What do you think? (1909)

From the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class of person to whom the Anti-Socialist is expected to appeal may be very accurately gauged by the character of its advertisements. Business men do not spend money for publicity through the media that will not get them into touch with the persons they want. The Anti-Socialist is, therefore, expected to circulate amongst owners of motor-cars, those able to buy gold and silver plate, trees and shrubs, and the like. It contains also an “ad” of a big firm of photo engravers, another of a wholesale stationer, and yet another of a legal publisher. From which may be deduced the fact that, whatever our optimistic contemporary may say it expects to do amongst the working class, its advertisers know fairly well that it is not the working class that will read it.

Jottings. (1912)

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

Tom Sala

Another Rod in Pickle. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Constitutional Association being dead and its “Black Marias” scrapped after a few hours of pitiably inglorious life, the Anti-Socialist Union, with Mr. Claude Lowther as President, bobs up with its little lot. “The standard works of Socialism are being studied, and every candidate (for a speakership in the Union) will be subjected to a viva voce examination of a hundred questions before being regarded as qualified. Pamphlets will be published . . and a circle of anti-Socialist writers, speakers, M.P’s and others will he formed, who will meet once a month and exchange ideas.”

So once more we are in for a nice hot time—running round to try and find where the anti-Socialist members of the Union are on the stump. The difficulty with the Constitutional Association was that it took the precaution not to announce where its great public demonstrations against Socialism were to be held, and when we did happen to alight upon one, the anti-Socialist speaker took the very necessary step of refusing opposition. As the Daily Express rather naively pointed out, it was dangerous to allow a Socialist on an anti-Socialist platform because the Socialist was in possession of the facts and the “anti” was not, the result being that the Socialist made Socialists while the “anti” made—well, made rather a fool of himself ! What they had to do, then, according to the Express, was to wait until a certain handbook was published, which would contain information that would simply wipe the Socialist propagandist off the map. We waited patiently and with some interest for our untimely end to overtake us, but that dark, documentary spell-binder never saw the light, and the “Black Marias” out of which our doom was to be pronounced, are probably now doing more useful service as coffee stalls.

The Anti-Socialist Union’s special line, however, is not a book, but a list of 100 questions. When all these have been answered satisfactorily, its speakers take the road, and the Daily Express, unabashed, anticipates that that moment will see the rout of the Socialists commenced.

Well, the Express is welcome to its anticipation, and it had better get all the comfort it can. before the realisation comes. Because if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the Socialists will run when the rout commences—in chase of the “anties,” who will be hot-foot in retreat.

But we fear that, although it is welcome, to it, the Express gets no very satisfactory comfort out of its anticipation. The Express is vastly more knave than fool, and although it may jeer at our confidence, it knows quite well that its anticipation will never be realised. However, our contemporary cannot be expected to admit anything of the sort. Its express purpose in life is to run the gamut between the mild perversion and the downright lie, particularly when dealing with the position of the Socialist. Its business is not to say what it thinks so much as to say what it wishes its readers to think. And as the potential orators of the Anti-Socialist Union will doubtless be amongst its most assiduous devourers, they may, if they are very simple, derive sufficient confidence from the utterances of the organ of the greatest hustler on earth to go on with their work—particularly if, as will doubtless be the case, a decent stipend is attached to the job.

We only wish that it were possible for us to be present at some of the meetings of the circle whereat “ideas” will be exchanged. Might we suggest to the Anti-Socialist Union that the public be admitted at a small charge. We at any rate would get full value for our outlay—in merriment.

However, let them all come, and the sooner the better—for us. But we hope the two first questions on that hundred list will not be, say, “Is there any remedy for the poverty problem that will stand the test of examination other than Socialism ?” and, “Is there one single useful or necessary thing performed by the capitalist to-day that the workers, properly organised, could not perform for themselves ?” Because in that case there is a very good chance that the other 98 questions will never be reached and therefore the compleat anti-Socialist propagandist never be fashioned and let loose to add to the gaiety of life. And that would be a pity indeed.

Some Paddington activities. (1911)

Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Paddington Branch have been busy in the work of expounding Socialism, to the dismay of those pusillanimous purveyors of capitalist platitudes that crowd the street corners nightly.

A somewhat protracted discussion has been, raging in the local paper on the “evils and perils of Socialism.” It originated in an enquiry from a correspondent as to whether Socialism was atheistic or not. This elicited the following from an I.L.P.’er : “As chairman of the Paddington I.L.P. I feel somewhat responsible for the opinions that are being circulated in the district concerning the philosophy we are organised to teach. Now I and all Socialists wish it to be clearly understood that Socialism has nothing whatever to do with atheism or religion ; in the Socialist movement we have every cult under the sun.” He also claimed that the I.L.P. had made Socialism a practical working theory by forcing local authorities to municipalise gas-works, trams, etc., and getting old-age pensions granted by the Government, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act put on the Statute Book. These things, they claim, are steps in the right direction.

A letter from our Branch was inserted, repudiating the right of this I.L.P. chairman to speak in the name of Socialism, since his letter made it clear that he was intent upon keeping the working class confused on this matter.

The discussion afforded opportunity for certain individuals priding themselves on their “Socialism,” to flatter their honesty at the expense of their intelligence. They attempted to deflect the discussion from its course with an outrageous mass of biblical quotations and hoary superstitious illusions that exposed their duplicity to those who recognise the irrepressible antagonism that exists between the master and his slave. The materialist conception of history was cited as showing that Socialism and religion are not synonymous terms, but are as incompatible as fire and water. The new pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” was forced upon their attention. Yet, when the Socialist seeks to dispel the rhetorical dust kicked up by these professional misleaders, he is met with mutterings of “materialism will not do” ; “Socialism is not based on science—only on a part of it” ; “Socialism has nothing to do with materialism,” and so on.

Of course, these frauds strenuously resist the light of science, for it is only because the workers are steeped in ignorance that the Labour crooks are able to climb over their backs into “jobs,”

The Anti-Socialist Union was also represented in the discussion by a person who held classes for anti-Socialist speakers in the district. The amount of preposterous piffle with which he sought to stifle the subject clearly proved that, being unable to refute the arguments for Socialism, he was compelled to resort to deliberate lying and misrepresentation in order to combat us.

Our forthcoming week’s mission will afford us the opportunity of exposing the utter cant and humbug of all these champions of confusion.

The Clarion Van has been in our midst doing its dirty work of spreading confusion and despair among the working class. The lecturer had the brazen effrontery to state, on a platform over which the word “Socialism” shone like a beacon, that at the last three elections he had voted Tory to further Socialism. He did this to balance both parties, to play off one against the other and so gain concessions for the Socialist !

We want all Paddington to come to our week’s mission (and also our regular meetings) and hear what we have to say on the matter. We guarantee they will hear Socialism explained in clear and cogent phraseology that will be understood by everybody.

Ben Carthurs

En passant. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

An editorial in the “Daily Sketch” of May 7th runs as follows: “But a more dangerous sort of interference with parental authority will be confirmed by the passing of the Defective and Epileptic Children Bill. Defective children (of the poor people) are to be sent to residential schools, and Mr. Josiah Wedgwood moved an amendment for the purpose of making it clear that such children should not be removed from their homes without the consent of their parents. The amendment was negatived by a decisive vote.”

