Notes by the Way: The Fabians and the House of Lords (1957)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fabians and the House of Lords

In the Socialist Standard for February, 1907, was an article about the Fabians which opened with a quotation:—

“ The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts."

This little gem had been spoken by Mr. H. Snell, of the Fabian Society.

The writer in the Socialist Standard had appropriate comments to make on this typically Fabian proposal for running other people's lives. He began:—

"So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their ‘Socialism’ is government by bureau, and ‘naturally’ (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. ‘Naturally’ they want the plums. ‘‘Naturally’’ they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing."

Our writer hit the nail on the head when he said the Fabians aimed to occupy the seats of authority and in the course of time many of them had their little hour in the Labour Governments, where they showed that their “superior brains” could no more cope with the chaos of Capitalism than could those they affected to despise, the political aristocrats and the business men.

One of the “reforms” supported by the Fabians was the abolition of the House of Lords. They came to be glad that they hadn't succeeded because it was to be a final refuge for a number of Fabians, including Sidney Webb (who wrote the Fabian tract demanding abolition of the Lords), and Attlee, and of course Mr. Snell, who became Lord Snell of Plumstead in 1931 just about the time two million unemployed were wondering how their Fabian trained leader had managed to get things in such a mess.

Macmillan Must Go!

If we were Labour or Communist vote-catchers we would be campaigning for “Macmillan Must Go!" and telling anyone silly enough to believe it, how successful we had been with our last campaign for u Eden Must Go!"

Since the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904 there have been ten such campaigns for getting rid of a no-good Prime Minister. There have been rather more than ten governments because some of them, after being pushed, pulled or squeezed out have managed to get back again. When we survey the list we marvel at the rich variety. Scots, English, Welsh, and half-American (Churchill); spell-binders like Lloyd-George, and others who didn’t know how to gild the lilies of oratory; philosophical types like Balfour and Asquith and "plain, blunt men" like Baldwin;; semi-Pacifists and war-mongers; business men and professional politicians; the relatively poor and the passing rich; religionists and agnostics; aristocrats and commoners; Tory, Liberal, and Labour.

There are the differences: What of the similarities? They have all had a strange belief that the country was very lucky to have them at the helm. They have all come in generously promising how much better they will make life for the people and have all gone out little lamented.

And what difference has it made in the one thing that ought to be of paramount concern to the workers, the question of establishing Socialism in place of Capitalism? Just no difference at all. That job has yet to be done and it won't matter in the least whether the next Prime Minister who tries to administer Capitalism is Mr. G., or Mr. B., Mr. X or Mr. Y.

“Why We Left the Communist Party”

A group calling themselves the Nottingham Marxist Group, has issued an eight-page leaflet under the above title. As a criticism of the leaders of the British Communist Party from the standpoint of members whose confidence was first shaken by the dethronement of Stalin and then shattered by the Russian Army's onslaught on the Hungarian workers, it is effective enough. But that is all it is. In no way does it justify the claim that the group are Marxist in outlook. Indeed the limited range of their criticism clearly shows that they are not. Their case is against “the politically and morally bankrupt leaders of the Communist Party," but not against the idea of leadership and if it were not for their view that it is in practice impossible to change the leadership they would he working for new leaders in place of the old. They fail to see that a Socialist Party has no use or place for leaders.

They condemn various comparatively recent consequences of dictatorship in Russia and Hungary, but nowhere do they show an understanding of the fact that Socialism is incompatible with dictatorship. They do not explain how it was that they accepted the dictatorship and only woke up to some of its inevitable consequences at a late stage. Above all they do not square their claim to be Marxist with their tacit acceptance of the absurd belief that the Russian dictatorship is Socialism. This ought to have been the central theme of their declaration because every criticism they make stems from the fact that the social organisation in Russia and Hungary is and always has been Capitalism. They do now see that Socialism cannot be imposed by force and they quote from an American Communist journal:—“Socialism . . .  could not be imposed on a country by those means”; but they do not face up to the truth that that was the original, impossible, aim of the Communist group that seized power in Russia, and that dictatorship and a police state were the inevitable outcome of that attempt It was then that the Russian Communists “betrayed” the principles of Socialism, not at some later date, as the pamphlet would have us believe, when the “cult of leadership” was carried to such lengths as to endanger the stability of the dictatorship itself.

The Not-so-Stupid Tory Capitalists

The Hon. William Douglas-Home, writer of successful plays and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate standing on one occasion as a “Progressive Independent," and on another as “Atlantic Charter" candidate, wrote to the Observer (3 January, 1957) advising the Tories to apply in foreign politics the policy they have used so well at home. He described the latter as follows:—

“. . . they never seem to realise that a controlled withdrawal is precisely what they have conducted with considerable skill in domestic policy since the industrial revolution, and that to this policy, and to this policy alone, they owe their survival. Whereas any attempt to preserve the status quo would have resulted in either their total extinction or a revolution, or both.”

Strikes by Hungarian Workers

On January 13 the Russian imposed government of their Hungarian colony announced a new decree imposing the death penalty for a number of acts, many of which would in most countries be regarded as normal trade union and political activities.

The Manchester Guardian (January 14), quoting B.U.P. and Reuter despatches from Budapest, had the following:—

"The death penalty was introduced in Hungary today for anyone calling a strike, damaging factory machinery, or committing  'any kind of offence directed against the State.’ The death sentence could be ordered for distributing leaflets, or for entering a government factory without permission, according to the new regulations, announced in a supplementary paragraph to the martial law declared in December."

The News Chronicle and other newspapers gave similar versions. Only the Daily Worker (January 14) managed to twist this new decree almost out of recognition. They left out the reference to strikes and reported it as:—

“ Death sentences may be imposed on people who ‘ sabotage or interfere in any way with public utilities and other essential enterprises'. "

But if the Hungarian workers in Hungary may now be hanged for striking, Hungarian refugees in Britain have shocked a lot of people by refusing jobs offered to them and by coming out on strike. The Sunday Despatch (January 16) reported:—

"Eighteen refugees walked out of their jobs at St Albans because they were dissatisfied with their pay. They were receiving an average of £7 a week as cooks, waiters, carpenters and farm workers. Mr. G. P. Bannister, manager of the Employment Exchange at St. Albans, said: ’They expected £14 or £15 a week. Most of them want to go to America or Canada'. "

This sort of conduct will get the Hungarians disliked by the employers and before we know where we are we shall hear the Hungarians denounced as unwelcome agitators. Being spirited in demanding the right to strike in Budapest is not at all the same as continuing to behave like that here.

But British workers ought to be delighted that the refugees do not intend to become a source of cheap and servile labour. And if the incident makes British workers more assertive in trying to raise their wages so much the better.

Exodus to Canada

And while the Hungarians pour in the Britishers pour out as fast as they can, Canada-bound for preference. Rhona Churchill, in the Daily Mail (January 8, 1957), made inquiries and these are her conclusions:—

“ Emigrant applications at Canada’s London and Liverpool offices have now reached 20,000 a week.

John Bull Taxpayer has had enough.

Emigration figures had been falling off. Then suddenly the Butler austerity Budget of October, 1955, doubled the numbers, calling at Canadian immigration offices, the Macmillan squeeze Budget of April, 1956, trebled them, and Suez, with its promise of more Budget austerity three months from now, increased them sixfold.

A quarter of a million Britons, tired of being told for ten austere years: ’Belt-tightening today means prosperity tomorrow,' and, finding that tomorrow never comes, are now actively organising their escape, believing that Britain has no sound financial future to offer their children."

But while the exasperated British workers flee from the rigours of “Welfare State" Capitalism to seek paradise in Canada the Canadian Railwaymen were on strike because they too have grievances against their “free enterprise” Capitalism.

Profits and the Ugly Head of Politics

For a century or more business men, stock exchange speculators and economists have recurrently dreamed of a beautiful world in which Capitalism would function “naturally” without being disturbed by politics. The latest is Mr. A. G. Jenkins, City Editor of the Empire News (January 3,1957).

’’So much for the short-term view. Dividend limitation, nationalisation, confiscation and many other 'ations’ loom ahead when politics rears its ugly head, and for the moment this may discourage buyers of industrial ordinary shares."

