By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The points of view expressed in the papers by those who sit in authority over us are indeed illuminating. On the subject of “alien enemies” some queer things are said. While there are some who advocate the internment of all such persons, others are prepared to let them be at large so long as they can be employed and as a result of this “an Englishman would be released to fight.”

In this connection I recently read that a chairman of a Tribunal asked a baker who raised the question of the difficulty of obtaining labour why he did not employ Germans. The applicant replied by asking whether it was advisable, and said that if the public knew it they would raid the shop. Then with profound wisdom the chairman delivered himself of the following :

“I think it is short-sighted on the part of the public. If a German were employed an Englishman would be released to fight.”—”Evening News,” July 12th, 1917.

* * *

The General Federation of Trade Unions announces a conference to consider the question of soldiers’ and sailors’ pay. “One of the demands is that the minimum net allowance of any British Soldier as from July 1 shall be 3s. per day ; and also that the Government provides and pays from July 1 1917, all allotments to wives and other dependents.”—”Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Presumably the General Federation regards 3s. per day as being the trade union rate of wages for one body of workers going forth to slaughter other workers with whom they have no quarrel, whom they have never even met, at the behest and in the interest of their lords and masters. What Lloyd George thinks of this “audacity” I wait to see.

* * *

Mr. F. G. Kellaway, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, addressed a meeting of the allied engineering trades at Luton a short time ago on the subject of dilution of labour. He also referred to the recent strike and the causes which led up to this event. Deploring the fact that there was a deep-rooted suspicion in the minds of many trade unionists that dilution on private work, once introduced, would not be got rid of, but would remain as a regular practice after the termination of hostilities, he went on to say :

“The proceedings in the House of Commons on the Dilution Bill were not fully reported in the Press, so that the Government’s case for the Bill was only imperfectly brought before the men.

In this connection, I would say that the Government has, in many respects, suffered from the limitations which the shortage of paper has placed on the space which the Press is able to devote to these large questions. I have for a long time held the opinion that the paper shortage has been a serious handicap to the Government in keeping the country fully informed of the considerations which guide their policy.”—”Daily Telegraph,” July 9th, 1917.

Now really this is all swank. The Press and the censor make a studious practice of giving as little space as possible to these questions affecting the conditions of labour of large numbers of workers. In this very issue of the “Daily Telegraph,” which is typical of many others, there are 47½ columns devoted to advertising matter, 2½ columns relating to the money market and market reports, and 34 columns of general information ; therefore out of a total of 84 columns no less than 50 are utilised for advertising purposes. Shortage of paper, forsooth ! Next please.

* * *

A month or two since there appeared in our journal an article dealing with two plays (“Ghosts” and “Damaged Goods”) which were then running at London theatres. The why and the wherefore was then fully dealt with. I return to the subject to quote the following :

“It is a sign of the times that there are now running in London two plays which deal with the subject of venereal disease. Even four years ago such a thing would have seemed impossible, and thirty-six years ago, when “Ghosts” was received with a storm of violent abuse, few could have foreseen how public opinion would change towards it. The reason is mainly to be found in the propaganda world which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases.”— “British Medical Journal,” June 6th, 1917.

* * *

From recent happenings in the House one is reminded of the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon performances and the heart-to-heart talks for men at the local tin Bethel. In the early part of July Mr. Bonar Law made a statement with regard to his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said : “A statement of his that he did not think it was his business to spend his time in trying to save £100 here and £100 there had been held up as very reprehensible, but at a time when we were spending millions daily the functions of a Chancellor of the Exchequer were much better exercised in trying to get a good system of expenditure and in getting the right men to carry out that system than in trying to cut down £100 here and there. . . .

“He certainly would not have taken up the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had not thought he was capable of performing its duties. He had no object in doing so on any other terms.

In the first place he was not fond of work. (Laughter.) For the last twenty-five years at least he had never done any which he could either persuade or pay somebody else to do for him.”

— “Daily Telegraph,” July 7th, 1917.

There’s candour for you. It calls to mind the wag who said that “only fools and horses work.” Working men run the boats and Bonar pockets “divi.” When will we awake from our slumber ?

* * *

On the question of freights and food Mr. Bonar Law made a more significant admission. While he told his audience that he “was really ashamed to make the confession,” and he “thought it was disgraceful that in a time of war any class should be able to make the profits he would describe,” I have not observed that he has endeavoured to obtain absolution by giving these ertra profits to the Lord’s poor, or even to the “heroes broken in our war.” However, it’s never too late to spend—or to buy war loan. Mr. Law continued :

“The sum of money he had invested was £8,100 and, at 5 per cent,. interest that would produce £405 a year. For the year 1915, instead of £405, he received £3,624, and in 1916 he received £3,847. That was not the whole story. One of the steamers in which he was interested had been sold or sunk— he was not sure which. (Laughter.) In that ship he had £200, and after the very handsome dividends he had received he received in liquidation a cheque for a little over £1,000. There was another shipping company in which he had invested £350, and the other day he had received a letter from the owners saying that they were going to make a division of the surplus capital. For the £350 which he had invested he had received a cheque for £1,005.”

—”Daily News,” July 4th, 1917.

This quotation is rather lengthy, but to condense it would be to spoil it. Our masters and their hirelings glibly talk, about “equality o! sacrifice,” and the while are enriching themselves enormously whilst increased hardships are the lot of the majority of the workers. Think it over.

* * *

During the debate on an amendment on the new Franchise Bill Mr. Harold Smith objected to conscientious objectors having a vote. Though he admitted that in the majority of instances the objectors were genuine, a significant admission, although somewhat late—still he would not give them the vote. Another M.P. interrupting

“Asked the hon. member why he was not serving as he was of military age. 

That is a matter for which I shall answer to my own conscience, replied Mr. Harold Smith.”

—”Daily News,” June 27th, 1917.

So you see there is still some unconscious humour left in the world. One conscientious objector (the “Scout,” for instance) is so much beneath the contempt of the patriot (Mr. Harold Smith, for example) that he may not even have a vote to cast for or against another conscientious objector (again it might be Mr. Harold Smith) taking a seat in the House of Commons.

* * *

In the early days of the war the drink question loomed large in many speeches that were then made by the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George. For every shortcoming of the Government and lack of essential materials wherewith to wage war our old friend “Bung” was blamed. The workers in very truth, according to the Welsh Messiah, were sodden in drink, even as Mr. Philip Snowden had declared some time before. Said the Welsh Rarebit: “Drink is doing more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together.” Then he was prepared to take a pledge of abstinence from the strong drink that was raging, and the newspaper editors, in their usual fawning manner, dished tip a large announcement that the King had also banned alcoholic liquor from the Royal Household. Now a different tale is told. It is inexpedient to deal too drastically with this question.

On this interesting theme, I notice there is another gentleman who is greatly concerned about the workers’ thirst for malt food in liquid form. One, Will Thorne, recently returned from a trip to Russia, has written to the King with regard to the shortage of beer. From a bright, brief, and brotherly reply I notice that Bill has been informed by the King’s Secretary that—

“The question of the shortage of beer, especially during the summer months, is one which demands careful and prompt consideration. I am passing your letter to Lord Rhondda, and adding that the matter is one which the King hopes will be dealt with in a considerate manner.”

Simply marvellous, isn’t it ? Doubtless the question of munitions and ship-building, and kindred problems, have all been satisfactorily solved ere this, and once again we can all join in singing praises to “Beer, beer, glorious beer.”

* * *

In our Declaration of Principles we state that “In society . . . there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.” Addressing an assembly at the Aldwych Club recently, Lord Leverhulme, of soap fame, put forward a plea for shorter working hours, advocating a six-hour day and a system of co-partnership. Whether he had been reading the Socialist Standard I cannot say, but at least the truth of the extract quoted above is accepted by him. He informed his hearers that :

“There was no possibility of reconciling the opposing claims of capital and labour. They must be fused. Co-partnership was the solution.”

And again—

“Machinery should be worked twelve hours a day, by two six-hour shifts of workers. Output of material would be increased, and, at the same time, the wear and tear of the human body would be lessened.”—”Daily News,” July 11th, 1917.