Leaflet No. 45 of the Anti-Socialist Union bears the following bright gem :

Infant Gatherer [who is the State Nurse existing under an impossible Socialist State]: “I’ve called to take your baby to the State Children’s Home.”

Mother : “But you will let him say ‘good-bye’ to his father ? ”

Infant Gatherer : “Father! There are no fathers now. The State’s his father.”

It has often been pointed out to the intellectuals of the Anti-Socialist Union that the bogey they attack is not Socialism but State capitalism. But it is easy to apologise for not hearing after you have stuffed your ears.

Today, under capitalism—”the best of all possible systems in the best of all possible worlds”—you must not be born without the State knowing; you must not “shuffle off this mortal coil” without the State being informed of the fact; if you are on the panel you cannot be ill without the State being aware of your malady. Under tyrannical Socialism the only added danger could be that the privacy of the bath-room might be invaded.

* * *

To turn from the Anti-Socialist Union to members of an Anti-Socialist Party, the appended statements are enlightening.

Mr. Philip Snowden, in the “Labour Leader” of April 30th: “If we take the Liberal Party at its best to-day and accept its professions at their apparent value, and if we compare its programme with that of a labour party which is not Socialist, then there is no doubt that Mr. Asquith’s statement that the differences are trivial and unimportant represents the actual facts.”

Mr. Jowett, in the “Labour Leader,” April 16th : “On one occasion the Labour Party had declined to introduce an Unemployment motion because the Government had to be kept in office, and often it had been difficult to defend the votes which the Labour members had given.”

Two minds with but a single thought; two mouths that bleat as one.

These extracts may be used as supporting an argument in re Philip sober. P. Snowden, “Labour Leader” 30.4.14.: “The irony of Social Reform within the present economic order is that every reform which improves the health and intelligence of the workers benefits the capitalist still more.”

The same Snowden—the summit of conceit— in the House of Commons (7.5 14), on Mr. L. George’s Budget: “The taxes on the rich provided revenue to be used for social reform purposes and must economically benefit the landlord and the employing class.”

Yet again, the same Philip, in the same speech: “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to continue to use taxation not merely as a means of raising revenue but as a potent, if incomplete, method of social reform, he would be prepared to give him support.”

There, what base knave dare deny that one Philip, of Blackburn, is a Socialist. To all anti-Socialists he is a revolutionary of the most rabid type, because they do not understand Socialism.

* * *

This extract is not from an old file of the “Socialist Standard.” Mr. Arnold White writes a weekly article for the “Daily Express” entitled “Looking Round.” Sometimes he squints and sees “wisions,” yet on other occasions he sees things in their true perspective. In the issue of that organ of mal-education for 11 5.14, he says “Mr. Lloyd George’s scheme to provide aid from taxation for the feeding of necessitous school children appeals to warm hearts and soft heads. The plan is as old as Rome. To make the community help manufacturers to pay wages necessarily implied reduction of wages the limit to the fall of wages is automatically determined by the cost of bare maintenance of the labourer and his family. If the average subsistence rate of the lowest form of slum worker is £1 a week, and the average number of children is three, the labourer must be paid a pound a week, since he cannot exist on less. If, on the the other hand, the State steps in and helps to feed the children of unorganised labourers, the cost of subsistence will be less. Being subjected to unrestricted competition, the labourer, if he can live on less than £l a week, will take less.'” A Socialist could improve that very little.

Some people have heard of the London City Mission, a body, presumably of human beings, which held its 79th Annual Meeting on May 8th. During the course of the meeting, the Rev. T. S. Hutchison, M.A., must have felt relieved when he got the following off his chest: “Socialism, of a godless type, was said to be spreading rapidly among the working men, even to some extent among employees where the cooperative system had long existed, and where, but for the agitators, the men would be happy and contented. The result was the growth of discontent and unrest.” Dear readers, please shudder to oblige our dearly beloved vicar. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the columns of the “Times,” that we, the feeble band, the few, are the cause of the great totality of wretchedness and discontent at present existent. Sir George Askwith is wrong when he attempts to settle strikes (in the masters’ interest) by haggling over wages and hours of labour. How much could he not learn, would he only sit at the feet of this far seeing disciple of the Prince of Peace ?

* * *

You have a working man earning a quid a week, and he is satisfied. His town house in Stepney and his country seat in Victoria Park provide delightful changes of scenery and atmosphere, guaranteed to revitalise any constitution accidentally undermined by the pure air of the sweat shop. So I could continue to describe the idyllic existence of the working man. To suggest any improvement would be to attempt to paint the lily. But stay, into the picture of contentment, slyly creeps the strife stirring Socialist. Without him all would be well. He can even surmount the protective barriers of co-operation and co-partnership. He seems all-powerful and he is of the godless type. If he believed in a god or worshipped a tram-ticket he might be tolerated. As he is, he is anathema.

Christian, Ragtime “Reynolds” here comes in useful. In its issue for 1.2.14 it said : “We should have thought that no man capable of two consecutive minutes’ thought still held the antiquated notion that strikes are due to the ‘agitator.’ The whole of the British unrest of the past three years has shown that the agitator is powerless where men have not genuine grievances.”

The missioner’s speech prompts me to ask, what was the cause of discontent before the godless Socialism existed? I could continue with questions, but the harrowing of Hutchison is too pitiful to contemplate. Besides, I might trouble him and make him discontented. And, I am a godless Socialist. Grrrh !

* * *

The manufacturer threw a belligerent chest. “arrest ’em,” he said. “If I had my way, I’d arrest every blighted Labour agitator.”

A gaunt figure, with a skull in place of the head, rose exultantly. “Then arrest me,” it cackled, capering. “I am the original stirrer up of those who do hard labour. I am the ancient breeder of discontent, the father of Socialists, the agitator of agitators. Arrest me.”

“But who are you?”

“I am Hunger.”

“Tut! tut!” said the manufacturer pleasantly, “Why should I arrest my best and chiefest Labour agent?”

Poor Hutch!

A. L. Cox.

The Anti-Socialist Union runs away again. (1927)

Party News from the May 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Years before the war the Anti-Socialist Union decided that it would not debate with the Socialist Party, although it was willing enough to meet the numerous bodies which misrepresented the Socialist case, because they were afraid to accept the full implications of Socialism. The excuse of the A.S.U. was that we had printed a scurrilous article on the occasion of the coronation of George V. They declared that such vile matter ought never to have seen the light of day and they would not countenance it even to the extent of opposing us in debate. Yet the declared object of the A.S.U. was precisely this work of opposing Socialist propaganda ! The Anti-Socialist Union promptly demonstrated its sincerity by circulating this same scurrilous article among potential givers of donations, in order to scare them into paying up. We pointed out then, that the A.S.U. was a fraud. It obtained money under false pretences, since it was unwilling to carry out its nominal purpose of fighting Socialism. It has now changed its name to “The Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union,” but it has not grown either more honest or more courageous.

On March 28th, a Mr. Norman, speaking on Tower Hill, expressed to one of our members his willingness to debate, and invited us to approach the Union to make the necessary arrangements. Their reply and our subsequent letter are printed on facing page. No further comment is needed.

—————-

The Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union,

58 and 60, Victoria Street,

Westminster, S.W.I.

April 5th, 1927.

Dear Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 1st inst., I have to say that it will be impossible for us to arrange for Mr. Norman to take part in a debate with you, owing to the very large number of meetings which have been arranged for him in different parts of the country.