Mr. Jenkins thinks Capitalism would be nicer without the serpent of politics and other “ations.” He should think again. If there were no political machine to be controlled by the politicians bent on keeping Capitalism going, our class divided society would disintegrate. One “ation” would, indeed, be taken away, but Mr. Jenkins would not be pleased for it is “exploitation," and if there were no exploitation of one class by another there would be no rent, interest or profit, no Stock Exchange, and no City Editors.

Over in Bombay the great Indian iron and steel concern of the Tata Company knows better. They don’t want to rule out politics; on the contrary they have just appealed successfully to the High Court for the right to make contributions to political party funds.

"Mr. Justice Tendolkar allowed a petition by the company for confirmation of alteration in its memorandum enabling it to make such contributions. He said that expenditure by way of donations to political parties could in the long run be economic.

”The petition said the company was at present carrying out a Rs. 750m. (£57m.) expansion programme and any further expansion would depend on Government approval. The company’s prosperity was therefore bound up with the policy of the party in power.”

(Financial Times, 12th January, 1957). 

The Indian Capitalists, who used the nationalist movement to establish themselves as a Capitalist India, learned all the tricks and devices of Capitalist rule practised by the British ruling class.

The Communists and the S.P.G.B.

Letters written to the Daily Worker by members of the S.P.G.B. have been refused publication recently. This is not in itself surprising but the reason given deserves comment. A letter from the Editor, J. R. Campbell (October 10, 1956) included the following:—

“It is true that the Daily Worker does not propose to publish letters dealing with insignificant political bodies like the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Our space is precious and we have to devote it to more important questions.” 

We can imagine the indignation of the Communists if, say the Daily Herald were to give the same reason for not publishing their letters. And of course we can guess that J. R. Campbell (responsible recently for the suppression of reports from Budapest by its own correspondent) may have other reasons for not wanting the Marxist case against his party to be put before his readers.

One small point about Campbell’s letter is that he addressed the S.P.G.B. member as “Dear Friend” and ended it “with best wishes.”

Another letter (January 7, 1957), this time signed “with all good wishes” by the Assistant Editor of the Daily Worker, Mick Bennett, informed our member that “the role and influence of the S.P.G.B. has declined over the years largely because of its conscious deliberate policy of remaining a small sect devoted largely to the theory that until all the working class have been sufficiently educated in Marxism they will not be able to get rid of Capitalism.”

This implies that the S.P.G.B. used to have more influence and was therefore worthy of the notice of Communists but, except on very rare occasions, the Communist Party has always maintained the policy of ignoring the S.P.G.B. and declining debates. But the official reason given for this in the early days was that there was no time or place for discussion because revolution, here and in the world generally, was "just around the corner.” Privately members of the C.P.G.B. were advised to keep away from discussion with the S.P.G.B.

Bennett's letter (in the last sentence quoted above) re-iterates the Communist’s case that Capitalism could be got rid of in speedier ways than by building up a movement of Socialists. What a pity we can't have from him his explanation of the total failure of Communist governments in Russia, Hungary and elsewhere, to get rid of Capitalism and introduce Socialism.

Brotherly Love from a Christian

A reader sends us an article by Pastor W. W. Kirkby. published in the Elim Evangel (December 8, 1956), called “Ambitious Russia,” which sets out to describe the imperialist aims of the Russian Government; including, so the writer says, the conquest of Israel as a main objective.

It is full of the common misconceptions about the social system in Russia (the writer of the article thinks it is Communism and that Marx was responsible for it), and about the driving force behind the Russian Imperialism (the writer naturally fails to recognise that it is like the imperialism of the rest of the Capitalist powers).

One interesting item is an alleged quotation from Karl Marx in which he is made to say that as “loving my neighbour” has not changed the world, “let us see what hatred can do.” (No source is given).

But just to show how different the Christian and his God are the article ends:—

“Four thousand years ago God declared to Abraham, the father of the faithful: 'I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'

. . . That principle has been carried out right down the years, and in the future God’s curse is to fall upon atheistic and ambitious Russia.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialism V. Religion. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr H. M. Hyndman, having been badly mangled (by his brother Rothstein and others) on the German war scare issue which, in conjunction with brother Blatchford, he was good enough to offer the general Press as an excellent subject for a silly season discussion, has broken out in a fresh place. We have now to beware of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism has been played out “by the growth of popular science and freethought,” but apparently the same growth is playing in the power of the Pope, or the religious organisation the Pope is the figurehead of. Really, H. M. H. has mistaken his vocation. He should be where positive genius for “scare heads” would be appreciated. He is the silly season writer par excellence. He can provide an acceptable substitute for the great gooseberry every time.

Clericalism, high church, low church, Roman church, “Labour” church, and tin Bethelism of any calibre, are all in the ruck of reaction. Their power for evil depends, so far as we are concerned, upon the measure of working-class ignorance prevailing. Given that change in social conditions that will free men economically, the religious forms and influences which have been built up and maintained upon economic subjection, must go. Our business, therefore, is to direct the working-class mind toward that change of social conditions.

But does not the influence of the churches tell against our efforts ? It does where it can, of course, but its effect is not one to be troubled about, and very far indeed from being strong enough to warrant our departure from the course mapped out for us. The forces that affect the stomach are on our side. The armies of mankind move upon their stomachs. A starving man, offered the bread that perishes or the water of life, grabs at the bread every time—naturally.

The evolution of industry creates the starving man. We show him the way by which alone he may find the full satisfaction of his needs. The churches pretend to show him the way to heaven. The hollowness of the pretence may not appeal to him. The emptiness of the offer does. Hence the dilemma of the churches and their efforts to compromise on blankets and coal tickets. But it won’t do. The futility of charitable schemes and the offence of charitable schemes are alike too palpable. The Socialist alone holds the field. He alone can show the reason for the starving man. He alone can show the starving man the road to the ever full dinner pail.

Therefore we need not trouble about the churches. If they get too near our path we may give them a passing thump with the club of our argument. We can do that in our stride. As for concentrating upon the iniquity of “the Holy Catholic Church,” or turning out of our path to engage it, that is sheer Hyndmaniacal nonsense. The Holy Catholic Church may go hang. When we have nothing more important to do it might well be possible to amuse ourselves by crumpling it up. But we have a long way to go before we can afford the time.

Alegra.

The Trade Union Congress. (1908)

 

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress opened at Nottingham with a notable address from the chairman. Let the Daily News speak :—

”Mr. Shackleton’s address was largely occupied with the great social problems of the country at large—the drink question, the education question, the care of old age, and even dangers in foreign policy. On all of these joints he took a strong and definitely Liberal position.”

And that’s all that requires to be said for it. Mr. Shackleton made it quite clear that he had not a glimmer of an idea of the working-class position in relation to any of the questions touched upon. Either that, or he was concerned to obscure his knowledge. Mr. Shackleton, we are constantly informed, is the “strong man” of the Labour movement. He is. His strength lies in the definitely Liberal, and therefore pro-capitalist, and therefore anti-working-class, position he may be relied upon to occupy.

For example :

Mr. Shackleton thought the fact that Trade Unions’ returns shewed 8.2 per cent. of skilled workers unemployed in July of this year as compared with 3.7 last year, was one—calling “for the serious consideration of the Government” ! He affirmed that “the great political and social measure of the Session was undoubtedly the Licensing Bill” ; that the great question which is on everybody’s lips is what will the House of Lords do “when the Bill came before it” ; and that “Labour was prepared to fight the Lords on the Drink evil.”

But—

“The outstanding feature of a notable speech was the appeal to the Government to convene in London an international conference on labour.

He cited the precedent set by the German Emperor eighteen years ago. Since then the spread of the international character of the labour movement had been the most striking feature in the Trade Union world, and the time had come for another conference.”—Daily News.