One is tempted to ask whether, in those firms where these “opposing claims” are “fused,” the workers carry home as much of the swag as the owners of the factory and the plant necessary for the production of the commodity, and if not why not. And further, if there is any guaranteed continuity of employment. The reply, of course, is obviously in the negative. A study of the co-partnership snare reveals the fact that the wage-slave, no matter what the conditions are which surround his employment, is robbed of his product, and that co-partnery contains all the evils inherent in the capitalist system. The solution of the “opposing claims” is by a triumphant working class obtaining political power and converting these privately owned but socially manipulated means of wealth production into the common property of society for the good of all.

* * *

The trip of a princess to Southend a short while ago has brought to light a good illustration of official ignorance. It will be remembered that on the occasion of this joy ride rumour asserted that a fleet of aeroplanes accompanied the train. At a meeting of munition workers at Plumstead the statement was made in a question addressed to Dr. Addison, asking him if such was the case. He then replied that—

“The question has been considered by the Cabinet and there is not a word of truth in the statement.”

The question was then transferred to the House of Commons. Mr. Macpherson replying stated that “there was not an escort by any aeroplanes of the R.F.C.” Then came a letter from the private Secretary of the Queen to the Mayor of Southend with the significant admission that “Her Royal Highness . . . was greatly interested in the fleet of aeroplanes which escorted the special train during the latter part of the journey.” Finally Mr. Macpherson made another statement in the House on the subject, when he said:

“In a reply he gave on Wednesday he said that no R.F.C. aeroplanes escorted Princess Mary on her visit to Southend, but this answer, he regretted to say, was incorrect. It was given after the usual reference to the R.F.C. and Home Defence Corps. Neither of their authorities was able to find any foundation for the story at the moment.” 

“Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Such are the specimens of official replies of the win-the-war government.

* * *

The case of an objector to military service “who was confined in a pit 12 feet below the level of the ground for eleven days and nights in Cleethorpe's Camp and for four days of that time was obliged to stand ankle deep in mud and water,” was recently brought to the notice of the Under Secretary for War. At first the right hon. gentleman was not aware of such a trivial happening as this and would have to make enquiries. Eventually this was done and we read :

“Mr. Macpherson replied that he regretted to say the allegations made were substantially correct. The case arose in the first place because the man was not given the option of a trial by court-martial, but was dealt with summarily by the commanding officer ; and, secondly, because having been awarded detention, he was not committed to a detention Barracks in accordance with the regular practice. . . . The Army Council took a grave view of the action of the authorities responsible and were considering what further action in the matter should be taken.”—”Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Now in the light of the foregoing who would not agree that “Kind, kind, and gentle are we” in our treatment of those with whom we disagree ? Even Stanton would have them put out of existence more speedily by having them shot !

* * *

The “Daily News,” in a leaderette of the same date asks : “What evidence does the War Office possess that this ‘irregularity’ is isolated, and that other conscientious objectors in other camps are not being similarly tortured ? In the second place, it would be interesting to hear what punishment has been inflicted on the officers who ordered, sanctioned, or tolerated this abominable cruelty. Military punishments are notoriously severe. What have they amounted to in this case ? The answer will show how far the War Office are sincere in their professed efforts to put down brutalities of this description.”

* * *

The revolting story of the Mesopotamian campaign, brought to light as the result of the work of the commission appointed to enquire into this ghastly military tragedy, emphasised once again the callousness engendered by militarism. To apportion blame to a few individuals is to tinker with the subject. Everyone who shouts for the war stands condemned, jointly and individually, and must shoulder his or her part of the responsibility. No wonder Lloyd George wanted the matter hushed up and says “Get on with the war.”

* * *

The capitulation of Lord Derby before the Select Committee on the Re-examination of rejected men is an admission of the truth of the allegations laid at the door of the War Office with regard to the methods of the military and the medical boards in taking up the halt, the lame and the blind. The transfer of power to a civilian body looks all right on the face of it, but is it merely a case of the doctor discarding a khaki uniform for a civilian garb ?

* * *

A leading article appearing in the “Weekly Dispatch,” June 10th, 1917, dealt at great length with the questions of peace and reconstruction. After pointing out that during the war there had been equality of sacrifice in regard to the risk of loss of life and limb, the writer went on to say that when the demobilisation takes place it would not be on such a large scale as many people now believed. He continued :

“For instance, 5,000,000 soldiers and sailors will not be at once thrown upon the labour market, nor will 3,500,000 munition workers at once lose their employment. The terms of peace may be such as to make it essential for us to maintain large armies and munition factories for many years to come.”

What, then, becomes of the oft-repeated phrase about this being the “war to end war” ? And further, what is to be said of those who are still advocating the “knock-out” blow.

The article goes on to speak of the war which we Socialists are engaged in—the class war. It says :

“We have two separate and distinct wars in progress—one which the-whole nation is waging, and one which has been going on for some years and not one whit less bitter—the war that has been and is still going on is between the employer and employed. 

If we are to be ready for the world peace one day to come, to be ready once more to take up the challenge of the rest of the world, and once more to enter into the great battle for trade, then the peace between the employer and employed must be signed before the peace between the nations now at war.

Let us be under no delusion; there WILL be a temporary lack of employment while we are putting our house in order; there will be a shortage of food for months after the war, as the various governments will require as many ships as are now b«ing used to take back the men to their different destinations; and as for prices, a man must be indeed an optimist if he believes that the cost of essentials will for many years, if ever, return to the 1914 level.”

Here, then, is a frank confession from an inspired source of the benefits held out to the mass of the people for giving their support to capitalist society—hard work for some, unemployment for many others, and semi-starvation for all. Join then with us for its abolition, and institute in its place social co-operation.

* * *

How the satellites of the win-the-war government carry on their recruiting methods is indeed a sorry spectacle. The harrying of the unfit, the halt, the maimed, and the blind is now quite a commonplace feature of militarism (English variety). In spite of all their protestations that such things have been magnified, and that, like the small boys caught sneaking the apples, “we won’t do it again, sir,” many accounts are yet to hand of these outrages on a long-suffering public. A recent one describes the case of a cripple called up for service. It states :

“A farce and an abuse of the process of the court” were the terms in which Mr. Bingley, the magistrate at Marylebone, described the action of the authorities in summoning Horace Ingram as an absentee under the Military Service Act.

It was stated that Ingram had been an invalid from birth, suffered from curvature of the spine, had lain for three years on a steel frame, and was wearing a steel plate in his mouth to enable him to speak properly.

It was a monstrous thing and a great shame, said the magistrate in dismissing the charge, to put such a case in the hands of the police, and the military authorities had not the courtesy to attend in support of the charge.”— “Lloyds Weekly News,” Aug. 5th, 1917.

The fourth year of war finds our masters still in a state of chaos and hard put to it to find sufficient cannon fodder to prosecute the “war of liberty.” When will the Government comb out their friends in the House and the others who have recently discovered that they are engaged in work of national importance ? Hush ! Is it only the working class they want slaughtered ?

The Scout.

By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the time of writing these paragraphs there has been going on in the daily Press a considerable agitation with regard to the prices of foodstuffs. For a whole week glaring headlines have appeared intimating to all and sundry what the great man of the “Business Government” Lord Rhondda (formerly known as Mr. D. A. Thomas, of the Cambrian Combine) is going to do when he gets into his stride. How these men who are alleged to be the be-all and end-all of great commercial undertakings, possessed of the bump of directive ability and so forth, come and go is indeed pitiful to behold. To mention two only who have recently strutted across the stage and departed, leaving behind them a record of dismal failure, one might cite Lord Devonport and Neville Chamberlain. Other instances will readily suggest themselves to students of current events.

One of the articles of food which plays a very important part in our existence is meat, though, of course, we wage-slaves seldom become possessed of the historic “roast beef of old England,” our masters considering that the foreign variety suits our tastes, and also our pockets, better. However, to come to the price of this said meat, let me quote:

“Lord Inchcape, the chairman of the P. and O. Company, has raised the question of the price of Australian meat in a manner which cannot escape the notice of Lord Rhondda.

In a letter to the “Times” Lord Inchcape states that he is chairman of the company which owns the steamers that bring the frozen meat from Australia and therefore has inside knowledge. The meat is sold in Australia to the British Government at the following prices : beef 47-8d. per lb., mutton 65-8d. per Ib.