I may say, however, that Mr. Norman has debated on many occasions, during the past winter, with prominent Socialists, under the auspices of this organization.

Yours faithfully,

The Director, Public Speaking Class.

—————-

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

8th April, 1927.

The Director of Public Speaking Classes,

The Anti-Socialist and Anti-Communist Union, 58, Victoria Street, S.W.I.

Dear Sir,

I learn with surprise that Mr. Norman will not be able to debate with the Socialist Party. It would seem reasonable to suppose that Mr. Norman was aware of the large number of meetings he is engaged to address at the time of accepting the offer to debate with us; why then did he accept it ?

The fact that Mr. Norman has already debated with representatives of other Parties hardly seems to have any bearing on his expressed willingness and your refusal to debate with a representative of the Socialist Party.

Yours fraternally,

Acting General Secretary.

'Our Enemy At Home.' (1915)

Pamphlet Review from the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Our Enemy At Home' by Mr. Cecil Shirley (Anti-Socialist Union, 1915)

If the above-quoted phrase were mentioned to a Socialist in "peace" time or in war time his (or her) mind would immediately incline toward a consideration of the capitalist class. An anti-Socialist would obviously place a different construction upon the phrase from that placed upon it by a Socialist.

That this is so is apparent from a pamphlet, bearing the title : "Our Enemy at Home," issued by the Anti-Socialist Union, and the authorship of which is claimed (or admitted) by a Mr. Cecil Shirley. The cover is a colourable imitation of that now familiar eye-sore, khaki, and it bears two crossed Union Jacks on a white background—the latter symbolical of purity, and the former of—England.

The pamphlet is ostensibly an exposure of Socialist activities during the present war, but the "Socialist" character of the activities exposed can well be measured when it is discovered that the sources of the majority of the extracts are given as "The Daily Herald," "The Labour Leader," "The New Statesman," and “Forward." Some of these papers may be anti-war in character, but they do not thereby assume a Socialist aspect, just as a hatred of pork does indicate an adherence to vegetarianism. Two extracts are given front the Socialist Standard, as a saving grace, presumably.

The author's knowledge of and acquaintance with Socialism is admirably illustrated by the following gem, which appears on the title page: 

  The Socialists demand that the State should provide them with all the necessaries of life.
  Yet the Socialists are the least willing to help the State when its very existence is threatened.
  The Socialist idea of Patriotism seems to be to obtain as much as possible from the State, but to give nothing.

In view of this the person who induced Mr. Shirley to pose as a pamphleteer against Socialism has a heavy responsibility lying at his door. Much water has flowed under Westminster Bridge since Louis XIV remarked "The State: I am the State"; but that the introduction of Socialism means the disappearance of the State is a truism for all who have taken the trouble to understand the meaning of the terms "State" and "Socialism." From this it will be seen that to talk of Socialists demanding benefits FROM the State would be on a par with a demand that the "No Lights" order should be applied to the harvest moon. All that Socialists demand OF the State is its supersedence by Socialism. Simply that and nothing more.

The head and front of our offending seems to be that we have remained Socialists during the war. Therein lies our crime. Had we fallen into line with the great political parties as regards the war, our peace-time transgressions could all have been forgiven. The pamphlet says (p. 20) : "All honour lo those Socialists who have put the claims of their country before those of their political doctrines." Mr. Shirley has been at great pains to discover that which is self-evident, namely, that Socialists are not patriotic. Dr. Johnson has laid it down that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and it is to be hoped that the learned lexicographer will not turn in his grave when I add that it is the first refuge of a capitalist.

At the outbreak of the war much was heard of the political truce and the united front, which front, incidentally, has been well laundered with the soft soap of orthodox politicians. This political truce resulted in the formation of the Coalition Government and merely means that the two political parties of employers have agreed to see the war through to a fitting conclusion, the time for and fitness of such conclusion to be adjudged by them. Their one-time implied understanding has yielded place to an open and avowed coalition. The traitors and traffickers in dishonour of yesterday have become the patriots of to-day. It is still "Business as usual," but no longer under the guise of "It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose." Mr. Shirley complains (p. 20) that "Socialists advocate politics as usual." Had we, as Socialists, decided to side with the liberal or Tory patriots we would have reaped a harvest —and a whirlwind. We could have been patriotic, but hear let the late Lord Roberts speak. I quote from his “Message to the notion” (1912). On page 43 he said : "The conditions amid which millions of our people are living appear to me to make it natural that they should not care a straw under what rule they may be called upon to dwell, and I can quite understand their want of patriotism."

And again on pp. 44 and 45: "Yet recent unimpeachable evidence makes it clear that, to tens of thousands of Englishmen engaged in daily toil, the call to ‘sacrifice' themselves for their country must seem on insult to their reason ; for those conditions amid which they live make their lives already an unending sacrifice.” Thus the late Lord Roberts — a patriot whose integrity Mr. Shirley will not question. It it the "unimpeachable evidence” and the causes thereof that have given ground to the Socialist attitude of which our pamphleteer complains, which give rise, in fact, to the whole Socialist propaganda. Remove them, and there will be no anti-Socialist complaints, for there will be no anti-Socialist to complain.

The pamphlet gives two extracts from the Socialist Standard, as follows : "The working class is not in our masters' schemes except to afford the latter riotous luxury and, in time of war, providing food for cannon" (July 1915) and "Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism” (September 1914). Of these extracts, needless to say, we are unashamed. And strange though it may seem in the circumstances, both the quotations are verified at the sources given.

We are told (p. 26) : "But the opponents of Socialism can never forget what has been done and said by so many Socialists at a time when the country and the Empire were struggling for their very existence,” and again (p. 28) ‘‘Patriots one and all . . . will certainly remember what has been mud and written during these critical times by Our Enemy At Home." This remembrance will serve its purpose (if it comes to pass), and it is as well that the extracts from our paper are recorded, for in the future we need to justify our attitude, not in the eyes of the capitalist class, but only in those of the working class. It is hoped that these foreshadowed memories will be active when the present awful holocaust has ended. And not only this, but those patriots who are to-day so smitten with war-fever may remember also what has been said by their present day friends. The promises made; the attractions offered; the glittering appeals; the honourable thoughts: let these be remembered and contrasted with the conditions which will then be experienced.

Mr. Shirley goes into the questions of pre-war diplomacy, of opposition to recruiting, of Socialists’ sneers at Belgium. He protests against jeering at the German atrocities, forgetful that the war is in itself, one huge atrocity—a necessary concomitant of that human bane called capitalism. Against the Socialists be uses all those weapons that are to-day used by each sect against all others because they do not see eye-to-eye on certain war transactions. Against the Socialists these weapons fail. The powder is wet or else the gun has a faulty bore.

Our attitude, from a working-clam standpoint, will bear the light of day and the test of time and truth. Were we to hang our beads in shame at what we have said and done our opponents would immediately be half-victorious. But we are not ashamed; we glory in the fact that during one of the greatest catastrophies that has yet overwhelmed mankind, we nave kept our heads—and our feet; we have remained true to our principles. The war is not yet over, and our victory has not yet come, but our present attitude augurs well for the future. and it is the consciousness of this that disgruntles the capitalist Shirleys.

