Jottings. (1912)

The Jottings Column from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Dean of Lincoln (Dr. Fry), speaking at Kennington recently, gave utterance to the following characteristic remark : “I wake in the morning with a joy I have not known for years to think that we may, in a few weeks, have the Cross over St. Sophia and Constantinople.” Which means, to give it its true interpretation, that if there are any pickings to be had, they mean, vulture like, to be among the first at the feast, brazenly disregarding the fact that the history of Christianity is bloodier even than that of the Turks.

* * *

It is interesting to note with what alacrity the wealthy class have protested against the flogging clause in the White Slave Traffic Bill. One would suppose that they were actuated by motives of honest indignation against a survival of Middle Age methods of torture. To the Socialist, however, the reason is quite clear. For is not this the class from which the “White Slavers” draw most of their clientele ? And are they not responsible in a double sense, inasmuch as it is due to the exploitation of labour by this class that the degradation of women exists, thus making “white slavery” possible.

* * *

According to news from Paris, a lady has been seen in the Champs Elysees, accompanied by her dog, which was wearing india-rubber boots laced high up the legs, ear protectors, goggles to shield the eyes from cold and mud, and a Raglan overcoat lined with, thick flannel, and provided with a pocket from which projected a tiny handkerchief with a monogram on it, with which to wipe its dear little nose.

In order to more fully appreciate the above I cite another instance of riotous extravagance taken from the same paper (“The London Budget,” 27.10.12).

“An old soldier with the best of characters complained to the Westminster magistrate that everything he possessed, except a small bundle, had been taken from him for a balance of 5s. under a hire-purchase agreement and 3s. 6d. for a week’s rent, which he was unable to pay through being out of work. He showed receipts covering a period of two years for instalments amounting to £12 11s. paid for goods priced under the agreement at £12 16s.” After this who wouldn’t prefer a dog’s life ?

* * *

A circular has been going the rounds of late, issued by that confused set of scaremongers known as the Anti-Socialist Union. It is a wild appeal for “help and support,” promising that “neither the names of members nor subscriptions are published without permission.” In the course of the appeal (which is anonymous, as usual) it states that “predatory Socialism” is rampant in the House of Commons. According to the “antis” there were 40 Socialists in Parliament in 1911, and since 1897 the National Debt had risen from £545,171,525 to £733,072,610, ostensibly due to their advent in the House.

This is certainly news to me, yet I would be satisfied if the A.S.U. would furnish the name of one Socialist in Parliament, now or any other time. This sort of stuff may do to frighten the commercial and business class to whom these leeches make their appeal, but to the Socialist it is laughable.

* * *

Here is another sample : “One of the first principles of Socialism is the repudiation of the National Debt. That is why Socialists show no concern at the rapid piling up of the nation’s liabilities.” This is both right and wrong. It is wrong in so far that Socialists do not repudiate the National Debt, for the simple reason that it makes no difference to the workers of this country whether the nation has a big National Debt or none at all. The workers’ condition remains the same. They don’t make the debt, and they don’t pay the debt. Therefore the Socialist doesn’t concern himself with the National Debt, even to the extent of repudiating it. It is right in that the Socialists have no concern with the nation’s liabilities. The liabilities are not theirs, be they piled as high as that beautiful place they tell us about. On the other hand, having regard to the fact that Socialism will not be established except as a world-wide system, all national debts, liabilities, Anti-Socialist Unions, and other capitalist institutions will automatically become defunct. Meanwhile, spread the light !

* * *

Keir Hardie, “the famous British Socialist” (according to the Americans), has recently returned from a lecturing tour in that land “flowing with milk and honey.” Asked by an interviewer how he became a Socialist, Hardie (it is reported) answered : “I can’t just say how my own life turned me to Socialism, I think I got my first ideas from reading Robert Burns and Thomas Carlyle. Then came the New Testament.” Good heavens ! I have several times wondered where he got it from !

It seems that Hardie’s services had been requisitioned to give a fillip to the S.P. of America (an organisation similar to the I.L.P.), since Roosevelt had stolen all their platform, and left with them no distinguishing principles upon which to fight. It had been suggested to the party that Hyndman be asked to perform, but the offer was declined on the score of expense. Instead, Hardie was booked at £10 a lecture !—at least, so grumbles “Justice.” It would be very interesting to know what Hyndman’s figure would have been, seeing that Hardie was considered to be a cheap substitute at £10 a time.

Considering he addressed 43 meetings it cannot be said that he did badly, and yet it certainly was indiscreet of him to tell the interviewer that “the commonsense of humanity is bound to manifest itself sometime.”