Under the arrangement made by Mr. Runciman two years ago the shipowners carry this frozen meat to this country at a freight of 1d. per 1b. If cost freight, two months interest, and cost of insurance is added, the meat is delivered on the quay in London at these prices : beef 6 3-8d. per lb. mutton 65-81d. per 1b.

Mr. George Roberts, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, stated in the House on Wednesday that the landed cost of New Zealand lamb in this country is 8d. per lb.

The price of Colonial lamb in London stores just now varies from 1s. 3½d. per lb to 1s. 5½d per lb. In small butchers’ shops it is more.”—“Star,” June 22nd, 1917.

Now from the above it will readily be seen that some of our patriotic capitalists are doing a fine thing out of the war. While “our heroes” are bleeding for their masters’ country, our Business Government stands idly by looking at the profiteers bleeding the wives of the men at the front, and the remainder of the workers at home. When will the day dawn ?

* * *

The continual demand for men to keep up the strength of the Army is an additional factor for promoting the development of engineering science. With the taking from industry of men hitherto engaged in peaceful pursuits, an ever-increasing demand is made for what are called “labour-saving” devices. One of the latest of these is a machine for farms, and the claim is put forward that it takes the place of four men. The announcement reads :

“I have to-day witnessed a demonstration with a machine capable of doing the work of at least four men, and can be managed by one. It does away with “the man with the muck-rake.” There are no heaps to be spread ; the distribution is done by one operation.

The machine, which is a British patent, can spread, it is stated, a ten-acre field with manure in almost one-sixth of the time taken by hand labour.”—”Daily News,” June 9th, 1917.

From the foregoing it would appear that the war after the war will be very much intensified as a result of the advances which are being made in various directions, the case quoted being typical of many. How numbers of men are to regain possession of jobs which they held prior to enlistment, and which were promised them on their return from the field of battle, is an interesting question. It would seem that quite a number of these promises are of the pie-crust order. The scramble for work which is bound sooner or later to take place must inevitably lead to a general worsening of conditions of labour ; and the retention of the means and instruments of wealth production, including these so-called “labour-saving” devices, by the master class will be a curse instead of a power for good to the many. Work, then, for the social ownership of these necessary means of life which when thus owned will ensure more time for rest and recreation to those who use them.

* * *

On previous occasions reference has been made to the “patriotic” generosity of the master class. It is no new thing for these profiteers to seek to batten on the misfortunes of their wage-slaves. They are prepared at all times to suck the life-blood of the workers, whether they be men, women, or little children. In the course of debates on Pensions in the House of Commons some of the more honest members have frequently pointed out that the unscrupulous employer is always endeavouring to take advantage of the pension awarded to the discharged soldier in order to obtain his services cheaper than he otherwise would do. Recently I came across an advertisement which will further illus­trate the point. It is as follows :

“Army, navy, or police pensioners, or men invalided from either service, wanted as warehousemen ; wages 30s. to commence ; perm., with certain advancement to suitable men. Apply Kearley & Tonge, Ltd., etc.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” June 19th, 1917.

As some people change their names during their lifetime, and working men have a habit of forgetting these facts, let me say at once that the late Sir Hudson Kearley is now Lord Devonport, and was until recently a prominent member of the win-the-war government. Now, it is the firm with which he is connected that issued the advertisement above referred to. Does he think 30s. a week sufficient to exist on in these days of high prices ? And what of the specious promises held out to “our heroes” who “kept the Huns from our door”? Verily, the precepts and the practices of our masters are as wide as the poles asunder.

* * *

I notice that the Discharged Soldiers and Sailors Association are running a candidate for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool. The other nominee is Lord Stanley, the 22 year old son and heir of Lord Derby. It would be interesting to learn why it is that this “soldier” son of the Secretary of State for War is seeking Parliamentary honours when so many other mothers’ only sons are sent to the trenches. Is St. Stephen’s so much safer even than the staff headquarters in France or Flanders ? And where is the “equality of sacrifice” ?

The workers of Abercromby should remember that the present Lord Derby, at the time he was Lord Stanley and Postmaster-General, referred to the Post Office workers as “bloodsuckers” when they were seeking better conditions of employment. And also that in supporting Mr. Hughes, the “soldiers’ candidate,” they are voting for a continuance of capitalist exploitation and the misery arising therefrom. The only effective means of putting an end to the dirty, mean and despicable practices of the international master class is by understanding Socialism and becoming one in the class-conscious army. When the workers generally have done this and, only then, will they be in a position to write “Finis” to the anomalies and injustices which arise from capitalist society, including this manifestation of hostility toward the re-examination of discharged and rejected soldiers.

* * *

The loftiness of those noble souls who form the Cabinet and who have recently agreed to grant a general amnesty to the Irish political prisoners is nicely set forth in the terms of the announcement. Mr. Bonar Law said :

“The Government, after long and anxious consideration of the position of the Irish political prisoners, have arrived at a decision which it is now my duty to announce. They feel that the governing consideration in the matter is the approaching session of the Convention upon which Irishmen themselves will meet to settle the difficult problem of the future administration of their country.”

—”Daily News,” June i6th, 1917.

One can understand this act of condescension. With the loss of Nationalist seats to the Sinn Feiners and “our” protestations of concern and filial “affection for smaller nations,” the retort is being made in many quarters : What about your attitude toward Ireland ? It is said that America desires to see some concern shown for this country as well as for Belgium. And last but not least, it is just possible that by fixing up some kind of Home Rule the Government may be able to extend their recruiting campaign.

Notwithstanding the acts of grace on the part of the Government, a still larger expenditure of lotion will be required to eradicate the nasty taste left in the mouth as a result of the shootings in the early days of 1916.

* * *

The tit-bits that appear in the newspapers here regarding Russia and the revolution are of a very contradictory nature. However, some very interesting quotations do occasionally creep into the columns of the Press, as instance the following :

“The organ of the Council of Soldiers and Workmen’s Delegates, after quoting two English newspapers to the effect that the declaration of the Provisional Government and the pronouncements of the revolutionary leaders show that the Russian peace formula coincides with the British and French war aims, says :

“You are deceiving yourselves, gentlemen, or, rather, you are vainly striving to delude your fellow-countrymen concerning the real policy of the Russian revolution. The revolution will not sacrifice a single soldier to help you repair “historic injustices” committed against you. What about the “historic injustices” committed by yourselves and your violent oppression of Ireland, India, Egypt, and innumerable peoples inhabiting all the continents of the world ? If you are so anxious for ‘justice’ that you are prepared, in its name, to send millions of people to the grave, then, gentlemen, begin with yourselves.”—”Daily News,” May 30th, 1917.

After well chewing this delectable morsel I can quite conceive the need for sending the decoy ducks, Thorne, Henderson & Co., to Petrograd to counteract this rather frank statement of Russian opinion concerning the aspirations of their British and French Allies. Ireland, India, and Egypt ! A hit, a palpable hit, my masters !

* * *

It is recorded that the meek and lowly Nazarene once said : “A new commandment give I unto you that ye love one another.” But I read of a man of god who came many many centuries after, and who lives on the cross instead of dying on it, that his gospel is one of “tar and feathers.” He is a whole-hogger for the war, and wants two tribunals set up, one for determining essential businesses and what individuals are essential to those businesses. The scheme is to apply to single men. Those, essential, according to this divine, “he would dress up in red and purple so that there would be no doubt that they should stay.” He then says :

“Every man not so dressed he would make his life such a burden to him that he would get out somehow or somewhere.”

The other tribunal to deal with Government departments is to work along somewhat similar lines. Says Dr. Furze, Bishop of Pretoria :

“Get everybody exempted who is essential to stay, and as to anyone not essential, give him a week to get to the front or to Potch (training camp), and if he did not get there in that period, tar and feather him.”—”Daily News,” May 24th, 1917.

The scheme suggested is worthy of a Christian parson ! A mission to clergymen is indeed necessary.

* * *

Is this a joke ? The Coal Controller recently announced that now is the time to store coal. Lots of four tons may be ordered at a time, but the total tonnage to any one private house from now up to September 30th is not to exceed twenty tons ! Twenty hundredweight would be a devil of a lot for most working-class families to pay for, and quite beyond their means of storing.

