once have provided the answer — complete and crushing — to their miserable attempt to defend it. “This note was quite in order” the S.L.P. champion says. Good.

Now what is the explanation ? “A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.” But the note which is “quite in order” says that it “must have been apparent to most readers of ‘The Socialist'” that “there are differences in the S.L.P. . . .  on the question of the war.” Nothing there about non-members of the S.L.P. That which MUST have been apparent to readers of “The Socialist” (and therefore necessarily from evidence appearing in that paper), was differences inside the S.L.P., concerning the war, not outside it. Who said “flagrant dishonesty” ?

It is true that in the May 1915 issue of “The Socialist” the following delectable passage occurs (“Impressions of the Conference “) :

“Imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that the Party was absolutely unanimous against the war, and that the two writers who had created the impression that the S.L.P. was a house divided, were not even members of the Party.”

But who were the two writers referred to ? Were they “M.” and Joseph Andrews, who, addressing the Editor as “Comrade,” were permitted to spread themselves over seven columns in the Jan. 1915 issue and five in the previous November number ? Were they these men, who could write such things as “The maintenance of the balance of power on the Continent is Great Britain’s object and it should be the object of all Socialists” (“M”) and “I propose that . . realising that German militarism is now a menace to the very existence of Europe, we support the Allies in their armed resistance” ? (J. Andrews.) But if these were the two non-members referred to, that still leaves unaccounted for the man who wrote the article “Shall If Fight” in the December 1914 issue of “The Socialist,” the man who penned this : “I cannot understand the stand being taken by some Socialists of refusing to kill,” and this : “I do not regard this question as a test of one’s sincerity as a Socialist,” and this : “So long as the other fellow remains armed and sets out to make mince-meat of me I reserve the right to retaliate,” and a lot more leading up to the position that we should fight. We should be pleased to be assured that this writer was a non-member of the Party; we should be hilariously delighted to “imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that” besides being the vehicle for the conveyance to the workers of the capitalist case and the capitalist pleadings for drenching the world with working-class blood, the official organ of the S.L.P. was edited by one who was “not even” a member of the Party !

We claim that it is a lie that all the pro-war correspondents were non-members of the S.L.P., and if this is not so will the editor of “The Socialist” explain that reference to the differences in the S.L.P. which must have become apparent — who to? — to those who read “The Socialist”?

Mark what the Editor of our contemporary himself says in the August issue concerning the “note” which was “quite in order,” in his vain endeavour to wriggle out of its implications :

“Bold Bad Boy, or Bunkum Balderdash and Blether, or whatever the mysterious initials cover, quotes from an article in the June 1917 “Socialist,” . . . and compares it with an extract from the November 1914 “Socialist,” where an Editorial note calls attention to the differences of opinion on the war expressed in the columns of the “Socialist,” . . . ”  (The italics are ours).

There again our opponents give themselves away. The note itself spoke of differences of opinion in the S.L.P., the Editor’s latest wriggle says that those differences were expressed in the columns of “The Socialist.” Then what becomes of the statement that the pro-war correspondents “were in every case non members of the S.L.P.”? Who said bunkum, balderdash and blether?

“Compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions,” says our contemporary. Well, suppose we do. In the first place we freely admit that there have been individuals in our party whose knowledge was not sufficient to keep them sound on the question of the war. We have never claimed that our Declaration of Principles could prevent the entry of undesirable people into our organisation ; but we do claim that when such people reveal themselves, by word or deed, as unfit material for a Socialist organisation, the Declaration of Principles to which they give their signatures on joining is an efficient instrument for dealing with them, and putting them outside. In the few cases where the war has revealed unhealthy elements the Party has promptly purged itself of such.

On the other hand, what have been the actions of the S.L.P. in this connection? The Editor of their official organ himself shows that even the columns of that journal have been used to give publicity to the pro-war views of members of the S.L.P. We do not know what action that party took in the secrecy of their councils, but the columns of their organ have not been used to give publicity to any handling of the pro-war members thereof. When the Editor of “The Socialist” is compelled to write, three months after the war broke out, “Last month I tried to show what those different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is “—when such a statement as that, we say, can appear in the official organ of the party, how can the party handle pro-war members ? The official organ, the mouthpiece of the Executive and therefore of the party, does not know, in the face of the controversy on such a vital question as that of the “attitude of Socialism to the war,” what the party position is ; how, then, can individual members be expected to know that position, or be dealt with for not knowing it ?