Verily a strong man. A man head and shoulders above all the hosts of Israel. He would refer the unemployed problem to a government of capitalists who depend upon the maintenance of the unemployed problem. His most important Bill of the Session is the Licensing Bill which doesn’t matter a brass farthing to the working class. And the scintillating darling of his genius for statesmanship is an 18 years old proposal of that earnest and far-sighted labour leader, the German Emperor of that day, for an international conference on labour, to “include representatives of the European and United States (capitalist) Governments” who are opposed by the nature of their interests to the interests of the working class !

Evidently the fraternal delegates from America were impressed. “When Mr. Shackleton was in America,” said Mr. Creamer, “he described Mr. Gompers as a, ‘grand old man.’ I cannot do better than describe Mr. Shackleton as a ‘grand young man.'” Mr. Creamer doubtless meant that Mr. Shackleton was following in Mr. Gompers’ footsteps. Those who know Mr. Gompers as the chief labour lieutenant of the capitalist class in America, and know the work of Mr. Shackleton in England, will doubtless agree that Mr. Creamer “could do no better” in the way of accurate description. Mr. Gompers is at present actively engaged in assisting Mr. Bryan, capitalist candidate for the Presidency.

The same Mr. J. J. Creamer in the course of his address said: “In the Southern States the movement against child labour was growing and he hoped ultimately that all children and married women would be excluded from the mills.” He continued: “I want to congratulate this Congress . . . particularly on its president” (Mr. Shackleton). It is not recorded that Mr. Shackleton, the champion of child labour in mills, blushed noticeably. This is a real test of greatness !

With such a brilliant lead from such a brilliant leader the Congress settled down to its work, and notwithstanding the difficulties of the position, managed to follow the line marked out for it, with wonderful restraint, if not lamb-like docility. There was a full week of dull and stodgy talking, only lightened here and there by the contributions of such advanced thinkers as Mr. Harvey, M.P. Speaking on the motion that the Congress do all in its power to restrict Sunday labour, in the future, to the narrowest possible limits, this worthy person said : “Working men are not wholly free from blame. They are too much inclined to ask for Sunday excursions. I believe that the strength of our family and national life lies in the keeping of the Divine commandments.”

These selfish, luxury-loving working men, spending their substance in riotous living, and rushing about the four corners of the globe on a Sunday, instead of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy ! But who is this cheerful Harvey and who let him out of the museum of Mediaevialities ?

Once or twice proceedings threatened to grow stormy, as when somebody wanted a public enquiry into the methods of the Salvation Army’s “elevator” work, but as the Salvation Army is the one institution we cannot do without (according to Mr. MacDonald); the organisation upon which the “Labour” Party in the House relies for its information on working-class affairs, “the tumult and the shouting” died down into an agreement to leave the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Committee.

Against this one organisation that the “Labour” Party cannot do without, shameless and unblushing sweating, undercutting and black-legging, have been alleged and proven to the satisfaction of most men outside the Salvation Army’s own ranks. (In the ranks, probably, lying to the glory of God, is pardonable and permissible). The Parliamentary Committee will “deal” with this ; but the supply of blacklegs through other agencies, to fill the places of Continental workers on strike, is a matter reflecting upon the international credit of an imperial race—and so forth.

With these occasional breaks in the monotony everything went through “swimmingly,” and everybody appears to have been satisfied. Sheaves of resolutions were disposed of in a “business-like” way by talking on them for an hour or so and finally referring them to the Government who won’t do anything, or to the Parliamentary Committee who can’t. This, of course, is of no great consequence, as nine-tenths of the resolutions didn’t matter, and those that did the delegates seemed quite incapable of handling.

Such, incapacity is quite understandable when it is remembered that the delegates are, unfortunately, representatives of constituencies of ignorance. While that ignorance persists, we shall have the mortification of witnessing our own class annually wasting its money and its strength in Congress meetings, that do nothing quite as well as they demonstrate to the world of capitalism that the day when the profit-monger shall fear for his hoard is not yet.

For ourselves, there is nothing we can do except that which we have consistently done from our inception until now,—point out the futility of anything less than Socialism and urge the necessity for working-class organisation in industry as in politics, for the establishment of Socialism. That is the message our men have to carry to they who sit in darkness inside and outside Trade Unions—anywhere in fact where the workers do most congregate. In order to do it we must expose fraud or foolery, even though it is expressed through the workers’ most revered leaders.

That is a thankless task for which we shall probably continue to reap for some time more kicks than ha’pence. But as there is no other party in the country to do it, and as it must be done, we are not deterred by present contumely or indifference. Sooner or later the policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain must win. We are in the Party that cannot lose ; working for the cause that cannot fail. If the workers or their leaders don’t like the truth we cannot help it. Children don’t like medicine, but when their case gets parlous they have to take it. The truth about the present Trade Union Congress is that it is a ghastly farce, a waste of time and money, and only of advantage to the delegates who, through it, get an annual junket at the workers’ expense.

Alegra.

The Harrying of Haggerston. The Burial of Burrows. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poor Haggerston ! It had burrows and warrens enough in its half square mile of mean and congested streets, surely. To have another of each added to the already intolerable burden was too much. That it fired both Warren and Burrows out was therefore hardly surprising. Nor was it more surprising that such a land of unutterable poverty preferred guineas (pardon — Guinness) in the hand to a couple of empty rabbit holes in the bush. Haggerston will none the less find that its Guinness is not current coin in days of want. For the working class ignorance never works out in bliss.

-+0+-

Guinness had a “long pull” over both his competitors from the very start. He knew that the constituency that elected a Randal Cremer must be fairly full of political sinners. The association of publicans and sinners has the authority of the scriptures. The association of bible and beer is equally notorious, if of a somewhat later creation. Moreover, all things work together for good to they who love the lord. And who has more reason to love the lord than Guinness ? Is he not the son of the lord ?

-+0+-

In addition to this, however, he knew his Haggerston. He has even risked the dangers of living in it. He is a “Haggerston man”— for a day or two a year, anyhow. This is real courage. Men have been raised to the beer age for less. But then Guinness is a capitalist. And the capitalists will do anything for the workers, anything—except get off their backs. Mr. Warren, the Liberal, didn’t know Haggerston. According to a certain stout enthusiast who orated from the Guinness dray, Mr. Warren arrived in a cab making plaintive enquiries for his constituency ; while Mr. Herbert Burrows, the soi-disant Socialist candidate, seems to have been in such a condition as act to know which constituency he was contesting ! His election literature bore the strange device “Vote for Burrows and no poverty in Hoxton” ! Mr. Claude Hay the Conservative member for that division was doubtless mightily impressed by Burrows’ solicitude.

-+0+-

The Burrovians very early assimilated their leader’s spirit—bumptiousness. They dismissed Warren from their calculations. They then absorbed sufficient of the Burrovian brand of consistency to make themselves ridiculous. Having asserted that Warren did not count, they commenced to bewail the inconsiderate action of the Liberals in running him. After Mr. Burrows so long sacrificed his opposition to Liberalism on the altar of his friendship for Randal Cremer ; after he had done his best to “pull together the whole of the progressive forces in the division in the fight against reaction.” (Burrows’ letter to the Daily News, 1.8.08.) Warren and the Liberals who were running him, ought to have been ashamed of themselves, splitting the “progressive” vote in that way. The Warren who didn’t count polled several hundred more votes than the Burrows who did.

-+0+-

According to Mr. Burrows and his organisation (the S.D.P.), Liberals and Tories are alike the enemies of the workers, and must be fought. “The principles of other political parties are those upon which the present social order is founded . . . As a Socialist I hold that those principles are against the interests of the nation, especially the workers.” (Burrows election address.) “Away with Lords and Liberals — Burrows fights both.” (Election leaflet.)

-+0+-

But as a friend of Randal Cremer, Burrows prefers to let the principles that are opposed to the interests of the working class remain in operation rather than disturb the friendship. ” . . He persistently refused to contest the seat while it was held by the late Sir Randal Cremer.” (Manifesto of the Hackney Working Mens’ Club, issued in support of Burrows.) Burrows doesn’t fight both when he is pally with one of them !

-+0+-

“All my political and social work has that end (the overthrow of the present social order and the parties that maintain it) in view.” (Election address.) He probably means his political and social work—when he does any, which is not very often. And even that is not true. Anyhow, it all depends upon whether he happens to be friends with the enemy. If he is, he suspends the work—and working class interests may go hang. This is a typical Burrows-cremer !