Whilst agreeing that this is probable, yet, it seems to me, if its manifestation depends upon the dissemination of Carlyle and the New Testament at £10 a dose, then it is a very long way off indeed. Happily, however, there are teachers of Socialism in the field.

* * *

The Executive of the Labour Party has been wroth with Mr. J. G. Hancock, M.P., because he announced his intention of attending the meetings of the Mid Derby Liberal Association and reporting to them his work in Parliament. The Executive does not see how he can square this attitude with his pledge to support the Labour Party ‘s constitution.

To me there appears to be no difficulty whatever. Events have proved that the Liberal Party stands for all that the Labour Party stands for. Besides, was not Mr. Hancock congratulated years ago by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George on his former successful campaigns in Mid-Derby ? Why was he not pulled up before ? Simply because the Labour Party has known all along that Mr. Hancock was a Liberal. He has never disguised the fact. Again, did not Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself say that Socialism was to be approached, “not by a broad, ready-made road, but through morass, through forests, up hill and down dale, round this corner and that” ? (Oxford, 13.10.11.)

Numerous instances could be cited where Labour M.P.’s have admitted their identity with the Liberal Party. So why blame a member if he elects to go “round this corner and that” ?

* * *

If those who support a Labour policy are desirous of doing a little house-cleaning, they have set themselves a huge task, for upon observation we find the same treachery throughout the movement. On the occasion of the conference of the freedom of the City of Liverpool upon Lord Derby, we find Mr. “Jim” Sexton present on the platform in spite of the resolution passed by his Trades Council, forbidding members to take part in the ceremony. Not satisfied with this, he needs must inform his audience that he “regarded it as a very considerable privilege to be there.” I can quite believe it, and hope Lord Derby will duly appreciate his services. “A small section of the community,” said Sexton, “have expressed, their disapproval, and whilst I do not doubt their sincerity, I cannot appreciate their motives.”

After this is there any doubt as to which class Mr. Sexton is serving ? Of course, nothing will happen. The only difference is that on this occasion a Tory was supported, whereas it is usually the right thing to support a Liberal.

As Mr. W. C. Anderson, the Chairman of the I.L.P., says in the Liberal “Daily Citizen” (13.10.12): “Some would argue that the Labour Party must prove its independence of the Liberals by voting against the Government, even when the Government are supporting some useful (!) reform. But that is not independence: it is much nearer being an advanced stage of political lunacy. On a number of political questions—Lords’ Veto, Plural Votes, and Home Rule—the Liberals are certainly more advanced than the Tories. On all such questions Labour will go into the same lobby with the Liberals without the slightest sacrifice of independence.” Which is quite true. It would be difficult indeed for them to sacrifice something which, for them, does not exist.

At Manchester last month, during the municipal elections, both Labour and B.S.P. candidates signified their willingness, if elected, “to work for the unification of Rates” and “the transference of Rates from property to site values,” for which they were promised the support “by word, deed and vote” of the League of Young Liberals. These are issues, be it noted that are of no import to the workers, but are intended solely to benefit one section of the capitalist class by shifting the rates burden onto the shoulders of another section, incidentally using the worker as a mug in order to accomplish it.

* * *

According to Lady Aberconway, there are “only two ways for a woman of the upper classes to obtain money ; one by inheriting from the dead, and the other by begging from the living.” I venture to affirm that this is not quite correct. There are three ways of getting a living : by working for it, by begging, and by stealing. Knowing that the “upper” class neither work nor beg for their living, there is no other conclusion left us than that they get it by stealing—from the workers.

* * *

Robert Blatchford has recanted on the question of compulsory military service, of which he was such a strenuous advocate. He admits that “universal military service under the control of the ruling ‘classes’ would result in slavery : it would undoubtedly lead to the enslavement of the workers.” (“Clarion,” 1.11.12.) Which is an admission on the part of R.B. that his position, after all his protestations to the contrary, was the wrong one. It has taken him a long time to find it out, which, in itself betrays the fact that he has not devoted much time to the study of Socialism. Seemingly it requires concrete instances, such as the employment of troops as blacklegs in the recent strikes, to force home to him the absurdity of his position. The point is, what becomes now of his “Britain for the British,” seeing that one position conditions the other ?

Tom Sala

50 Years Ago: Vice - 1913 Version (1963)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

In February of this year—within three months of the White Slave Bill being passed—Hull was excited about the arrest of “a leading citizen,” named Edward Buckton Cargill. He was the Chairman of the Hull Steam Trawlers Owners Company, of the Humber Conservancy Board, was chosen by the shipowners of Hull as a representative of the fishing trade of the port, and was appointed by the Board of Trade on the North Sea Fisheries Committee, besides holding many other leading positions in the property owning world.