* * *

Mr. Bonar Law a short while ago made reference in the House to the profits of shipping companies during the war. The shipping interest is strongly entrenched in that place, which may possibly account for their unique position. He thus unburdened himself

“As an illustration of what profits shipowners had made, he mentioned that he himself had a few hundreds invested in shipping, and last year he received on his shares a dividend of 47 per cent., which was after excess profits duty had been deducted.”—”Daily News,” May 25th, 1917.

The thought arises in one’s mind that, seeing that the shareholders are doing so well, are the seamen and others working on the boats sharing is this increased prosperity, or is their reward only the increased risk of finding a watery grave ?

* * *

Many strange and incomprehensible things have happened during the last three years in what is called the “war for liberty.” A contributor to the “Daily News” (8.6.1917) who writes under the heading of “Under the Clock” draws attention to a notice which was exhibited at the works of the South Metropolitan Gas Co. Here it is :

IMPORTANT NOTICE

“From and after this date no appointments to or engagements on the Company’s permanent or regular staff will be made until the close of the war. When peace is declared applicants for such positions will be required to produce satisfactory evidence of what they have done for their country in her hour of need.

19th August, 1914.

By Order.”

The “Daily News” writer says he objects to the last sentence, which suggests an inquisition that no private body ought to undertake. To which I say hear, hear. This is the firm where the employees have the doubtful blessing of a model system of co-partnership.

* * *

The present scribe recently came across an announcement that the Scottish burghs were allowing the sale of sterilized tuberculous meat, which was destined for the poor. Really, the poor are a long suffering lot, and one sometimes wonders when they will turn like the proverbial worm. However, to return to our sterilized beef, let me lift the following :

“While the Local Government Board is considering whether it will follow the example of Scottish burghs and permit the sale of sterilized meat, it is interesting to note that in a comprehensive report written by Dr. Howarth, Medical Officer of Health, City of London, he says : “In my opinion it would be inadvisable for the Corporation to undertake the sterilization of condemned meat with the object of subsequently selling it to the public.” –”Daily News,” June 1st, 1917.

True, members of our class build decent houses, but most of us live in bug hutches ; produce spacious and comfortable railway carriages, but are content to travel strap-hanging ; yet, at least, one hopes that our fellow workers will resent partaking of condemned meat which has been sterilized. If there is a shortage why not despatch this aforesaid meat to our old nobility for a change

* * *

We are still being urged to stave off the “German menace” by a more rigid economy of food-stuffs, and we are further informed that the latest key to victory is the kitchen. So to the whole bunch of keys already provided is added the skeleton key. But the way our masters muddle is enough to make the angels weep. Listen to this:

“The other afternoon I saw with my own eyes two piled-up lorries of putrid sides of bacon in process of conveyal through Paddington, what time such women of England as happened to be passing (and there were numbers of them) held their noses and did their best to cry “shame !”—”Daily Sketch,” June 21st, 1917.

* * *

When perusing the quotation which follows I thought I was reading an account of how the Germans treat British prisoners. The idea that such was not the case is almost unthinkable to one brought up in Christian England, and who is continually told that we English are clean fighters and love to play the game straight.

“Mr. G. Dyce Sharp writes “A story of how officers in charge of British prisoners divert themselves at the prisoners expense has recently come to my knowledge. The sister of one of the prisoners, who has just heard from him writes : ‘My brother then goes on to speak of the way in which the officer read through their letters, asking inquisitive questions about the writers jeered and commented upon the contents, and finally tore them up before their eyes. He thought it such fun that he took a fellow officer to enjoy it with him.’ These were English officers at an English barracks, and the prisoners in question were conscientious objectors.”—”Star,” June 22nd, 1917.

English militarism is on all fours with the Prussian variety.

* * *

The urgent need for men for the Army which we are again hearing a lot about, reminds us that there are quite a considerable number of sky pilots, or gentlemen of the cloth, who are firm believers in the righteousness of “our” cause and who are skulking around. Might I suggest a comb-out of the clerical profession beginning with my Lord Bishop of London, who, I notice, recently explained in Hyde Park to the procession he had led thitherward was no a pacifist one. He further stated that there were no more mistaken people than the conscientious objectors. “He had studied the Bible far more than they had, and his conscience was absolutely at peace as day by day he prayed for victory in the great cause.” (“Daily News,” June 11th, 1916.) How this divine is able to make so sweeping a statement one is at a loss to understand. His bald assertion that he has studied the Bible more than the objectors or I have cuts no ice. Then why is he so arrogant ? Has the mantle of the Pope fallen on his shoulders ?

The Scout.

Letter: Are We Wrong About Capitalist Crises? (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are We Wrong About Capitalist Crises?

A correspondent (“Robbo,” Croydon) has been digging into year-old articles published in the Socialist Standard, and wants to know if we have changed our mind about capitalism’s crises. He writes as follows : —

“In spite of your evident contempt for the “doctrine of collapse,” I think there is at least an outside chance (notice, I do not say a certainty) of a breakdown, before we have time to make the Socialists. In this connection I have been studying the article, “Will Capitalism Collapse?”, in your April, 1927, issue. There you refer to a previous criticism (February, 1922) of the same doctrine, pointing out that “half the allotted time” had passed, and that all the essential signs of a collapse were lacking. May I now point out that the “other half” has passed, and although, to be quite fair to you, the actual collapse has not yet taken place, it is significant to notice that almost all the features which you postulated as acceptable indications of collapse, and which may have been lacking in April, 1927, are now present in overwhelming force.

For instance (front page), “Where, now, are the unemployed organisations?” May I suggest, very much in evidence. Again (page 114), “Barring the failure of the natural physical basis of human life, it (the capitalist system) cannot fall,” and (also page 114), “The system does not cease to function.” Again I suggest that these things are happening. The physical basis is failing, and the system has almost ceased to function. Also (page 115) you say, “Since 1921 unemployment . . . has been almost halved, currency problems . . . have been . . . satisfactorily solved, and no one now supposes that the war debts present any special difficulty.” In the light of present conditions, comment on the latter statements is surely superfluous, and a re-reading of your own article should give you “furiously to think.”

Reply:

The late Mr. Bonar Law once retorted to a political opponent who had been making wild prophecies about the effects of a certain policy, “It is no use trying to argue with a prophet: one can only disbelieve him.” Fortunately one can do more than Mr. Bonar Law was disposed to do in that case. One can ask the prophet to state the grounds of his belief.

For the benefit of other readers we must first explain the references made by our correspondent to earlier articles in this Journal. In 1921 and 1922 the Communists were busy preparing for the breakdown of capitalism which they believed to be imminent. One of them said in reply to a question that 10 years would prove or disprove the soundness of that theory, on which the whole Communist movement was built up. In February, 1922, and again in April, 1927, articles by the present writer appeared in these columns criticising the assumptions of those who founded their policy on the supposed collapse of capitalism. In April, 1927, attention was drawn to the fact that half of the allotted ten years had passed, without the promised collapse and the world revolution which was to accompany it. What our correspondent “Robbo” asks us to believe is that even if the Communists misjudged the situation in 1922 and 1927 they have not over-estimated its seriousness to-day, because factors then lacking are now present. Let us consider these factors one by one.

In 1921 and 1922 the organised unemployed who were trying to force concessions from the Guardians and the Government by means of demonstrations, deputations, and the seizing of public buildings, were said to number hundreds of thousands, and the Communists claimed that they had the leadership of them. By 1927, with the passing of the worst of the industrial depression, the unemployed organisations had simply melted away ; hence the remark, “Where now are the Unemployed organisations?” Our correspondent; replies that in 1931 “they are very much in evidence.” But he quite mistakes the point of the remark to which he refers. The intention was to show the uselessness of the Communist theory of so-called “mass organisation.” Instead of building up a party of Socialists understanding Socialism, they believed in building up a loose organisation of vaguely discontented workers. Our criticism was that no permanent organisation could be constructed on such a base, and that anyway it could not be used for the achievement of Socialism because the members did not understand Socialism. We were right. Apathy and a decline in the volume of unemplovment destroyed the unemployed organisations and robbed the Communist Party of the bulk of its own members. The same thing will happen again. Our correspondent must not imagine that we believe the capitalist system to be in danger from the activities of organised unemploved even if they do number hundreds of thousands. The capitalist class can always deal with such situations by the joint method of police action and the giving of more unemployment pay and other concessions. The Communists themselves were compelled to admit that this is so. Their official organ said in 1923 : —

“The unemployed have done all they can, and the Government know it. They have tramped through the rain in endless processions. They have gone in mass deputations to the Guardians. They have attended innumerable, meetings and have been told to be “solid.” They have marched to London, enduring terrible hardships. . . . All this has led nowhere. None of the marchers believe that seeing Bonar Law in the flesh will make any difference. Willing for any sacrifice, there seems no outlet, no next step. In weariness and bitter disillusionment the unemployed movement is turning in upon itself. There is sporadic action, local rioting, but not central direction. The Government has signified its exact appreciation of the confusion by arresting Hannington.