-+0+-

“Myself and the Liberal Candidate will have to fight beer, blankets, coals, doles, and possibly creeds.” (Herbert Borrows, Daily Chronicle, 23.7.08.) No wonder the Burrovians were upset about the introduction of the official Liberal. With the Burrows’ fight identical with Warren’s; with Burrows such a good Liberal, it was surely wrong to oppose him.

-+0+-

“From this condition (of slavery) there is no escape while the whole of the people do not either individually or collectively own the means of production.” “Nothing but . . . ownership by the whole people will abolish this form of slavery.” “Wage slaves you and your children will ever be, unless you use every shred of your political power to advance your social position as a class.” (From Burrows’ celebrated “No Poverty in Hoxton” leaflets.)

-+0+-

Nothing matters—that is except Socialism. Apart from Socialism there is no escape. Yet nine-tenths of Burrows’ election address consisted of “reforms” that do not matter ! Apart from Socialism there is no escape, therefore as a “practical politician and a social reformer” (Election address) I will not go for Socialism, but for “Adult Suffrage,” “Second Ballot,” “Reform of Registration Laws,” etc., etc., none of which will advance the workers’ position as a class, and despite the fact that (vide Burrows’ election leaflet) the political reforms desired have already been largely secured in other countries “yet at this very moment, there as here, the workers are being half-starved in the midst of plenty.”

-+0+-

The great claim of Mr. Burrows’ organisation (the S.D.P.) is that it never has made, and never will make, arrangements with capitalist parties to secure electoral or other victories. “Last week you stated that I had spurned all attempts to come to an arrangement with the Liberals. That is an entirely mistaken statement.” (Letter of Herbert Burrows to Daily News, 1.8.08.) Herbert Burrows “is one of the oldest, best known and most popular members of the S.D.P.” (From “A brief sketch of the life of Herbert Burrows,” issued to the electors of Haggerston.) A prominent member of the Party that fights capitalist Liberalism all the time assevers that it is an entirely mistaken idea that he had spurned all attempts to come to an arrangement with the Liberals.

-+0+-

Well may the Labour Leader wax sarcastic. In its notes of the 7.8.08 it said : —

“We confess surprise that Mr. Burrows should hasten to deny that he had spurned “all attempts to come to an arrangement with the Liberals.” We have always understood that to engage in negotiations direct or indirect with the view to coming to “an arrangement with the Liberals “in order “to pull together the whole of the really progressive forces in the fight against reaction” is precisely what is meant by compromising with the capitalist enemy.

At any rate, had a letter containing an admission of that kind been sent to a Liberal journal by any member of the Labour Party, we can surmise how scathing would have been the comments of the organ of the Social Democrats.”

-+0+-

A shrewd hit and well merited. The Labour Leader can afford to gibe. Not even at Leicester was there a more shameless, a more contemptible effort made to get in at any cost of principle. The Labour Leader knows that Haggerston has shut the mouth of S.D.P. criticism of I.L.P. “tactics” for ever. Burrows and MacDonald — a pretty pair. What has the honest, earnest, S.D.P. man got to say about it all, I wonder.

-+0+-

What has he to say, for example, to the attitude of his Party and his Party’s champion upon the question of Free Trade ? This is an extract from Leaflet No. 2 of the S.D.P. (London Committee) issued as election literature in Haggerston : “Those who cry, ‘Free Trade’ and those who cry, ‘Protection,’ are alike after your flesh and blood, and by listening to them you are only being drawn away from the true and only road which leads to your emancipation. That road is Socialism.” Against that set this, from Burrows’ election address: “I am, as every true Socialist is, a Free Trader.” And then say what conclusion the working class can draw. What effect must such flatly contradictory statements have upon the working-class mind ?

-+0+-

The London Committee leaflet is correct, curiously enough. The cry of Free Trade diverts the working class from “the true and only road to emancipation.” Those who divert the working class from that road are working-class enemies. And all the vainglory, the inflated pretension, the rant and cant and fustian of a Burrows, will hardly prevail against the evidence of his own documents. Burrows is a working-class enemy.

-+0+-

Consider two further points briefly—unemployment and the alien question. Both are referred to in Burrows’ election address. “The gravest question the nation has at present to face is undoubtedly that of unemployment” says the address. But the gravest question is dealt with in that document only after a long list of pettifogging political “palliatives” have been touched upon. That by the way. The unemployed problem will not be touched, dare not be touched, in any appreciable degree, by capitalist legislators or administrators. Capitalism absolutely relies upon that “industrial reserve.” Yet Burrows talks of setting the unemployed (after thorough classification) to work at “decent and reasonable wages” at agriculture, afforestation, and in the production of the necessaries of life, as if that were possible before a Socialist working class captures control of Parliament and local bodies. And then “decent and reasonable wages” will cease to perplex the bureaucratic Burrows and his kidney. The working class will be in power and will conduct their own affairs. There is no cure for unemployment apart from Socialism. Those who, for the purpose of vote-snatching, endeavour to convey the impression that there is, divert the working class from “the true and only road” that leads to emancipation. They are not seeking working-class enlightenment—whatever else they are after.

-+0+-

The same argument and the same conclusion holds in regard to Burrows’ references to sweating and its prevention. “Its worst forms, however, can be dealt with by Wages Boards and the Minimum Wage.” “Dealt with,” yes, as unemployment can be “dealt with,” but “sweating is a part of our present social system and can NEVER be entirely abolished till that system is changed.” (Election address.) In short, you may patch here, and trim there, so that the appalling, disgusting, degrading effects of this pillar of the Empire’s greatness may not be so patent to the eye of delicacy ; but the problem will remain, the same grim conditions will environ the lives of the unpaid workers. They will still be robbed, crushed, sweated, because “sweating is a part of our present social system, and can never be abolished until that system is changed.” The “entirely” is just dirty, vote-catching dodgery. “Wages Boards and the Minimum Wage” are piffle, sheer, unlovely, unwholesome piffle, and Burrows either knows it or is a fool.

-+0+-

And “both of these (Wages Boards and Minimum Wage) if properly applied, would go far to solve the alien question.” (Election address.) More dodgery, more low cunning. The Haggerston workers have had it pumped into them that the alien problem is the cause of their unemployment and poverty. Burrows therefore drags in the alien question, not to put the truth of it, but to pose as the man having the solution of it, and to scoop in votes on the strength of that. What is this alien question and why does it require solution? The untutored elector of Haggerston is not informed. He is left with the same prejudices, the same false ideas—he is encouraged in them by the cowardice of Burrows. But what matters that so long as Burrows can appear as his saviour from this evil of the alien and collect his vote?

-+0+-

There is plenty more, equally illuminating, equally nauseating, equally helpful to the cause of working-class enlightenment in which we are informed Burrows has spent his whole life. Poor Haggerston, to have to choose between a Burrows and a Guinness and a Warren. If the voters had been obliged to vote (as they were not) and had gone to the booth blindfold (as they largely did), the result would have been the same as now, even if Burrows’ hole received the greatest number of crosses. Between the three of them there was not the equivalent of a tinker’s cuss in difference from the point of view of working-class interests.

-+0+-

And Burrows is typical of the organisation he represents. “I would accept the help of Satan himself,” he said (Shoreditch Town Hall meeting). And he would, even though he knew that Satan’s help would only be given for further Satanic purposes, as the capitalist help Burrows endeavoured to secure and did secure in Haggerston (“Liberals and Radicals are throwing themselves into the fight for me.”—Letter of Burrows to Justice, 1.8.08) was given to further capitalist interests. The S.D.P. knows that the education of the working class depends upon its recognition, and acceptance, of the fact of the class struggle. The S.D.P. knows that the recognition of the class struggle by the working class is hindered, thwarted, often rendered impossible, by compromise, by arrangement with capitalist political parties, by action at complete variance with profession, by confusionist tactics such as were the outstanding feature—the only feature indeed—of the Haggerston election. Yet in face of Haggerston the S.D.P. denies that it is party to any arrangement with capitalism, or is the cause of any working-class confusion !