He was charged with offences against several girls under 16 years of age. He obtained the services of several noted K.C.S and other lawyers and detectives to help him, and they scoured the cities to try and get matter whereby the girls could be seen in the worst light—morally. Needless to state, the girls belonged to the working class.

When the judge ordered him nine months hard labour the poor dupes of Liberalism and Toryism thought it showed the sincerity, and wisdom of our governors—But—wait and see!

He was sentenced at the end of February. At the beginning of May, or shortly after two months had elapsed, the Hull Press announced the release of Cargill on the ground of indisposition. He was removed to his home, prison life not agreeing with this tender plant. And a member of the town council ventured the opinion that if he had been a poor man he would have been in prison yet.

They were going to deal with “the great traffickers in human beings.” They were going to strike at “the international ring of procurers.” Ah, yes! a story of going to do. When, owing to an oversight, no doubt, a sumptuous flat in Piccadilly was raided, the flat keeper, calling herself Queenie Gerald, was charged with procuring girls. In the course of the evidence at Marlboro' Street, however, it transpired that prominent men were associated with the business—and the usual thing took place.

The case came on at the sessions watered down to one of "exercising influence over the movements of prostitutes for the purpose of gain.” At the police court she had pleaded not guilty, but now she answered: "Guilty!” the result being that no evidence was taken against her on the charges made, the jury were not sworn, all in spite of the fact that Mr. Travers Humphrey, the prosecuting counsel had at the Police Court stated that (vide "Daily Telegraph,” June 21st) “There were a large number of letters which made it quite clear that, apart from the prisoner's earnings herself, and apart from what she received from the girls, she was carrying on the trade of a procuress.”

The public were excluded from the Court and the Press representatives were told they were only there as a privilege, and were to report no names and be careful not to let much leak out. They were ordered not to divulge the real name of Queenie Gerald—and all for what reason!

BECAUSE LEADING MEMBERS OF MODERN SOCIETY WERE PATRONS OF THIS PICCADILLY FLAT.

Conclusive evidence of procuring was given earlier at the Police Court proceedings, but that didn't stop the charge being dropped at the Quarter Sessions. One of the letters written to “a gentleman at the Ritz Hotel” ran as follows:

“Your friend wishing to meet a few society ladies. I can arrange for three on Sunday. They are the real thing and frightfully expensive. Will you ask the Prince what he is prepared to give.”

From the Socialist Standard, September, 1913.

A Look Round. (1927)

From the April 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who Pays For Royal Trips?

Those who must have the support of the majority of the workers in their present mental state must also of necessity appeal and act in a manner which will not arouse hostility, even although not in the workers’ interest. Whether such appeals are the outcome of sincerity or duplicity does not alter this fact. In the debate on the expenditure for the Duke and Duchess of York’s Australian trip we have a useful illustration, the Labour members being, of course, well to the front.

Mr. Scurr “did not think that this is a time when this visit ought to have taken place, considering the distress existing in the country.” Mr. Buchanan “thought it unjustifiable to expend this money on a useless visit.” Dr. D. Shiels seemed quite charmed because those in Australia “who belong to the same movement as we do are looking forward to the visit,” as they regard the Royal Family as “the symbol of the unity of the Empire.” How truly democratic these Labourites are ! Perhaps the “best” was what Mr. Kirkwood got off his chest:—

  Here we have got to pay for the sending out of their Royal Highnesses on this excursion, which is simply a joy ride. … I know the responsibilities that my own class are carrying at the present moment and they are very heavy. …. The Duke of York and his wife are being voted this £7,000, and who has to pay for it? The working class has to pay for it— my class, my fellow tradesmen; the engineers, with their £2 15s. a week; the miners have to pay for it. I wish the working class were here just now. I wish they had their eyes on me protesting here on their behalf.” (Hansard, Feb. 17th, 1927.)

This is just clap-trap. The inference is that if capitalist expenditure were curtailed, the money so expended would flow straight into the workers’ pockets. Actually, the enormous wealth you produce is the property of your masters, and that the portion returned to you (wages) never does much more than pay for the food, clothing, shelter and incidentals necessary to sustain your class as efficient units of wealth-producing energy. When you have purchased these necessaries, you could not give any away and maintain the efficiency your masters require. You are too closely rationed for that. How, then, can you pay for anything beyond these rations and incidentals? What you actually receive as wages is not the mere money, but what it buys. 60s. with high prices is no more to you than 30s. with low prices, if it only maintains the same standard of life. It is the money payment that permits the illusion so dear to the workers that they “pay for everything.” Those who retain all you PRODUCE, minus the fraction they return to you in the form of wages, must meet the expenditure incurred in maintaining their Royalty, their navies, armies, paupers, criminals, lunatics, and so on. Though you pile wealth mountain high, the wages system never gives you more than subsistence. These capitalist agents endeavour by any means to hide this fact, because they recognise that for you to have a clear understanding of the cause of your poverty would fit you for the working out of your own emancipation. In that case you would send them about their business, for the capitalist henchmen that they are. At present their only chance of keeping place and pelf is by preventing you from gaining knowledge of your class interests.