For years it has been the practice of the S.L.P. to refuse to soldiers admission to their ranks. Foolish as this was under pre-war conditions, the logic of such an attitude left no mistake as to the proper course to be taken on the outbreak of war. Yet this party, who, before the war, could not abide an unfortunate member of the working class whom stress of circumstances had compelled to sell his labour-power to the master class in the only capacity open to him, had no “official position” in relation to the war when it had been in progress three months. Up to that time, at all events, the members were “quite in order” in shouting for the despised and rejected soldier to begin the work for which he was despised and rejected, and by that same token the members were in order in “joining up” and getting on with the butchery themselves. The party was divided on “the attitude of Socialism to the war”; its Press could not “find out what support each side had,” and therefore could not say whether it was the duty of the members to rush off and join the Army, or get themselves incarcerated for opposing the war.

That is how we “compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions.”

But we have not done yet: we may as well make a job of it while we are about it. Our opponents try to prove their status as a revolutionary organisation. What is the evidence they offer ? Do they present us revolutionary principles and prove their policy to be consistent therewith ? No. They have a very different standard for judging revolutionary organisations. They judge — by the number of members they have had in prison ! In this respect what a long way they are behind the Suffragettes !

“We have had many of our members on the Clyde imprisoned and deported for revolutionary propaganda,” our contemporary says in course of proving their revolutionary character. “We have Editors, past and present, in gaol or under the shadow of gaol. (A former Editor – A. McManus – was deported and again arrested for working-class activity in the recent strike.”) All of which wears a different complexion when we remember that the S.L.P. “martyrs” to gaol in spite of abject contrition, and that McManus, if reports be true, has taken the chair for Tom Mann, whom the S.L.P. has so roundly denounced upon occasion. “And our Press and organ have been under the ban of the military,” our contemporary goes on, finally asking : “Do these things happen to a party which is pro-war, or anything but a revolutionary organisation?” Such things certainly may, as witness the Suffrage movement. But at all events, we should imagine the Government would have paid pretty heavily for some of the stuff which appeared in “The Socialist” after the outbreak of .the war. It takes rank with Harold Begbie’s ” What do you lack, Sonny?” as a contribution to the confusion which made it possible for the capitalist butchers to drag our fellow workers from their homes to the shambles. Perhaps the S.L.P. can now see how lightly “B.B.B.” let them down.

A world of waste. (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

Perhaps the chief characteristic of the present regime is the production of colossal wealth by the workers of the world. In no period has the earth been so ransacked for its potential riches; in no age have the forces of nature, and scientific knowledge, been so utilised to extract wealth as during the last fifty years. In the domain of earth, sea, and air, man exerts wonderful power. Ultimately he may even prevent earthquakes from being a menace, make plagues impossible, and turn the uncontrolled force in the lightning stroke, and the energies of the sea and the sunlight, to the common good.

Man, alas ! has assisted in his own enslavement. The wealth he has shaped has diverted him from the destiny that should be his. With all his great heritage, wielding untold potency through science, he should be happier far than those of ages gone. Health and real happiness, knowledge and power, should be his in excelsis were he but the real possessor of his own productions, the disposer of his own powers.

But a blight has settled over Society—the blight of capitalism ! That which blossoms and promises abundance for all is turned to foulness, and the fruit it bears is bitter.

And so we see the saddest spectacle of the ages—the vast masses of the people, who are the wealth producers, surrounded by gigantic wealth yet themselves in stint and wretchedness.

Poverty, ceaseless toil, disease, and misery are theirs. Slaves without knowing it are most of them, contented with their chains. Without hope and bereft of ideals, their lives sunless and shorn of imagination by this system that exploits and finally “scaps” them, they exist only as beasts of burden. The epitaph of millions might justly be : “In the grip of the capitalist system they were compelled to waste their very lives.” For capitalism, with all its Midas-like power, produces, from its very nature, the most terrible waste imaginable. It is, indeed, in the final and real sense, the essence of wastefulness and misdirected energy.

Let us consider now some aspects in which this is presented.

The children of the workers suffer from malnutrition—due to the inability of their exploited parents to supply them with the necessary food. Often they come into the world the offspring of ill-nourished parents, thus being handicapped from the start. They grow up puny, and continue to be ill-fed, and the most important fundamental is missing from Society : healthy, strong children. The wastage of potential citizens and wealth producers through capitalism is enormous.

Then they are educated. And what an education it is ! What efforts are made to develop them physically, to make them sturdy, robust, so that existence becomes enjoyable ? Their own innate tendencies are but rarely encouraged ; their talents are rarely discovered and developed. Individuality is crushed out of them by the system of education, and the imaginative faculty is looked upon as something to be eradicated ! A smattering of this and that is given them, and many of the most valuable kinds of knowledge are denied them altogether.