-+0+-

The case of Haggerston is only another count in the indictment against such organisations as S.D.P., I.L.P., and the rest of the pseudo-Socialist, reformist groups.

-+0+-

The difference between us and them is that we are after the education and organisation of the working class on class-conscious lines ; they, on their own confessions, are after office and the plums thereof , and they are not at all particular how they get them. The candidature of Herbert Burrows was not endorsed by a single Socialist—although the list of organisations backing him necessitated a special bill. The S.P.G.B. repudiated him in the public Press and Haggerston placed him at the bottom of the poll. If our action contributed to that result we take full responsibility. Our hands at any rate shall be kept clean.

-+0+-

The resolution passed by the Executive read as follows : —

“In response to many enquiries as to the attitude of The Socialist Party in the bye-election pending in Haggerston, the Executive of the Socialist Party of Great Britain desire to make clear that they are in no way responsible for the canditure of the alleged Socialist—Mr. Herbert Burrows, Mr. Burrows, who is not a member of the Socialist Party, is standing as a free trade, social reform candidate, accepting the support of the capitalist party in the shape of sections of the Liberal Party in Haggerston. His candidature could not be endorsed by the Socialist Party, he being in no sense of the word a Socialist, or representative of Socialist principles. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, repudiates him and the organisations responsible for his appearance in the field, and warns the working class of the Haggerston Division against being deceived into voting for Mr. Burrows under the impression that his return to Parliament would in any way benefit them. Finally, the Socialist Party desires to point out that between the three candidates there is no difference from a working-class standpoint. The working class of Haggerston, therefore, are urged to abstain from voting on this occasion altogether.”

-+0+-

Well, isn’t it nearly time the serious student of politico-economic problems, the earnest champions of working-class interests, considered themselves and their position ? Are they content to let their work go for nothing, for worse than nothing, for ever ? Or are they prepared to cut themselves free from the trammels and responsibilities of parties whose work either leaves the working class unaffected entirely, or contributes to its continued enslavement by keeping it in ignorance, strengthening the power of the capitalist class to that effect—are they prepared to cut themselves adrift and come over to the only Party in Great Britain that has an impregnable position in the political field, that acts consistently and logically, and that refuses to be turned from its purpose by any side-wind of reform whatsoever? It is “up to” them to decide. “Choose ye this day whom you will serve”—the working class through the S.P.G.B. or the enemies of the working class through “reform” organisations.

James Alexander

Sans ceremony. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The effect of the recent decision of Mr. Justice Neville in the case where action was taken against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants by one of its own members, on the ground that contributions by the Society to the funds of the Labour Party were illegal, is that any association of the working class has a right to do what it likes with its own. According to Lord Wolverhampton (Daily Chronicle, 21/7/08) “the whole complicated machinery of civilisation is carried on by the working class,” “upon whom society depends.”

***

The whole of society depends upon the work of the working class. The working class is entitled to do what it likes with its own—the wealth it produces as a result of its work. Therefore it is established that the working class may legally proceed to expropriate Lord Wolverhampton and the rest of the dependent capitalists who, without legal title, annex anything between two-thirds and four-fifths of the wealth produced by the workers.

***

As law-abiding and right-respecting citizens, Lord Wolverhampton and his fellow capitalists will, of course, cheerfully resign themselves to the process—I don’t think !

***

Much outcry has recently been raised by “humanitarians” against the method of feeding pythons in the Zoological Gardens with live kids. The Socialist outcry is against the capitalist python feeding upon live children. “Humanitariamsm,” when distinguished from Socialism, is cant or ignorance.

***

Mr. Vanderlyn, F.Z.S., claims against the “Humanitarians” that the feeding of the Zoological pythons is a satisfaction of Nature’s demands which has for its result “the survival of the fittest.” The anti-Socialist “Humanitarians” in the field of human effort make the same claim.

***

The survival of the fittest is an expression of a natural law operating under all conditions. The conditions prevailing at any given time determine the character of the product of the law. Under conditions of exploitation the biggest robber survives. Under conditions conducive to the production of muddle-headedness, the “Humanitarian,” the “Ethicist,” and the rest of them survive. Under Socialism the workers survive. Natural law justifies nothing. It explains many things.

***

Mr. Th. Rothstein, S.D.P. Executive, quotes (Justice, 11/7/08) from the organ of Bronterre O’Brien, this passage: “Oh, Baring, Baring! (Baring was the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days) many a better man than you was hanged at the lamp-post; and our sincere prayer is that no Englishman may ever again suffer for burglary or sheep stealing so long as enormous culprits like you cheat the gallows of its due.”

***

We have a weakness in the Socialist Standard for downright language. Our delight is to call spades, spades, but when we do, we are, according to Mr. Rothstein’s fellow members of the S.D.P., merely abusive. Nevertheless, Mr. Rothstein properly applauds the “robust fashion” of Bronterre O’Brien’s criticism, and thinks it a “sickly generation” that is too respectable to emulate it. I hope now, that Mr. Rothstein will lead the S.D.P. to see that we are doing them a power of good by shewing them in “robust fashion” the error of their ways. Because they are still miles out of the proper track, and not being a “sickly generation” we shall not be too respectable to tell them a lot more unpleasant truths before we are through. I should be glad to know they are in a mind to appreciate the force of our criticism. Perhaps Mr. Rothstein will drop me a line when the conversion is complete.

Alegra.

Fiscal fatuity. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Chiozza Money is a ‘cute man ; but he nods at least as often as Homer. Just now he is engaged in making “One Hundred Points for Free Trade,” or rather, one hundred points against Protection, in the Daily News. This is one of them :

“The Protectionist theory is that imports, especially imports of manufactures, cause want, unemployment, and pauperism.

Well, every year India imports large quantities of manufactured goods, and nearly all of them are imported from the United Kingdom.”

***

Mr. Money might have found—it would have been a difficult job, but he might have found—a happier example. In India the people die literally like flies from “want, unemployment, and pauperism” and their results. The onus is on the Free Trader to explain the absolute unredeemed impotency of Free Trade in “our great dependency.”

***

The Protectionist is of course in no better case. He has to explain why “want, unemployment and pauperism” are rampant in every industrial country where his pet nostrum is in operation. Protectionist and Free Trader are alike unable to face the facts. They have to resort to all sorts of mean and pitiable dodges to escape facing facts. From a working-class standpoint there isn’t the worth of a tinker’s anathema between them or their precious systems.

***

Poverty is the result of certain definitely ascertained causes. Fiscal schemes do not remotely affect those causes. The workers are poor because they have no control of the product of their labour and are, therefore, robbed of the great proportion of it. Free Trade or Protection may, in certain cases and under certain conditions, result in a particular trade or trades receiving a fillip. To that extent there might be more work available. But that would also necessarily mean more robbery. And the workers are poor because they are robbed.

***

Besides, the fillip must in the nature of capitalist things die down. Supply would overtake and outstrip available demand. There is not a single commodity in general requisition that the present machinery of production could not satisfy the effective demand for several times (often hundreds of times) over. Given the fillip and competitive machinery would be working at breakneck speed to be first in the market with the goods. Result : overproduction, slump, unemployment, starvation and the miseries necessarily attendant thereon.

***

The process is characteristic of free trade and protected countries indifferently. If the worker is employed he is robbed. That is the unalterable condition of his employment. He must make a profit for his master. If he is not employed he starves. In either case he is no more than a pawn in the competitive game. He is dependent upon the fluctuations of the market—upon the employer who works him at top speed until he has produced too much, and then throws him off until the surplus is exhausted.

***

The waste, necessarily the accompaniment of this competitive game, is only obviated under capitalism through monopoly. With one source of supply the output may be regulated to the demand. But Free Trader and Protectionist alike shriek (publicly) against monopoly, and howl dismally against waste. They are just mean dodgers or abnormal ignoramuses—they want to eat their cake and have it. The trust (monopoly) is the perfection of production. The trust stage is inevitable. It will produce most economically. It will save labour. It will mean more unemployment. And it is inevitable—Free Trade or Protection notwithstanding.