* * *

Is Production Too Small?

  But the total production of the world has never been sufficient to keep the population of the world in decency, that is to provide that all shall live up to the standard recognised at any given time as desirable. (Sir Ernest Benn, Times, Nov. 17th, 1926.)

The above is one of those meaningless ambiguities beloved by the so-called business men of to-day. Any standard work dealing with industrial history or a summary of the applied science and inventions of the nineteenth century would show that our potential powers of production were multiplied in that period far beyond anything the human family were ever likely fully to utilise. Allowing for the limitations imposed because capitalism produces only for sale, Dr. Russell Wallace, in “The Wonderful Century,” calculated that our producing capacity at the end of the century had grown ten times faster than the population. Ample evidence is available to show that as far as production is concerned the poverty question was no longer a problem with the coming of modern manufacture and mass output. We learn from a magazine to which Sir Ernest Benn has himself contributed many times : —

  Of all the agricultural countries of the world Canada stands first in ratio of increase of production in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Wheat production at the end of this quarter century was over 600 per cent. greater in yield than in 1900, oats 200 per cent., barley 500 per cent., rye 600 per cent. … It is, in the light of these facts, and prospects, not an exaggeration to say that we are only beginning to grow wheat in Canada.” (Business Organisation, March.)

What applies to agriculture applies equally to manufacture. The fact that in practically every leading industry (agriculture included) production has had to be curtailed, makes Sir Ernest Benn’s statement look childish. The following is only a sample of what takes place with tea, rubber, cotton, wool. etc. :—

  The steel cartel has decided to reduce production by 1,500,000 tons for the first three months of 1927. (Daily Chronicle, Dec. 11th, 1926.)

We do not expect our masters to point out the cause of our poverty; their privileges as landlords, shareholders, and dummy directors are based upon our exploitation as producers. Obviously, then, it must be the workers’ task to convert those material means of providing comfort and security for others into the common property of all. Then, not only could the race be kept in “decency,” but a life of grandeur could be made available for all.

* * *

The Source of the "Social Evil."

It is in the very nature of the reformer to take for granted the continuance and the inevitability of the present system of society. After years and years of tinkering with social evils separately, and seeking to sum up the net result of their efforts, they are often in their more honest moments driven to confess utter failure and despair.

A committee of experts recently made extensive enquiries on an international scale upon the White Slave Traffic, and a lengthy report has been made to the League of Nations. Among some of the causes enumerated are :—

  Bogus offers of employment in a foreign country are not infrequently used as a means of leading girls to become prostitutes. . . . The contracts also are often drawn up in terms so harsh that the girl who signs one has little or no security. Governments would be well advised to protect their nationals against victimisation of this character. (Times, Mar. 12th, 1927.)

It is almost needless to point out that those who must seek employment, bogus or otherwise, here or elsewhere, are girls of the working class. They have no more security here in “free” England than have their male counterparts in wage slavery. Here, too, the terms of living for thousands upon thousands of girls are so harsh that whole armies are driven to live in the same way as that which is deplored in these Continental cities, considered such sinks of iniquity. A country that can boast 80,000 fresh cases of venereal disease yearly (pamphlet issued by the Council for Combating Venereal Disease) has little right to claim Britain to be the “one bright spot.” Our ruling class, however, are essentially hypocritical, a relic of the Puritanism with which they helped to fight their way to power. The sentiments of this report are akin to the canting ethics of the cotton lords who shed crocodile tears for American slaves whilst fighting legislation aimed at preventing them from working their own child operatives to death. After a column of proposals the Committee practically admits its whole work to be a waste of effort, for we are told :—

  The measures to which we have referred above are not likely to be successful while the incentive of money-making remains. Profit is at the bottom of the business. (Ibid.)

While profit is here held responsible for one evil, we claim that it is production for profit in the wide sense—the capitalist system—that engenders other evils. In our pamphlet, “Socialism,” we show how it begets unemployment, intensified exploitation, and the misery and general poverty from which our class suffer. We have no time to wring our hands and bemoan the foulness of a particular social evil, but carry on our work of spreading the knowledge that Socialism is the remedy for all of the economic problems of the working class.