The plain truth is that the unemployed can only be organised for agitation, not for action. Effective action is the job of the working-class as a whole. The Government is not afraid of starving men so long as the mass of the workers look on and keep the ring.” (“Workers’ Weekly,” February 10th, 1923.)

The next point is the conditions under which capitalism might come to an end. The passage referred to is as follows (S.S., April 1927, p. 114)

“Capitalism might conceivably be rent asunder and destroyed in a long-drawn-out struggle for mastery between contending classes, but, barring the failure of the natural physical basis of human life, it cannot fall and cannot be revolutionised except by the actions of the men and women who compose it.”

To this our correspondent retorts, “The physical basis is failing, and the system has almost ceased to function.” (Italics his.)

This statement is amazing, and our correspondent should himself have recognised the need for evidence to justify something so utterly out of keeping with the obvious facts of the present situation. The physical bases of human life—food, clothing, and shelter—were never so plentiful and so easily produced as they are to-day. The world is overburdened with supplies and the means of producing more of them. Yet in face of that our correspondent says that “The physical basis is failing.” Like the late Mr. Bonar Law one can only disbelieve him.

Then we are told that the system has “almost” ceased to function. There must be much virtue in that “almost” in the eyes of our critic. The production and distribution of wealth goes on with no more difficulty than it did 10, 20, or 50 years ago. The number of workers actually in employment now is more than 1,000,000 above the level in the 1921 slump. In many respects the capitalists are now better informed and better able to make adjustments to the constant demands of their system than in the past. As regards the political side we have just seen the capitalists get a new mandate for the retention of capitalism in spite of all the causes now operating to make the workers discontented. Perhaps “Robbo” will enlighten us as to what he means by “almost ceased to function.”

The last passage referred to by our correspondent is the following :—(S.S., April, 1927, p. 115.)

“Again, allowance should have been made for the familiar recurring depression which is a century old feature of the system. Such a depression, affecting almost all the world in 1921, no more justified the prophecy of ruin and collapse for British capitalism than depression did in pre-war days. Since 1921 unemployment in this country has been almost halved, currency problems in most European countries have been from a capitalist standpoint satisfactorily solved and no one now supposes that the war debts present any special difficulty.”

Our correspondent says about this, “In the light of present conditions, comment on the latter statements is surely superfluous, and a re-reading of your own article should give vou furiously to think.”

But comment is not superfluous, it is just what is needed, and in its absence we are left wondering what is our correspondent’s point. Between 1921 and 1927 unemployment fell from 2,500,000 to about 1,250,000, and now with a larger insured population it is back to about the same percentage as in 1921. But what does that signify to our correspondent ? To us it signifies that capitalism is behaving in very much the same way as in all the crises of the past. As regards currency problems our correspondent need only refer to contemporary political and economic journals to find that in the years just after the war the currency muddles of the European countries were far more disturbing than anything the world can show to-day. This country has now returned more or less to the currency position it occupied in the years from 1918 to 1925. Does that portend collapse? Obviously not. And has our correspondent forgotten that several times during the 19th century financial crises forced British Governments to suspend the Bank Charter Act governing the gold backing for the Bank of England Note issue ?

If “Robbo” believes that the war debts do present some special difficulty,” all he has to do is to tell us what feature there is in the present crisis that cannot be paralleled in one or other of the pre-war crises, when war debts did not exist in amounts comparable with the present debts. We can see no such additional feature. What we can see is the German capitalists using the depression as an excuse for getting rid of their burden of reparations. They have also used reparations as their excuse for reducing the pay of Government employees. But our correspondent has only to look at the other countries to see that reparations are a convenient excuse, nothing more, for the British Labour Government and practically every Government in the world has used the fall in prices and the depression as an excuse for reducing civil service pay. Wage reductions were of course a feature of every pre-war depression also.

In conclusion it may be of interest to point out that the idea of the imminent and certain collapse of capitalism, with its fatal effect on serious Socialist study and organisation, is far older than the Communists, who are indeed only carrying on the theories and tactics of the reformists in the Social Democratic Federation. In the ‘eighties and ‘nineties of last century unemployed organisations, demonstrations, deputations to the Guardians demanding “work or maintenance,” conflicts with the police, the seizing of public buildings, all of these things were in full blast whenever unemployment became acute. And then, as now, the reformists thought that capitalism would collapse and that the discontented non-Socialists in the unemployed organisations could be led to establish Socialism. And then, as now, there were the half-educated so-called “intellectuals,” who had misread Marx, assuring the workers that this theory is Marxian, and that it is true although it fails to fit the facts. The late Mr. Hyndman had perhaps some excuse in 1884 for holding this unsound theory of the collapse of capitalism. He wrote in “Justice,” in January, 1884 :—

“It is quite possible that during this very crisis, which promises to he long and serious, an attempt will be made to substitute collective for capitalist control. Ideas move fast; the workers are coming together.”

Later on he suggested 1889 as the probable date for the revolution. (See “Rise and Decline of Socialism,” by Joseph Clayton, p. 14.)

Edward Carpenter, in “My Days and Dreams,” says :—

“It was no wonder that Hyndman, becoming conscious as early as 1881 of the new forces all around in the social world, was filled with a kind of fervour of revolutionary anticipation. We used to chaff him because at every crisis in the industrial situation he was confident that the millennium was at hand. . . .”

Hyndman continued to see the revolution “round every corner” until the date of his death, although, ironically enough he bitterly hated the Communists who are only carrying on in Hyndman’s own earlier tradition.

His successors in the I.L.P. and the Communist Party have no such excuse as Hyndman had. They have no excuse for their ignorant assumption that Marx supports their view, nor for their failure to acquaint themselves with the easily accessible facts of past experience and the theories Marx based upon them, which show how capitalist society actually works, and how it may be replaced when, and only when, the workers want Socialism and will organise politically to obtain it.

Edgar Hardcastle

Behind the “Labour Unrest”. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Cause and the Remedy. 

In England, after 66 years of Free Trade, a century of Trade Unionism and of Social Reform, strikes and lock-outs are the order of the day. Cotton operatives, printers, seamen, railwaymen, carmen, miners, tailors, dockers and transport workers, are all struggling for betterment.

The “labour unrest” is “explained” by various politicians in various ways. Lloyd George tells the “Daily News” man that the cause is the low wage of agricultural labourers ; Bonar Law says it is the want of Tariff walls ; the Anti-Socialist Union hirelings fix the blame on the Socialists.

The first, playing the Cobden game of turning attention on the

SLEEPING PARTNER

—the landowner—in working-class robbery, is effectively answered by Chiozza Money (“The Star,” May 29) when he shows that agricultural workers’ real wages have suffered less than the town workers’ during the rise in prices. Mr. Bonar Law is silenced by the growing labour upheaval in Protectionist countries. Finally, the Anti Socialist Union may be reminded that the majority of those striking are, unfortunately, anti-Socialists.

Is it want of trade, Messrs. T. Reformer and F. Trader ? The Board of Trade returns show an enormous increase ! Is it want of wealth and power to produce, Mr. Malthusian ? Lloyd George told you during the “unrest” debate in the Commons that the wealth produced and the ability to make it was unparalleled in human history. Income Tax. returns have risen rapidly and recent wills prove that it is distribution, not production, at fault.

The two brothers Coats left 3½ millions ; the Duke of Fife a million, and it is reported in the “Telegraph” that Rockefeller’s income one year alone was

£27,000,000.

Mr. H. G. Wells may talk of the need for “high pressure service,” and Balfour babble of seeking “greater command over nature” : the one cause of the ferment around us is the growing pressure of poverty amidst stupendous wealth.