Perhaps, after the war, one bright little urchin will approach our pamphleteer with the well-rehearsed question : "What did you do, Daddy, in the great war?” and Daddy, filling hit chest with pompous pride, might reply : "I wrote a pamphlet. I helped to crush Prussian militarism by telling Socialists that which they already knew and convincing those who were never in doubt”

A. L. Cox

Marx's Theories Debated. (1910)

From the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

We take from the Manchester Chronicle of June 18 the following report of a debate which took place at the Rusholme Public Hall between J. Fitzgerald, representing the Socialist Party, and Mr. G. W. de Tunzelmann, B.Sc., M.I.E.E., representing the Anti-Socialist Union. The subject of the debate was "That the theoretic system of Karl Marx is unsound."

MR. DE TUNZELMANN.

Mr. de Tunzelmann said the three doctrines of Marx which he wished to dispose of were first his materialistic view of society; secondly, his economic theory; and thirdly, Marx's views of the "class war." Marx had emphatically declared atheism to be essential to his system; no doubt because materialism was prevalent at the time he wrote. Nowadays materialism was a dead horse, and not even a fifth rate thinker supported it. Without flogging a dead horse he would certainly like to know how the materialist would account for a man's conviction of his own personal identity with what he was twenty years ago, although in that time every particle in his body had been renewed more than once. Thus the very foundation of Marx's economic system was rotten at the very beginning. The foundation of Marx's economic theory was his theory of exchange-value, which was that the exchange-value of a commodity, i.e., the price it fetched in the open market, was determined by the material and the labour put into that material. He admitted the varying quality of labour, and that it must contain brain work and hand work. This was the right view of value, according to which the price or value of any commodity was determined by the amount of hand and brain labour spent upon it, the cost of the material, and the law of supply and demand. Marx, however, dropped out the cost of the material, claiming that this could be expressed in terms of labour only, as though sand could be turned into gold dust if only enough labour were spent upon it. He also stated that brain work could be expressed in terms of hand work. By way of illustrating the utter absurdity of Marx's theory of the exchange-value of a commodity the speaker instanced the case of a trawler which in a haul of an hour took up a large number of fish, and in the next haul a large tree stump which had broken the net and allowed the fish to escape. Yet according to Marx's idea of ignoring the material and counting only the labour, the two hauls were of the same value, nay, the value of the last was even greater, because the time taken up in repairing the net after the second haul had to be included. In fact Marx's theory was only part of the practical exchange value, just as a watch case was part of a watch, and his economic arguments were mere thimble-rigging. In business transactions Marx talked about what he called "surplus-value," which was, he assumed, obtained by robbing the worker of half his wages, and was the equivalent of capital. Afterwards he asserted that all profit, as well as capital, was obtained by robbing the worker of part of his wages. This involved the obvious absurdity that no profit could be made on fixed capital, i.e., buildings, machinery, and so on; but only on variable capital which was expended in wages. He also made the false assumption that the capitalist did no work, ran no risk, and had no share in the industrial process, though elsewhere he admitted that the same capitalist had to arrange the conditions of production and organise the process so as to attain success. Besides this, and without attempting to prove what he said, he stated that all capitalists were simply robbers, and the necessity for a class war between them and the workers followed as a natural consequence. Capital, like other forms of wealth, might be transferred by robbery from one holder to another, but before this could be done it had to be called into being, and no process of robbery could do that. On the basis that all capital was a fixed quantity, and its accumulation only possible by robbing the worker, Marx concluded that the working classes must be growing poorer, and predicted that sooner or later a bloody revolution would be the result. He also contended that machinery gave the capitalist greater power over the workers and increased their poverty. Both conclusions were in direct conflict to historical fact.

MR. FITZGERALD.

Mr. Fitzgerald said his opponent had claimed that no fifth rate thinker accepted Marx's materialistic conception of history, yet Lewis H. Morgan, probably the greatest ethnologist that ever lived, discovered independently this basis of society, and laid it down in his book, Ancient Society. Another writer, Professor Seligmann, of Columbia University, said in his Economic Interpretation of History, "Whether or no we agree with Marx's analysis of industrial society. it is safe to say that, perhaps with the exception of Ricardo. there has been no more original, no more powerful, and no more acute intellect in the entire history of economic science." This was from an opponent of Socialism, and, when taken into consideration with what other economic writers like Jenks, Thorold Rogers, and Loria had said, quite disproved Mr. de Tunzelmann's statement. Men like Bain, Haeckel, and Spencer were materialists, the statements of the last named in his Data of Ethics being rank materialism. If mind remained whilst matter changed, as Mr. de Tunzelmann had stated, then persons whilst passing from childhood to old age had the same mind as they were born with ! To talk of mind being independent of matter was absurd. No one ever saw the two apart, or saw mind acting without a body. Many wild and inaccurate statements were made about Marx, who gave a sketch of the materialist conception of history in his preface to The Critique of Political Economy. Mr. de Tunzelmann disputed Marx's analysis of value and denied that surplus-value came from labour power. That needed examination. All wealth consisted of two elements—the material provided by nature, and the human energy necessary to convert that material into a form suitable for man's use. This was the only source of wealth. If any section existed in society who enjoyed the best of life without doing anything towards its production, obviously they could only do so by robbing the producers. Who were the producers ? The working class. You never saw a capitalist going down a mine to dig coal, nor driving an express engine, nor building the tall chimneys, etc. All these things were done by members of the working class, and by them alone. Hence the wealth the capitalist class enjoyed was stolen from the workers.

Mr. de Tunzelmann had waxed very eloquent over the risks the capitalist ran of losing his money, and how he deserved rewarding for this risk. Well, which was more important, inanimate things or animate life? And we had just had an example at Whitehaven, where 137 miners had lost their lives for profit, showing how the workers risked their lives in mine, mill, and factory every day. What was the employers' risk compared to this ?

MR. DE TUNZELMANN.

Mr. de Tunzelmann said the contention that mind must be an entity independent of matter was no ground for the absurd conclusion that a man's mind underwent no development during his life-time. Herbert Spencer was not a materialist, neither was Haeckel, and Bain, another authority quoted by Mr. Fitzgerald, was not, in any sense of the word, a first class thinker. Marx claimed that social relations were independent of the will, and that material conditions formed the only factor in social progress. Certainly those conditions formed a factor of fundamental importance, but not the only factor, because, if so, it was equal to saying that the personality of the engineer who changed the face of a country, as, for example, in the case of the Assouan dam, had nothing to do with the result. In regard to Mr. Fitzgerald's closing remarks he would suggest that it was not necessary for a capitalist to go down a coal mine any more than it was necessary or desirable for a general of the army to lead a cavalry charge. It was not claimed that brain work could do away with hand work, or vice versa, though the prices paid for both could be compared. Yet even then it did not follow that one could be expressed in terms of the other. If the capitalist paid for the direction of his capital, then his share was diminished by the amount so paid; it was not taken from the workers. Mr. de Tunzelmann congratulated his opponent on the skill he had shown in reading lengthy extracts which seemed to have little relevance to the subject, in order to plug up the holes that had been made in Marx's economics.

MR. FITZGERALD.