* * *

Is Socialism government ownership?

Sir Herbert Samuel is a Liberal who makes a few assertions, dubs them Socialism, shows their absurdity, and then congratulates himself that “it won’t stand criticism.” In the “Forward View” (quoted Westminster Gazette, 14/3/27) he writes :—

  But the Labour Party committed two great errors. First, it definitely bound up its fortunes with the theory of Socialism. And Socialism has not been able to stand criticism. . . . the idea that here was a panacea which would cure poverty and unemployment, did not pass the calm examination of practical, impartial minds.

The Liberal is, of course, practical; his remedy, like that of the Labour Party, is to perpetuate the system that produces the evils that they are always going to remove. With years of office and a huge majority, they still have to leave poverty and unemployment to the Young Liberals. The others have grown old in the cause of such stirring reforms as Labour Exchanges, Insurance, and Home Rule. And what, pray, is this panacea that impartial minds can’t pass? Is it Socialism, or only what Samuel, through ignorance or imposture, calls Socialism? It is, he falsely says :—

  …. Transferring the greater part of production, distribution and exchange from private enterprise to some form of public ownership and management. (Ibid.)

This he calls Socialism, but he is only repeating the confusion spread by the Labour Party and their leaders, like Mr. Hartshorn, who says that :—

  The Post Office was really the one big Socialist organisation that had ever been built up in this country. If they could introduce the same principle and the same spirit into the other great industries they would be able to build up a great international brotherhood.  (Vernon Hartshorn, Labour P.M.G., Observer, May 5th, 1924.)

State activities such as the Post Office are run like other capitalist concerns : their profits either go to relieve taxation, or Government bondholders take them, instead of receiving dividends as shareholders in a private company. The workers remain under the State concern as before—wage-slaves—even if their condition is not worsened owing to co-ordination, speeding-up, and consequent displacement of large numbers.

  So far from being a charge on the community the Post Office has in the thirteen years 1912-13 to 1924-25 made a profit of 44 millions, all of which has gone in relief of taxation. Since 1914 there has been a decrease of more than 24,000 in staff, while much work has been added to the Post Office. This has resulted in speeding up and overwork. (Daily Herald, Dec. 14th, 1925.)

Apparently what the Labour Party look forward to is an international brotherhood of overwork and speeding-up. In Australia they have had Labour and State activities for years, yet we get the following admission from those who support the same thing at home here :—

  Australia has had more experience of Labour Government than any country in the world. Some people may expect it to follow from this that Australia is the most Socialistic country in the world ; but, alas ! for democratic illusions. . . After years of office it has nothing to show except pettifogging reforms, and it has actually condoned and encouraged the dominance of Finance capital in its area of control. Is there any guarantee that in Britain politicians of the same school of thought will do otherwise. (Labour Magazine, Nov., 1926.)

No, they will not do otherwise, even were they the most straightforward men who ever took office. Not until the number of workers wanting Socialism is greater than those who are opposed or apathetic, can it be at hand. Socialism is common ownership. Public ownership is State capitalism. Emancipation cannot take place without the former, which involves the abolition of capitalism, and not a mere change in its form.

W. E. MacHaffie

From The Front. (1913)

From the January 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “White Slave Bill” has passed. Liberals and Tories, Peers and Commons, parsons and priests, have united to the end of getting it passed, and they have accomplished their task.

The Bill is passed into law, with the approval of the sweaters of female labour, for whom it plays the friendly part of fixing the blame for the degradation of women on less guilty shoulders—but the “white slave” is as much in evidence as ever.

After clamouring for the Bill, “the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill,” that organ of the Tory party, "The People,” has thought fit to tell the truth about the “traffic.” In its issue of December 15, 1912, it printed a special article on “White Slavery and its causes.”

Under the heading “The Root of the Evil” we were told:

 “The truth cannot be shirked that many recruits have joined the army of 'white slaves’ through the monotony of ill-paid lives of virtue compared with the larger gains easily earned in the service of vice. . . . All the time the market is over-supplied with female labour wages will remain low, and consequently the attractions of a life of easy virtue will be correspondingly greater.”

This is almost exactly the language of the Chicago Commission on Vice which last year enquired into the question.

#    #    #    #

“The People,” an organ of the anti Socialists, has to make the farther confession that 

  “the economic or wage question to every large extent is the root of the social evil. . . . The sad fact cannot be ignored that the 'sweating’ of women is an evil that flourishes very actively, and many firms of high repute grind down their employees to a shameful degree. Hence the market price of virtue is very cheap at the present time.”