Said Lloyd George at Cardiff, December 2th 1911: “To-day you have greater poverty in the aggregate in the land than you have ever had. You have oppression of the weak by the strong. You have a more severe economic bondage than you probably have ever had ; for grinding labour to-day does not always guarantee sustenance or security. At any rate, that condition of things was foreign to the barbaric regime of the darker ages.” He had a few minutes before reminded us that “this is the richest empire under the sun. If there is poverty, misery and wretchedness it is not because the land is sterile and bare and does not provide enough for all.”

On the other side Mr. Bonar Law told us (Manchester Nov. 16, 1911) that: “During the last ten years there has been a considerable increase in the total wealth of the country, but in that time the condition of the working class has not improved. It has actually deteriorated. From information supplied by the Board of Trade we know that during that period

THE COST OF LIVING

has gone up 10 per cent. and wages remained stationary.”

Then at the National Conference on the Prevention of Destitution (Caxton Hall, May 31st, 1911) the Lord Mayor informed us that a hundred millions were spent on poor law relief and charity, and he asked : “Are we as a community getting the best return for that huge expenditure ? Are we making destitution any less? Are we stopping the perpetual creation of new clestitutition ? In spite of greatly improved Poor Law administration, in spite of momentary good trade, there was on the 1st of January, actually a larger number of people in the workhouses than at any previous period of our history. Moreover, the plague of vagrancy seemed to be actually increasing.”

Mark the words of the mental specialist, Sir J. Crichton Browne, at Tottenham Hospital on November 16, 1911: “We have in many of our industries adopted a policy of “speeding up,” whereby men do their work in less time than formerly, and with fewer intervals of rest allowed them in the workshops and therefore with more exacting and exhausting calls on their nerves, which probably in some measure accounts for the great increase of reputed injuries to workpeople which we have to deplore. We have been

BRINGING UP OUR BABIES

on anything but mother’s milk, and by the employment of women in factories and by giving them an unrestricted sphere of activity, have curtailed that family life in which the young nervous system thrives best.”

The result of this hustle is seen in the 65th Annual Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, which shows the number of inmates of lunatic Asylums to be 133,157, an increase of 2,604 in a year. The meaning of these terrible figures is driven home in the table showing that in 1859 the number of lunatics was only 36,762. Thus while the population increased but 85.8 per cent., the number of lunatics increased in the period 262.2 per cent.! How capitalism crushes the working class becomes plain from the fact that 121,172, or 91 per cent., of the total lunatics in 1911 were

PAUPER LUNATICS.

This was an increase of 2,271 over 1910, nearly all the year’s increase being pauper inmates !

Our teetotal fanatics often think the cause of increased lunacy is drink, but Sir J. Crichton Browne exploded that idea. He said : “Drinking is admittedly on the decrease. Sir Thomas Whittaker pointed out last year that £46,000,000 had been saved in the national drink bill, but it did not bring any diminution in the number of the mentally afflicted.” In the same speech he said that whereas in 1890 the number of suicides was 2,205, in 1910 there were 3,577, and he blames the stress of modern society. was 2,205, in 1910 there were 3,577, and he blames the stress of modern society.

The worsening of the workers’ lot is shown by the fact that the children of the toilers are driven, into the factories to a greater extent in order to “make both ends meet at home.” The Board of Education in their report quoted by Mr. Chiozza Money in the “Daily News” on May 29th, says that out of a total of 691,000 children aged 14, only 155,682, or 22 per cent., attend day school. As Mr. Money remarks, this system “compels two persons, and sometimes three persons, to work for the wage which

ONE PERSON OUGHT TO EARN.”

Schemes of social reform do not help matters. Says the Chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians in the Annual Report just issued : “Although a large number of out relief recipients have been transferred to the Old Age Pension list, the number of applicants for out relief has been steadily ascending. One of the principal causes is said to be the disinclination of employers to engage or retain persons of advanced years or suspected of infimity.” As to indoor pauperism, the “Daily Chronicle” (Nov. 11th, 1911) said : “Indoor relief in London has risen enormously. For the year 1886-7 the average number of indoor paupers (excluding casuals) was 54,861, or 13.7 per 1,000 of the population; last year it was 78,114, or 17.3 per thousand.”

Millions never reach the Poor Law portals, but are murdered in the cradle. The National Liberal Federation says, in “A. Nation Insured” : “We have many large towns . . where 200 out of each 1,000 die within 12 months of birth. . . The wholesale sacrifice of infants is followed by the robbery of a great part of the life of those who survive. . . It is not pretended that the National Health Insurance can dispose of

THE DAMNING FACTS.”

Of course it cannot. The only remedy is our remedy—the institution of a new social system, not fiddling with the effects of the present one. The evils which give rise to the “labour unrest” which convulses society is a necessary concomitant of the present social system. They arise inevitably from its competitive institutions, and will continue to arise as long as those competitive conditions remain.

It is futile, therefore, for the master class to look for any cure for the “labour unrest,” or for the workers to seek industrial peace. Under the system the fight must go on, and battle follow battle. Let us prepare, then, to end the strife by ending the system.

Adolph Kohn

Election Manifesto. (1922)

From the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

When, in 1918, the “Hang-the-Kaiser— Make-Germany-Pay” Election was being fought, the S.P.G.B., in their Election Manifesto, warned the workers of the line the development of the then existing conditions would take, and the real reason for an election at that moment.

It was pointed out in the Manifesto that :—

  “While prices of necessaries are still rising thousands of munition workers are being discharged ; tens of thousands are working short time, and, according to Lord Curzon, “In a few weeks’ time there would be a million of people out of work.” And this is only the beginning. Further unemployment is bound to occur while such demobilization as will be carried out will add to the number vainly seeking work. Wages will fall as a result, though prices may remain up for some time, and poverty and misery will increase as a consequence throughout the land . . .

Before the deluded workers awake to a realisation of how they have been duped, despite their “victory” over Germany, the master class wish to be in possession of a “mandate” so that they can claim the allegiance of the armed forces should it be considered necessary to use these forces against the workers during troubles or disputes. “

The plan succeeded. The people “who made the mess” were returned “to clear it up.” They had, however, less trouble with the working class than some of them anticipated.

Weary of the war, and thankful for the relief of the Armistice, the workers accepted wage reductions and worse conditions with a minimum of protest. Wherever resistance was offered it was of a sectional, and often spasmodic, character, that the masters were able to defeat with comparative ease. It was not so much lack of will or courage to resist, as ignorance of the fundamentals of their class position, that was responsible for the attitude adopted, for the majority could see no way out at present, and little hope in the future.

Freed to some extent from fear of trouble at home, the sections of the capitalist class among the Allies found more time to fight out their quarrels over the spoils of the “Great Victory.” These quarrels reached a crisis in the Near East. Two sections of Imperialist financiers came to grips over the routes, areas and resources of the East. One section controlled the British Government, while the other section controlled the French Government. The situation, however, was somewhat awkward. Officially Britain and France were still Allies. It would be difficult openly to come to blows over the difference of interests in the booty, so each side put forward a “catspaw” for the purpose of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. The British Government put forward the Greeks, while the French Government supported the Turks.

It would be sheer folly to imagine that the British Government had any regard for the Greeks’ “lawful aspirations” in Asia Minor, or the French Government any noble ideal of helping the Turks to their “freedom.” Only those ignorant of the workings of the capitalist system could imagine such a thing. Whichever side may be acclaimed the winner, it will find that it can only move, organise and govern as its paymasters decide. At the moment of writing the Greeks have been driven out of Asia Minor, and the British section of Imperialist financiers have suffered a setback. Of course, the people concerned keep in the background. It is not they who will be blamed for the expense and trouble in the East. As a matter of fact, they always keep in the background, and allow their tools and puppets to take such praise or blame as may be coming in any given crisis. More, they are quite indifferent as to the fate of these puppets, once they have served the turn required.

The Imperialist financiers have always crowds of job-hunters waiting to take office as soon as any particular occupant is turned out. In the present case, almost all the mouthpieces of the capitalist class are united in putting the blame for the shaky situa­tion in the East upon the shoulders of Lloyd George; but not one has whispered whose orders he obeyed when he made such “blunders.”