Mr. Fitzgerald claimed that his opponent had given away his case by admitting in the second speech what he denied in the first, namely, that material conditions were a factor of "great fundamental importance." The case of the engineer who designed the Assouan dam certainly proved nothing to the contrary. This was the "great man" theory that had been demolished by Spencer in his Study of Sociology. Spencer said the great man was the "resultant of an enormous aggregate of 'forces that have been co-operating for ages." The engineer was not born with, but acquired, his knowledge during his life, and it was the working class that supplied the things he required in order to live. Moreover, he was dependent upon many others, masons, navvies, and so on, for the construction of the dam, and even he himself was only the servant of the, capitalist. The comparison of brain and hand work was going on daily, and if the brain worker received £100 for his work and the hand worker £10 for his, obviously the work of the former was compared to the labour of ten manual workers. Turning to the illustration of the two hauls given in Mr. de Tuczelmann's first speech, Mr. Fitzgerald asserted that this was a misrepresentation, as it merely showed the waste constantly occuring in manufacturing processes which was generally recognised. In fact, in trying to prove that Marx only counted labour in his calculations and omitted the value of raw material, Mr. de Tunzelmann's own examples flatly contradicted him.

MR. DE TUNZELMANN.

In his third speech Mr. de Tunzelmann said all the examples he had given of exchange-value, to which his opponent objected, fulfilled all Marx's conditions. The conclusions drawn were therefore a logical consequence of Marx's theory, and Mr. Fitzgerald would not be able to persuade people of greater intelligence than that possessed of a row of cabbages that this was not so. Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to glorify egotism, which was rather a surprising position for an avowed Socialist to take up. It was well to remember that the capitalist was not paid for providing the worker with work, but for paying him his wages every week, and providing buildings, machinery, etc.

MR. FITZGERALD.

Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out that his opponent still persisted in saying that Marx stated that the economic was the only factor, and that man was determined by his surroundings, and in view of that he would read Marx's own words, which were : "The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society—the real foundation upon which legal and political superstructures." Marx also said : "Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of the whole cloth." On this point, continued Mr. Fitzgerald, he claimed complete victory. Then again, to say that the capitalist provided the workers with buildings, machinery, etc., was, in his opinion, begging the question. Where did the capitalist get them from? He did not produce them. The workers produced them as they produced all wealth. During the debate Mr. de Tunzelmann had not proved the unsoundness of one of Marx's theories. The materialist conception of history was supported by the great thinkers that had been quoted and by the facts of history itself; the theory of "surplus-value" had been proved by the general surplus in production as well as by the details of wages being less than the product; and finally it was apparent that a class straggle must exist where one class held the means of life and enslaved the other.

Walthamstow Reports. (1914)

Party News from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The forthcoming season holds great hopes for the Socialist Party in this locality, and the resumption of outdoor propaganda meetings has called forth all the enthusiasm of the branch membership.

As is inevitable in a district where there are two pseudo-Socialist organisations, we have been afforded a considerable number of opportunities to attack the enemy: opportunities that have been taken advantage of, as will be seen.

As the local District Council Elections took place recently the B.S.P. put up two candidates for the Higham Hill Ward in the persons of Messrs. Ramsey and Friedberg.

They placarded the neighbourhood with "Daily Herald” posters bearing the appeal: "Vote for Friedberg and Ramsey,” and there was a special edition of the “Daily Herald” published, called "The Walthamstow Election Number.”

In support of their nominee’s candidature, the B S.P. held meetings, and at those held at Higham Hill Road, at question time they manifested the fact that they wished the members of the Socialist Party anywhere but there.

On the eve of the poll their speaker was Jack Jones of South West Ham; they also had on their platform, Mr. Ellis of the I.L.P., from Buckhurst Hill.

At question-time we put our questions and our Comrade B. Young asked for their platform to oppose, which request was, as usual, refused;. and further questioning culminated in their chairman losing his temper and hurling at our Comrade Young the threat to "come down and twist his neck.”

This threat was, of course, as idle and worthless as their "reply” to the questions of the members of this party. The said reply invariably being: "I was in the Socialist movement before you were born, and I know more about economics than any member of your party.”

"Simply this and nothing more.”

This "reply” and their refusal of their platform to our Comrade Young, are eloquent testimony to their courage and their confidence in their case.

That other organisation of political tricksters and fools (it is difficult to tell which preponderate), the Independent Labour Party, happened to choose the same evening and spot (Hoe Street Station) for holding week-night meetings as had this Branch, so that on May 6th we had to conduct our meeting in opposition to the LL.P.

However, Comrade B. Young addressed the larger of the two crowds on our behalf, and on Wednesday, May 13th, a comrade bringing the platform very early, secured the foremost pitch.

On his arrival, Mr. Peel, of the I.L.P., became so chagrined at this that after hurling a string of epithets such as “scum,” "blackguard,” and "slanderer ” at our comrade, he threatened to horsewhip him.

This "gentleman,” along with his crony, Campbell, manifested by this means, and by his abuse of the Socialist Party when any of its members question them, the rottenness of their case and the weakness of their position.

Our speaker again proved too good for the I.L.P.’s speaker, a leather-tongued individual who said he was proud of West Ham (notwithstanding its filth) because it bad three Socialist (!) Councillors.

We had a large and attentive audience, whilst the I.L.P’er addressed a meeting of their local branch.

We are also giving the Anti-Socialist Union’s speakers a warm time, counteracting, by questions and interpolations, the effect of the rubbish they trot out.

Boys! we are fighting a winning fight, so see that the “promise of spring” is fulfilled. Gird up your loins and have at them!

Dermot.

Debate with the Anti-Socialist Union. (1909)

Party News from the April 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Friday evening, March 12th—after some three months negotiations—the debate between representatives of the Socialist Party and the Anti-Socialist Union of Great Britain, took place at Tottenham. Mr. W. B. Farraday, who was to have championed the Anti-Socialists, was unable to attend, and Mr. Urwin took bis place. Mr. Tomkins, of the “Tottenham Constitutional Union,” occupied the chair, and on the platform were several speakers of the Anti-Socialist Union. Though only some five days were really available for advertising the meeting an audience of well over 700 packed the Hall. The subject of debate being “Socialism v. Capitalism,” Comrade Anderson in opening defined those terms as denoting different phases in the historic and social development of Society, and said the purpose of the debate was to show which was now preferable. Then followed a well-reasoned, critical examination of modern conditions, clearly showing that capitalism had generated a “social problem” it could not solve; that, built, as it was, on the basis of the monopoly by one class of the means of life, the enslavement, poverty and degradation of the other was inevitable. Anticipating a request (which, however, did not come) for authorities as to the poverty and so on existing, the speaker gave several, quoting, to the amusement of the audience and the amazement of Mr. Urwin, Mr. Claude Lowther, President of the Anti-Socialist Union, who had said, after examining into modern conditions, that he ”found the workhouse the final goal of honest old age.” He showed how universal was the curse of capitalism ; that while fiscal and political forms differed and religious beliefs were many and varied, wherever, as under capitalism, the workers had to sell their labour-power, they were poor, and the masters—who robbed them—rich. Further, the anti-social form of society, reared upon the basis he had exposed, had brought us to the position of the “ house divided against itself,” where the class struggle raged and women were pitted against men in the labour-power market, and children against women. Thus was “family life” prostituted, the “home” broken up, and the nobility of “human nature” denied expression. Socialism, on the other hand, meant a social system based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, by and in the interest of the whole community, wherein production would be for use instead of for profit, and, the essentials of life being assured to all, none could exploit his neighbour. Upon that basis alone could a society of free men and women exist, and a higher development, a fuller expression, a greater enjoyment of life be possible.