Thus they are turned out of the schools, half-baked products of capitalistic instruction, with minds impaired by narrow national prejudices, designated “patriotism.” They are given only enough “education” to make them docile and industrious wage-slaves. All knowledge that would be dangerous to the present system, and all history of the struggles of the workers in the past to gain freedom, are glossed over, lied about, or hidden from them.

Now consider the hap-hazard employment of children under the system, and their development into full-grown wage-slaves.

Few of the workers can exercise a choice worth calling such in the profession or trade of their children. They take what presents itself. The medical, legal, and scientific professions are excluded by lack of opportunities. Money paves the way. The one idea is to so place them that they may “make a living.” The consequence is that the potential artist, scientist, author or architect becomes a mere drudge.

The world will never know what a wealth of intellect and power is thus dissipated and lost.

Socialism, with its utilisation of human ability for the world’s Commonwealth, alone is the remedy. It alone presents the opportunities.

The youthful workers become inured to the system, and generally everything that is is taken as a matter of course. The workers’ lives are spent in creating wealth. Their very lives are not their own. They become mere drudges. A fatalism is engendered that makes many end their slave existence as they began it—by blindly accepting it. Others may understand their trade interests and become trade unionists, yet never possess the key to emancipation—class-consciousness.

One final word on the gigantic waste manifesting itself in a thousand ways. Through their hellish system the masters are compelled to maintain huge fighting forces to conserve their interests. Intetests of rival groups of capitalists clash and war is precipitated, and air, sea and land become the scenes of hideous waste—waste of life and wealth.

Millions have been slaughtered, millions maimed for life. Desolation, ruin, and famine cover the earth. War has created a wilderness of untold waste.

Workers, the one remedy that lies in your hands is Socialism. Organise for the establishment of that system in order that human energy and ability shall no longer be run to waste, in order, instead, that you may reap the fruits of your labours and peace and prosperity be yours. So shall you become masters of your own destiny ; so shall man come into his own and realise his infinite capacity to make this globe worth living on ; so shall be established, as never before, happiness and liberty for the multitudes of all nations, founded upon the wealth that flows like water from their concerted efforts.

“Isn’t this worth fighting for” think you?

G.

Jottings. (1917)

The Jottings Column from the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the debate on the War vote in the House of Commons on July 24th, a member ventured to voice his apprehension regarding the attitude of the workers. He pointed out that revolution was being fostered by a certain section of leaders of the people who ought to know better. He met workers who asked “are you prepared for the coming revolution ?” He regretted that this insidious kind of talk was going on, and was being glibly preached at street corners, in the midst of this great war, “indeed, as one who had been so long a workman himself, nothing could be more deplorable to him than this glib talk of red revolution and the singing of the ‘Red Flag’ when they ought to be singing the praises of our men in the trenches.”

Dear me ! How they love the working class in this “democratically constituted” parliament of ours—at least that section of the working class which is not in khaki. (Whatever a man is, or has been, the mere act of donning khaki immediately converts him into a hero). But what I like about the above is its bluntness. There is no mistaking that attitude. Its hatred of the working class is manifest. From every word or so the capitalistic venom usually permeating such utterances, “Suppression” is the key note. Yet it was uttered by a Labour member—R. Tootill.

———————————-

Another of our “leaders”—J. G. Hancock, M.P. for Derbyshire, and agent for the Notts Miners—has announced his withdrawal from all association with the Labour Party in the Mid-Derby Division. Mr. Hancock has reason for his terrible sacrifice. It appears that it is “dominated by extreme Socialists,” whatever that expression may mean. So far as the writer of these notes is aware, there is not an overwhelmingly large number of Socialists in Mid-Derbyshire, though we have hopes, of course. But I suspect he means the I.L.P., with whom he was connected, I believe. If that is so, then that is quite a different thing altogether. Yet, if he claims to be a “leader” of the working class, and is scared away by the “Socialism” of the I.L.P., what hope is there for the working class from such as he ? What would have happened, I wonder, if he had been fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to be introduced to some real Socialists ? . . .

“Mr. Hancock places himself unreservedly in the hands of the Liberal Association.” That’s good. That’s a more comprehensible statement, anyway. But—isn’t it a distinction without a difference ?