Thus is the fraud of capitalism made plain. The hypocrisy of the “Pass the Bill” campaign is confessed, for the measure contains not a single provision designed to stop the "sweating of women." The “white slaves” will remain and increase in number until the wage system is ended. But that would be the end of the "flogging" fanatics, as well as of the "procurers"—the makers as well as the patrons of the modern Magdalene's trade.

#    #    #    #

It will be recalled that last year the Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill, at the demand of the factory owners, passed a Home Office Order (No. 360, April, 1911) permitting boys sixteen years of age to work in factories all night making artificial silk fibre. Prior to his action the lowest age for night work was fixed by the Factory Act of 1901 at eighteen years for this trade. Such was the industrial progress of “Dear Winston,” and his kindly consideration for the employers. If the workers’ children suffer, well, there is always the sanitoria of friend David George, or the free funerals furnished by “honest John’s ” Poor Law!

#    #    #    #

Much criticism was aroused by this action, as aforetime the Home Secretary appointed a committee to enquire into (who said whitewash?) the question of nightwork for boys. Their report has just been issued (Cd. 6,503). They tell us that

  “they realise that it is essential in necessarily continuous processes in certain industries at the present time, in order to avoid unreasonable loss through waste of fuel or valuable materia], and that in considering the question of prohibition of night employment of boys, regard must be had for what measure of further prohibition is practicable without imposing any serious disabilities on the industries of the country.“

They ask that permission should be given where “stoppage causes such waste of fuel or material as would entail financial loss likely to materially damage the business.” What the continuity of the processes has got to do with the reduction of the age limit they do not say. Processes can be continued by the ever-increasing number of men seeking work —but that wouldn’t do. Boys young boys —are so much cheaper.

#    #    #    #

"Serious disabilities” and “unreasonable loss”—of life may be imposed upon the children of the workers, but the sanctity of capital must not be touched. The children must “sleep” by day and slave by night to make the masters’ millions grow. Who dare speak of "breaking up the home and family life” after this?

Dealing with the glass manufacturing trade, where boys have been given permission to work all night at the age of fourteen for regular spells of 14 hours, the committee says:—

   “We recognise, however, that owing to the large proportion of boy labour in the trade, and to the fact that foreign competition still presses heavily on our manufacturers, though in a less degree than formerly, it is not desirable to do anything that would cause too suddien a disturbance of trade conditions"

This despite the fact that they admit that it is the most deadly of all, and that dozens of leading witnesses gave evidence as to its disastrous effects. The number of boys in the trade far exceeds that of men. The committee, speaking of the machine, says:—

  “Though it seems likely that, by the introduction of labour-saving machinery, the necessity for employment of boys is likely to be greatly reduced, any such change is likely to be very gradual. Unfortunately the increased use of machinery often tends to displace the skilled workman rather than the boys."

One witness is quoted as typical of the objections to night work:—

  “Dr. Ridley Bailey, certifying surgeon for Bilston, was of the opinion |that during the period of active growth, when the tissue changes are going on, work at night, which is very heavy in his district, must tend to interfere with the physical development and the physical faculties. He found the boys had some times to sleep during the day in beds that had been occupied during the previous night, and stated that owing to the street noises and the sounds inseparable from the carrying on of household routine during the day, it was impossible for sleep to be so sound and refreshing as it would be in the night. He considered it a very serious matter that boys should be placed in such a position.”

This servile report of the Departmental Committee is signed by William Waldorf Astor, M.P., and among others there is, needless to say, the representative of the Labour Party, Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P.!

#    #    #    #

At Aberdeen (29.11.12) the Welsh Revivalist and Latter Day Saint, Mr. Lloyd George, lectured on Miracles. He told his audience that a blacksmith would get two hundred pounds and a consumption cure thrown in for a few shillings under the last “Act of the Apostles.”

At Birmingham, however. Sir James Barr, President of the British Medical Association, said (6.12.12):—

  “He knew no greater legislative farce than the method of dealing with tuberculosis under the Insurance Act. You must get tuberculosis before they begin to stamp it out, and then a totally inadequate sum is allowed for the stamping out process.”

If Sir James thinks any Liberal or Tory politician will really wipe out the main cause of tuberculosis, viz., poverty, he must have enough faith “to move mountains” —and as much real knowledge of the capitalist world as “a grain of mustard seed.”

#    #    #    #

The Postmaster General has opened automatic telephone exchanges in various parts, the last being at Hereford. Many others are being built. The feature of them is that no operators are required, each subscriber being his own connector. The extension of the system is to save a great deal of money, and the girls will be dispensed with. They may “seek fresh fields and pastures new" — be shipped to Buenos Ayres or “Walk down the Strand” and ponder over the “wonders of science” with the “white slave trader.”