***

Mr. Money’s note has lured me into an article. I am sorry ; but I am a victim of circumstances. I intended no more than a par. But the fiscal folly of the Free Trade Moneys and the Zollverein Wilsons always cause me to curse privately and slam publicly. They are so dam silly ! The whole point is that “want and unemployment and pauperism” are inevitable under capitalism ; that although Free Trade or Protection may conceivably give an impetus to a certain trade it cannot absorb the available labour, and even if it could, labour would still be robbed ; that there is no explanation of the poverty problem other than that given by the Socialist; that there is no solution other than that offered by the Socialist.

***

The working class of every capitalist country in the world is in a state of chronic “want, unemployment, and pauperism” because it does not own the wealth it alone produces. It doesn’t own the wealth because the land and machinery of production are owned by the capitalist class. It never will own its product until it owns and controls this land and machinery. And it never will own and control the land and machinery until it thoroughly understands its own position and the conditions of change, and has organised its forces for the specific object of effecting that change.

***

The work of the Socialist Party as against Tariff Reformer, Social Reformer, Fiscal Laissez Faireian, or what not, is, therefore, the education and organisation of the working class for the overthrow of capitalism through the capture of the powers of government in order to secure the product of labour from being annexed by the capitalist class. Virtually the working class is in possession of the machinery of production since the whole process from top to bottom is in working-class hands. The workers now require to assert their possession and secure it, and at the same time the result of their toil, by the control of the fighting arms through political conquest. Simply that.

Alegra.

Befogged. (1908)

Book Review from the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Distribution of Livelihood. By Rossington Stanton. (Farwell, 6/-).

A certain Lord Spiritual, who was much given to the use of the personal pronoun, once took for his text, “The devil goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour,” and proceeded to elaborate, thus : “I propose, dear brethren, to treat of my subject under three heads ; firstly, who the devil, he was ; secondly, where the devil, he was going ; and lastly, what the devil, he was roaring about.”

I am irresistibly reminded of this story by a perusal of this book which has been sent us for notice. Who the author, he is ; where the author, he is going; and what the devil he is writing about are questions I might make long-shot answers at, but whether I should be able to come within miles of the mark, only Mr. Stanton could say. It is an amazing book, just how amazing let anyone who has 6/- to spare discover for himself. The price alone is amazing enough—six shillings for 125 small pages either suggests that the author has a very tall opinion of the value of his work, or that he doesn’t expect to sell more than a dozen or two and desires to cover the cost of production out of that limited sale. Probably, however, the purchaser having recovered (if by the intervention of the beneficent fates he ever does) from the torture of trying to get at the idea presumably underlying Mr. Stanton’s ponderous and unhappy style, will find that he has secured something of high value for his expenditure in the soporific influences the book generates. Any member of the Party suffering from acute insomnia may have the loan of it on easy terms, and if it does not do all that is claimed for it the money will be refunded—if it hasn’t been spent.

In fairness to the author I should mention that in a prefatory note he states that his essay is no more than a preliminary outline of several novel economic principles which it is his intention to elaborate when opportunity allows. He gives them to the world in their present form “in order to secure them from possible oblivion in the event of my unexpected decease.”

I can only add that if the decease should unhappily prevent the elaboration, I am afraid the publication of the present volume will not secure the novel principles, whatever they are, from oblivion. Mr. Stanton has effectually buried them. That, at any rate, is my serious opinion.

Agra.

The Only Way for Clerks. (1908)

From the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Word to the National Union.

.

Mr. Herbert H. Elvin is a hard-shelled Baptist—or so it would seem from his biographical notes, which appear (with portrait) in the March issue of The Clerk. He is also the General Secretary of the National Union of Clerks. In the capacity of Baptist he is after souls, and is still, we learn, “in great demand as a local preacher.” As the secretary of the N.U.C. he is concerned with the salvation of bodies. In both departments his methods are the same. He builds temples to Ignorance and invites the unregenerate to come in and worship in order that they may be saved. His success as a Baptist church-builder may be unquestionable—I neither know nor care. But we of the S.P.G.B. are concerned with the measure of his success in the politico-economic sphere—meaning by success in this connection, the extent to which he may be able to induce clerical workers to regard his economic and political temple as a sanctuary from the deep damnation of their servitude.

Clerks have generally been regarded, not without reason, as amongst

THE MOST DESPERATE OF ALL THE DULLARDS

of the working class. The pathetic intensity of their passion for respectability, and the affectation of aloofness from the “corduroy brigade” which, as members of a “profession,” they have, in the past particularly, displayed, have made their organisation a distinctly difficult task. Not even such an eminently respectable society as the N.U.C. seems to be, could have inspired in them any other than a feeling of lofty disdain had it not been that the operations of a highly organised capitalist system, ruthless in its working, and certainly entirely regardless of any suppositious differences between owners of stovepipe hats and smokers of the black cutty, have crushed the clerk into some sort of recognition of the fact that, in common with all other working-class members, he is no more than a commodity in the labour market—and a very redundant commodity at that. Having, however, reached the point where he is beginning to see that his interests are, after all, bound up with those of the horny-handed sons of labour, it is of all things undesirable that he should have his devolopment warped by being put upon a polltico-economic dietry which, while it may be good enough for the sustenance of crustacean Baptists, is absolutely starvation fare for a healthy member of the working class.

Of course, Mr. Elvin cannot help being merely silly in the position of advisor to the clerks,

HIS BIBLICAL EXEMPLARS

and his contemporary religious mentors are hardly likely to guide him in the path that is economically right; and when a young man has been brought up to regard these as the embodiment of all the virtues, it is not surprising if he gives off “views” that are only notable for their, shall we say, absurdity. I sympathise with him in his unhappy position, but I must, all the same, baste his precious views. This one, for an example—

“We should not allow our branches to become mere debating societies to discuss the good and the ill of Toryism, Liberalism, Socialism, or any other ism outside trade unionism. To effect any great reform in the condition of the clerk we must first of all weld all clerks into a powerful organisation, and, knowing what I do of the temperament of the clerk, I am fully satisfied that we shall never be able to accomplish this if members try to bring the Union under the control of some political party, rather than work disinterestedly for the benefit of clerks as a whole.”

Now I will defy Ramsay MacDonald, Robert Blatchford, Bruce Glasier, or any other accepted exponent of the art, to crowd more undiluted piffle into so small a compass. Toryism, Liberalism, and Socialism are taboo in the Union. The clerks are to regard Socialism as on a par with Toryism and Liberalism so far as the realisation of their “great reform” is concerned. It is of no consequence that Liberalism and Toryism are the political expressions of the interests of the master class against which the clerks are to organise themselves. It is of no account that these masters are in politics simply in order to maintain their economic supremacy and the continued enslavement of the clerk. It does not matter that the Socialist Party stands in irreconcilable antagonism to the capitalist parties and is the only party through which the clerks and other workers may achieve any material improvement in their conditions. This is outside the purview of the trade-unionised clerk. He may come in, be he Tory or Liberal or nothing. He is to

KEEP MUM UPON EVERYTHING

except the increase of the strength of the trade union, the payment of his dues, and other matters appertaining to the union, until there is a sufficient body “organised” to warrant a move being made toward that “great reform” and then—well, we will make a move !

I wonder whether Mr. Elvin has any definite notion of what that move must be toward, and how the N.U.C. is to proceed. I understand he does not favour strikes. He is opposed to discussion that may have the effect of opening the eyes of the politically blind. Does he, then, hope to peacefully persuade the masters to concede the “great reform”—whatever that may be ? Surely even a Baptist is sufficiently awake to know the futility of that hope. How then ?