In December, 1918, we described the position Lloyd George occupied in the following words :—

  “Behind this mountebank marionette stands the Imperialist section of the Capitalist class, composed of both Liberals and Tories, who are striving to extend their dominion and power of robbing the working class over larger areas of the globe. It was to protect their interests that this country entered into the war. When two years ago the military situation looked serious for the Allies, this section looked for a more pliant tool to take charge of the Government. One was at hand possessing a glib tongue, always ready with large and extravagant promises, quite unscrupulous, and able to sway crowds with his claptrap. A dirty political shuffle took place and Lloyd George became Prime Minister.

  Of course, he wishes to retain the office. He wishes to pose as the head of the “Government that won the war,” and wishes to be at its head when it “Reconstructs the Empire.” . . .

Not his wishes, however, but the interests of the Imperialists, whose agent he is, demanded this Election. “

And, now, having failed to carry through their scheme successfully, Lloyd George is “sacked” with as little ceremony as an ordinary day labourer, by the Imperialist gang. He will be the “scapegoat” for the failure and will form a useful figure upon whom to put the blame, not only for the immediate trouble in the East, but also for the bad trade, unemployment, the chaotic exchanges—and the atmospheric storms that hindered the astronomers from making full observations to test Einstein’s theory !

The great advantage of such a “scape­goat,” is that the attention of the mass of the workers will be diverted from studying the facts of the situation, into dwelling upon personalities. Yet even the sacrificing of a notorious tool can hardly conceal the emptiness of the alternatives offered.

The Liberals are far from anxious to take office, as is shown by the statement of the Daily News for October 20th, 1922 :—

  “Whatever Government succeeded the Coalition could not but be an improvement, and in that one respect the events of yesterday are a matter for unreserved congratulation. “

While further on in the same article we are told : —

  “There are obviously the gravest possible reasons against an immediate General Election “

It is easy to see from these paragraphs that the Liberals would prefer to let the Tories handle the muddle that exists.

The Tories seem clear on only one point : That public expenditure on any “unnecessary” legislation and administration must be reduced or abolished. Thus the Daily Mail, October 23rd, 1922, says :—

  “The country is anxiously waiting to hear from him [Mr. Bonar Law] what relief it may expect from the heavy loads which the late Government has laid upon it. and from the anxieties in which recent divagations of policy have placed our country. “

The Daily Express, October 23rd, 1922, which claims to be independent and “bound to no party,” declares that it:—

  “Intends to support that Conservative Party during the course of the General Election and to recommend the electors to return it to power.“

Among the reasons given for this attitude we are told : —

  “Mr. Bonar Law can be trusted to pursue a safe and saving course at home as well as abroad. There would be an end of those ambitious schemes which cost millions, tax industry, depress credit and end in a financial fiasco.“

To prevent confusion, however, the same article hastens to remark :—

  “In saying this the Daily Express shows no hostility to Liberalism.“

And Mr. Bonar Law, himself, at the meeting of the Conservative Party that elected him leader, is reported as saying :—

  “What the country wanted was quiet and a reduction of our commitments, with little interference from legislation and administration” Evening Standard. 23/10/22.

But Bonar Law is no less a tool than Lloyd George. The Imperialist gang will give him orders as to their requirements, and he must take those orders or go. Already some of those orders are beginning to be formulated in such a way that even the man in the street can see their trend.

Thus the Observer, October 22nd, 1922, under the heading “Russia Still the Acid Test,” says :—

  “British policy ought to throw the whole weight of its influence into the scales in favour of full Russian participation. If we do that our policy will prosper. It will never look back in the sphere of foreign affairs either East or West.

   Incidentally, the commercial cause of agreements, like the Urquhart Concession, would be promoted to the gain of employment. Otherwise, economic chances still open to ourselves would be transferred to foreign powers.

  If the new Government did not resolve to settle fully with Russia, that issue would soon play its big part in sweeping them out. We desire to put that warning on record.“

On the same page it is also stated that :—

  “Henceforth our only substantial security for any legitimate British interest connected with the Straits is friendship with Turkey and with other nations.”

These points are supported by the Daily Mail, Daily News, Daily Express, Evening Standard, etc.

Here, then, the instructions are beyond doubt. Commercial relations with the East must be established, full and soon, to pre­vent British oil and shipping interests being beaten by the Americans and Japanese. A General Election will afford a good means of introducing this change of policy and of getting rid of a tool who has failed to carry out their orders as they wished.

So an Election is arranged for November 15th. The Tories put forward the pro­gramme referred to above. The Liberal Party make numerous promises as usual, and vaguely refer to “Liberal Principles” without running the risk of defining them. The Labour Party promise to show the people how to save money by spending it, for in their official programme they say :—

  “Labour attaches the utmost importance to economy in the public administration. But we do not believe in starving the public services.”—Daily Herald, 26/10/22.

Especially those that have provided so many jobs for Labour Leaders. Another staggeringly original statement is :—

  “Unemployment and low wages, caused largely by the policy of the Liberal and Unionist Government, have brought distress to the bulk of the working people.“—Ibid.

Had such “unemployment and low wages” been caused by the policy of a Labour Party, are we to assume there would have been no “distress?” One of their remedies for unemployment is “the national organisation of production,” but they attach “the utmost importance to economy in the public administration.” National organisation of industry should certainly be more economical—that is carried on by fewer workers per unit of service—than organisation by private individuals. So the remedy for unemployment is to reduce the number at work by “national organisation !” Seems to be a catch somewhere ?

All of them, however, are united in condemning Lloyd George. In this they are assisted by the Communist Party, who, with their usual blindness to facts and their ignorance of the real forces moving in Society, follow the capitalist press in placing responsibility upon Lloyd George. In the Communist (September 30th, 1922), is a certain cartoon on the front page wherein the workers are advised to ”Dump Him,” and on the centre page we are told “David must sweat for this.” In their issue of October 14th, 1922, a displayed paragraph warns us to “Watch Lloyd George,” and we are told :—

  “His one hope of saving his position, his place, and his emoluments is a war.“

Five days later this terrible, powerful person, who could “make war,” is tumbled out of his job neck and crop.

To-day, Lloyd George is trying to gather around him the remnants of his scattered crew to form a “Party” that, unhampered by any fixed principles or programme, will hold itself free to support or oppose any Government or Cabinet, till it can once more, it hopes, secure recognition from the chiefs of the capitalist class. One of his most rabid supporters—J. I.. Garvin—pro­mises him this recognition, with greater power than ever, if he will only wait a few years. But a flare fire wants continual re­plenishing, and a very few years would see the slimy Welshman snuffed out of political life.

Whichever Party contesting this Election obtains a majority, it will leave the workers in their present state. The unemployment, want, hardship, and insecurity of existence that afflict the workers in all capitalist coun­tries, will not be abolished either by war with Turkey or peace with Russia; by changing Lloyd George for Bonar Law or A. Henderson ; by voting for Tory candi­dates instead of Coalition ones; or for Labour candidates instead of either.

Because these things are not the CAUSE of the workers’ misery. That cause is the private ownership of the means of life. Under capitalism the master class owns the raw materials, the means of transport, the machinery and factories requisite for wealth production. As a result they own the wealth that is produced. Hence the workers are a propertyless class, and can only live by permission of the capitalists. To put it shortly, they are SLAVES to the owning class.

This is the crucial test. Liberal, Tory, Coalition, or Labour Parties all stand for the retention of capitalism—therefore, for the continuance of the slavery of the workers. With the developments in machinery and the increasing applications of science to industry, with the elimination of competition by the further formation of Trusts and Combines, the effective demands of the world’s markets are met with a constantly decreasing number of workers employed to produce a given amount of wealth. Hence, apart from temporary fluctuations, unemployment is bound to in­ crease.

Peace in the East, business with Russia, cannot result in more than a temporary fillip to trade compared with the world’s production. Reduction of taxation is of no concern at all to the workers. The only solution to their troubles is the abolition of the cause—the private ownership of the means of life. Until they decide to carry this abolition through, their position as a whole is bound to grow worse by the operation of the factors given above.

To abolish their slavery; to establish the common ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution, the workers must first seize the governing machinery of society. This is the political machinery, with its centre in Parliament.

At any General Election the workers can do this, because they have the vast majority of the votes. But behind the vote is needed knowledge. Only when the majority of the workers understand they are slaves will they be in the position to end their subjection. Until then they will remain slaves.

In this election how few are the workers who understand their class position is shown by the fact that not a single Socialist candidate will be seeking election.