#    #    #    #

An American paper also informs us that dairymaids are damned by an automatic milking machine that is proving very successful over in Yankee land. The increasing use of the Dictaphone in offices here is pronouncing the death-sentence of the shorthand writer, and things all round look blacker than ever for the fair sex of the slave class. First it was “Good-bye, brother, come in, sister! "Now it is “Good-bye, sister, enter, Science, and save my wages bill! ”

#    #    #    #

Canadian capitalists are doing well. They have offered the British Government seven millions to build three Dreadnoughts to guard “our shores.” The prosperity of the owners of the “Golden West ” was the theme of the Premier of Alberta at the Royal Colonial Institute in London on December 4th. He said that 

  “A huge tract of land that was at one time only inhabited by Indians and buffaloes was on the point of becoming an important part of the country. To-day there were 14,000 miles of railway line completed and working at a cost of 80 millions, most of which bad come from the City of London.”

He also said that Canada is “a splendid place for the emigrant who is prepared to take off his coat,” but he quite forgot to remind the emigrant that he must keep his coat off until he is worked out and then make way for the newer and cheaper emigrant.

The Canadian toilers have taken off their coats so much in the past that when a railway has to be built most of the money has to come from the City of London, where they don’t take their coats off. The workers of the West are so industrious that the Premier pointed out that “there is an unlimited scope for safe investment.” The chap who takes his coat off has no money to invest, but he can invest his time in Socialism with happy results for the future.

#    #    #    #

  "Spite of all the efforts of the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and countless other organisations, the morass of squalor shows no visible dint. The tide of crime and pauperism ebbs and flows sullenly in dependence upon the trade cycle, with little change in the general level. The drunkard still abounds, though drinking has decreased. The shelters of the Salvation Army and other organisations are always full, yet the casual wards are more crowded than ever. The average number of vagrants relieved in 1906 constitutes a record. The number of persons actually houseless in London and passing the night in the open is probably greater than before, and is certainly very considerable.”

The terrible indictment I have quoted is from “The Social Work of the Salvation Army,” and is written by W. H. Beveridge, Director of the Labour Exchange Department, Board of Trade.

Adolph Kohn

The "White Slave Traffic." (1912)

From the August 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

To side-track the workers from their emancipation, or, it may be, from some other motive, the Liberal and Tory Press are making much capital out of the “White Slave Traffic.” In particular, “The Star” for June 10th last, quotes in its leader a certain Dr. Ettie Sayer, who gives an account of a girl patient who told her she worked in the restaurant of a flourishing West End drapery establishment. She says that she received six shillings per week and (rather unusual) a good dinner and tea, but no gratuities were allowed. She had to provide out of this six shillings, breakfast and supper each day, her Sunday meals, clothes, laundering, lodging and omnibus fares to and from a district where lodgings are cheap.

The Editor of “The Star” comes to the conclusion that the root of the evil which the world calls the “white slave traffic ” is the low payment of labour. That is not a vast way from the truth as the Socialist understands it. We of the Socialist Party have always pointed out that prostitution and procuration are the result of the ownership by a section of society, of the means of production. We have pointed out that the cause is

Insecurity of Livelihood.

What is the position of the girls of the working class to-day? They have to sell their labour-power to a master. The wages they receive are in many cases so meagre that they most do something to enhance their income. Hence w have the spectacle of women selling their bodies.

Not content with the way these girls are ground down in the factory hells, certain people further prey upon them by procuring them (we are told by “The Star”) for sale to the brothels of America and elsewhere.

Now certain men in Parliament are introducing legislation designed to palliate the evil. That is all they hope to do. They know as well as we do that there can be no cure under the capitalist system till the cause of the effects is done away with. According to “The People” of June 16th, the promoters of the Bill do not hope to eradicate the terrible social ulcer which is the subject of their attentions. All they look to do is to aid the unwilling to be commercialised. That is, those girls who are too “shy” to enhance their income by prostitution. All this bears out our contention that it is useless to

Tinker With Effects.

In tbe same issue of “The People” it is said that a lot of immorality is due to the ignorance and ridiculous prudery of the elders. It seems that all our contemporaries are being converted to the Socialist philosophy. It is due to the environment. The people’s education is insufficient. It serves the purposes of the master class to prevent the workers understanding those things which are essential to one who wishes to enjoy a healthy and a manly life. The above-mentioned paper also states that it is impossible by Act of Parliament to make men moral. True, but it is through the domination of a class that immorality exists.

We of the Socialist Party can show how the White Slave Traffic can be abolished. We follow the scientific course of first ascertaining 

The Cause of the Evil, 

and then we build up our remedy from the facts as we find them.