Mr. Elvin seems to see, rather mistily, that he is up against a dead wall. And he takes refuge in “pothry.” It’s an old dodge, and rather a favourite with those who are faced at the end of their argumentative tether with an irrepressible note of interrogation. Mr. Elvin’s refuge is Whittier, who exhorts the reader thus—

Perish party, perish clan,

Strike together while ye can.

and finishes

Let your hearts together be

  As the heart of one.

which is all doubtless very nice and inspiriting, but doesn’t get us much “forrarder,” seeing that we don’t know yet what we are to strike at, or how we are to strike. We cannot strike economically because strikes are taboo. We cannot hope to induce the masters to give us our “great reform.” Much more powerful organisations of much more highly skilled workers, e.g., the engineers, have failed dismally in that direction. And we cannot strike politically because, being at

POLITICAL SIXES AND SEVENS

(owing, in part, probably, to political discussion being barred in the Union) we cannot “strike together” as exhorted by the poet. On the whole it would seem easier to “Let our hearts together beat as the heart of one” !

But to do Mr. Elvin justice, he is not quite done yet. He seems to be, although he does not say so directly, in favour of the move toward the “great reform” being made if all else fails, through the medium of the Labour Party. After all the “no politics in the Union” ukase, this seems to be a little confusing. Therefore Mr. Elvin hastens to assure us that the Labour Party is not a political party “in the general usage of the term.” It is only a party taking political action. If that also is not clear perhaps this will be. “It” (the Labour Party) “is a conglomeration of the political parties. It is a union of those who are divided on questions like Home Rule, Education (sectarian or secular), Disestablishment of the Church; but are of one mind on matters affecting the interests of the workers.”

Accept this for the fact it is not. Apparently Mr. Elvin believes that political parties “in the general usage of the term,” are only concerned with questions like Home Rule, Disestablishment, etc. He doesn’t seem to have an inkling of the truth that just as (according to him) the Labour Party is of one mind on matters affecting the interests of the workers, so the other parties are of one mind on matters affecting the interests of the capitalists. If the Labour Party was of one mind on questions of real working-class interest, if it was a political party “in the general usage of the term,” it would not be the conglomeration of pettifogging palliative-mongers purveying preposterous pills for economic earthquakes that it is. It is as hopeless as the poet, as futile as Mr. Elvin’s creed. It cannot effect any material improvement in the position of the working class.

But even if it could, how is it possible to secure the adhesion of Liberal and Tory clerks in the N.U.C. to the Labour Party if discussion of party politics is not allowed ? To talk as Mr. Elvin talks about the difference between politics and party politics is simply more piffle. Political questions are broadly associated with political parties. Essential working-class politics are the politics of the party that is in irreconcilable opposition to the political parties of the capitalist class. That working-class party is not the Labour Party. It is the Socialist Party. Yet Mr. Elvin puts

SOCIALISM IN THE CART

with Liberalism and Toryism and hauls them all outside his precious Union.

All this “baffle-headedness” and positively paralysing stupidity may come of being a Baptist, or it may not. We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are not concerned with the Baptist or greatly with Mr. Elvin. But when Mr. Elvin the Baptist, takes up the position of an instructor of the working class and pours out the vials of his drivel upon the heads of those of our class who have in their ignorance elected him to their chieftainship, we step in to show the folly of the position and the disastrous results that must accrue. If Mr. Elvin is honest (and we have no reason for the present for supposing him otherwise), let him reconsider himself and see if he cannot fit himself adequately for the post of working-class advisor—if that is what he desires to be. If, however, his union members prefer to follow his present lead ; if their action is not guided in the future by a clearer apprehension of the position they occupy as clerks in the working-class movement than their secretary seems to possess, they are in for some extremely painful experiences. But if they will take every opportunity of discussing the political situation in the light of the information the Socialist has; if they will study Socialism and let their actions be guided by Socialist science, they will go out to the fight—it will be a fight, sure enough—with no delusions about the capitulation of the opposing forces, with no misapprehensions on the score of the advantages to be derived from this or that big or little reform. They will know that there is no reform worth much more than a tinker’s anathema from the working-class point of view. They will know that the only thing worth organising for, striving for, if needs be, dying for, is the control of the means by which they live. Without this control they have no voice in the disposal of the product of labour. They are slaves without the security that the chattel slave possessed. Their position is always precarious, always one of unhappy struggle ; a position which is not, nor can be, altered in any single important aspect by any reform whatever. But given ownership and control of the means of living, and they have the guarantee of all the material things of life.

THE SLAVE HAS CEASED ;

the master of slaves has ceased. One hundred per cent. of the produce goes to the producer. The struggle for bread is done.

How may this control be secured ? Through organisation on class-conscious lines in the workshop and office and factory ; and in the political party (in the common usage of that term) that is out specifically to wrest political power from the representatives of the capitalist class in the legislature, in order that control of the machinery of production may be secured by the working class without danger of being blown to the Baptists’ devil by the armed forces, which are, of course, under the direction of the dominant power in Parliament.

The Socialist economic organisation has yet to be evolved. But the political party that answers all requirements, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, is here. The Socialist Party is the political party that the stupidity of Mr. Elvin places outside the union in company with the Liberal and Tory Parties, yet it is none the less the party the clerical workers must join sooner or later. Therefore it behoves them to treat as cavalierly as they think fit their secretarial exhortation, and discuss political action—party politics—to the top of their bent, particularly the politics of the Socialist Party.

If they require further information or literature a line to the office of the Party will bring it. Or if Mr. Elvin would like to defend his position or attack ours, we will give him all the rope he wants. And if the worst happens, his blood be on his own head !

Alegra.

The Nationalisation of Railways and Other Services. (1908)

Book Review from the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A copy of the most recent book on the nationalisation of railways, by Mr. A. Emil Davies (A. & C. Black, 125 pp., limp cloth, I/-), has been sent us for notice. The question is one that is again occupying considerable public attention, and some examination of the case for this and kindred reforms is therefore called for from those who regard anything less than Socialism as something approximating to a delusion and a snare from the point of view of the working class.

If, first of all, the nationalisation of the railways were as important as Mr. Davies would have us believe, we would very readily admit that Mr. Davies’ book is as handy a presentation of the case against the present system of private ownership as we have seen. It manages to compress the essential arguments of the railway nationaliser into 120 pages of easy setting, without leaving the impression of a scamped job. It is not so exhaustive an examination as that published by Mr. Clement Edwards some years back, yet the reformer will find most of what he wants in it, including matter of as recent a date as February and March of this year.

From the Socialist point of view, however, the only value the book has resides in the evidence it adduces of the incapacity of the railway capitalist to manage his own

DIRTY PROFIT-MONGERING BUSINESS,

and in the proof it provides of our continuous contention that nationalisation and municipalisation as such have nothing in them advantageous to any section of the working class that is not considerably out-balanced by the disadvantages that result from them—even if, which is at least arguable, they have any advantage at all.

The advantage, contended generally, is in the higher wages and better conditions obtainable under municipal or national control. This may result—sometimes. But it is just as probable that it won’t, seeing that the service municipalised or nationalised is still under the control of capitalist administrators, who are dominant in legislative and administrative affairs. While this condition holds, as it will while the capitalist system lasts, the paramount desideratum is the realisation of profits. It is merely an exhibition of economic stupidity to urge that these profits, used as they may be to reduce rates, go back to the pockets of the community. Even if this were true the fact remains that the profits have been realised from the labour of a section of the working class, and in going into the pockets of the community, they have gone in part into the pockets of the capitalist class that forms part of the community, and to that extent have been diverted from the rightful owners—the working-class producers. But although the argument has been extensively used by those who presumably should know better—the Clarion crowd, the I.L.P., the Fabian Society, etc.—it is simply not true that the relief of rates is a relief of the working class. If it were true, the working class of Nottingham and Glasgow, and other places where many services have been municipalised, should be in a flourishing condition, seeing that most of their public services are realising large profits. In point of fact the working class there is not one whit better off than is the working class in towns that haven’t a single municipalised undertaking, for the very simple reason that the labour-power which the workers have to sell, and must sell, in order to live, is bought like any other commodity at its average cost of production. So that, assuming such a relief of rates in any given district that a material reduction in the cost of living is effected, the cost of production of the commodity labour-power would be less, and the price of its purchase—wages—would also be less. Why is it that the

“STANDARD RATE OF WAGES”

is higher in some districts than in others if it is not because cost of living is higher in some districts than in others ? Moreover, it does not even follow that low rates will imply low rents, nor that a reduction of taxation on any other commodity will reduce the price of that commodity—although this point is not germain and has already been adequately dealt with in these columns on previous occasions.