———————————-

Everything that ever emanated from Germany is bad—from Goethe down to German sausage. The British Press says so, therefore it must be true. That being so, the Insurance Act, a German importation, stands condemned. That is, if one prefers to use the style of argument served up each morning in the Press. We are not altogether obliged to, however, as numerous instances in its mal-administration can be quoted to prove its rotten nature, whatever its source may happen to be. I purpose quoting one in support of the assertion. It must be borne in mind that the existence of such an Act depends upon the existence of poverty and servitude before it can operate.

At a recent meeting of the National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies, held in Manchester, a representative of the Amalgamated Weavers Approved Society from Heywood brought forward the case of a woman insured under the Insurance Act, whom, he said, five doctors had refused to attend in her confinement. The husband, it was stated, went to five medical men in succession, but each declined to attend on the plea that he was too busy. Finally the woman was taken to Bury Infirmary. The child lived only a short time, and the woman died four days after admission. The Secretary stated that the Association were satisfied that this sort of thing had been going on for some time.

The explanation of the conduct of these doctors lies in the fact that the poor woman was only one of the working class, one of the “common herd.” That is but one feature of a system for which we are fighting to maintain. Workers all over the world are pouring out their life’s blood in order that the “right” to inflict every kind of indignity and torture upon us shall be the exclusive possession of one class—the master class.

This same measure, upon its introduction, was loudly acclaimed by our “labour leaders” as “the greatest Socialistic measure that has ever been placed before the House of Commons.” I leave the reader to reconcile it if he can.

———————————-

About on a par with the above was the brutal contempt shown for the workers in the answer given to a question by W. E. Anderson in the House of Commons, on the occasion of the discussion of the meat question. It was pointed out that arrangements were being considered or made in Glasgow, Dundee, Hamilton, and Aberdeen for sterilising parts of specially selected carcases of tuberculous animals for sale as food to the general public. The “general public” in this case being the poorest section of the community.

———————————-

Germany is now without a friend in the world, and this, according to Mr. Hoegger, the chairman of the Cotton and Wool Dyers’ Association, is bound to cause Great Britain to have an enormous trade after peace is declared. This is comforting at any rate, because we workers were beginning to think we were in for a damn bad time. For an “enormous trade” will mean lots of work, and lots of work will mean lots of—graft. That’s our portion.

“I should think,” says Mr. Hoegger, (good, old British name, that), “there is surely no British dye-user who would demean himself, under any circumstances, to enter again into business transactions with a nation which has shown itself so utterly devoid of every moral, social, military and naval sense.” (“Manchester Guardian,” 23.5.17).

There is one factor which Mr. Hoegger himself appears to be “utterly devoid of,” and that is “common” sense. Touching which the Commercial Editor of the “Guardian” comments as follows:

“Just now, we all feel like that, and many, we do not doubt, will maintain the feeling. Human nature, however, is in the aggregate incapable of doing it. We have seen in this war how the Japanese have come to the aid of the Russians, with whom they had a severe struggle not long ago, and the Russian Army, which may be taken to represent the populace, has lately shown anything but an undying hatred towards the Germans. If that is so with belligerents, is it not likely that the people of South America and of some other countries, too, will allow their resentment to die down pretty quickly ? We have to remember that business is not done with nations but with individuals, and when peace comes we shall probably hear that while So-and-So would never think of dealing with the ordinary unspeakable German, they have no difficulty in resuming relations with their former connections, those people being really an exceptionally decent sort. The Germans will take care, of course, to offer goods at low prices, and if there is a financial advantage in buying them, after tariffs have been adjusted, it does not seem likely that they will be kept out of any country very long. Profit is a greater power than hatred.”

———————————-

Rev. Bernard Snell, chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, preaching at Brixton the other Sunday (8.7.17), favoured reprisals as an exercise of righteous anger. This was not the time for patience and self-control, but for letting their righteous anger have full sway in the only way that Germany understood. This gentleman evidently believes in a literal interpretation of the Mosaic dispensation. How insatiable in the matter of blood these Christian agents are, for sure ! Give him an axe, somebody, and let him run amok.

Lucilius.

—————————

Can the human intellect, which can provide so much wealth for destruction, devise no means of diverting that wealth to the happiness and well-being of humanity ? Yes, by Socialism.

Conscripted from the Press. (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Strange as it may seem, there are good grounds for believing that the efforts of M. Kerensky to restore order are not viewed altogether with disfavour by certain influential persons in Berlin. These latter fear that a nation given over to the sway of Anarchy would make a bad neighbour.”—”Reynolds’s Newspaper,” 5.8.17.