Mr. Urwin apologised for Mr. Farraday's absence, and said that, having had only one day’s notice of the meeting he had come somewhat unprepared. He then declined to answer a question Mr. Anderson had raised, declaring “ I am here to defend capitalism as it stands.” Yet he finished by saying "reform certainly is needed, but the way to effect it is not to pull the house down because a slate is off.” He asserted that as in early tribal times people lived on fish and in mud huts, under Socialism we would do the same, as we would only produce for use, and each would get only what the State considered necessary. In Germany the peasants had worked from early dawn ’til late at night for the bare necessaries of life, and that was Socialism (laughter). It was said that labour produced all wealth, but it was labour aided by ability and capital that produced wealth, and capitalists took great risks. The means of production were in the hands of a few, and Socialism proposed to get rid of them, but Mr. Anderson had not said how. Was it to be by confiscation, by issuing bonds and then repudiating them, or by compensation? Socialism according to Marx was a policy of negation, and strife against all authority, and Socialists were creating a false impression among the workers that they were being unfairly treated. To-day they were free, they got wages and could spend them any way they pleased— under Socialism they would have to take whatever the State decided was for them. Claiming that England had grown great under capitalism, he finished with the plea for reform mentioned above.

Comrade Anderson now had a fifteen minutes reply. He at once seized upon Mr. Urwin’s obvious contradiction involved in “defending capitalism as it stands” by appealing for its "reformation.” Regarding early times and mud huts, he remarked that then no favoured few lived in palaces, but that all had mud huts, and under Socialism all would enjoy the plenty or otherwise that would then exist. He had not taken upon himself to guarantee all that would obtain under Socialism, but affirmed that Socialism guaranteed joint ownership in, and control of, the means of life. It was true he had not said how it was to come about, but that was not the question in debate, still he assured his friend that Socialists did not believe in compensation so-called, nor need it be confiscation really, but the simple process of restitution— the people taking to themselves that which had been stolen from them. Dealing with wealth production, he again accused his opponent of misquoting, and repeated that labour-power— physical and mental—applied to the natural resources of society, produced all wealth, including the portion that afterwards became capital. The ability came from the workers— all the capitalists took they plundered from the toilers. That Socialism was a policy of negation he denied being a Marxian statement—it was an anti Socialist, an Anarchist one. With a reference to England’s greatness he took up the plea for reform, arguing that as the house was beyond repair, it stood condemned as unfit, and therefore must give way to a better.

Mr. Urwin, replying, wanted to know who condemned the house. The only Socialist Party of Great Britain did not number 10,000, and was it going to bring about this great change? There was no need for Socialism as matters were improving in all directions. Regarding unemployment, any man who had ability and was willing to work could get work, only many were too lazy and preferred to walk the streets carrying unemployed banners (Interruptions during which Mr. Urwin resumed his seat). Proceeding, however, he still maintained his assertion and argued that it would be a mistake to throw over the present system for one that meant a return to serfdom and communism. His quotation from Marx was from a German publication not yet translated. (Laughter.) Twenty minutes were now devoted to the speakers questioning each other, and here Mr. Urwin seemed absolutely lost. He definitely declined to answer two questions, and the others he had better have left unanswered, while Comrade Anderson's replies were so prompt and effective that they not only delighted the audience, but seemed to mystify bis opponent. That good work was done for Socialism may be gathered from the following words with which one of the leading North London weekly Conservative papers conluded its report:

“Mr. Anderson, representing the Socialists, laid his case before the audience in a most able manner, whilst Mr. Urwin did not seem at home with the subject. Possibly, Mr. Farraday, who was to have been the representative of the Anti-Socialist Union, would have presented the Union’s case better and to greater advantage, and it was distinctly unfortunate for the Union that that gentleman was unable to attend. Mr. Urwin was at one time compelled to sit down owing to persistent interruptions from a small section of the audience. At the same time he created the impression that if the Anti-Socialist Union are to do any real good in their crusade against Socialism stronger speakers and debaters will have to be sent to present the case against Socialism."

A hearty vote of thanks to the Chairman closed the meeting.

J. T. B.

Party Pars. (1909)

Party News from the June 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Strengthened and enthused by our recent successful Conference, the Party is more fit and ready than ever to carry on the work of Socialist propaganda, and with the advent of summer that work becomes more pleasant and more profitable.

*     *     *     *

The Lecture list is growing, the fighting line is being extended, and the enemy engaged wherever “Reaction” still can rally a single defender. In the matter of debates the Anti-Socialist Union is giving our Party special attention. Their representative, Mr. Hutson, being met at Battersea by our Comrade Allen, Mr. Turpin at Paddington by Comrade Watts, and Mr. Taylor at Islington by Comrade Anderson. In each case, of course, our speakers successfully disposed of their opponents, and good work was done in explaining the principles of the Socialist Party and in exposing the weakness of the Anti-Socialist case.

*     *     *     *

At Tooting a debate had been arranged between Comrade Anderson and a Councillor Freeman, but owing to serious considerations of employment, Comrade Anderson was prevented from attending and Comrade H. Joy took his place. This was, perhaps, rather fortunate, as it enabled one of our younger speakers to prove his mettle. From our point of view the debate was a complete success, and more shall be heard of Joy.

*     *     *     *

In Finsbury Park an impromptu skirmish took place between our Comrade Fitzgerald and a Mr. Collins of the Anti-Socialist Union. The latter, of course, suffered severely but wants more, and he shall have it. Our Islington comrades are fixing up details for a debate. They are also arranging a meeting with the Rev. J. A. Waldron. At Battersea and at Romford delates are pending with representatives of Anarchist and pseudo-Socialist parties.

*     *     *     *

In the Provinces our Burnley comrades arc carrying the war into the enemy’s camp, Blackburn, Colne, and Darwen being visited and a large amount of literature disposed of.

*     *     *     *

A branch of the Party has been formed at East Ham, and one is being formed at Walthamstow. Readers and sympathisers please note.

Anti-Truth. (1911)

From the September 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

A not uncertain test of a book's worth is the interval that elapses between its publication and its relegation to the second-hand bookstall. Hardly had the world been startled by the announcement of the appearance of "The Superstition called Socialism,” when I observed a copy in a dealer’s box. Taking advantage of the proprietor's amiability, I sampled at random the choice pearls of thought that are scattered throughout the work. Curious at seeing Kropotkin's name in the index of a book dealing with Socialism, I turned to page 108 and read :

   “With that glorious revolutionary enthusiasm which inflamed the souls of our ancestors, let them wish to stab all tyrants there and then.” 

This, from Kropotkin the meek, seemed, to say the least, curious, so I took an early opportunity of perusing his “Appeal to the Young” —the authority quoted—in order to verify.

A careful perusal revealed the astonishing fact that the sentence quoted appears nowhere in Kropotkin’s work, but is made up of two distinct fragments of sentences occurring pages apart.

On page 15 (Kerr & Co.’s edition) Kropotkin reminds schoolteachers that:

   ‘‘This very day your favourite pupil . . .  recited the story of William Tell with so much vigour! His eyes sparkled; he seemed to wish to stab all tyrants there and then; he gave with such fire the passionate lines of Schiller.”

On page 23 Kropotkin invites poets, sculptors, painters and musicians to “fire the hearts of our youth with that revolutionary enthusiasm which inflamed the souls of our ancestors."