So much for the alleged advantage of a municipalised or nationalised service. But what of the disadvantages ? The case of the railways is before us. In the chapter on “Waste,” Mr. Davies gives, inter alia, a list of things in the administration of which economies could be effected under nationalisation. The cost of the present competition is due to separate offices, separate stations, separate lines, separate engines, wagons, and carting services, light loads, unnecessary haulage, an enormous advertising and canvassing staff, a great clearing house system, and so on. Given nationalisation there follows the concentration of traffic, the closing of offices and redundant stations, the abolition of the canvassing and clearing house departments, and, to a large extent, the abolition of the advertisement department, the reduction of trains, etc., etc., etc. In short, the elimination of “waste.”

Now the working class under capitalism is not concerned with the elimination of waste. To the orthodox person such a statement is no doubt dreadful. If so, the further statement that the working class is a distinct gainer by waste must be the very devil. Yet it is obviously the case. The working class must live. To live it must sell its labour-power. Does “waste” increase the demand for labour-power ? If so, it is good for the immediate purpose of the working class. There is nothing more immediate than

THE CLAMOUR OF THE EMPTY STOMACH.

We are dealing with the railways. The elimination of “waste” there means the abolition of the clearing house rendered necessary by the conflicting interests of many private companies. The clearing house has a staff of about 3,000 clerks. The demand for the labour-power of 3,000 clerks no longer exists and—the 3,000 clerks no longer exist. The same thing holds in the case of all the other departments mentioned. The saving is effected every time at the expense of the workers who have found employment through economic “waste.”

Therefore, under capitalism “waste” is positively a good thing to the workers to the extent that it provides them with the means of living. The South African War, notwithstanding the lamentations of the “moral” Jeremiahs directed against national “waste,” created a demand for labour. If that war had not happened a large number of the workers would have had to take in their belts another hole. If the nationalisation of railways happens a great army of the workers will be without visible means of subsistence.

The railway nationaliser seems to see the difficulty as through a glass darkly. Mr. Davies. says

“It would be a great mistake to measure the advantages of State ownership solely from the point of view of the yield per cent. on the sum invested. Under an equitable, reasonable, and uniform system of rates, trade would be stimulated to an extraordinary degree, and regard would be paid to the social needs of the nation, as is done in Belgium, Germany, and other countries, so that masses of even the humbler town workers would live in the country, and the depopulation of the countryside, with all its attendant evils, would be checked.”

Hope, says the sage, is very cheap. Trade is to be stimulated to an extraordinary degree—by a reduction, to the extent of the thousands of railway workers displaced, of the demand for the commodities that “Trade” supplies !

IT’S AS EASY AS THAT !

But the prospect of regard being paid to his social needs, and of an opportunity of living in the country where the work he requires is not, must be sweet solace to the man in danger of being thrown on the unemployed market by the elimination of railway “waste.”

No, the fact must be faced that, until the working class understand the reasons why it is. in a position of dependency upon the fluctuations of trade for even a precarious living; why it must sell its labour-power for wages that represent not the value of the wealth it has produced, not even a third of that value, but the bare cost of the sheer necessities of existence ; why it must stand starving in the market places of the world at the very moment when, all the requirements of happy, healthy life are piled in riotous profusion on every hand—until the working class has understood the causes of these things and expressed its determination to remedy them by capturing the political machine, in order that the capture of the economic machinery may follow, questions of the nationalisation of this, or the municipalisation of that, undertaking, are only of interest to the extent to which the change may affect the pockets, or the stomachs of the workers immediately concerned. For the working class as a whole, there is nothing in them except danger of being sidetracked in an endeavour to get at the solution of the economic problem.

That danger still needs considerable emphasis. If any section of the workers is persuaded that in some such reform movement as the nationalisation of railways there is salvation, it will come to itself in the final reckoning, sick and sorry, with apathy bred of disappointment and despair born of withered hopes. It will be more difficult material for the Socialist leaven to work upon. It will retard the advance of the workers toward the Co-operative Commonwealth that lies at the end of our journeying. It will, until the effect of its painful experience and knowledge of its wasted energies have grown small, be a stumbling block and a rock of offence in our path.

WE DO NOT WANT STUMBLING BLOCKS.

Therefore we do not want, reform agitations. Therefore we will do what, we may to counteract the possible influence of Mr. Davies’ book by indicating the narrow limitations of its working-class potentialities, and pointing to that more excellent way—the straight, narrow way—of whole-hog, revolutionary, uncompromising demand for the working-class ownership and control of all the means of life, along which alone the party of the proletariat may march to victory.

“But,” says the earnest reformer, ”you will not be able to get control of the means of life all at once. You must walk before you can run. It’s all a matter of evolution.” The dear child ! If a man wants bread shall he assiduously pick up stones ? Shall he endeavour to gather figs from thistles ? The worker wants what Socialism alone will give him. He must therefore make for Socialism, aim at Socialism, concentrate on Socialism. Under Socialism the municipality will probably supply him with dough-nuts and hob-nails, while “blood-alleys” and commoner marbles will doubtless be available for his children. Shall he, therefore, wanting Socialism, cry aloud to-day for the municipal supply of blood-alleys and hob-nails and dough-nuts ? Why not ? Because they are not important ? Neither is a nationalised railway.

Mr. Davies points out that most of the Continental countries and nearly all “our” Colonies have nationalised railways. Wherein are the workers of those countries beneficially affected ? Who are making the demand for nationalised railways in England ? Other sections of the capitalist class. To assist the working class or expedite Socialism ? Not much. Rather to enable them to exploit the working class the more. The nationaliser of the railways of Germany was—Bismarck!

Nationalised railways will be a factor in the Socialist Republic. They will be important—then. But only important because Socialism holds. Socialism is the thing that matters. Let us go for it—and the dough-nuts and blood-alleys and hob-nails will be shied at us in the hope that, because we shall have them under Socialism, we may be stupid enough to turn aside to pick them up now. But Socialism will not be shied at us. We may have everything else at the hands of the good capitalist; hut the only thing we want—no ! The capitalist will do anything for the working class, anything—except get off its back.

If our reformer friend’s difficulty is that, unless we nationalise and municipalise as we go along, we shall be

IN A HOPELESS TANGLE

when we arrive, let him remember one little fact. The evolution of capitalism (he will like that word “evolution”) has placed the workers practically in complete control of industry. From the top to the bottom the whole process of production is managed by—wage servants. The workers are in control in fact but not in name. It’s the product they do not control. The thing necessary, therefore, and the only thing necessary, is to evolve in the minds of the workers the knowledge of the fact of their control and the means by which they may expropriate the present expropriators, so that they may be dominant in name as well as in fact, and secure for themselves the product of their own labours. That evolution of knowledge is quite as easy under private ownership as under State ownership. All that will then be required will be the capture of the political power through which the armed forces are manipulated, and—a notice to quit to the capitalist. The industry socially worked to-day, will have its product socially owned then.

But the publicly-owned service has, anyhow, a good educational effect on the working class, surely ? Perhaps—p’r’aps not. In any case there are enough of them for all educational purposes to-day. But they have been converted to publicly-owned services by representatives of the capitalist class in the interests of the capitalist class. The effect of that outstanding fact to any but the serious student who will take the trouble to dig below the surface of things, will hardly have great educational value. The casual enquirer, such as the worker unfortunately often is, will conclude either that the capitalist is willing to help the worker along the road to Socialism, or that the publicly-owned service is, Because it is a capitalist move, steered clear of completely. In both cases he would be wrong. The educational effect of the fact of Post Office sweating, Clothing Department sweating, Woolwich Arsenal sweating, London County Council-jerry building, etc., etc., ad nauseam, is also likely to be a little dubious.

Are there any other legs upon which the national cum-municipal-Liza can stand ? Probably. Our ”Liza” has as many legs as a caterpillar. But not one of them can support the argumentative superstructural body that it is hoped to stick on it. In the final analysis we come back to the incontrovertible fact that Socialism is the only hope of the workers, and that everything else is mere leather and prunella.

Alec James.