This will not prevent those desiring Socialism from voting for it. They can go to the polls, write Socialism across the ballot paper, and thus add their quota to the factors making for working class en­lightenment.

When a sufficient number are enlightened then we shall see the workers organise into the Socialist Party, putting forward their delegates and voting them into Parliament. With this control they will be able to enter into possession of the means of life, and end not only wars, Eastern or Western, but abolish the misery and hardship of the pre­sent system, and replace by the system that will secure comfort and happiness to all— namely, SOCIALISM.

Executive Committee.

Socialist Party of Great Britain,

October, 1922.

Editorial: The "Mountain and the Mouse." (1923)

Editorial from the December 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have often been told that what we need in Parliament are “good business men” with “practical knowledge and sound instincts.” So when the Conservative Party obtained a majority of seats at the last General Election they took the opportunity of Mr. Bonar Law’s ill-health to put one of the foremost “business men” of the country at the head of affairs. By all the accounts in the Conservative and Liberal press Mr. Baldwin not only possessed wonderful business qualities and acumen, but was fond of home hobbies, such as rearing pigs. Surely a paragon beyond compare.

Less than twelve months has been sufficient to expose the absurdity of these claims. The Liberal press for some time past has been denouncing Mr. Baldwin’s weakness in “giving way” to M. Poincairé over the Ruhr question and the support by the French of the “Separatist” gangs in the Rhineland. Now the “great genius,” baffled by the complexity of the problems and interests assailing him on all sides, can think of no better solution than throwing-up the sponge and dissolying Parliament.

The reason given out in public is that the Prime Minister wishes to be absolved from Mr. Bonar Law’s pledge to tranquillity, particularly in relation to the Fiscal system, so that he can tackle the problem of unemployment, which

  “threatens to impair permanently the trained skill and the independent spirit of our workers, to disorganise the whole fabric of industry and credit and, by eating away the sources of revenue, to undermine the very foundations of our national and municipal life.”—(Mr. Baldwin’s address to his constituents. Observer, 18/11/1923.)

An appalling prospect truly ! And what has brought about this terrible predicament? We are told :—

  “In large measure this state of affairs is due to the political and economic disorganisation of Europe consequent on the Great War.”

While further on it is stated :—

  “The disorganisation and poverty of Europe, accompanied by broken exchanges and by higher tariffs all the world over, have directly and indirectly narrowed the whole field of our foreign trade.” (Ibid).

Here then is a situation so desperate that only giant remedies can be adequate. As Mr. Baldwin says, it is no time for palliatives. Let us turn then to his, and the Government’s, proposals on this tremendous problem, and see how “great business men” with the marvelously endowed brains so worshipped by the late W. H. Mallock, offer to solve the problem.

Were the position less serious, the proposals would arouse ribald laughter at their grotesque and childish character. A school child would be jeered at if it put forward such an idiotic “remedy.”

The main proposal is “to impose duties on manufactured goods” with the following objects :—

  “(i.) To raise revenue by methods less unfair to our own home production, which at present bears the whole burden of local and national taxation, including the cost of relieving unemployment.

   (ii.) To give special assistance to industries which are suffering under unfair foreign competition.

   (iii.) To utilise these duties in order to negotiate for a reduction of foreign tariffs in those directions which would most benefit our export trade.

  (iv.) To give substantial preference to the Empire on the whole range of our duties with a view to promoting the continued extension of the principle of mutual preference which has already done so much for the expansion of our trade, and the ‘development, in co-operation with the other Governments of the Empire, of the boundless resources of our common heritage.'”

Did ever such a mountain bring forth such a mouse? If the cause of the desperate situation is “the political and economic disorganisation of Europe,” how can a tax on manufactured goods entering one country, touch, let alone cure, that disorganisation? And what are “manufactured” goods?

Steel sections are manufactured goods of the steelworks, but are raw material for the shipbuilder, builder and engineer. Mr. Baldwin does not even tell us what manufactured goods are to be taxed. And the first object of the tax contains an insoluble contradiction.

If revenue is to be raised by the tax, then the goods must come into the country for this revenue to be realised. But if this occurs, then the unemployed in those branches will still remain unemployed. On the other hand, if the tax is high enough to keep out the goods, then there is no revenue from that source. There is no escape from this dilemma. Either the unemployed are not relieved from their workless situation, or there is no revenue from that tax.

What is “unfair” competition? Every manufacturer in this country will argue that all foreign competition is “unfair.” Those suffering from German competition will denounce the “low” wages of Germany as “unfair,” while others, beaten by the Americans, will vigorously denounce American “high” wages as “unfair.” So to meet their wishes “special assistance” will have to be given to all of them? This at least has the merit of simplicity.

On the other hand, “the greatest and most important of our national industries” is not to be protected by a tax !

Wonderful logic ! For, says the Government:—

  “It is not our intention, in any circumstances, to impose any duties on wheat, flour, oats, meat (including bacon and ham), cheese, butter or eggs.” (Ibid.)

However, to escape the awkward dilemma this declaration produces, the farmer of arable land is to receive a bounty of £1 per acre per annum, on the condition that he pays his “able-bodied” labourers—whatever they may be—at least 30s. a week. This £1 per acre is to come from the tax that won’t be raised by keeping out “manufactured” goods.

That section of the capitalists which desires a Tariff hopes, by keeping details secret till after the Election, to be returned to power, so that behind the Tariff—if it is effective— they may raise prices in the home market. The workers, who are constantly told that high prices are due to high wages, will then find that their low wages will form no effective barrier against prices going up, which may cause them to wonder which is which.

Mr. Churchill, in a speech at Manchester (18/11/1923) gave eight points of the Liberal programme as follows :—

  “Free Trade, the immediate reform of our electoral system on the lines of proportional representation, the strengthening and improvement of National Insurance, housing, land reform, agricultural reform and organisation, the development of the Empire, and, last but not least, peace abroad.”

He omitted the point of abuse which has filled so large a portion of the Liberal leaders speeches up to the present, or it may be that he considered his own efforts in this direction rendered any further emphasis unnecessary.

On the marvels wrought, and to be wrought, by Free Trade, one may quote from a famous epitaph and say “Look around.” If the present condition of things is the result of over 70 years of Free Trade it could hardly be surprising to find numbers of the workers turning to the equally fallacious nostrum of “Protection” in the hope that it may bring a better result.

And what a splendid remedy for unemployment is proportional representation. Think of the awful strain the brilliant brains of the Gallipoli gambler (in other men’s lives) must have undergone to have made this wonderful discovery ! Will not a strengthening of National Insurance provide the European markets with that purchasing power they so sadly lack to-day? Housing, land reform, agricultural reform—are not these promises at least as old—and as futile —as Free Trade? But then red herrings have to be very stale before they lose their scent. No doubt if returned to power the Liberals will develop the Empire—or promise to do so—before the winter is out. How that will settle unemployment we are not told. Peace abroad is certainly desirable, though how the Liberals will deal with their friends the French and the latter’s Monarchist intrigues in Central Europe, we are left to guess.

The Labour Party denounces the Government for their inadequate programme of winter work for the unemployed, and puts forward an elaborate list of proposals ranging from Electric Power Supply to Afforestation and Housing. But these things will cost money while the Labour Party promises relief for the Taxpayer, Is this a dilemma? Not at all. To pay for these schemes and relieve the taxpayer the Labour Party proposes to raise fresh taxes. Simplicity itself.

This Party had nearly succeeded in burying “The Capital Levy” when the Election was suddenly announced. The Capital Levy was hastily dug up again, but looked so shabby and mouldy that it was decided to dress it up in a new coat called “The Non-recurring graduated War Redemption Levy.”

If this title fails to sink it, the Levy will be laid on all individual fortunes in excess of £5,000. In its original form the amount of the fortune was lower than the sum above. But it was found that many of the Labour leaders’ war fortunes come within that zone, and so the amount had to be raised.

The superficial issues of this Election— Free Trade versus Ambiguous Protection —are of no interest to the working class. Whichever side wins they will still remain slave to the master class, because the private ownership of the means of life—the cause of the workers’ enslavement—will still continue. When the workers understand their slave position they will organise to contest an Election for the purpose of taking control of political power with the object of attaining their emancipation and establishing Socialism.