So the cunning Tunzelmann has to resort to the filthy practice of piecing together separate and unconnected utterances, and trotting the resulting patchwork out as an authorative statement. The mean and paltry shifts to which the “Anties” have been reduced in order to manufacture their alleged arguments have been long known to us. Their reluctance to and avoidance of debate; their dodging and wriggling out of questions; their garbled and incomplete statistics, are all phases with which we have become acquainted. To this must now be added the lie deliberate. Tunzelmann’s own explanation would be interesting. The incident is of importance as showing that the “Anties” are in a pretty bad way. We can safely assume that the methods of Ananias must be particularly commendable to those whose stock of truth is slender. We are given to understand that the “Anties” contemplate the publication of a new edition of the Bible (edited by Tunzelmann) in which, by a judicious re-arrangement of the text and a general bringing up to date, we shall read that 'What shall I do to be saved?” should be answered "Sell all that thou hast and give to the Anti Socialist Union.” We shall be exhorted to consider "What shall it profit a man if he gain his own soul and lose the rent of a block of slums?” It will include "Blessed are ye who grind the faces of the poor.” "Blessed are the bloodthirsty, they shall inherit the earth.” “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you for working them 18 hours a day for 17s. 3d per week. Rejoice! and load up with ball cartridge, and blow them into the middle of next week, for so persecuted they the slavedrivers which were before you.” “Blessed are the meek, for they shall he trampled upon.” ; “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they make jolly fine wage slaves.” "Blessed are they who handle truth very carelessly, apply for a job at the A.S.U."

Paris.

Party Pars (1909)

Party News from the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.P.G.B. at all points of the compass are meeting the enemy or making arrangements to do so. The Anti-Socialist Union have agreed at four different places to meet us in debate. Early in March a discussion will take place between rep representatives of the two organisations at Paddington. At Tottenham a Mr Farraday  is to meet Anderson as soon as arrangements for hall accomodation have been settled. Islington and Battersea have also negotiations pending.

* * *

There is to be, too, a reawakening of a discussion already held between Anderson and a Councillor Freeman. On that occasion, when Freeman deputised for a fellow Councillor, the Party position was absolutely unscratched by the opponent. Recently, at Tooting, the same Freeman boasted that he had “wiped the floor” with our representative. He was promptly invited to repeat the performance before a Tooting audience. as things have been going all our way there. Doubtless the worthy Councillor will make good his acceptance of the invitation.

* * *

The S.L.P. is anxious to demonstrate the fact that it has at least one representative in London. The negotiations for a debate with a person reputed to represent that Party were nearing completion when it was discovered that he was no longer a member and could not act further. We understand that Mr. F. Budgen will therefore appear on their behalf.

* * *

The leaflet noticed in our leader column last mouth has been in great demand, and the supply that was at the Head Office is practically exhausted. A new one has been issued on a more general topic, entitled: “Socialism versus Social Reform.” It can be supplied to branches and others at 7s. 6d. per thousand.

* * * 

The attention of all concerned is drawn to the fact that the Fifth Annual Conference of the Party will be held at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte St.. Fitzroy Sq.. W., on Friday, April 9th, and Saturday, April 10th, commencing each day at 10 o'clock. In the evening of Friday, at 7.30, the Annual Social will be held. Admission will be by ticket (6d. each), to be had off all Branch Secretaries or at the door.

* * *

On the 21st of March the Battersea Branch are holding a Commune Celebration meeting at the Latchmere Baths. Full particulars on the back page.

Dick Kent

The Anti-Socialists at Tottenham. (1909)

Party News from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tottenham—where the I.L.P. have long since ceased from troubling and the S.D.P.  are at rest—has been honoured. The Anti-Socialist Union decreed that our time had come. Tottenham was to be saved from us, and we of the S.P.G.B. were to be finally and definitely put to rout. Well, we heard of the coming conflict, and trembling—with joy awaited the day of battle. Did we prepare to meet them by attacking their meetings, singing and shouting "Red Flags." etc., and generally behaving as hooligans to prevent them getting a hearing? No, such inwardly tactics would have implied a lack of confidence in our own propaganda, and is at all times an insult to the intelligence of the people. Knowing the work we have accomplished in Tottenham, and that no real argument can he brought against Socialism as propagated by the Socialist Party, we at all our meetings advertised the ruining of the Anti-Socialists, and advised our hearers to attend their meetings, listen courteously to what was to he said against Socialism, and judge for themselves. At long last they came—they saw and were conquered! Down upon Tottenham swooped the legions of the Anti Socialist League. Three or four specially prepared gramophonic orators, each guaranteed to we able to emit “Daily Expressions” about Socialism for at least ten minutes headed each attack.

Two such attacks on Sunday evenings fizzled out immediately our ordinary meeting commenced; then a Saturday evening appearance was tried, but again they packed up their traps and stole silently away, leaving large and enthusiastic audiences listening to our speaker. Despite reports to the contrary in the Daily Express, there was no organised opposition, no fighting, there was no I.L.P., either, to applaud or assist them at those meetings—only laughter and jeers at the ignorance of the Anti-Socialists. With their armoury of absurdities they courted disaster and were defeated—and disgraced. Complaining that they had been denied a hearing, they were offered a platform with a guarantee of a peaceful hearing, but refused. They funked the debate they challenged us to. They referred us to their head office, who refuse to take up the challenge, and now, exeunt the Anti-Socialist Union. It is to be placed on record that a "Tottenham Labour League” has been brought into existence by a few local politicians seeking notoriety, “to fight the Socialists of Great Britain/' and taking up the cry of the unemployed in the interests of the master class, have successfully wrecked what little organisation the unemployed had. In this they were assisted by men who still claim membership in the I.L.P. and S.D.P. The President of this precious “Labour" League is Councillor A. E. Harvey, I.L.P. Its Vice-Presidents include several well-known local Liberals. Their actions are being watched by the local branch of the S.P.G.B., and should that league live much longer it may be the subject of a future note.

Alex Anderson

Debates (1911)

Party News from the February 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Party, being what it claims to be—the Socialist Party—we have nothing to hide. We therefore invite the most searching investigation and fearlessly challenge the most merciless criticism of our opponents; and, conscious of the soundness of our position, the integrity, solidity, and consistency of our organisation, we glory in putting forward our representatives to undergo the ordeal of public debate. Not so, however, is it with other parties. Guilty conscience truly doth make cowards of them all.

In our November issue we struck a somewhat triumphant note, having succeeded in forcing a few of the enemy to toe the line. This, we now fear, has but further frightened those dealers in darkness, for many have cried off.

Two encounters, however, have recently taken place with an Industrialist Unionist at Woolwich, and a Liberal, a Mr. Marlowe Reed (a broken reed) at Wood Green. In each case the plight of our opponent was piteous in the extreme.

A full record of the shifts to which the enemy resort in order to evade our challenge would make an imposing volume, and while providing amusing reading, would furnish further justification of our attitude of hostility. But space allows only a few examples to be given. Remembering the mauling their representatives have already received from our speakers, the gentlemen of the Anti-Socialist Union are becoming as artful in their antics as they are slimy in their statements. Formerly they pooh poohed the idea of debates, but finding their cowardice recognised, their men now glibly throw out challenges, referring any who accept them to their Head Office. Afterwards they boast that no communication has been received. This was tried at Tottenham, but evidence of the delivery of a registered letter being produced, the Anti-Socialist Union woke up. Its next wriggle was to say that if we fixed up a man to represent the Socialist Party, the S.D.P., and the I.L.P., it would be willing to meet him in debate. There will be no debate. Our men are Socialists, and could no more defend the anti-Socialist S.D.P. or I.L.P. than they could defend the A.S.U. itself, and the A.S.U. knows it.