In other words the German capitalist class is afraid that the German working class may become “infected” and revolt against the conditions which are the cause of their misery, poverty, and degradation. Bismarck thought the same in 1871 when he helped Thiers and the French ruling class to crush and avenge in torrents of blood the workingmen’s Commune of Paris. Despite their differences, the international parasite class are solid against the working class. When will the converse be also true?

* * *

“The Japanese are working hard in anticipation of the coming peace. When the war is over they will flood the markets with much of the cheap goods that before could only be produced in sweated Germany”.—”Reynolds’s Newspaper,” 5.8.17.

And yet some fools talk about this being the “last war” ! Was not the industrial efficiency and consequent cheap production of Germany the cause of her phenomenal commercial progress which was the chief of the immediate causes of the war ? The capitalist class of England as well as that of Japan are wide awake to their opportunities, as can be seen in their schemes for the better co-ordination of scientific research with industry, and the more efficient education of the workers.

Greater efficiency in production—bigger-profits—a larger surplus of goods for export—more competitors (Russia will rapidly develop)—fewer markets, leading to—a wild scramble to capture them, and consequently—more wars. To those with eyes to see the ferment of future conflicts is even now in virulent progress. The question is, how long will the workers stand it.

Although it is the workers who are to be “educated,” it is not they and their interests which are considered in the Government’s education proposals, but those of their capitalist masters, as I have above indicated. Mr. H. Fisher, when introducing his Education Bill, carelessly admitted this. He said :

“In asking the employers of this country to assent to these changes—abolition of half-time and the further regulation of employment during the period of elementary school life—I feel that I am asking them to submit to a readjustment of the organisation of their industries which in some cases will be troublesome to effect. But I rest my appeal upon the broad grounds of national advantage.”—”Times,” 11.8.17.

In other words some of the capitalists are requested to sacrifice their immediate interests for the sake of the prospects of that class as a whole.

* * *

When Herr Michaelis, the new German Chancellor, was a lecturer at a law school in Tokyo (1897) he said :

“Practically we have at the moment in the world only one real opponent and enemy, that is the Englishman. Nowadays wars of nations are only fought on economic grounds, and our economic development is opposed by the Englishman. We bubble over in Germany, we must get outside. Wherever we want to go, there stands the Englishman, with his legs apart and shameless, in the door to bar our way.”—”Times,” 9.8.17.

The Chancellor means by “Englishman” the English capitalist, who certainly has grabbed most of the corners of the planet worth having, greatly to the discomfiture of his foreign competitors, especially the German capitalists.

Michaelis has no illusions about the cause of the war ; neither have we. Workers ! study our principles thoroughly, and when you realise the sordid reasons for the wars you slaughter and are slaughtered in you will know also how to end them.

* * *

Whether “ideal” or economic aims are at the root of China’s entry into the war will be seen from this cutting from the “Daily Chronicle,” 7.8.17 :

“China will benefit financially by throwing in her lot with the Allies. Automatically, her obligation will cease to pay Germany her share in the Boxer indemnity amounting to half a million sterling a year. A similar fate would also befall the payment on the German shares of the five Anglo-German railways and other loans granted during the last 20 years.”

* * *

The truth of the Socialist contention as to what determines wages was admitted by Mr. Prothero, M.P., Minister of Agriculture, when he moved as part of the wages clause in the Corn Production Bill, that—

“In fixing minimum rates under this section the Agricultural Wages Board shall so far as practicable, secure for all able-bodied men wages which, in the opinion of the Board, are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such a standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of the occupation.”—”Times,” 7.8.17. 

The italics are mine.

Wages are not, and never have been, determined by what the worker himself produces, but by what it takes to produce the worker. Like the chattel-slave of old, he receives enough on the average to keep him in such a condition as will make him a profitable instrument of production.

“Just like a horse or a cow,” you will say. 

Exactly so, except that you can be starved when you are not required for work, while a horse or a cow must be fed.

H.

Blogger's Note:

'H' was the pen-name for Edgar Hardcastle (E. Hardy) for nearly 70 years in the pages of the Socialist Standard, but there's no guarantee that the 'H.' in the September 1917 Socialist Standard was Edgar Hardcastle. My reasoning is threefold:

• Edgar Hardcastle would only have been 16 or 17 in 1917.
• According to the early membership records Edgar R. Hardcastle joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in March 1920.
• According to his Marxist Internet Archive's page. Hardcastle's first article in the Socialist Standard was in the February 1921 issue. In his first few articles in the Socialist Standard, he signed off with his initials of E.R.H. or E.H.