The cause of the White Slave Traffic is also the cause of many other evils which so terribly afflict the working class. It is the private ownership of the means of life.

A doctor, having discovered the cause of his patient’s ailment, applies his efforts to eradicate it. For instance, in the case of that fashionable complaint, appendicitis, the doctor, having come to the conclusion that the root of his patient’s trouble is inflammation of the appendix, removes the unhealthy organ, if other means of dealing with the cause fail.

Society, like the individual, is an organism suffering from disorder in one of its parts. The same way is therefore necessary to deal with the large organism that is diseased. We Socialists have found the cause to be in the private ownership of property. We have found that the time has long gone by when the causes which render this social institution a danger to the social existence could be dealt with. The only means is the knife. But the surgical instrument can only be wielded by the majority of the workers. Owing to the fact that they do not know how to use it their masters hold it. The instrument is the

Political Machine,

the powers of government which control the armed forces of the nation. When the workers know how to use this instrament they will speedily put an end to the capitalist system, which breeds poverty, misery, and prostitution, and will organise a society based upon the common ownership of the means and instruments of production and distribution.

We of the S.P.G.B. are out always putting before the workers their position as a class. It is incumbent upon those who understand their position to muster under our banner, to the end that this system, with its fruit, the White Slave Traffic, may be for all time overthrown.

A, G. H.

White Slavers in Parliament. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Parliament of Man — the Federation of the World.” Thus sang the poet but it is not yet. The Parliament of our time is an assembly of traffickers in slaves of all colours but mostly white —of both sexes but of women increasingly.

During the past month the dockers of those busy ports, Hull, Leith, etc., have struck against the tyranny of the slave-owners. These most helpless of casual labourers, the men who congregate round dock gates for hours in the hope of obtaining a few hours slavery, found themselves faced by the majesty of the law — the law made by robbers to sanction robbery.

The representatives of mighty moneyed interests made demands for police and military, and the Liberal Home Secretary promptly ordered troops to the seat of struggle. "Reynolds’” (20.7.13) announced “Warships Ready,” not to fight the Germans, but the white slaves of the black international. This Liberal paper says: “Six gunboats of the mine-laying class have arrived at the port with several hundred men ready to be landed to protect life and property." The lives and property of the traders in flesh and blood. “The military and naval authorities are now acting conjointly in the matter’’—all in the interests of the shipowners and merchants who use Parliament so well to further their own ends.

The dockers at Hull and elsewhere will see these things repeated while they vote into power Liberals and their Labour and Tory allies, what time they rely upon an inefficient and out-of-date trade union to prosecute their economic struggles.

The Wilson family of Liberal shipowners boast of a generation's representation of Hull; of such is the blindness of Labour!

#    #    #    #

For many weeks the white slaves of the Black Country have been fighting for 23s. per week for wearing out their lives before furnaces and kilns and making wealthy the shining lights of the Liberal and Tory parties. After a sad and foredoomed struggle they have gone back to work on a compromise of 22s. per week.

Recently it was the girls and women of the adjacent towns and Cradley Heath who were driven to strike. These women, making chains of iron for those who hold them bound in chains more cruel than can be forged out of any metal, stayed out some weeks, until the Board of Trade; (in white slaves) settled the matter by ordering employers to pay "all workers except learners” the starvation rate of 2½d. per hour. When the lace workers of Nottingham rose against their death-dealing wage the same Trade Boards Act passed by the parasites’ Parliament fixed their ; wages at 2¾d. per hour for “all workers except ’ learners.” The tailoresses in the bespoke (better class) branch of the male garment trade were next treated to Christian charity in the shape of 3¼ d. per hour for ‘‘all workers except learners.”

It may, indeed, be truly said that the Trade Boards were used to make coffins for the toilers.

#    #    #    #

This same Parliament decided that 5d. per hour was a "fair wage” for the navvies building a new naval base at Rosyth The men struck for 6d., which was the local rate, whereupon the manager of the local labour Exchange proceeded to Dublin to hire the sous of Erin at 5½d per hour. Meanwhile the Irish Party of hungry politicians voted with the Government against enforcing any higher wage than 5d. To add to the irony of the situation, the men building the new naval base found the harbour held by gunboats sent by the plutocrats’ Parliament to shoot them if they deemed it desirable.

#    #    #    #

Space fills and time flies. I had intended to deal with the latest developments of what is sanctimoniously called "The White Slave Traffic,” the last hope of the beaten and broken derelicts of murderous industrialism. Another phase of the trade in white slaves arranged by Parliament—I refer to the white slaves of insurance—also demands attention, but both these must await a future issue.

Adolph Kohn