Another brave lot are the North London Tories. A speaker of the North Islington Conservative and Unionist Association challenged us. The challenge was accepted, whereupon their secretary, Mr. Didsbury, wrote repudiating the whole matter, and stating that "if any speaker should at any time accept a challenge for a debate, that will be on his own responsibility, and not of the Association." But where is their union if they cut off their own speakers?

At Tottenham, at a meeting held and addressed by the Conservative candidate for the division, and also addressed by a real, live, noble lord, the chairman accepted a challenge to debate Tariff Reform versus Socialism Our comrade, the challenger, was invited to the platform to confirm the challenge— an invitation he accepted—and the facts were reported in the local Press. Now, however, the Tory party have passed the matter over to the Tariff Reform Working Men's Club. This body claims to be non-political, and cannot discuss Toryism, Liberalism or Socialism, but they are willing to debate Tariff Reform v. Free Trade. They too, funk our challenge.

Clarionettes, and other musical instruments (as friend Dawkins would say), may have heard of Muir Watson, Clarion Vanner. This champion of confusion was tackled at Stoke Newington, and, to evade the ridicule of the audience, finally declared his readiness to defend the Labour Party in public debate with the Socialist Party’s representative. A voluminous correspondence between us, and the Stoke Newington I.L.P. and ; their Mr. Muir Watson, resulted in the I.L.P. (in deference to Mr. Watson) insisting that the debate must be private, and that they must have the right to veto our representative if they think fit. That plumbs the depths of political cowardice.

Another shining light of the I.L.P., Mr. Councillor Ebury of Heckmondwike accepted a challenge to debate, but now states that, as he speaks for his living, we will have to pay him to debate with us, and also pay his incidental expenses.

The above suffice to show the make up of the motley crew of political prostitutes who, exploiting the misery of the poor, fatten by fostering their ignorance. It is up to the working class to recognise the Socialist Party as the only party of Labour ; the party with the courage to seek out and do battle with all sections of the enemy ; the party that with their assistance will chase all opponents off the earth, and gain the World for the Workers.

Alex Anderson

The Discomfiture of Lawler Wilson. (1908)

Party News from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fine debate at Battersea.

On the 3rd ulto, the debate arranged between J. Fitzgerald of the S.P.G.B., and Lawler Wilson, probably the ablest platform opponent of Socialism, duly came off. The proposition discussed was—

Does the Capitalist Class live upon the robbery of the Working Class?

The Battersea Town Hall, capable of holding 1,700 people, was packed, and the arguments of the disputants were followed with the closest interest.

Although Mr. Wilson came with something of a reputation for sustaining his case against representatives of various bodies claiming to be Socialist, Fitzgerald had no difficulty in tearing that case to tatters. As the S.P.G.B., according to the most generous allowance of Mr. Quelch, and others who are concerned to belittle the Party upon the score of its numerical weakness, consists of no more than a dozen or two members; and as 1,700 doesn't go many times into a dozen or two; and as a large proportion of the audience frequently gave expression to its endorsement of the Socialist position as set out by Fitzgerald, it follows that our view of the result of the debate is not shared among ourselves alone. After the comparatively easy task that, according to report and to his own statement, Lawler Wilson had in previous bouts with alleged Socialist champions, it is probable that he is himself a little surprised at his failure to convince his audience in Battersea.

The reason for our easy victory consists, of course, in the fact that our representative stood upon the impregnable rock of Marxian economics, understood the exact position of the working class, as a class, in the economy of capitalist production, and was not to be shifted a hair's breadth from the direct issue of the inevitability of the exploitation of labour — given private ownership of the means of life — by any manipulation of figures, however dexterous, that his opponent thought proper to indulge in. To our man, the question of immediate moment was not as to the extent of the robbery of the workers, but the establishment of the fact of the robbery. Once that was fixed, Lawler Wilson's case went to the winds, and Lawler Wilson knew it none better. Therefore we had most entertaining feats of high-class jugglery, of intellectual gymnastics of a quite amazing order, and all the other artifices by which a clever debater may sometimes cover his discomfiture and divert attention from the material point in dispute, which, to face directly and frankly, would mean his inevitable defeat.

To do Mr. Wilson bare justice, it has to be confessed that he is a red-herring trailer of the very first class. Which is the reason for the measure of success he has achieved in his discussions with those other champions of Socialism whose equipment, unfortunately, consisted, as to nine parts, of good intentions, and as to one part only of Socialist science. Even in the case of champions of wider knowledge attached to one or other of the parties misnamed Socialist, Mr. Wilson, being an exceedingly 'cute and ready-witted person, is able to easily score debating points based upon the vacillating policy and general political ineptitude of their organisations. So he is able to require of them that they shall defend the multitudinous inconsistencies of their parties' actions to the confusion of the pivot issue.

Up against the S.P.G.B., however, he found himself robbed of his thunder. The obscurantisms and political thimble rigging of the other parties are the subject of our consistent denunciation. We had to be dealt with, therefore, on our own record, which was unfortunate seeing that our record does not lend itself either to odious comparison or gibing criticism. Clearly it was a case with us of facing the issue, or—verbal pyrotechnics in conjunction with expert figure-fuddling. Mr. Wilson did his best in the latter department, but his pyrotechnics were very damp and sorry squibs, while in the end he as unhappily for himself, obliged to swallow his own political hotch-potch.

Fitzgerald gave no rope. He nailed his opponent down upon the fact of working-class robbery first, and then proceeded to an examination of the celebrated figures. It is notable that Mr. Wilson, grown hold by the inability of other opponents to deal with them, had written to Justice daring the S.D.P. to prove these figures false. It is not less notable that the S.D.P. through Justice made no endeavour to do so, Fitzgerald flatly refused to accept the figures and denied their authenticity. Time and time again he challenged Mr. Wilson to name his authorities. But the wily Wilson evaded the challenge, as he had endeavoured to evade the central issue. In the last speech of the debate, however, relying upon the fact that his opponent would have no opportunity of further reply, or goaded by the stinging irony of Fitzgerald's last speech, he proceeded with sublime effrontery, to quote his authorities. The result was an effect of quite dramatic intensity.

Mr. Fitzgerald, he said, has asserted that I will not give you my authorities. I will do so. They are the "Statistical Abstract of the Board of Trade," the Fabian "Facts for Socialists," Chiozza Money's "Riches and Poverty" — Here Fitzgerald leaped to his feet. Mr. Chairman, he shouted, here (producing the books) is the "Statistical Abstract," here are the "Facts for Socialists," here is Money's "Riches and Poverty." With these in my hand I again challenge Mr. Wilson to justify his figures. He got no further. The audience rose at him with a great roar of cheering, and the famous figures went the way of the anti-Socialist case. Notwithstanding cries from all parts of the hall, Mr. Wilson preferred to accept the discomfiture of the denouement rather than touch the books flung on the table before him.

Altogether the debate was most successful from the Party point of view and will doubtless be productive of much good. The Battersea boys are to be congratulated upon their organisation of the meeting, and have the satisfaction of knowing that their work, by making the meeting possible, contributed largely to the result.

Agra.